Contrary to the christian tradition I was raised in (Church of Christ) I’m all for infant baptism. I myself was baptised as an 11 year old and not as an infant, and “believer’s baptism” – as it is sometimes called – was my default position. But things change…
I guess there’s been a combination of reasons for the change… I’ve studied the Bible and Christian theology in more depth, and I’m sure being part of an Anglican church (which baptises infants) has helped some…
But really the big thing for me has been understanding covenantal theology. As a basic summary (and I mean basic) covenantal theology is about God’s covenant with the family which is the pattern of how God relates with Israel in the OT. God gives the symbol of circumcision to Abraham (Genesis 17) and requires that all the males in his family, and his servants etc be circumcised and the custom is to go generation after generation as a sign of the covenant that God has made with Abraham. And it’s not as if a male was to be circumcised as an adult when they have the faculty and reason to declare whether they want to be in relationship with Yahweh or not (although new adult males converted to Judaism are circumcised) but the male child is to circumcised on the 8th day while they are an infant (Genesis 21:4). The basis of the infant circumcision is the faith relationship and covenant that the family has with Yahweh not the infants confession.
Skip forward to the New Testament – Colossians 2:9-15…
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and in Christ you have been brought to fullness. He is the head over every power and authority. In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your sinful nature was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.
The apostle Paul draws a comparison between the sign of circumcision and that of baptism. if the parents of a newborn are in a family covenant with Jesus then their newborn is in that covenant too. The newborn child is reliant on their parents for everything, their food, their clothes, their shelter, their care, their hygiene, everything… including their faith. Children receive everything because they have nothing, and Jesus even says we need to receive the kingdom of God like a child, ie. with complete dependance and faith.
There’s even more to covenantal theology than I can be bothered to blog about here, but the point is that I find this convincing and I’m completely for the baptism of infants (if their parents or parent is Christian) and I reached this conclusion before Evie came along, and now Evie’s here I’ve got to put my money where my mouth is…
But I perceive a problem… It’s not with infant baptism or covenantal theology, it’s with confirmation.
You see, because infant baptism requires that parents make promises on behalf of the child, there comes a time when the child must make their own decision to either continue in the faith and covenant with Yahweh they have grown up with or reject that covenant and faith. So the rite of confirmation was created in church tradition to provide opportunity for people to confirm the covenant with Jesus they have grown up with. I am all for this rite and the principles that stand behind it.
But I am not for the arbitrary laws that are attached with the rite of confirmation in the Anglican tradition. Particularly that confirmation may only be performed by a bishop and only after the age of 14.
What if I get Evie baptised as an infant and she wants to confirm her faith at age 11 like I did? Do I tell her she’s too young to make that decision wait 3 more years…? i don’t want to do that. Confirmation is made for people, not people for confirmation. Confirmation should be performed when the person involved wants to confirm their faith. Not only this, but having a minimum age has encouraged a form of ritualism associated with Confirmation that turns it into a human tradition and a vain worship without the heart (Mark 7), so that when a person turns 14 “hey! its time to get confirmed!”. I’d rather avoid that danger.
To my mind, having the rite performed only by a bishop is also restricting. It means that confirmation may only be done at the bishop’s convenience, and it seems to me that this also will add a ritualistic dimension to the rite, so that packs of people will be confirmed all at once and out of those, surely some will be rushed to meet the set date when the bishop will be in church instead perhaps being given a couple of weeks longer for them to cement their decision.
For me it seems best that Evie be baptised when she wants to confirm her faith in Jesus. She will be able to pick the time when she wants to confirm her faith and will be able to be baptised by the local minister whether 11, 14, 21 years old or whatever. We will raise her and treat her as a Christian who is a member of our family covenant with Jesus, and we will encourage her to confirm her faith in Jesus by public baptism when she wants to own that faith for herself.
I’ve toiled over this decision ever since Evie has been born (9 months ago) and it is only now that I’ve come to this conclusion. Perhaps there might be other reasons for me to change my mind… But at this moment in time “here I stand”.
