In the United Methodist Church, and many other Wesleyan tradition, Baptism is not understood to be something necessary for ones salvation. Baptism is discussed frequently here, and whether or not Baptism is necessary isn't the topic for today. The following is with the typical UM/Wesleyan understanding that God's grace is fully extended to both the Baptized and the Unbaptized.
In the ritual of Baptism, parents and/or sponsors are asked to care for and grow the children in the Christian faith. They are asked to affirm their own faith including a willingness to express their faith. Adults and those old enough to answer for themselves aren't a part of this discussion.
So here's the question I saw posed elsewhere, that I thought I'd bring here. In marriage, a great deal of scrutiny is usually used. Most Pastors I know won't just marry anyone anytime. They require pre-marital counselling and may even refuse to marry people who don't seem to have the right idea. For example, my mentor refused to marry a couple in their early 30's who both had been divorced more than 5 times (7 and 6 if I remember correctly), and had known each other only a couple of months; having met at a bar and admitted to beginning a relationship with each other whilst both were still in committed relationships with someone else. During the pre-marital session it was discovered that this same theme was the cause of more than one divorce each time. In fact, cheating on one spouse and marrying the new lover is something they had BOTH done. Now none of these things are irrepentable, of course. But when they had known each other only a short while, and couldn't demonstrate any reason that they would be different this time (the reasons were not repentant, the reasons were "I love this one more than the others so I'd never cheat on them", in other words, it's my partners responsibility to remain loveable, not my responsibility not to cheat); my mentor refused to marry them. It hurt some feelings, I'm sure, but it wasn't something he could in good conscious do. He, like me, believes that the church is not a drive-thru wedding chapel.
So, it begs the question, should Baptism be handled with the same scrutiny? And note, it's not sin I'm talking about (are they good enough to be Baptised), but whether or not they are actually making a commitment. I've Baptized children of folks who probably hadn't been in church since THEY were Baptized. I'm not confident they had any real faith in God beyond a passing thought, and I haven't seen them since. I've also baptized the grandchildren of faithful people whose children (the childs parents) were not religious. In both situations, the Baptism was more of a 'family ritual', than something that meant something to their faith. The kids all got baptized, and all got their first haircuts and Jenny's Barber Salon on main street. You know, just the sort of stuff you do.
What are your thoughts? Given a climate of religious consumers, should we use more scrutiny in Baptism? The person who posed this question suggested not that we the Church should refuse, but that we should DIScourage, even if we wouldn't refuse, those who are not faithful. Even if they pretend to be and answer the questions correctly.
My own personal thought and practice, I'll continue to Baptize anyone who says "yes" to the questions (as prescribed in the BOW) I ask of them, and the children of those who answer "yes" to those questions. I believe Grace is at work in Baptism and although I do sort of feel a little bit of a struggle baptizing the children of families who haven't darkened a church door other THAN for Baptisms and Weddings, I don't believe God has given me the authority to make that call. God has called me to offer this child Baptism.
Your thoughts? Do you agree with this third party, who suggests we educated and discourage non-practicing nominally religious persons for getting their children Baptized? Or do you think we should continue Baptizing all who come forth hoping to create a connection that might turn a nominally religious person into a person of deeply committed faith?
In the ritual of Baptism, parents and/or sponsors are asked to care for and grow the children in the Christian faith. They are asked to affirm their own faith including a willingness to express their faith. Adults and those old enough to answer for themselves aren't a part of this discussion.
So here's the question I saw posed elsewhere, that I thought I'd bring here. In marriage, a great deal of scrutiny is usually used. Most Pastors I know won't just marry anyone anytime. They require pre-marital counselling and may even refuse to marry people who don't seem to have the right idea. For example, my mentor refused to marry a couple in their early 30's who both had been divorced more than 5 times (7 and 6 if I remember correctly), and had known each other only a couple of months; having met at a bar and admitted to beginning a relationship with each other whilst both were still in committed relationships with someone else. During the pre-marital session it was discovered that this same theme was the cause of more than one divorce each time. In fact, cheating on one spouse and marrying the new lover is something they had BOTH done. Now none of these things are irrepentable, of course. But when they had known each other only a short while, and couldn't demonstrate any reason that they would be different this time (the reasons were not repentant, the reasons were "I love this one more than the others so I'd never cheat on them", in other words, it's my partners responsibility to remain loveable, not my responsibility not to cheat); my mentor refused to marry them. It hurt some feelings, I'm sure, but it wasn't something he could in good conscious do. He, like me, believes that the church is not a drive-thru wedding chapel.
So, it begs the question, should Baptism be handled with the same scrutiny? And note, it's not sin I'm talking about (are they good enough to be Baptised), but whether or not they are actually making a commitment. I've Baptized children of folks who probably hadn't been in church since THEY were Baptized. I'm not confident they had any real faith in God beyond a passing thought, and I haven't seen them since. I've also baptized the grandchildren of faithful people whose children (the childs parents) were not religious. In both situations, the Baptism was more of a 'family ritual', than something that meant something to their faith. The kids all got baptized, and all got their first haircuts and Jenny's Barber Salon on main street. You know, just the sort of stuff you do.
What are your thoughts? Given a climate of religious consumers, should we use more scrutiny in Baptism? The person who posed this question suggested not that we the Church should refuse, but that we should DIScourage, even if we wouldn't refuse, those who are not faithful. Even if they pretend to be and answer the questions correctly.
My own personal thought and practice, I'll continue to Baptize anyone who says "yes" to the questions (as prescribed in the BOW) I ask of them, and the children of those who answer "yes" to those questions. I believe Grace is at work in Baptism and although I do sort of feel a little bit of a struggle baptizing the children of families who haven't darkened a church door other THAN for Baptisms and Weddings, I don't believe God has given me the authority to make that call. God has called me to offer this child Baptism.
Your thoughts? Do you agree with this third party, who suggests we educated and discourage non-practicing nominally religious persons for getting their children Baptized? Or do you think we should continue Baptizing all who come forth hoping to create a connection that might turn a nominally religious person into a person of deeply committed faith?
Last edited:
