In an article by BBC on Thursday April 23, BBC reported that Prime Minister Najib Razakof Malaysia has banned the religious conversion of children without both parents’ consent.”[1] Recently in Malaysia there has been legal problems regarding children’s conversion to Islam by one parent without the other’s parent consent. In one example “M. Indira Gandhi, a 34-year-old ethnic Indian kindergarten teacher, plans to file a civil suit to contest her estranged husband's conversion of their children to Islam earlier this month without her consent, said her lawyer A. Sivanesan.”[2]Her husband was awarded custody of the children in an Islamic court earlier that year and then converted the children to Islam without her consent. “Malaysia has a two-tier court system for family matters - secular courts for non-Muslims, Shariah courts for Muslims. Minority Hindu, Christian, and Buddhist followers often complain that in disputes involving Muslims, the Shariah courts get jurisdiction and often rule against them.” Thus fueling the Prime Minister’s decision to rule religious conversion of the children without both parent’s consent.
Raised as a Protestant Christian in the Disciples of Christ faith I was always encouraged to explore my relationship with Jesus before making the decision to be baptized. I made the decision to be baptized in fifth grade after completing the preparation course that my church required. Looking back on the experience now, I am still happy that I made the decision to be baptized. However, part of me wishes I had more exposure to other faiths during before making this decision. I am a firm believer that it MUST be an individual choice to be baptized into any church. I do however believe in dedications to raise a child in the church until they can make their own decision. The situation in Malaysia made me think of the many worldwide issues of religious child conversion by parents who are going through a divorce and also the ethical issues of baptizing children at such a young age. I believe that there is a point when each individual reaches the point in their faith when they want to commit themselves to God and to their community and then and only then should they chose to be baptized. Some churches, however, emphasize the importance of baptizing the child as a baby to ensure that they are “saved” through the church.
So my question that I pose is, is it religiously ethical to baptize children into a faith before they are able to make the informed decision for themselves? Should baptism be seen as a child’s right to chose or parent’s right to decide?
Posts
Katie, Thank you so much for your posting. I also grew up in The Christian and Mission Alliance Church, I didn’t accept Infant Baptism before. However, when I studied about it, I understood its meaning. Therefore, I want to share my understanding about Infant Baptism.
ReplyDeleteBefore, I want to say that the UMC, which I am a member, only baptize for children when both parents are consent and the congregation. Without the consent of parents and the congregation, the pastor does not baptize for the child.
To begin, we need to know the antecedents of Baptism. According to theologians, Baptism derives from Purification ceremony in the Old Testament, and especially Circumcision in the Old Testament.
According to Genesis 17, circumcision, as a sign of the covenant, is to be given to all those who are Abraham’s seed according to the flesh, whether born in his house or purchased with his money (Genesis 17:10-14). The emphasis is entirely on this outward relationship, with no hint that one might be disqualified to receive the rite that did not personally share the faith of the patriarch. The thrust of the whole passage is to insist that no one born in Abraham’s house should, under any circumstances, fail to receive circumcision as the covenant sign.
This insistence that every male attached to Abraham’s house should be circumcised – even those who were slaves bought with his money – is markedly different from anything in the New Testament regarding baptism. While it may be supposed that the members of Abraham’s household submitted to the outward forms of piety approved by the group and later prescribed by the Mosaic Law, and while some no doubt shared in a personal way the faith of the patriarch, such a faith was not a requirement in Genesis 17. To suggest that all the males of Abraham’s household (Gen 14:14 indicates there were several hundred) individually volunteered a “personal profession of faith” before receiving circumcision, as did Christian converts in the New Testament who received baptism, is to indulge in a gratuitous reconstruction of history. The essential similarity between circumcision and baptism goes out of focus when we think in terms of such complete identity. When analyzing the ground of circumcision in Genesis 17, we must remember that the text says nothing of personal faith, but only that physical attachment to Abraham’s house by birth or purchase qualifies one to receive the sign. For those who were so qualified, circumcision was in fact mandatory .
