Thoughts on Baptism

Earlier today, I linked through to a post from my good friend, Pastor Eric Tritten.  He was defending the practice of infant baptism against those who (sometimes fiercely) advocate for what is called 'believer's baptism.'  The latter position basically says that in order for baptism 'to count', the one baptized must have be old enough to profess their faith.  Now between a Lutheran position and that position are a host of other concerns--original sin, the nature of faith, baptism as a means of grace, just to name three biggies.

Eric did a nice job.  I'm not taking issue with anything he said.

But more needs to be said.  Several years ago, I had a running conversation with a couple.  He had been raised Lutheran; she some variety of Protestant (I forget which).  They were debating whether their children would be baptized.  It was an eye-opening exchange because it helped me see how our conversation partners understand us.

In short, she thought that we had some superstitious, magical view of baptism.  She understood us to mean, "Once wet, always saved."  As I thought about it, I thought, "You know, you could easily get that out of the way we talk about Baptism."  She had a valid point.

So, without taking anything away from the great gifts that the Lord gives in Baptism, I'd like to suggest that we take the fullness of Jesus' command in which Baptism is instituted (Matthew 28:16-20) a little more seriously.  Here's a more literal, wooden translation than we sometimes get in our English Bibles:  "As you are on your way, make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit , teaching them to keep all that I've command you."  Notice two things.  First, there's only one command here, namely, to make disciples.  Second, the means by which one becomes a disciple are twofold, baptizing and teaching.

I understand this to mean that Baptism only makes sense in the context of an ongoing life of listening to God's Word in a variety of contexts--home, church, Sunday school. It's an imperfect analogy, but one could compare Baptism to an acorn.  The whole tree is in there; at a genetic level an acorn is as much an oak tree as a century-old tree in the forest.  Without sunlight and water, the acorn will not become a mighty oak.  In the same way, we want to rejoice in the fact of what God has planted in us in Baptism; salvation, forgiveness, rescue--they're all there.  But without the nurturing of the Word, they will not thrive and they might possibly die.

So, I'd like to suggest that we need to balance.  On the one hand, let's not cede any territory to those who would make Baptism simply into a human work of response.  That's a denigration of the Sacrament that can't be Scripturally supported.  On the other hand, let's insist that Baptism only makes sense as a part of a whole life of discipleship in which Baptism is partnered with teaching in its various forms and locations.  If we talk about Baptism apart from that teaching context, we run the serious risk of making it nothing more than superstition.

Responses?