Now of course, by this time, she isn't an infant anymore. She is also able to confess on her own that Jesus Christ died on the cross for all our sins - hers, mummy's, daddy's, gong-gong's, ah-ee's, etc - whatever her understanding of sin is - and yet, He is alive. She requests prayers; prays over the little hurdles she meets in life (like "God, please put all the bad guys in the world in the naughty corner..." or "God, please give us an empty parking lot..."); looks forward to the eschaton where she will meet especially that older brother who died in mummy's tummy and returned Home to God; and is able to reason much more than an infant. She manifests faith to a certain extent. Her baptism was not-so-infant. But, I am glad that I thought through the whole infant baptism thing... and I am not too ashamed to admit that my previous understanding of it could have been incomplete.
Here are the points I thoroughly considered:
First, while it is essential that a person confesses with his mouth that Jesus is Lord and believes in his heart that God raised Him from the dead (Rom. 10:9), where in the Bible does it say that baptism can only be administered for one who has reached the age of reason to do so with full conviction prior to baptism? While repentant converts were certainly baptised as the impetus for discipleship, we also read in the Book of Acts that their families were baptised with them, e.g. Lydia (16:15) and the Philippian jailer (16:33). Among the families/households must have been children of all ages, infants included. Furthermore, the Apostle Paul notes that baptism has replaced conventional circumcision; it is to be a "circumcision made without hands" (Col. 2:11-12). As we know, circumcision under the Old Covenant was for Jewish infants as much as it was for older boys and men among God's chosen people. Such unaware infants were circumcised in anticipation of the faith and community in which they would be raised. Would Paul have chosen such a metaphor for baptism if he had meant to exclude infants? And what about the mentally disabled who can never fully reason on their own?
Secondly, one is admitted to Holy Communion on the basis of his/her baptism. In other words, baptism initiates one into the life of the church community, beginning with the Lord's table. If we expect our children to participate in corporate worship, get serious about God, commit to discipleship, and make disciples (Matt. 28:18-20), they should first have a sense of belonging to the community. Holy Communion, I believe, should then be an important part of a child's early experiences of church because it nourishes this sense of belonging. (Of course, teaching children not to take it in vain is just as important.) Furthermore, the Holy Communion and its liturgy speak so much of God's grace - past, present, and future. Holy Communion is in fact, a sacrament that strengthens, affirms and conveys the grace it symbolises. Must a child/infant, by virtue of his/her baptism, only have access to it when he/she reaches the age of reason? What is the age of reason anyway? Can we, adults, say that we are fully reasonable at our age?
Thirdly, what is baptism? Is it just a public manifestation of a person's conversion or is it more? Is it necessary for salvation? For those who can be baptised, "...Baptism... saves you... not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 3:21). Baptism joins us to Christ's death by which we are set free from the power of sin - because he/she who dies finally escapes the grip of sin (Rom. 6:7). Just as God's people were no longer slaves in Egypt through the water, we are no longer slaves to sin - and we can finally obey God if we wanted to. We can now say NO to sin and say YES to God - a lifelong responsibility and journey. Which parent, given the opportunity and their authority over their children's lives, would not want to avail this grace to them - the ability to say no to sin and say yes to God? "Permit the children to come to Me," Jesus said as His disciples rebuked the mothers bringing their brepha (Greek: infants) to Him so that He might touch them; "and do not hinder them for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these" (Lk. 18:15-16). One day, they must decide for themselves to follow Jesus wholeheartedly. But until then (and who knows what tomorrow might bring), is it not right for parents to bring their brepha through the exodus waters of freedom so that the brepha grow up in a new kingdom?
I am sure that I would be more open to baptising the next infant I have (if ever).
No comments:
Post a Comment