The Abrahamic covenant and that of the gospel are the same; God once ordained that all, upon entering upon this covenant relation with him, should receive the sign and seal of circumcision. What was once confirmed by the sign and seal of circumcision is now by divine appointment confirmed by the sign and seal of baptism. Therefore, baptism has come in the room of circumcision. Infants by divine appointment had a right to circumcision; but baptism having come in the room of circumcision; therefore they have a right to baptism. Circumcision is sign incorporation into old covenant community, people of God. Baptism is sign incorporation into the Body of Christ, the Church.
Again, the Church of God is essentially one in all ages. God has enacted that infants constitute a part of that one Church, and that enactment has never been repealed. Therefore infants are still a part of that Church. All who compose the Church have a right to all its ordinance which they are capable of receiving; but baptism is an ordinance of the Church which infants are capable of receiving; therefore infants have a right to baptism.
John Wesley argues about infant baptism on several levels; first, on the basis of the infants’ need: “If infants are guilty of original sin, then they are proper subjects of baptism; seeing, in the ordinary way, they cannot be saved, unless this be washed away by baptism”. But, as has already been shown, all men stand condemned before God; “...therefore God does not look upon infants as innocent, but as involved in the guilt of Adam’s sin. Infants, as well as adults, are in need of salvation procured by the death of Christ. And this salvation is to be received through the means God has ordained; in the ordinary way, infants can not be saved except through Baptism. Justification and a new birth are received through this means. So if we believe in the original sin, we should accept infant baptism.
Secondly, infants ought to come to Christ, be admitted into the Church and dedicated to God: “If infants ought to come to Christ, if they are capable of admission into the Church of God, and consequently, of solemn sacramental dedication to him, then they are proper subjects of baptism. But infants are capable of coming to Christ, of admission into the Church, and solemn dedication to God.”
Children ought to come to Christ, because he has so commanded: “Suffer little children to come unto me...” (Matt 19:13-14; Luke 18:15). Wesley argues that children should be bought to Christ, but they cannot now come to Him, unless by being brought into the Church; which cannot be but by baptism. Infants have a right to be admitted to the church and be “sacramentlly dedicated” to Christ. Certainly, Wesley understands aspect of Baptism to include the parents’ willingness to give their child to God by bringing him to be baptized, as well as their taking a two-fold vow: in behalf of the child they promise to take up the obligations as well as the privileges of the covenant; and on their own behalf they promise to teach the child the ways of the Lord.”
John Wesley usually emphasizes prevenient, justifying and sanctifying grace. Prevenient grace is that grace of God that comes to us before we are ever aware of God, awakening in us an awareness of our need for God. Sometimes prevenient grace is “bad news,” the awareness of our sin and failure; sometimes it is the nurturing, seeking love of God. Justifying grace is that expression of God’s grace that justifies or makes us right with God. And sanctifying grace helps us to grow in Christian faith and discipleship, leading us “on to perfection.” Baptism is an expression of all three kinds of grace. Baptism is a sign of prevenient grace, of God working in our lives before we are even aware of God. Baptism is an expression of justifying grace, of God making us right with himself. And, baptism is the beginning of work of sanctifying grace in our lives. From the moment of our baptism, we are called to grow in Christ, to commit to deeper meanings of discipleship, to “go on to perfection.”
Infant baptism is the clearest sign of prevenient grace. God loves and calls an infant before he or she is even aware of God or sin. But adult baptism is also a sign of prevenient grace – God works in the mind and heart of the person to draw him or her to seek a new beginning in life. Common sense also suggests that adult baptism is the clearest sign of justifying grace, since it seems clear to most people that adults are more in need of justification, of being put right with God, than are infants.
But both infant and adult baptism is signs of both justifying and prevenient grace. In fact, there is no real theological distinction between adult (believer) baptism and infant baptism. All baptism is believers – the parents, godparents, the members of the faith community – who believe with and for the infant. Statements of faith are made and committed to. At the same time, all baptism is infant baptism. No matter how old a person may be, all baptism marks a new beginning for his or her life. He or she becomes an infant in Christ, a newborn in the faith, in need of the same nurture as any infant.
