A Question about the UMC...

[Joshua Howard]

I consider myself to be weslian, and to my knowledge the Nazarene church, from which my denomination was formed, historically had it's roots in Wesley's teachings of Methodism. In such light, I have often described our denomination as something similar to traditional Methodism. Recently, however, I heard from someone that the United Methodist Church practices infant baptism. Is this true? Thanks.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Yes. It is symbolic in nature, however, and simply means the parents dedicate the child to God. It is not to be confused with youth and adult confirmation, which occurs when they join the church.

 

[Joshua Howard]

I see. So this is not to be confused with a form of 'imposed redemption' such as the catholic church practices... Such as to say that the baptism of an infant would save the child's soul?

 

[Origen]

I see. So this is not to be confused with a form of 'imposed redemption' such as the catholic church practices... Such as to say that the baptism of an infant would save the child's soul?

Hi Joshua:

Not long ago the United Methodist Church adopted the document By Water & By Spirit: A United Methodist Understanding of Baptism as an official teaching resource about baptism.

The whole document is available online as a PDF file here: http://www.gbod.org/worship/images/water&spirit.pdf . You may find it interesting (and it's written to be read and understood by laity and clergy).

Anyway, here's a short excerpt addressing your area of interest:

Baptism as God’s Gift to Persons of Any Age​

There is one baptism as there is one source of salvation -- the gracious love of God. The baptizing of a person, whether as an infant or an adult, is a sign of God’s saving grace. That grace -- experienced by us as initiating, enabling, and empowering -- is the same for all persons. All stand in need of it and none can be saved without it. The difference between the baptism of adults and that of infants is that the Christian faith is consciously being professed by an adult who is baptized. A baptized infant comes to profess her or his faith later in life, after having been nurtured and taught by parent(s) or other responsible adults and the community of faith. Infant baptism is the prevailing practice in situations where children are born to believing parents and brought up in Christian homes and communities of faith. Adult baptism is the norm when the Church is in a missionary situation, reaching out to persons in a culture which is indifferent or hostile to the faith. While the baptism of infants is appropriate for Christian families, the increasingly minority status of the Church in contemporary society demands more attention to evangelizing, nurturing, and baptizing adult converts.

Infant baptism has been the historic practice of the overwhelming majority of the Church throughout the Christian centuries. While the New Testament contains no explicit mandate, there is ample evidence for the baptism of infants in Scripture (Acts 2:38-41, 16:15,33) and in early Christian doctrine and practice. Infant baptism rests firmly on the understanding that God prepares the way of faith before we request or even know that we need help (prevenient grace). The sacrament is a powerful expression of the reality that all persons come before God as no more than helpless infants, unable to do anything to save ourselves, dependent upon the grace of our loving God. The faithful covenant community of the Church serves as a means of grace for those whose lives are impacted by its ministry. Through the Church, God claims infants as well as adults to be participants in the gracious covenant of which baptism is the sign. This understanding of the workings of divine grace also applies to persons who for reasons of handicapping conditions or other limitations are unable to answer for themselves the questions of the baptismal ritual. While we may not be able to comprehend how God works in their lives, our faith teaches us that God’s grace is sufficient for their needs and, thus, they are appropriate recipients of baptism.

The Church affirms that children being born into the brokenness of the world should receive the cleansing and renewing forgiveness of God no less than adults. The saving grace made available through Christ's atonement is the only hope of salvation for persons of any age. In baptism infants enter into a new life in Christ as children of God and members of the Body of Christ. The baptism of an infant incorporates him or her into the community of faith and nurture, including membership in the local church.

The baptism of infants is properly understood and valued if the child is loved and nurtured by the faithful worshiping church and by the child’s own family. If a parent or sponsor (godparent) cannot or will not nurture the child in the faith, then baptism is to be postponed until Christian nurture is available. A child who dies without being baptized is received into the love and presence of God because the Spirit has worked in that child to bestow saving grace. If a child has been baptized but her or his family or sponsors do not faithfully nurture the child in the faith, the congregation has a particular responsibility for incorporating the child into its life.

