The Sociology of Infant Baptism
August 12, 2007
Some highlights from the Appendix of The Baptized Body…
A purpose of God in salvation is to reshape us in the image of Christ. Consistent infant baptists treat their children as Christians so that the Christian training of the child occurs simultaneously with the social and cultural nuture of the child, whereas consistent baptists see the child’s Christian life as beginning at a later stage, outside the normal processes of growth and maturation. For the infant baptist, the formation of a Christ-like character is a transformation and restoration of the process of nurture established in creation. So:
“Infant baptism is thus consistent with the more general Reformed insistence that redemption is a renovation of creation spoiled by Adam rather than a new creation ex nihilo.” p. 116
Also:
“Infant baptism imposes a religious identity that the infant has not chosen. As Rowan Williams puts it, it pushes choice to the side. Far from being a weakness, this is one of the strengths of infant baptism for Reformed theology, since it shows that God’s approach to us precedes any response we make. The Divine Gardener loves us, waters us, cares for us, tends us before we can produce a thank offering in return. Infant baptism thus highlights the prevenience of grace.” p. 121
As Calvin recognised, all human beings have faith: true faith or false faith. “Infants are never brought up in a religiously neutral setting, having no religious identity or biases imposed upon them.” p. 122. The logical conclusion of Baptist theology is to say that the religious life and language and culture is something to be added to the culture, language and life of the world around us, a culture which isn’t going to be explicitly Christian or religiously neutral. The child baptised as an infant is separated from its earliest days into a new, Christian culture. “The formative culture is the Christian culture of the church.” p. 134
We need to answer the following question: “Does this culture [of the church] include people in every stage of life, or does it only include those who have reached a certain level of maturity? Is the church a new humanity that includes humans of all levels of intelligence, maturity, and giftedness, or is it more an organization for the religiously interested or the religiously mature?” (p. 133). The infant baptist, with the Bible, I think, says, “Yes,” to the former.
August 13, 2007 at 10:18 am
I think there are a few problems with this, but let me comment on the one that I think is most serious.
I fully accept the criticism that most credo-baptists make baptism a work, something that the person being baptised does in response to God’s work. They thus move it from the realm of justification to sanctification, and undermine the fact that it is a sacrament of grace and the sacrament by which (according to the NT) we enter the church.
But I wonder whether the position you’ve outlined from Leithart doesn’t come dangerously close to replacing “justification by faith” with “justification by baptism”. In this way, the baptist error is almost exactly reversed – baptism is clearly (symbolically, at least) grace, because it is done to you without your involvement, but faith easily becomes a work rather than simply the open hand receiving grace (because grace was received in baptism as an infant).
Might I humbly suggest that the answer to both problems is to bind faith and baptism more closely together? Rather than asserting that a person is justified by faith and then baptised (or vice versa) we could show both grace (because the person does not baptise themselves, the church does it as Christ’s representative) and also faith (because the person exercises faith in the promise of forgiveness that is annexed to the sacrament).
August 13, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Justification in what sense? I don’t think there’s any replacement of justification by faith alone in the traditional sense in this position, that one who is eternally elect through faith in Christ is counted righteous now, is a member of the church invisible, and is one upon whom the verdict of, “Righteous!” will be pronounced therefore on the last day.
I think Leithart is talking about something else. He’s speaking a different language. He’s talking about being included by baptism into the church as it is in history, which is the body of Christ and which is really united to him. This real union with Christ, the justified one, means that one who is baptised is admitted to the community of the justified, who by virtue of this union with Christ is seen to be righteous. Whether the one who is baptised perseveres and so is declared righteous on the last day is another matter entirely. The baptised one must still respond to the grace of God in baptism with the empty hands of faith in order to remain within the body of Christ and be finally justified.
You say that baptism is “symbolically, at least” grace. That baptism is symbolically grace does not of course mean that it is any less truly grace. I am using symbols – words – to communicate to you. This is still real communication.
August 13, 2007 at 11:58 pm
great post Daniel
re. the discussion above, I think the rather more serious charge you (and I presume Leithart) make re consistently worked-through baptist theology is that it makes the church (in history) the body of the mature in Christ and thus less like a renewed humanity/the city of God/the household of God.
July 3, 2009 at 5:38 pm
[...] just point you to David Field and Daniel Newman’s helpful comments (here, here, here, and here), and encourage you to hold of a copy of The Baptized Body and read it. Possibly related posts: [...]