In the term paper of Lutheran’s perspective, “Why we Baptize infants - A study on the biblical basis for infant Baptism”, it gave the reason why we baptize infants as, “In the last commandment of Jesus, He said, “…He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” So it is evident that faith and baptism are linked. But who can and does believe? The answer is surprising! Anyone, even the smallest of children, can believe. Jesus Himself stated that children believed in Him (Matt 18:6). We also know that God imparts Scriptural knowledge to the very young (2 Tim 3:15) and that infants offer praise to God (Matt 21:16). God even said that He would write His law on people’s hearts under the New Covenant (Jer 31:34). Said plainly, this means that our faith is more than the knowledge of certain doctrines; it is a childlike trust in God. It also means that children participate in faith even if they cannot articulate it, since our faith is the work of God in us and does not depend on our being able to explain it, otherwise we would be back to works righteousness. Furthermore, our faith flows out of God’s grace (Rom 3:24; 5:2) and is in fact worked in us through the Holy Spirit by His word. So if children can receive grace, they can receive faith. Any requirement we put upon someone to receive God’s grace, such as a certain level of “knowledge”, turns grace into works (Rom 11:6), which, as we know, undermines the entire economy of salvation. Thus, since infants are under the power of sin and require salvation through grace just like anyone else (Rom 3:10-11,23) there is a positive reason to baptize infants. And since we have seen that even infants can have faith and that they are in need of salvation, it follows that infants are proper subjects for Baptism. How else could an infant receive the Holy Spirit? And finally, we know that God has approved of infants. If God did not agree that the Baptism of infants was valid how could He deny Himself and give those of us who were baptized as infants the gift of the Holy Spirit? How could He bless those who use His ordinance so spitefully? In short, how could those who were baptized as infants be disciples of Christ, who enjoined the Apostles to baptize all nations (Matt 28:19), and who said “He who believes and is baptized will be saved…”? If infant’s Baptism is not a valid Baptism then I and the majority of the Church throughout its history have not obeyed Christ’s words shown above, yet throughout the history of Christianity there have been many saints in the Church who have lived faithful godly lives.”
To conclude, we have seen that Baptism is sacrament using water united with God’s Word of promise, or grace. Baptism is also effective because God’s Word is what creates saving faith in us, and since faith is more than a knowledge of Christian doctrines, and God’s Word says that children can have faith in Jesus Christ, infants are proper subject for Baptism. Furthermore, to deny infants the gift of God offered through Baptism is to deny them a means of grace, which Christ said is an integral part of faith. We have also seen that God has approved of infant Baptism. The only reasons advanced against infant Baptism are that there no explicit passages which point toward it in Scripture (Act 11:14; 16:15, 31, 34; 18:8) and that all the examples in Scripture show Baptism after a profession of faith. In light of the case presented above these objections seem rather small and are overcome by a proper understanding of God’s grace working in and through His Word.
Infant baptism is not complete when the pastor baptize for the child as baptizing for adult. According the UMC, the baptism for the child complete when the child is around 13 year-old and that child has to attend a class called “conformation class,” and make the informed decision for his/herself. For more information please read:
ReplyDelete1. Baptism Leader’s Guide. Editor by John, Gooch O. Nashville, Tennessee, 1990.
2.Borgen, Ole E. John Wesley on the Sacraments. Francis Asbury Press of Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan 1972.
3.Felton, Gayle C. By Water and the Spirit: A United Methodist Understanding Baptism is an official statement on baptism that was adopted by the 1996 General Conference. A study guide for the paper, titled By Water and the Spirit: Making the Connections for Identity and Ministry .Nashville 1997.
4.Jewett, Paul K. Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace. William B. Eermans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1978.
5.Murray-Beasley, G.H. Baptism In The New Testament, Willam B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1988.
6.Stookey, Laurence H. Baptism: Christ’s Act in the Church, Nashville:Abingdon, 1982.
7.Thomas, N. Ralston. “Christian Baptism” and “The Lord’s Supper” in Wesleyan Theology, edited by Thomas A Langford, The Labyrinth Pree- North CA, 1984.
8.Wesley, John. The Works of the Reverend John Wesley, vol 5. Bristol, 1774.