Understanding the practice as an authentic expression of how God works in our lives, The United Methodist Church strongly advocates the baptism of infants within the faith community: “Because the redeeming love of God, revealed in Jesus Christ, extends to all persons and because Jesus explicitly included the children in his kingdom, the pastor of each charge shall earnestly exhort all Christian parents or guardians to present their children to the Lord in Baptism at an early age” (1992 Book of Discipline, par. 221). We affirm that while thanksgiving to God and dedication of parents to the task of Christian child-raising are aspects of infant baptism, the sacrament is primarily a gift of divine grace. Neither parents nor infants are the chief actors; baptism is an act of God in and through the Church.

We respect the sincerity of parents who choose not to have their infants baptized, but we acknowledge that these views do not coincide with the Wesleyan understanding of the nature of the sacrament. The United Methodist Church does not accept either the idea that only believer’s baptism is valid or the notion that the baptism of infants magically imparts salvation apart from active personal faith. Pastors are instructed by the Book of Discipline to explain our teaching clearly on these matters, so that parent(s) or sponsors might be free of misunderstandings.

The United Methodist Book of Worship contains “An Order of Thanksgiving for the Birth or Adoption of the Child” (pages 585-87), which may be recommended in situations where baptism is inappropriate, but parents wish to take responsibility publicly for the growth of the child in faith. It should be made clear that this rite is in no way equivalent to or a substitute for baptism. Neither is it an act of infant dedication. If the infant has not been baptized, the sacrament should be administered as soon as possible after the Order of Thanksgiving.

 

[nicks17]

Origen,
Great post again. I have read the entirery of By Water and Spirit and found it to be very useful in helping me better explain my position on baptism to my Baptist friends.

Texas Lynn,
While infant baptism is in part a dedication service for the infant, I believe it is a mistake to call it just a dedication. It is a sign of God's Grace. God's Grace is not limited to only believing adults, and in no way is held back from any person, including infants.

Joshua Howard,
Wesley was definitely not against infant baptism. He believed in the doctrine of original sin, therefore believing all were in need of the grace of God. Including infants. I believe By Water & The Spirit talks about Wesley somewhat. I encourage you to read it in its entirety to better understand what our view on baptism.

God Bless,
Nick

 

[Joshua Howard]

It is my belief that repentance is the key to free-will salvation, and that, in such light, the salvation commitment is not applied to those who lack the mental ability to understand the issue of sin or, likewise, repentance.

Though the UMC accepts infant baptism as a form of dedication, I presume that it does not consider baptism as a prequisite to salvation, or consider that infants who fail to be baptized would be in danger of hell fire. In which case, the ceremony would be purely symbolic. Please correct me if I am misunderstanding something here. Thanks again,

Joshua

 

[Origen]

It is my belief that repentance is the key to free-will salvation,...

I think the United Methodist position would be that God's love, not an act of our will, is the key to salvation.

... and that, in such light, the salvation commitment is not applied to those who lack the mental ability to understand the issue of sin or, likewise, repentance.

If I understand what you mean by "the salvation commitment is not applied [required] to those who lack the mental ability to understand the issue of sin or, likewise, repentance," I would suggest you have a different understanding of sin, in particular, Original Sin, than United Methodists. In no way am I suggesting that infants are "in danger of hell fire," but all of us, even infants, fall short of the glory of God.

Though the UMC accepts infant baptism as a form of dedication, I presume that it does not consider baptism as a prequisite to salvation, or consider that infants who fail to be baptized would be in danger of hell fire. In which case, the ceremony would be purely symbolic. Please correct me if I am misunderstanding something here.

It is a mistake to characterize the UMC teaching as "infant baptism [is] a form of dedication." That is not correct, unless one believes that all baptisms are a form of dedication; the point being that "There is one baptism as there is one source of salvation -- the gracious love of God."

Joshua, I'd point you again to this section of By Water & By Spirit:

There is one baptism as there is one source of salvation -- the gracious love of God. The baptizing of a person, whether as an infant or an adult, is a sign of God’s saving grace. That grace -- experienced by us as initiating, enabling, and empowering -- is the same for all persons. All stand in need of it and none can be saved without it. The difference between the baptism of adults and that of infants is that the Christian faith is consciously being professed by an adult who is baptized. A baptized infant comes to profess her or his faith later in life, after having been nurtured and taught by parent(s) or other responsible adults and the community of faith. Infant baptism is the prevailing practice in situations where children are born to believing parents and brought up in Christian homes and communities of faith. Adult baptism is the norm when the Church is in a missionary situation, reaching out to persons in a culture which is indifferent or hostile to the faith. While the baptism of infants is appropriate for Christian families, the increasingly minority status of the Church in contemporary society demands more attention to evangelizing, nurturing, and baptizing adult converts.​

 

[Joshua Howard]

I still don't have a clear understanding of whether the church teaches that an individual cannot reach heaven without first being baptized.

