Why My Son Was Baptised: Part 2

Having established the biblical and traditional foundations for affirming the efficacy of Baptism, we next explore the question of "what is it efficacious for"?

Starting again from scripture and examining the texts previously referenced in Part I, we find that a parallel is drawn between baptism and circumcision. Circumcision, an act initiating an individual into God's covenant community in the Old Testament, is aligned with the practice of baptism in the New Testament (Col 2: 11-12). Although the scriptures remain firm on the centrality of faith and obedience in bringing meaning to the act of circumcision (1 Cor 7: 19), they do not divorce inward faith from the external act. Utilizing this framework, we come to an understanding of baptism that underscores it's centrality in the Church's mission and life - that through this act God incorporates an individual into the greater body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13), God's new covenant community established in light of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. 

St. Athanasius, in his response to the Arian controversy, relied heavily on this understanding of baptism to defend the co-divinity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit:

The faith in the Trinity transmitted to us is the only one, and it unites us with God, and whoever takes something away from the Trinity and baptizes in the name of the Father, or in the Son alone, or into the Father and the Son without the Spirit, receives nothing, but those being baptized and he imagines himself to be giving baptism remain in vanity and unconsecrated, because the Mystery is accomplished in the name of the Trinity: so that whoever separates the Son from the Father or reduces the Spirit to a creature has neither the Son nor the Father but is an atheist, worse than an unbeliever, and anything but a Christian.

Implicit within his argument is the assumption that the efficacy of baptism is driven by the power of the Trinitarian God, subsuming the individual into the divine life of the Trinity and hence into the Church as Christ's body. Thus, a failure to appropriately recognize the effector of this act leads to a baptism that is inefficacious for true Christian conversion, leaving nothing accomplished in the unseen realm and keeping the individual separate from true union with the body of Christ. 

This close relationship between a sacramental understanding of baptism and the Church may be readily observed today: in communities where a robust and well-developed eccelesiology is articulated, a  deeply sacramental understanding of baptism continues to be practiced (e.g. Anglicanism, Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism), with a recognition of the integral part it plays in Christian faith and practice. Likewise, Christian communities with a less established ecclesiology typically downplay the significance of baptism. As unfortunate as it is, this latter pattern has become pervasive in protestantism, driven by an individualism which has been characteristic of a post-modern worldview emphasizing individual belief and opinion against corporate confession and belief.

In summary, an examination of scripture as well as tradition suggests the following regarding baptism:

1. Baptism is more than a "symbolic" act of an inward conversion. Rather, baptism performed in the context of faith, is an act demanded by God of the Church, in which He effects a change in the life of the recipient.
2. The effect of baptism is tied closely to the believer's participation in the life of the Church; God has made it normative that all who come to faith are to be baptized into the body of Christ (However, normativity does not necessarily translate into exclusivity; someone who confesses faith in Christ and dies before being baptised will still be saved).

Why My Son Was Baptised: Part I

My son Benjamin was recently baptised on the 19th of July 2015 at Wesley Methodist Church; since then I have received a few queries on why I practice infant baptism. Having reflected on this very issue leading up to the decision to have him baptised, I decided it best to pen my thoughts down and crystallize them in prose.

Within that query, there are two separate questions which need to be addressed - the act itself (i.e. baptism) and the adjective that defines that act (i.e. infant).

Regarding baptism, the two sub-issues most pertinent to Protestants are "Is baptism just a symbol of belief, or is it efficacious in and of itself?" and "What is it efficacious for?"

Protestantism today often reduces baptism to an act of symbolism, in which a believer makes an outward declaration of a new-found faith. The act in this case is always secondary, being borne out of, but not influencing the inward rebirth of the believer being baptised. I would propose that this is not the case; that baptism has an efficacy in the inner life of the recipient of the sacrament, whilst remaining contingent on the necessity of faith (although this may not necessarily be the faith of the believer, as I shall discuss later).

Taking scripture as the starting point, we don't find much teaching about baptism per se; although the biblical authors repeatedly reference baptism throughout the New Testament, these references are indirect - i.e. there are no teachings on what baptism is, only assumptions on behalf of the reader on its significance and meaning. Nonetheless, we repeatedly find that baptism is associated with the death of old-self (Romans 6:4), has regenerative connotations (Colossians 2:12), is fundamental in the mission of the Church (Matt 28:19), and is considered a normative practice of the Christian faith (Acts 2:38). The use of baptism in these scriptures suggests that it is more than a optional act symbolic of inward faith; rather it points to a deeper reality that make it a core part of Christianity.    

As we move on from the New Testament to the teachings of the church fathers, we find a similar emphasis on baptism having value beyond mere symbolism. St Augustine taught that the sacraments of the Church (including baptism) were "outward and visible signs of an inward and invisible grace", indicating that there was an invisible but definite link between the physical act and the inward workings of God. Likewise, Tertullian, in reference to the baptismal waters, wrote that "the material substance which governs terrestrial life acts as agent likewise in the celestial", again highlighting an unseen connection between the physical act of baptism and spiritual work of God. 

This understanding of baptism (and sacraments in general) was actually considered orthodox until the reformation, where Zwingli, amongst others, de-emphasised the spiritual nature of the sacraments (particularly baptism and the Eucharist), turning instead to their memorial and symbolic nature. It is interesting to note that other leaders of the Protestant movement, such a Luther, still had a very high view of the sacraments, teaching that God's activity was very much present in the recipient of the sacrament at the moment of administration. 

Our popular understanding of the sacraments has continued to be eroded, perhaps largely due to a reductionist, modernist mindset that rejects the divine and supernatural where it is deemed unnecessary. Such an approach has crept into our thought and practice over the centuries, leading us to abandon much of the divine beauty and mystery of the Christian faith, replacing it instead with down-to-earth and rational explanations of our practices and traditions.