Obviously, this is the sort of thing that would still be hotly condemned by even the most lax of Mennonite Churches, but likely that's why it fascinated me so much. I am fairly certain that I am the first member of my family for half a millennium to attend such an event. Mennonites may not be sure about most of their original doctrines anymore: head coverings, war, politics, nationalism, or personal defense, but infant baptism would be possibly the strongest point of unity for this very fragmented and divided denomination.
Obviously, I have taught and backed Anabaptist doctrine for a good while. The founding concept of Anabaptist theology was a stance against infant baptism. However, as with most things in life, the concept of infant baptism is more nuanced than a single sort; the type my forbearers died fighting against. They stood against the Roman Catholic view that baptism is one of the seven sacraments that are required for salvation that must be administered. Indeed, as far as my understanding of Catholic sacraments goes, baptism is the only Sacrament that is required for a person to be saved. (Holding on to said salvation is more difficult in Catholic teaching, however and requires more sacraments). The Anabaptist doctrine on the subject of baptism would not view baptism as a sacrament but instead an ordinance. This meaning they believed it is commanded and should be obeyed, but is not salvific in any way. Instead, a Christian should have the desire to obey Christ after salvation and then be baptized on their faith.
However, these are not the only two views of baptism. There is another school of thought that also views baptism as a sacrament, but does not consider it salvific. They believe that the household baptisms in Scripture, like those of the households of Cornelius, Lydia, the Philippian jailor, and Stephanas, indicate that baptism is not only a personal issue, but an issue of the family. Since baptism is not salvific but a symbol of dedication to Christ, they advocate that children raised in Christian homes be baptized into the Christian church as full members as soon as possible and be supported by the church and its membership as fellow members of faith.
Those who have been taught a believer's baptism, such as I was taught and given, tend to balk at this idea. What happens to being baptized on your own confession of faith? Is that not what we are taught? While this is a common phrase, it is not in scripture. Indeed, we have more scripture supporting a Catholic Sacrament view (Mark 16:16, Luke 3:3, 1 Peter 3:21) than one that excludes infant baptism. Although I personally cannot reconcile the Catholic view of Sacramental baptism for salvation, I find that I do not disagree with the concept of baptizing the household of a believer.
We have stressed the personal aspect of salvation so much in our generation that we forget we are a body. We are not independent units, but the singular bride of Christ. Our culture of personal satisfaction and personal achievements and competition have driven us to be so exclusive that we even find that we compete with our spouses in Christianity and spiritual mindedness. We are not God's employees that must compete to stay on the team; we are children. As children, we need to be more open and understanding with our spiritual siblings and see that our way isn't the only way. Can we accept other modes of baptism that are less personally driven and more family and community driven than our own? Should we?
Of course, that begs the question, what about my son? I have a two year old son who is obviously not baptized. Do I split with five hundred years of tradition and baptize my child?
Good question.
No comments:
Post a Comment