9 myths about baptism

Baptism is still considered by most denominations to be a very important moment; yet there is relatively little teaching about it in churches and much confusion about it still abounds. Here are 9 myths about baptism

baptism

Photo by ucb, reused under CC license

1. You have to be ready to be baptised.

Why is it a myth? Because we couldn’t get ourselves ready. We couldn’t make ourselves acceptable in the sight of God. The idea that you’d have to be a shining example of good behaviour before being allowed to get baptised, is just wrong.

So, you might tell me, “ah, but you have to know what you’re getting yourself into before you can make the decision”. A bit like knowing whom you’re marrying. And whilst there is some truth in that, the argument can be pushed to the extreme: why not complete a doctorate in theology before making the decision?
Within the Anglican church, a simple set of six questions is asked to candidates for adult baptism. They’re simple enough and they are most definitely sufficient. I would even argue they ask too much, in too theologically loaded phrasing, and that the word “candidate” in that setting is incredibly misused (as if you could fail at baptism!)

We love, because God loved us first. That love is not conditional upon our actions, our theological knowledge, or any such thing. The same goes for baptism: as soon as we are able to recognise that love and where it comes from, we are as ready for baptism as we’re going to be.

2. Once you’re baptised, you stop sinning.

If only! Baptism is no magic wand. It is not something that turns you instantly from a sinner into a saint. It marks symbolically the start of the sanctification process, the death to the old self and the birth to the new self. But being baptised does not make us perfect. Church remains a hospital for sinners rather than a museum of saints.
Crucially, though, thinking that sin stops after baptism reinforces the (wrong) idea that you have to be ready for baptism: ready to give up sin, and strong enough to do so. But all that is asked is a willingness to do so – to turn to Christ and to realise that we have something better to hold on to.

3. Baptism is, first and foremost, an opportunity for evangelism.

I have heard that one before, and more than once. Some churches encourage this by getting the baptised-to-be to give a testimony of how they came to Christ at the baptismal service. It is true that baptism is a public affirmation of a private change.Yet imagine the same sentence with “baptism” replaced by “marriage”. Or “Christmas”. It would sound weird to treat either of these occasions as primarily opportunities for evangelism. It is true that they are moments when unchurched people may attend a service; and as such they do constitute opportunities for evangelism. But that’s not what they are about.
Just so with baptism. Leaving the God-directed part of baptism, the commitment to God out of it, makes baptism a hollow shell.

4. Baptism is a private affair.

Faith can be seen as a private affair in secular countries. On top of that, baptism is something very intimate, and personal: it can be seen as either the start or a significant stage at least in a very personal journey. Therefore, some could argue, baptism should remain between me and God, and whosoever is baptising me.
If baptism were private, though, it would be a private affirmation of a private change: in other terms, it would simply be a validation of what has already happened. A bit like receiving your degree certificate through the post. Is that validation necessary, though? Considering baptism as something private is both giving the event too much importance, and the process of sanctification too little.

5. If it’s not full immersion, it doesn’t count.

A lot of modern, evangelical churches insist on baptism being full immersion. I find that quite ironic, given the same churches’ reticence to follow set liturgy, but are so deadly intent on doing other things the “proper way”. Yes, βαπτίζω, whence we get the word baptism, does mean “immerse”. And yes, symbolically, full immersion implies the entire person, body and mind; and therefore reflects the fullness of the commitment made to Christ in baptism. And refusing full immersion for the sake of keeping your sinning hand from this commitment denotes a lack of willingness to submit to Christ altogether!
But while full immersion should not be shunned, it should not necessarily be insisted on: the apostles gave specific guidance on baptism, which recognises baptism by affusion as a proper way to proceed, and suggests other parts to baptism which aren’t really adhered to; and – most importantly, what is it supposed to count for?

6. If it’s not said with the proper words or by the right person, it doesn’t count.

This is the opposite end of the low/high-church spectrum. There is an authorised liturgy for baptisms in the Church of England – but this is more for the sake of unity than on theological grounds (I hope!). After all, in all that, the same as above applies: what is it supposed to count for?

