Babies! Babies EVERYWHERE!

We seem to be going through a mini population explosion just recently. It seems like everyone I know is having new grandchildren. Mostly girls, too. And I know you will say that it's ONLY girls who have babies but you know that's not what I meant. Not only are they popping out like apple fritters from Tim Horton's oven, but people keep approaching me to baptize their newborns. That is always a challenge for me. It always has been.

When I was being interviewed just prior to my ordination, the committee asked me three serious questions. The first was, "Are all your courses completed?" The answer was "No. But I'll get a B+ in that course anyway." I couldn't convince them and eventually had to provide written documentation of what I had asserted. I knew that professor and he gave everyone a B+ unless they actually died in his presence. (It was a course on "Death and Dying"). The second question was, "Would you be willing to shave off your beard and cut your hair in order to get a call to ministry?". I said that I would, if necessary, but I would hope it wouldn't be necessary. (It wasn't) The third question was not so much asked as thrown out in an off-hand way. "You don't have any hang-ups about anything like baptism or anything, do you?" I did. I said so. I wasn't given any time to explain since they were too concerned about my unfinished course and my beard and long hair. It was 1976. 'Nuff said.

Ever since then I have struggled with the concept of infant baptism. It was not the practice of the early church to baptize infants. Baptism was linked to a decision to devote your life to God and babies don't make decision that are intelligible to adults, as near as I can tell. There are many recorded instances of someone being baptized with "their entire household" which really consisted of wives, slaves, and children over the age of decision, which seemed to be about thirteen or so. Baptism was linked to conversion and conversion takes conviction and conviction takes confession and confession takes decision-making. I'm not suggesting that the wives, slaves or children had much say in the decision. They probably went along with whomever was in charge. Nonetheless, the option was theoretically there. Babies don't have that option.

I am convinced that it is the fault of men. Some man was pontificating one day about who would and would not be allowed into heaven. As proof-text of his opinion he lifted a Bible verse that said that only those who were baptized would be admitted. Some very astute and sensible woman in the congregation picked up on this and said, (I suspect with a tone of anguish) "What about my baby!!!???!!!" The man, being a man and not willing to back down from a public assertion, replied that what he had read in scripture was absolute and surely unbaptized babies were not getting in. To which, the astute woman said, "Then baptize my baby" and he did and we've been doing it ever since, despite the theological problems it entails.

Don't get me wrong. I like babies. Especially my darling Lily. I give thanks to God for almost every single one of them. I am appreciative of the whole process that brings babies into the world. I have seen a live birth (my son) and I judge it to be good, for whatever that is worth. I have also suffered through the loss of an unborn child and I judge that to be heart-breaking. I applaud those parents who wish to bring their child to church to give thanks for the gift of a live, ten-fingers and toes, smiles and giggles baby. I'm thrilled to be a part of their joy. But baptism for me is about making a public statement of faith at an age where I can commit myself to a cause I deem to be worthwhile. I want to baptize people with water at a point when they feel they have been baptized in the Holy Spirit. I'm big on the Holy Spirit. Mostly be cause the Holy Spirit has been very big on me at some key times in my life.

The church that I serve, being the United Church of Canada, calls baptism a "ritual of inclusion" by which they mean that the baptism makes the baby part of the "community of faith". Many years ago, the United Church did a remarkably good study of the problems, political and theological, that come out of baptism (and its sister act, confirmation). They reported, correctly, that the "split ritual" was theologically unsound; that the practice of infant baptism was non-scriptural; that it often caused hurt feeling and generational friction; that it was almost impossible to have a comprehensive policy on infant baptism given all the problems; and so, in a burst of true institutional genius, they recommended that we get rid of confirmation. Huh?!? To the church's credit, nothing ever came of the report. Like most reports, it was recieved with thanks, briefly studied, and shelved to make time on the agenda to rearrange those deck chairs (see the earlier blog on the Titanic).

So, thirty-four years after I was asked if I had any silly hangups about baptism, I still do. I also still do baptisms and I still try to reassure parents that what they are vowing in no way commits them to anything but to try their best to be good parents, which they would do anyway. In a few months, perhaps, I will be baptizing my darling Lily and probably crying like a baby through the whole thing. (Why not, I cried through her father's wedding) I've decided in the long run that the Holy Spirit (remember the Holy Spirit?) is far better equipped than I am to sort out theological points of order. I'll keep doing the baptisms because my church council and my church national encourages me to, by paying me. I'll reserve my judgement until I am in a position where I can KNOW instead of opine. That will be, I'm hoping, about thirty seconds after I die and reach paradise. With the late, great, George Carlin, I do hope that all the babies in Limbo got promoted, but I hope that they will be able to change their own diapers and feed themselves, or it just won't be heaven for me.