Regarding infants, I presume that the baptism thereof is not in any way confused with or required for their ultimate salvation decision...?

And I do agree with you, that we all have a fallen nature... The issue is not a matter of the existance of sin, but rather the realm of accountability.

I am sorry if I'm thick headed here.

 

[Origen]

I still don't have a clear understanding of whether the church teaches that an individual cannot reach heaven without first being baptized.

That sentence, "All stand in need of it and none can be saved without it," could be more clear. The "it" here refers to "the gracious love of God," not necessary baptism. Try reading the sentence this way:

All stand in need of the gracious love of God and none can be saved without the gracious love of God.​

I, personally, would not interpret that to mean "an individual cannot reach heaven without first being baptized."

Regarding infants, I presume that the baptism thereof is not in any way confused with or required for their ultimate salvation decision...?

I'm not sure "ultimate salvation decision" is a United Methodist concept; God's love, not an act of our will, is the key to salvation.

And I do agree with you, that we all have a fallen nature... The issue is not a matter of the existance of sin, but rather the realm of accountability.

It helps me to keep in mind that we're using one word, 'sin,' to talk about two different ideas: "Sin" (capital 'S', as in Original Sin) and "sin" (little 's'). It may also help to keep in mind that United Methodist do not teach "once saved, always saved." So it may be the case that after baptism one may act sinfully in a way calls for a turning back to God ("repentance"), but that doesn't mean that one needs to be baptized again. We can't save ourselves, no matter how accountable we hold ourselves. God saves.

I am sorry if I'm thick headed here.

You curiosity and understanding surpasses any I had at 16, and perhaps at 32.

 

[Joshua Howard]

I think I see where you're coming from in regards to baptism now... Thanks for all the patience!

I see what is being said about the love of God, and agree. Regarding salvation, however, just to make sure, do you teach that a person must bear repentance in order to be saved?

Thanks again

 

[Texas Lynn]

Texas Lynn,
While infant baptism is in part a dedication service for the infant, I believe it is a mistake to call it just a dedication. It is a sign of God's Grace. God's Grace is not limited to only believing adults, and in no way is held back from any person, including infants.

That's fine, thanks for the info.

I am not completely sure just which religious traditions baptise infants and which don't. I know Catholics (and I assume, Episcopals and Lutherans) do. I also know Baptists and others of more fundamentalist bent don't, and some of these are especially perturbed that Catholics do.

My impression is no one of any denomination believes infant baptism is to be in any way confused with an adult's conscious decision to become a Christian. However, i also know this: many Catholics are "lapsed" or non-practicing (equivalent to backsliding Protestants and secularized Jews) but many of these make an especial effort to get their children baptised by a priest. They may not even show up at church at Christmas and Easter but they will do that. Why? I'm not sure, but I believe it has been impressed upon them that they should now that they've become parents

Two items (one fictional, one anecdotal) come to mind on the topic for which I'd be curious what others' takes on them are:

1. One of my favorite plays is Inherit the Wind by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee. While it concerns a fictionalized version of the Scopes Monkey trial of 1925, the issue of baptism comes in as a subplot of sorts. Bert, the teacher who taught evolution in the school and who is brought to trial for this, is at odds with his fiance's father, The Reverend (sorry, don't remember more specifically about their names). Bert had stopped going to church because he was upset because of a remark The Reverend had made at the funeral of "the little Stebbins boy" who drowned. The Reverend said the boy's soul was damned to hell because he had never been baptised. Bert vehemently objected to this. (In the film version The Reverend---played by Claude Akins, the same guy who was Sheriff Lobo---wore a clerical shirt and collar, which would indicate he was not Baptist or Pentecostal. And this was rural Tennessee in 1925, so he sure wasn't Catholic. And I'm not aware of Episcopals being so fervent over such doctrine. So I'm not sure what was going on. It was a plot device to set up something that happened later-Bert's lawyer is jailed for contempt of court and his bail is paid by the Stebbins boy's parents. But whether such would have happened or not is unclear. A Baptist preacher (which a leading small town preacher in the rural South then would have been) would not have wore the collar or made an issue of baptism. So it may have been a dramatic anachronism in a historical play, just like the clock striking the hour in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar which took place before there were striking clocks.