7. Baptism is not really important, so it doesn’t matter whether you get baptised or not.

This is a tough one. If baptism is not what you get saved by, why the hell should you get baptised? After all, it’s not like you’re going to stop sinning afterwards…
While you’re at it, why should you take communion? Or worship?

And it is true – some denominations do not practise baptism. But then the question comes up: why did Jesus get baptised? What was the point, other than showing us the way, and marking his acceptance by his Father?

Baptism is a mark of submission, it is a step forward, an important stage in a journey – and a public commitment to which we can be held to account. That, in itself, makes baptism important – without even needing to use scripture as back-up.

8. Baptism is so important that if you don’t get baptised, you’ll rot in hell. Therefore, babies should be baptised.

Again at the opposite end of the spectrum, some denominations hold that baptism is necessary for salvation; and therefore baptise babies just to make sure they will make their way to heaven. Yet grace, not baptism, is what saves us. And that grace is through faith, not through baptism. (And, in any case, those who are saved were predestined… what? :-P )

9. Infant baptism is an abomination/plainly repugnant to the Bible

While infant baptism seems to suggest that salvation is obtained through reception of sacraments, it is not necessarily the theology behind the practice. Baptism denotes more than a one-way process where an individual declares their informed decision to follow Christ. It also marks a welcome into the Christian church; and there is no reason to withhold that welcome from children. How Jesus deals with children goes a long way to show that.

What are your thoughts? How do you see baptism?

Michael

Using marriage as something analogous to baptism feels odd. Perhaps renewing your vows. Now then you aren’t there to get married. Nor are you doing anything legalistic. You’re doing it perhaps to show each other that you’re ready to re-commit to a marriage or perhaps to just tell everyone you know that you want to commit your life to this person. In the same way i think baptism can be about you and Jesus and also can be about you and others. We’re doing it because Jesus told us to. But then why did he tell us to? Was it to earn ourselves a place? no, that’s done for us. Was it to wash away our sins? no, the spirit does that the moment we become Christians. So why, then? Well, to tell others about Jesus. To tell them of the amazing things he did in our lives and to commit to him, but to do so publicly.

I’m not sure i’m exactly saying that it’s reason #1. But i’m not saying it’s not. I don’t know exactly what i think but i think if it isn’t #1 it should be very high on the list… What do you think??
- FishyInc
  
  what happens when in a country where Christians are persecuted and sentenced to death just for being Christian? Public baptism is then obviously impossible without causing a few deaths and trouble with authority… but are they then to not be baptised?
  
  more food for thought ;)
  - http://edsslipper.net/ Pierre
    
    Roman Catholics have an interesting answer to that: see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_of_desire
    
    Anyway, I didn’t necessarily mean “public” as an open-doors event; I just meant that it shouldn’t be just you and the baptiser. Those circumstances don’t prevent that (in most cases!)
- http://edsslipper.net/ Pierre
  
  I used marriage as an analogy, because in many ways it reflects it: the relationship with Christ is already there, and it becomes “official”. But few people will say their wedding is to bring people to church, or to get mutual families to meet – weddings are first and foremost, as far as I’m concerned, about the happy couple :-) Also, just like you can renew your wedding vows, you can renew your baptismal vows (and are encouraged to do so!)
  
  Your series of questions applies to Communion by the way (the one rite that Jesus actually instituted!) – it’s not earning us a place, it’s not washing away our sins (I know, subject to debate, but let’s not get onto transsubstantiation), but it’s not to tell others about Jesus either (or else, we’re doing it wrong!) It’s in rememberance – an attitude and a direction towards Christ which the event focuses.
  
  Like I said, though, it IS an opportunity for evangelism – and if it can be grasped, then do it, by all means! But don’t belittle your baptism as just another evangelistic event. (Again, sorry I can’t be there :( )
http://www.facebook.com/mikael.mayer Mikaël Mayer

Good article. I love most of the points, they are very coherent.

