Despite the difference between the religious beliefs existing in the world, however great they might seem, they still share some similarities. One of the most common is the idea of the unity of the believers that surpass any genetic or race accessory. A unified community of people who faithfully share the same grand religious beliefs often views itself as a family. The fact that this is an individual and deliberate choice makes the bond even more vital. Although, it is namely the voluntariness of affiliation that can breed controversy in this matter. Since the religious family is bonded spiritually rather than genetically, a specific commitment is required from a person to become a member. To be precise, apart from resembling a faithful dedication, a member should undertake the sacrament of admission – a family initiation ritual. Thus, when it comes to initiating infants because they do not yet possess the ability of deliberate decision making, a controversion arises. For its dissipation, believers should return to the sacrament’s origins, remember the history, dismiss the unimportant, and eventually be reminded of what unites them all rather than separates them.
In Christianity and its confessions, the sacrament of admission is referred to as baptism, or christening, when mainly speaking of children’s baptism. In his sermon from 2002, Reverend Feddes refers to baptism as “a sign and seal of entering the community of Christ, the community bought with Jesus’ blood and given life by his Holy Spirit.” The origins of baptism are intertwined with Jesus’ history. His life was split in two by his death and glorious resurrection afterward; the same applies to the story of a sacrament. It is believed that Jesus suffered and died for all humanity for its redemption and atonement to restore its connection to God. Before that, believers had to offer their pain and blood to God in the form of a Circumcision. After that, such a need disappeared, resembling the beginning of a new era (Feddes, 2002). God’s covenant entered a new era as well, which brought a new, better way of affiliation – baptism. It required no blood or suffering, it was no longer limited only to males because it could also be applied to females.
One more commonality is worth mentioning in this context – the sacrament applied not only to the individual but to his household. It is said in the Old Testament that when the head of the household was circumcised, so would his sons (Feddes, 2002). The same logic follows in the New Testament, where the baptism of the head of the household means that all his household will be baptized as well. Baptism promises the gift of the Holy Spirit to the family and the future children, and that is why the church nowadays should baptize not only converted individuals but children under their care too. It is essential to understand that the modern dominant cultural individualism might be detrimental in this matter. Reverend Feddes (2002) mentions the analogy that people fashion themselves instead as marbles than branches. They see Christ as a marble box that contains individual marbles resembling no interconnection whatsoever. Feddes then opposes this vision, pointing out that Jesus saw himself as the vine, with the followers being its branches (Feddes, 2002). Consequently, if a branch is connected to the vine, so would its twigs.
In this historical context, baptism for children might seem only natural. Unfortunately, as time passes, people review the past more seldom, which leads to ambiguities that can turn even the most natural matters into an object of debate. Baptismal regeneration can serve as an excellent example of such ambiguity. It is a belief in the magnificent salvatory power of the water – the only thing that can wash away the child’s original sin. It implies that if a person was not baptized as a child, he could not go to heaven after death, which is not biblical and cannot be used as an argument for infant baptism (Feddes, 2002). At the same time, opposing the idea of baptismal regeneration cannot be used as an argument against christening. Alone it proves to be relatively weak since a significant number of people who do not believe in baptismal regeneration still baptize their children with a better, biblical reason in mind (Feddes, 2002). After all, God’s power to grant salvation is not solely bound to either church’s representatives or the water they apply. Thus, the solution lies in a slight change of perspective.
Despite the differences in the mentioned approaches, the belief in God’s power stands behind the reasoning in both cases. However, in an attempt to win an argument, people tend to forget what they have in common. While Christians argue about infant baptism, they ignore the danger in the believer’s division. Not only does it shift the focus from their unity in Jesus Christ, but it also makes Christianity look less appealing to non-believers. Consequently, the believers’ common ground should always be considered to answer whether the people should be baptized in infancy. Firstly, all Christians agree that the Bible is God’s Word. Secondly, they acknowledge the Holy Trinity – the Father and Creator, the Son and Savior, and the Holy Spirit – as the interconnected beacon of faith and a symbol of eternal life. Thirdly, they agree that baptism is proof of the Lord’s generosity, forgiveness, and love, a wash away from sins, and a sign of unity with Christ and the family. Therefore, when a child is born, it seems only natural to accept him and provide him with all the love, parental and divine alike.
In their attempt to resolve the issue of infant baptism, the Christians have to return to the sources, look to the nature of baptism, get rid of the irrelevant, and remember what unites them. The origins of baptism are intertwined with Jesus’ death and consequent resurrection. With Jesus spilling his blood and thus accepting the sins and the suffering of humanity, a whole new era began, which brought a more vital spiritual bond with God and a new sign of affiliation. Baptism differed from the older circumcision on the surface, but it kept the more profound meaning to the full extent. The same applied to the traditions of its effect – what circumcision meant for the head of the household and his sons, so did baptism mean for the head and his family. Considering this relationship, it becomes clearer that contemporary ambiguities draw attention away from something so natural and straightforward but fundamental at the same time. When it comes to baptizing children, baptism accepting, protecting, and loving feature takes prevalence over everything else because it is what a newborn needs and rightfully deserves.
Reference
Feddes, D. (2002). Should babies be baptized? [Lecture notes]. Web.