It's been a while since I've posted on here, partly because it's been quite busy recently - so there are a few things that I will be trying to catch up on and post here in the next week or so!
I did another baptism - or rather two, as it was two sisters - in the middle of February, which seemed to go fairly well again. A couple of days later I went back to the church to fill in the Baptismal Register and write out the Baptismal Certificates; as I did so, I couldn't help but reflect on the fact that my name and signature is now on some documents that have some lasting significance - there is a lasting mark that I have made on their lives. Should those I have baptised want to go to a Church School, or later on get married in a church, it is my name certifying that they have been baptised; and if the future equivalent of "Who do you think you are" ever features their descendants, if they go and look at registers or certificates it will tell them that I was the one who did the baptism, as well as who the parents were etc.
I say a lasting mark, but some would of course disagree; and just this week I came across an article that included the story of someone who wished to renounce their baptism and have their name removed from a Baptismal Roll (scroll down to the end of the article for it.) He was told it wasn't possible, but what is interesting is in a way that it raises questions about what Baptism is, and what we believe about it. At about the same time, I read a letter in Ichthus - the magazine of LWPT - from someone questioning whether it is still reasonable to hold the view that baptism is once, for all time, and cannot be repeated.
Now, this is where it gets interesting, because the view you take on this depends a lot on where you are coming from. The Secular Society would of course argue that Baptism is essentially meaningless - although it is a little amusing to me that they do provide a "De-Baptism" certificate for download for those who wish to display their lack of belief in God, despite the fact that by their own view the original ceremony has no effect or meaning.... They are of course free to choose this and argue their case - but then, as a believer in God, so am I.
Baptists and others that accept only Believers (ie Adult) Baptism would argue that the baptism is in any case invalid, and reserve the right to re-baptise adults; many other churches (including my own) adopt the position that whenever the baptism is administered, it remains in force.
If you accept that Infant Baptism is valid, there is no need to rebaptise - and in fact many denominations would be very unhappy about this being asked for. My own feeling is that one of the important aspects of Baptism is about God reaching out to us - some of the words are "All this for you, before you could know anything of it." (To use theological language, this is called Prevenient Grace.) It's a sign of God's love which is there for us before we love God, whether we wish to accept it or not - and so, given this, how can a baptism be revoked? I believe that God continues to reach out to us, and even if (like the person in the article) you wish to reject this by regarding it as meaningless ritual or whatever, those of us with faith are also allowed to maintain that this is what we believe is happening with Baptism.
No comments:
Post a Comment