The prophet Moroni in the Book of Mormon adds the following comment about baptism :
“25 And the first fruits of repentance is baptism; and baptism cometh by faith unto the fulfilling the commandments; and the fulfilling the commandments bringeth remission of sins;
26 And the remission of sins bringeth meekness, and lowliness of heart; and because of meekness and lowliness of heart cometh the visitation of the Holy Ghost, which Comforter filleth with hope and perfect love, which love endureth by diligence unto prayer, until the end shall come, when all the saints shall dwell with God.
(Moroni 8:25-26)

So all is connected. As you say, if you get baptised, you just put yourself in the right way. It is good to know what kind of path it is, but the most important point is to believe, i.e. to trust the church you are also entering into. That way you can benefit from the grace of God.
- http://edsslipper.net/ Pierre
  
  Cheers Mikaël.
  Yes, everything is connected – and baptism does have a place somewhere in all of it. It’s hard to work out exactly which place that is, and whether it constitute the “first” fruits of repentance is probably more contentious; and, again, I would very much disagree that it is “the fulfilling the commandments” thant brings remission of sins…
  
  That said, it is this kind of disagreement on where exactly baptism comes in relation to faith and to works, that leads to variance in practices, eg regarding infant baptism; and being dogmatic about it is probably going to just reinforce misunderstandings :-/
  
  So yeah, the important part is in the attitude: to turn (repent!) to Christ and trust in him; and baptism is an expression – but just one expression! – of that faith!
Eddie R

i view baptism as a normative event, as Paul assumes his readers have been baptized when he writes to them. Baptism, as either an appeal to God or a response to God is appropriate for adults. It images our willing death to self, and rising to live our lives to God. Children cannot do that, and therefore, the rite is largely pointless for them. While it cannot be an absolute requirement, it remains the normative method of returning to God.
- http://edsslipper.net/ Pierre
  
  Thanks for your comment Eddie, and welcome to this blog :-)
  
  Baptism *is* normative. I’ve got a very good friend who tells me that’s the criterion to say whether someone is Christian or not (when pushed to decide). Baptised is how every Christian “ought” to be. But do we need such a norm? Is there a point in it, or is it simply leading to an “us vs them” sort of situation? (which James sternly warns us about, as does Col 3:11!)
  
  So baptism is more than that. And yes, death to the old self and the putting on of the new self is one of the symbols associated with baptism, but by no means the only one (cleansing springs to mind). Even so, why can children not die to their old self willingly? Is that, maybe, because they are not dead to their transgressions (Eph 2) yet? If so, when does that death happen? What’s the age where people can get baptised? (or the life event, etc.?)
  
  Of course that ties in with plenty of deeper topics, especially original sin (not to mention predestination, of course!) – so it’s not an easy one to answer!
- Michael
  
  I think it is largely this that has led to the term ‘believers baptism’ becoming quite widely used. My church does this thing where parents bring in their babies and ‘commit’ them to God, almost promising before him that they’ll raise their children as Christians. I think this is a great way forwards.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Stephen-Wigmore/61311392 Stephen Wigmore

About infant baptism I would make the point that although obviously literal infants are not old enough to understand their faith, young children are often perfectly capable long before the traditional time for confirmation or presumably ‘adult’ baptism. I personally can definitely remember having perfectly solid views about my faith by at most the age of 6 and I would certainly not consider my faith today any better than that then. More sophisticated and complicated perhaps, but in no way better, in fact in various ways worse, in precisely the manner Jesus himself stated.
- http://edsslipper.net/ Pierre
  
  Quite, Stephen. Quite.
  Mayhaps we’re better equipped now to answer difficult questions, but whether these questions should be relevant at all is a completely different matter.
  Mayhaps we haven’t taken the time, at age 6, to weigh in the historical evidence; but I don’t think it is necessary to be intellectually convinced that God exists to be able to turn to him; just in the same way that it’s not necessary to be intellectually aware that we are the offspring of our parents to consider them as our parents.
Jen

This is something I’ve been thinking about. Being CofE, I was baptised as a baby, and then confirmed at 17. Somewhere in between I became a Christian but can’t pinpoint it. However, with the recent influx of baptisms at Warwick, the fact I haven’t been baptised as an adult has come up, and I’ve got the impression people think confirmation is inferior, whereas it is also a way of publically declaring what I believe so I’m not sure…
Pingback: Are Christian Unions detrimental to the furthering of the Kingdom? « Ed's Slipper

Ed's Slipper

About predestination and smaller matters

9 myths about baptism