Note: I have yet to make up my mind on how I feel about this subject. What follows is where I am leaning but by no means am committed to my viewpoint.
I found myself a little perplexed yesterday, unable to put into words how I was feeling. This is not a common feeling since those who know me know I have an opinion about everything. What is at the root of this confusion is infant baptisms. Not so much the why as the how.
We had a multiple-infant baptism Sunday. Three babies were brought, symbolically, into the covenant family. As wonderful as this picture was, I couldn't help but feeling I was waiting in the line at the deli, listening for my number and when I could pick up my pastrami.
I understand there are logistic concerns with baptisms and one of the reason why there was multiple baptism I heard is that the church baptizes on the ____ Sunday of each month. I guess that is part of my issue. Is baptism something that we schedule or should it be a celebration and an event?
On the flip side, what a wonderful picture of all these families bringing their babies collectively to the Church and bringing them into the covenant. It put a certain corporate-ness to the whole process. It is the idea that the Church is unified and we stand together as members of the covenant. However, upon viewing the motions of the sacrament, I don't think this idea was the driving force.
So what do we do with a church that is cranking out babies? Do we bring them one at a time or do we stand up together and stand in line like we are at the deli?
I don't know.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
if I ever acquire an infant, I am definitely not baptizing it.
I think people are too concerned with time, honestly. I would guess they are baptizing one Sunday out of the month because they have the Lord's supper another Sunday of the month and they just don't want to deal with long services every week. Or actually that was the way it was explained to me when we scheduled our baptism at that church- but by someone who is no longer at that church so it may not be the real reason. And yes, that is silly. I think it was like a week long, a week short mentality- we can't expect people to sit still for an hour and a half every week or whatever. But why are we more concerned about our schedule than coming to the Table every week or eagerly celebrating an infant's joining the Church community? Hmmmm
Brian, sounds like a good plan. Most places, ministers do the baptizing, so you'll be fine.
Matt, isn't this "deli-style" what you'd imagine the early NT baptisms looked like? Whole households lining up to get wet?
Another question is this: Why do it during a worship service? Why not right before? Or at a separate service?
Murph,
no comment
Abby,
I hear you! Heaven forbid we go past 12:00. I would say we should go until 12:30, that way the baptist will clear the restaurants and there will be open seats.
Jeff,
Thanks for heaping on more questions:)
That is what I struggle with. So what if they are lining up to get some water. I guess my problem is that with in the early churches they didn't baptize on every 3rd Sunday. They did it every Sunday (or day for that matter) and they did it until there was no one left to baptize. So I don't think we can compare the two.
Why do it during a worship service? To follow that thinking you could ask why we do anything during a worship service?
I don't like a separate service for a baptism but I can't back that up.
In response to Jeff's question, the reason PCA churches do baptisms during their Sunday worship gatherings is because of the belief that there should be a connection between the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments. Now whether that was happening in the first century - who knows. But that's why it's done that way now.
PCA churches, in general, do a pretty lousy job of celebrating significant events in the life of the church such as baptisms and memberships.
And Abby, I don't think I'm the guy who told y'all that about the baptism, but if I am, then I apologize. Wouldn't be the first time I had to say sorry for something I did there.
Matt C, you said "They did it every Sunday (or day for that matter) and they did it until there was no one left to baptize." Yes, and that is partly my point. Baptisms seem to be a "spur of the moment" kind of thing--you profess faith and you're baptized, you and your whole household. We tend to turn them in to a "family event" and wait until all our friends and relatives can come in from out of town or whatever. And, hey, I'm just as guilty--Mary Grant was, like, six months old before we had her baptized; we waited for a number of reasons, all of which were logistical and procedural. But I wonder if there isn't a better way to liturgically say what we say we say. Or something like that.
Matt A., yeah, our (PCA) practice is straight from the WCF which says that word always accompanies sacrament--and on the whole I think that is a good thing. I argued to our session down here, though, that we should do them immediately before the call to worship; then, the "new member" would approach God liturgically with the rest of us from the word "go". If you feel compelled to do it in the service, do it right after the call to worship and before the psalms / hymns of ascent, so at least symbolically and liturgically the new member "ascends to God" with the rest of us.
I think there also is some merit to the way the EOs do it--baptisms are done in a separate service (usually right before the Divine Liturgy, I think) as near to the 8th day as they can. There is beautiful symbolism in that, but it sure does make things difficult on a new mother (especially with the prevalence of c-sections today), and it would require us to approach them from a different paradigm (less of a "family event" and more of a "church event").
Since we're discussing it, what about the idea of 'godparents'? In the PCA, we all (the congregation) takes vows at each baptism, essentially making the whole congregation 'godparents', but I think there is something to be said for the Anglican (and Lutheran?) practice of designating specific godparents.
Anyway.
this is why I am against baptism.
Careful, Brian; baptism is one of those pesky Great Commission kinds of things.
Godparents in an official capacity doesn't make much sense to me. But with all the moving around we do and the distance we put between ourselves and the family and elders of our youth (and also with the abundance of "broken family" situations) initiating a deliberate bond with another family in our local church community could be a useful thing.
I wish I would have been smart and brave enough to have approached an older wiser couple and asked them to come along side us in a special way as mentors (I hate that word). But alas, I was a mere youngster and had no idea what I was doing or even who was wise. If I had thought of it at the time and had been brave enough I probably would have approached someone based on popularity or status.
Also, Jeff, I agree about baptizing right before the service. Sometimes babies will be baptized at the back of our sanctuary to show how they are being cleansed and entering into the worshiping community as we are then gathered near to our Lord. And for those concerned about time issues, baptizing them first especially if it is done at the back of the sanctuary gives a psychological division that keeps folks from thinking that the service is longer than usual. In fact, the officer can preach a good bit of the Word from the font and no one will be the wiser that the preacher snuck in a mini-sermon to go along with his normal sermon. So everyone is happy.
matt adair, it wasn't you. no worries. and hello! to you and your sweet wife :)
Post a Comment