Infants and original sin? Somehow I think grace covers babies and children. I do however, believe every person has the right and responsibility to explore faith traditions and make an informed decision of their own volition. To do otherwise would be unethical. Parents do have a right to nurture faith. For Christians, that may mean dedicating the child to God and providing nurturing in a loving faith community.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, if a child inquires about baptism at an age younger than the recommended age for making such a decision, I don't think that child should be discouraged, but taken seriously and encouraged to talk about it with their parents, Sunday School teacher and the pastor. I think children are capable of believing, but the decision to make a profession of faith and be baptized is a personal decision.
I grew up in churches where infants were baptized, and the emphasis in the baptisms I remember seemed to be on the long promises both the parents and the congregation make to teach and nurture this child in the faith. The child now has not only parents, but often godparents and almost always an entire congregation who have formally promised to help nurture them and teach them and take an interest in them as they grow. Yes, all of these people are committed to helping raise the child as a Christian, but I don't think we're debating the ethics of raising children within religions. The closest parellel to adult baptism in churches which baptize infants would be confirmation, I think, where (if I recall correctly) young adults can choose to confirm the promises made on their behalf at baptism and affirm their faith.
ReplyDeleteI think that the religion a child should be raised as is something the parents have to choose, because by the time the child is old enough to make an informed decision they are no longer a child. It would be a problem if the parents disagreed, and it is definitely problematic for one parent to make a decision without consulting the other, especially if it affects the legal system that has jurisdiction over the child and family. Those issues seem to belong more in the realm of the ethics of the relationship between parents, though.
Katie, what an important issue for ministry**
ReplyDeleteAs a minister for Christian Church, Disciples of Christ, as you know this topic is congregationally directed.
Our history and polity tells us, that children may be dedicated as infants at the request of the parents and once the child reaches an age when they can decide the baptism and confirmation class is attended.
When traveling in Palestine, I met many persons whose introduction included their religious background/heritage. Often they would say, I was born into.... (fill in the blank) and I chose to become Christian. I follow Jesus Christ.
This was a statement of heritage followed by a choice that had been made by the individual.
Hi Katie. I think you raise an important question. I don’t believe that raising your children in a particular faith tradition necessarily has to deny children the opportunity to explore their faith on their own. I hope to walk this fine line when I have children of my own.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I don't think it is reasonable to present young children with a religious "buffet" of choices. I feel a sense of responsibility to pass on the best of what I know to my children, even as it applies to my faith. I believe you can faithfully raise up children in a religious tradition AND avoid the ethical messiness of indoctrination (you did not use this word in your post but this is what came to my mind). I think this was one of the questions you were raising in your post.
You can do this by empowering your children them to take ownership of their faith. Too many people today to do not "own" their faith but are simply acting as stewards of the faith of their parents or the faith of their church. As parents I believe we have the responsibility of teaching our kids to fish (i.e. think critically about God and faith) while teaching them in the best manner we know. Therefore I am hopeful that I can obey Deuteronomy 6 and empower my kids to take full ownership of their faith. Am I right? I am curious what other “lurkers” think.
Regarding baptism. I found that I agreed with you on most of your points. I think I will reply to Hieu Phan in a separate comment.
I found this topic to be fascinating. To become a Christian is to confess with ones mouth and believe in ones heart (Romans 10:9-19) A baby cannot do this. It takes a certain level of cognition to select Jesus as one's Lord & Savior. Regardless of the environment, every believer must make that confession on his or her own. I think the Malaysian government did well to outlaw "conversion of children" as many faith traditions do not include the same kind of liberty found in Chrisitianity. In a religiously diverse culture, and in a split household, it is probably best that conversion is held off for several years when dealing with children.
ReplyDeleteKatie, thank you for your post. This issue is something that I have been struggling with these last couple months. You see, I'm expecting. I'm Catholic but my partner is Protestant Christian. We are having a hard time deciding what to do about our expected child's baptism. I believe in infant baptism, but he does not. He believes our child should choose when he or she should be baptized, but it's not that easy for me. I completely agree with what Jen said, that "the religion a child should be raised as is something the parents have to choose, because by the time the child is old enough to make an informed decision they are no longer a child." I would never go behind his back and baptize our child but I want him to understand that its more than just a ritual to me but has to do with my strong belief and faith.
