We've just finished clearing up from a family lunch yesterday. After all the horrible things we've had over the last few weeks, from cancer to finerals, car crashes to meningitis rashes, we needed something good, and yesterday we had my son's baptism. It was a fabulous day, a properly happy event and he didn't even cry when he had the water poured over his head.
My church has started offering dedication ceremonies rather than infant baptisms if the parents would prefer it. Dedication ceremonies offer parents the chance to express their wish that their child will grow up in their faith, dedicate themselves to trying and the congregation of the church to supporting them. This gives the child the choice to make the decision to be baptised later on, when they are old enough to understand the choice.
Infant baptism on the other hand is the one baptism for the forgiveness of sin, undertaken by the parents on behalf of their child, who can if they wish choose confirmation when they get older as their expression of it. Equally they can be rebaptised as an adult. Or not. Whatever. It's the accepting Jesus bit that matters.
Traditionally families baptise children as a sign that they are going to bring them up in a certain faith. Some undoubtably choose it because its "traditional" and they don't want a more secular naming ceremony (just as many choose a traditional church wedding over a 20 minute civil ceremony no matter where they actually stand on faith and church attendance).
We chose infant baptism because we could most easily explain the choice to family - dedication is fairly new to the Church of England - but I'm interested to know what you think...
Is it right to baptise your child effectively without their consent?
Does it make a difference if you intend to actively bring your child up in that faith?
|
|
| Views: 257
Email This to a Friend 
