If consent or understanding is necessary for Baptism (or even for the performance of those practices by which we are made into the church – i.e. discipleship) then what are we to say regarding those (the severely mentally disabled, for example) who may not be able to provide consent or rationally comprehend “what they’re getting themselves into” in Baptism. Those of us who are able to both comprehend and to argue over the significance of Baptism (or conversion, Eucharist, etc.) run the risk of thinking that – by our rational ability and consent – we make baptism “effectual.” What we’re really doing in Baptism is forming what Stanley Hauerwas has called the “essential gestures” of the church in which we are “graced” to participate. To remove the focus in Baptism away from our rational comprehension and consent as primary motivations is not to damage our understanding of Baptism as an act of God or to forget that action and contemplation are part of discipleship. It is merely to be honest about the fact that – for most of us – Baptism (and most other sacraments) are merely gestures. And (to quote Hauerwas),

“Nothing is more important than gestures, as gestures embody as well as sustain the valuable and significant. Through gestures we create and form our worlds. Through gestures we make contact with one another and share common tasks. Through gestures we communicate and learn from each other the limits of our world…In this sense, the church is but God’s gesture on behalf of the world to create a space and time in which we might have a foretaste of the kingdom” (Christian Existence Today, 106)

Sorry, again, for the length of my response. Grace & peace, A.T.

Chris, I made that implication in my comments to the other posts…the problem of course w/r/t Barth is that he is saying that the acceptance of both “paedo” and “credo” baptism (e.g., in Luther) is contradictory…now, again, I believe that not to be something that can be helpfully discussed here, so I defer to y’all to hammer it out. Peace.

Insisting on credobaptism among the children of the Christian community, despite your statements to the contrary, Halden, nonetheless smacks of “conversion” construed under the rubric of modern Western notions of revivalism. Baptism is by no means our “agreement with what God has done”; quite the contrary, baptism “is nothing else but to be born according to Christ and to recieve our very being and nature” (Nicholas Cabasilas). And this point is nothing less that shorthand for Romans 6.

Regardless of how you would respond to that query, what you say fits strongly within a Wesleyan understanding of Baptism as an act of God by which God draws both the baptized child and the family / church into a fuller covenantal relationship with the Triune God a means of “prevenient” (i.e. preparing) grace whereby we are sanctified (I know, lots of theo-jargon – but I assume that’s appropriate on this site).

You also said that “Baptism is merely our agreement with what God has done, our recognition of the truth of how God has drawn a person into the Triune life.” Wouldn’t infant baptism within the context of a covenanted, baptized community be a similar agreement? After all, who really knows what they’re getting themselves into when they agree to enter into the Triune Life (either voluntarily or when initiated by proxy with believing / confessing parents)?

This question is important and applies to James’ question, “At what point is a child able to voluntarily choose Christ?” The question I would have is “At what point is anyone really able to voluntarily choose Christ? I don’t want to mess up my latin but I believe it was Augustine who spoke about our voluntas curvetas – our will which is “bent inward.” It would seem that both believers and infant Baptism (both understood as a an act of God and a means of grace) would at least be “effective” in achieving the same ends (i.e. combating the “inward bent” of our will).

Anyway, sorry for the long comment. I really do enjoy your blog and LOVE to see discussion flourishing.

Peace, A.T.

I’ve enjoyed the posts on this topic, and find myself in substantial agreement.

I don’t think that a discussion of infant baptism makes any sense without a context of what/who a small child IS, in the Kingdom of God. Jesus was rather clear on that.

Although there may be many reasons to consider a “believers baptism” later, and I have over time given it much thought both before and after having children, my main reason now for rejoicing in the baptism of babies and children is that they are being acknowledged as full members of our Christian family. We don’t have to treat them as little peri-pagans, waiting anxiously for them to “convert”. These day, most of our Anglican churches also admit young children to Communion, for the same reason.

However, this has allowed us to move the age of Confirmation to a later point and thus to improve the standard of Christian education available to young people who are now in a position to make their own choice (albeit still sometimes under some pressure from families, something I personally don’t appreciate).

There’s something really sad and depressing, for me, about those Evangelical “dedication” ceremonies. The people stand there, clutching their precious babes, who are as often as not dressed in white ‘christening’ robes. And then…what? They’re blessed and prayed for and their lives – without their consent – are “dedicated” to the Lord. Or maybe (a better option) the parents dedicate themselves to the tough task of raising their children in the faith. Either way, it’s a festival of subliminal anxiety and God’s only there as a witness, not as the main act.

It may sound clever, attacking infant baptism as a worldly way of sustaining Church membership or as dead traditionalism. Maybe there’s something in it, and I don’t dispute that paedo-baptism has many associated problems. But you’ve also surely got to speak with families, with parents and children, and find out what it means for our lives and for the way we relate to our children, before prescribing in this theoretical way what we should do.

Hope “Western” is cool (seems lonely over there).