ReplyDeleteI would like to start by trying to address the two questions you posed at the end. I will start with the easier; should baptism be seen as a child’s right, or is that right up to the parents? I feel that an infant is first, a human just like the rest of us and so the child’s right is still in effect. However, my issue is that even though it may be a child’s right to not have to eat any vegetables, it becomes a parent’s duty to look out for the physical welfare of the child. In the same light, when a child is born to a responsible adult, I believe they have the right and duty to do what they think is best for their child, as long as what they think is best actually yields good results for the child. When the child becomes old enough to make their own decision, they can do that. Even if they were converted at a young age, it’s up to that child to make his or her own daily decision to genuinely practice their religious faith. Concerning the second question, I personally feel that it would be best to pray over the child, and teach them what has influenced your life. I have been to many baby dedication, when the family simply dedicates the child to God, as a sign of surrender to God’s will for this child. When the child is old, I feel they could either continue in their faith, or reject it.
ReplyDeleteLastly I must say, don’t regret making the decision before you had the chance to dabble into other faiths. If your experience is truly genuine, then you will still be able to gain so much from other religions, while staying true to your own.
Hi Hieu Phan
ReplyDeleteI recently had a similar conversation with several individuals from churches with similar beliefs to yours. While not defending infant baptism, they used much of the same line of reasoning (e.g. original sin, etc) to argue that baptism is required for salvation. Would you hold to that view? I am just curious.
Let me explain my view of baptism as I see it taught in the New Testament. As I understand the teachings of the NT regarding salvation and baptism, salvation is by God’s grace, through faith, and is not (and cannot be) dependent on any work or act - including baptism. But this is not to say that baptism is unimportant to the Christian life or unrelated to salvation. Baptism is a foundation sacrament of the Christian faith, a universal command of Christ for all believers, and the first opportunity for a new believer to be obedient to the call of their Lord.
Additionally, baptism has been designed as a scared symbol of salvation: the believer is asked, again, to confess that Christ is Lord (i.e. confessed faith; Rom 10:9), the believer then is buried in water (i.e. submission & repentance), completely immersed (i.e. complete forgiveness of sins), and resurrection out of the water (i.e. new life in Christ). It is in this sense I would agree that believer's baptism is related, and in some ways connected to their salvation, but I would deny that a believer's salvation is in any way dependent on their baptism. I cannot reconcile infant baptism with my definition above.
I feel like you deserve a direct reply to your post (and not theological ramblings). So let me interact with a few of your statements (in love).
“If infants are guilty of original sin, then they are proper subjects of baptism; seeing, in the ordinary way, they cannot be saved, unless this be washed away by baptism.” I would replace the word “baptism” with “grace.” In my understanding, all sin requires just one, and only one, remedy: grace and forgiveness. And grace, by definition, can only be given and never earned. I would argue that all people are offered God’s grace and that is not dependent on any “work” (i.e. something one does to earn or gain access to God’s grace). Baptism, like communion, is a celebrated sacrament of the faith, not a requirement that precedes grace/salvation. To not be baptized is a matter of disobedience (sin) not damnation.
“If infant’s Baptism is not a valid Baptism then I and the majority of the Church throughout its history have not obeyed Christ’s words shown above, yet throughout the history of Christianity there have been many saints in the Church who have lived faithful godly lives.” While I think this is a valid point to make, this would also mean that the tradition is not open to correction or clarification. If I take original sin seriously, and I do, I have to acknowledge that the interpretation and doctrine of men and women, however well meaning, is imperfect. This is where “owning” ones faith from my previous comment comes in (just like you did with the Missionary Alliance).
“The only reasons advanced against infant Baptism are that there no explicit passages which point toward it in Scripture (Act 11:14; 16:15, 31, 34; 18:8) and that all the examples in Scripture show Baptism after a profession of faith. In light of the case presented above these objections seem rather small…” From your post I got the impression that your church seems to place a special emphases on the authority of Scripture for praxis and doctrine (I may be wrong about that). It seems that we evaluate the evidence differently here. This seems like strong evidence not something “rather small.” Of the 9 baptisms in acts, all follow the same formula conversion then baptism. Paul often speaks of baptism as something believers should be able to remember and reflect on (Col. 2:12).
