This past Sunday, we had a baptism at MacGregor EMC. The more I think about it, the more I believe the event reflected a positive trend among the churches in our area. The young woman who was baptized has come to our church since she was a child. However, a fair amount of her extended family attends other churches in the area, as well. On top of this, this young woman attends a youth group put on by yet another church in town.

What this all combines to mean is that in attendance this past Sunday, to see this young woman take this big step in her faith, were by my count, members of at least four different churches who all cheered her on. This isn’t even mentioning the fact that the baptismal tank we used for the ceremony was borrowed from yet another local church, meaning they had a part in making this baptism happen as well.

The more I reflect on last Sunday, the more I am encouraged about the future of the church in our town. A major part of baptism is “joining the church” in a big sense, so to have so much of the area represented went a long way to demonstrating just that.

However, as I have found myself reflecting on this wonderful baptism over the past few days, my mind, as minds so often do, has found itself beginning to drift. Particularly I have begun to think about the fuller implications of what it means that a part of what baptism is about is joining the church. Here is where I have found myself going so far.

The denominations that believe in adult baptism (Anabaptists and Baptists in particular by my experience), tend to get a bit cagey when it comes to the topic of infant baptism. For me personally, drawn from my understanding of scripture, I would agree with the Anabaptist understanding of what baptism is supposed to be largely about. To overly summarize Anabaptist belief of the process that leads us to baptism:

• First, through the Holy Spirit at work in us, we come to the understanding that Jesus Christ is who He says he is: Someone who is fully human like all of us, but also fully God. As such by getting to know Jesus, we can at the same time get to know God. Reconciling God and humanity as we have not known since the fall.

• Second, when we come to believe this truth about our Lord, we should be baptized, and in doing so, we show the world that we are washed clean of our past lives, and are now starting fresh, in a new life spent with God; following as we are led.

Again, while that is a very quick summary of a very large topic, this would be generally how I understand scripture to speak of what should lead us to our baptism, as well as the largest part of baptism’s purpose. Especially in how Baptism is presented in Mathew 3 with the baptism of Jesus, as well as in Acts 8 with the baptism of the Ethiopian Eunuch, I see this process play out. Both of these men (especially Jesus) clearly already are fully aware of who God is and what he has done and are then baptized in response to that knowledge, marking a new life going forward

However, in both of these Biblical stories of baptism, there is also that other element in play that we need to take into consideration, as well. The same element that I would say was most clearly on display at the baptism at MEMC this past Sunday. These two baptisms in Scripture, and all the other times it is referred to as well, serve also as a kind of initiation for the baptismal candidate into the church. It is not a coincidence that the first story we read of Jesus before he begins his ministry is that of his baptism. Beginning a new life in Christ, as we said baptism signifies, means that you are also beginning a new life in the Church. From a Biblical standpoint, to follow God is inseparable from being a member of his church, and so in baptism, the act where we say goodbye to our old life and choose to follow Christ with all that we are going forward, very much so we are also marking our formal entry as members into the church as well.

And, to summarize millennia of church doctrine very quickly, this is the understanding that underpins Infant Baptism. Most Christians today, the same as 1700-1800 years ago when infant baptism was first beginning to be practiced, are likely to have first been introduced to the church not because they were converted from something else, but instead because they were simply born into it. These newborn Christians, then the same as now, are likely to spend most, if not all, of their formative years in the church. So who is to say they are any less members of the church than their parents are? And so, if a major part of Baptism is that it acts as an initiation into the church, why wouldn’t you baptize children at birth if from the day they come into this world they are an intricate part of their congregation’s life?

Agree with the practice of Infant Baptism or not, if your theological understanding of baptism is that it is primarily about being initiated into the membership of the church, then it does make sense to baptize infants. That baptism is in part about being initiated into the membership of the church is not something those that hold to adult baptism even disagree with. That element of baptism is clearly seen in scripture. It is instead that those who hold to adult baptism typically see the other elements of baptism, namely it being a response to an understanding of who Jesus is, as necessitating that initiation into the membership as coming later in life.

And it is here where my thinking on the subject has ended me, at least so far. For while theologically I agree with Adult Baptism, I do so while also recognizing that Infant Baptism makes a lot more sense of what it practically means to be a member of the church by most people’s lived experience. While I am not saying we Anabaptists should start practicing Infant Baptism anytime soon, I will say that by making the choice not to, we have ended ourselves in a predicament without meaning to. Because plainly put, to churches that practise Adult Baptism, until you are baptized, you are not theologically considered a full member of the church. What this means is that one of the big differences between churches that practice Adult Baptism as compared to those that practice Infant Baptism, is that in the former its children are not thought of theologically as its members, while in the latter they are.

And here I recognize that to some extent, this is the role that baby dedications try to fill in Anabaptist churches. A baby dedication is a ceremony in which a new infant is blessed, and the parents and congregations together agree to raise the child as Christian. While I recognize that this goes a long way to addressing what is lost by not baptizing our infants, I am not altogether sold that it makes up the difference completely.

To be considered a member of something means that not only do you have a stake in that thing, but more importantly, it has a stake in you. To be a member of something means that the thing you are a member of has an obligation to care for your needs the same as all its other members. To be a member of something means in its eyes you are valuable in and of yourself, and not just because of what you will one day become or because of who your family is.

It is not that children should be involved in the day to day running of the church (obviously not, they are children), but instead, I am trying to recognize that it is for the membership of an organization that most decisions are typically made. As such, it should be expected that the fact that children are not theologically considered full members in churches that practise adult baptism will have its repercussions in how they are regarded by those same churches. This is not even getting into extraordinary situations like people with cognitive-developmental disorders who are often unlikely to be baptized as an adult either way. With infant baptism, theologically these people are recognized as being full members of the church. With adult baptism, often they won’t be and that will likely come with repercussion.

Again, I am not saying that we Anabaptists should go back to Infant Baptism, nor am I saying that our church has an issue on this front that we need to address. Instead, where my thoughts have ended me so far is simply that on this front, I do wonder if there should be some deeper reflection as to what impacts our belief has on how we theologically understand and as such treat those who would otherwise be full members, but who in our churches are not.

I am sure as time goes by and I think of this more I will go other places, and I look forward to sharing where I get to with you when the time comes. But in the meantime, feel free to let me know what you think.