2. I read of this on another message board. A young woman in a conservative church had a baby out of wedlock. Needless to say the church disapproved but they also opposed abortion. After having the baby she asked the pastor to baptise it. At first he refused because she had had it out of wedlock, but, he agreed to consider it. Finally he agreed to do it only if the woman would admit and repent of "her sin" in church prior to the baptism taking place. She agreed and it was done. I know such a thing would never happen in any church I've ever been in. I find the callousness and cruelty of the pastor to be reprehensible if this is indeed a true story.

 

[Origen]

Regarding salvation, however, just to make sure, do you teach that a person must bear repentance in order to be saved?

Joshua, can you tell me more about what "bear repentance" means to you?

 

[Origen]

Bert had stopped going to church because he was upset because of a remark The Reverend had made at the funeral of "the little Stebbins boy" who drowned. The Reverend said the boy's soul was damned to hell because he had never been baptised. Bert vehemently objected to this.

Hi Lynn -- That story reminded me of something I'd read in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

II. LIMBUS INFANTIUM

The New Testament contains no definite statement of a positive kind regarding the lot of those who die in original sin without being burdened with grievous personal guilt. But, by insisting on the absolute necessity of being "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" (John 3:5) for entry into the kingdom of Heaven (see "Baptism," subtitle Necessity of Baptism), Christ clearly enough implies that men are born into this world in a state of sin, and St. Paul's teaching to the same effect is quite explicit (Rom. 5:12 sqq). On the other hand, it is clear form Scripture and Catholic tradition that the means of regeneration provided for this life do not remain available after death, so that those dying unregenerate are eternally excluded from the supernatural happiness of the beatific vision (John 9:4, Luke 12:40, 16:19 sqq, II Cor. 5:10; see also "Apocatastasis"). The question therefore arises as to what, in the absence of a clear positive revelation on the subject, we ought in conformity with Catholic principles to believe regarding the eternal lot of such persons. Now it may confidently be said that, as the result of centuries of speculation on the subject, we ought to believe that these souls enjoy and will eternally enjoy a state of perfect natural happiness; and this is what Catholics usually mean when they speak of the limbus infantium, the "children's limbo."

The best way of justifying the above statement is to give a brief sketch of the history of Catholic opinion on the subject. We shall try to do so by selecting the particular and pertinent facts from the general history of Catholic speculation regarding the Fall and original sin, but it is only right to observe that a fairly full knowledge of this general history is required for a proper appreciation of these facts.

The article then goes on to examine Pre-Augustinian Tradition, the Teaching of St. Augustine, and Post-Augustinian Teaching about "the lot of those who die in original sin without being burdened with grievous personal guilt." The article is dated 1910, so I'm not sure how it squares with current Catholic teaching.

The Methodist church, certainly, doesn't subscribe to these eternal, intermediate (neither heaven nor hell) outcomes ("The Romish doctrine concerning purgatory...is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warrant of Scripture, but repugnant to the Word of God"), and while we do hold to the practice of infant baptism and the doctrine of Original Sin (which is, interestingly, also called "Birth Sin") which is our nature, I've never heard a Methodist (or anyone today in real life, for that matter) suggest unbaptized infants are "damned to hell," though that was the position of the church for about 700 years (see that article's section on 'The Teaching of St. Augustine': "St. Augustine and the African Fathers believed that unbaptized infants share in the common positive misery of the damned, and the very most that St. Augustine concedes is that their punishment is the mildest of all, so mild indeed that one may not say that for them non-existence would be preferable to existence in such a state").

That sounds like a seminary test question: In 250 words or less, articulate and reconcile 1) the doctrine of Original Sin and 2) the practice of infant baptism, with 3) a belief that those souls who die in original sin without being burdened with grievous personal guilt (unbaptized infants) enjoy and will eternally enjoy a state of perfect natural happiness, without 4) resorting to limbus infantium.

Where would we post that as an essay contest at Christian Forums?

The short answer may be "God is good," but it would be interesting to read a full yet concise, well-articulated reconciliation.