I can see that you have well researched this topic but, as respectfully as I can, I can’t agree with all your points. But I do appreciate your efforts to challenge my preconceptions and share your views. Its about faith seeking understanding.
Great post, Katie!
ReplyDeleteI also wonder about raising a child in a certain faith, and having a child go through a baptism without, probably, the full cognitive understanding of such a decision.
I wonder about my friends who have been baptized but walked away from the faith in which they were baptized. I would say that that argues well for the child to be given time and not forced into baptism.
I also wonder about my friends who have been baptized and continue to stay in the faith without even stepping into other faith traditions. I also wonder about my friends who have been baptized, did some soul searching in other faiths, and returned to their initial faith. I also wonder about my friends who've been baptized only as an older person, but then moved on to another faith tradition.
I think this school is the most open to all of such experiences. Not to lower the significance of baptism, but I wonder if there is one and only answer. Yes, we are under "one baptism" and "one faith" as written in one of the epistles, but what about those who were baptized as a child and have no idea what that faith is?
Is it something to sue another about? What if the child converts to another religious tradition that neither the father nor mother follow? Oh, what a waste of time, pain and anguish that may seem over the conversion of a child... But to the parent, the child's salvation is all the worth, is it not?
I've never understood the UMC's purpose in infant baptism as making sure the child is "saved through the church." I understand it more as a covenant between the parent(s), God and the church body to care for the child's spiritual formation.
ReplyDeleteAll three of my children were baptized as infants, as a way of honoring my families' tradition and, in my own mind, somewhat like a "naming" ceremony. I realize that the "naming" concept is not necessarily Christian nor Methodist, but as a person who was exploring her own spirituality in depth at the time, it was my way of accepting this Christian ritual as a way of honoring those who have gone before me. Did I promise, at the ceremonies, to raise my children to know Christ? Certainly. And I did; although it was in a way foreign to many who have been life-long church-goers. My personal path took me into many non-Christian studies, yet as I always knew Jesus, so did/do my children.
Today, my eldest daughter has chosen to follow an alternative path, outside the organized church. My second daughter was confirmed by her own desire, and continues to attend the UMC, although not youth activities. What will my son choose? I don't know yet; what I do know is that all three of my children have a strong spiritual belief; a strong faith in God; and the knowledge that they are capable of making their own decisions regarding the framework for their own personal walk with God.
I agree with Suzanne's assessment of the UMC's purpose in infant baptism, as the entire congregation promises to participate in the life of the child as she or he grows in the church. I will add that for myself, I was not baptized as an infant -- kind of "lost in the shuffle" of three older brothers -- and I liked participating in the ritual of baptism for myself as a twelve year old.
ReplyDeleteI think the most interesting thing about infant baptism is that people have been arguing about it since the very earliest days of the church. I believe, as I recall from our WONDERFUL Christian Traditions class, that the issue was brought up out of necessity as the first Christians realized that the end of times would not occur in their lifetimes and babies started appearing in the communities (as they are wont to do). It's nice to know sometimes that we aren't dealing with new problems!
ReplyDeleteWe are struggling with this issue ourselves, as we have newborn twins. I appreciate the decision I made as an adult to be baptized into the faith while my wife will always love the sense of community she had growing up in the church where she was baptized as a child. I take the role of the congregant very seriously when I witness a baptism, pledging to take responsibility for that child's upbringing. To me this comes down to an issue over the word 'baptism' and what it means. I don't think either my wife or I feel that we are putting our children in any mortal danger (or immortal) because we haven't baptized them, we know they will be part of the community of God until they are old enough to reject it if they choose. Are they 'saved'? I don't know. Would baptizing them change that? I don't know, I don't think so. However, it is terribly important to both of us that they grow up knowing they are beloved to our church community and that every person at their church is part of their big, dysfunctional family. It really does take a village to raise a child and I am a firm believer in the role the community plays in raising children.