# Rodeo Baptisms...Were These Children Legitimately Baptized?



## goodnews (Aug 26, 2010)

I will admit that we giggle a little at our church when talking about the scenario I'm about to lay out. But lately, I'll admit that it has begun to worry me a little. I'd love any opinion (humorous is fine, but would love some serious assertions too) that you may have.

On two separate occasions, during the last couple of years, I have had the privilege of baptizing the children of new members. I did my due diligence by meeting with the families previously and explaining to ALL of them what baptism was. Only one of the children, from either family, was ready to make a public profession of faith, so I baptized all the others a s non-communicant members. The concern I have lies with only two of the children. One, was an 11 year old boy with a pretty severe case of autism, and the other was a 6 year old girl who is a bit "testy" I suppose. For whatever reason it seemed logical to baptize the oldest children first and both times the oldest two children's baptisms went off w/o a hitch. But, both times, whenever I got to the youngest children described above, they both panicked and ran. And when I say panicked and ran I mean that conservatively. The best I could do in both occasions (not wanting to perform a form tackle on either) was to gently grab them for a second and throw some water (w/o my hand or much water finding it's mark) on both of them while uttering the Trinitarian formula like and auctioneer.

Should I consider trying it again with these two children? I realize that it's not about me when the sacraments are administered. But, I wouldn't feel comfortable only taking a drop of wine and a crumb of bread during Communion while hearing the words of institution spoken incoherantly.

I'd love any thought, serious or otherwise.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Aug 26, 2010)

Legitimate? Yes. 

It sounds like you did the best you could. I don't know what more can be expected.


----------



## Scottish Lass (Aug 26, 2010)

A wriggling, wailing infant is legitimately baptized (among our Presbyterian brethren). As far as the words you spoke over them, they may not mean much more at six years than they do at six months, but the sign and seal is still administered, in my opinion.


----------



## Jack K (Aug 26, 2010)

Theologically, yes. I'd say these baptisms count. So you wouldn't want to do them over. A proper baptism does not depend on the amount of water, nor does a noncommunicant baptism depend on the willingness or attitude of the child.

Pastorally, you have a different issue, which you've probably considered. These kids are old enough to remember their baptisms, and the experience was unpleasant. Going forward, they may need extra assurance that God's promises to them count in spite of their reluctance. It's actually a good teaching point, when you think about it.

The main thing I wonder is this: In such a situation, would it be best not to do the baptism at that time, and instead try again another day with the child better prepared and more willing? That's a tough call to make on the spot, so I'm not at all suggesting you should feel down on yourself. But I wonder if, pastorally, the best way to care for such a child's heart at that age is to let him or her come back some other time. Make sure it's an encouraging experience. That might be inconvenient for the grandparents with their cameras, but caring for the child comes first. Could we do that in a way that doesn't confuse the issue of whose faith (it's the parents', not the kid's) is the basis for the baptism?

Again, having time to think about it is a nice luxury. But if it happened again, might that be a way to go?


----------



## goodnews (Aug 26, 2010)

Jack K said:


> Theologically, yes. I'd say these baptisms count. So you wouldn't want to do them over. A proper baptism does not depend on the amount of water, nor does a noncommunicant baptism depend on the willingness or attitude of the child.
> 
> Pastorally, you have a different issue, which you've probably considered. These kids are old enough to remember their baptisms, and the experience was unpleasant. Going forward, they may need extra assurance that God's promises to them count in spite of their reluctance. It's actually a good teaching point, when you think about it.
> 
> ...



Jack, I think you may be on to something. As i said in my original post I realize that the effectual nature of the sacrament has nothing to do with the officiant. I'm really more concerned with perception. Theologically we don't believe in the need for a second baptism. However, the Lord graciously stoops to our dullness (Calvin alluded to this often) in giving us rites that cater to that dullness. Even though everyone thought both instances were "cute" there's something to be said for the Word made visible and the words of institution. I certainly didn't want to embarrass anyone by chasing the children around the pews all morning or trying to place an asterisk on the moment. But, I believe the sacraments are very specific and profound. Did the scene make the sacrament look cheap? And yes, will those children (both of whom I love as their pastor) hear about this when they get older and desire to be baptized again? I don't tend to draw as many hard lines as many of my refomed brethren, but the sacraments are different. I don't believe most evangelicals understand them well, nor take them seriously enough today. I guess I know the answer to my questions already, but when faced with the tremendous task we have it just seemed right to ask. Plus, it's a cute story that I thought others might enjoy.


----------



## LawrenceU (Aug 27, 2010)

I am not trying to enflame anything, but I am genuinely curious. If a child is old enough to resist in that manner should not baptism wait until he can make a credible profession of faith?


----------



## Jack K (Aug 27, 2010)

LawrenceU said:


> I am not trying to enflame anything, but I am genuinely curious. If a child is old enough to resist in that manner should not baptism wait until he can make a credible profession of faith?



Not a bad question at all. In my experience, we paedobaptists deal with the question fairly often. As a guy who's been heavily involved in children's ministries in Presbyterian churches, I've argued more than once that a child who was going to be baptized based on his parents' faith ought to be examined and baptized as an "adult" instead. If he's old enough to profess Christ and know what that means, and if he's being trained in the Christian life (making him a disciple), why should he not be baptized as any other disciple based on Matthew 28?

Reformed paedobaptists generally prefer to wait until a covenant child is, perhaps, a young teen before suggesting a profession of faith. But what do you do with kids who come into the church as younger children not having been baptized? On the one hand, we believe we must not neglect baptizing our children. On the other hand, they seem a bit young to be asking them for the profession necessary for an adult baptism, and a bit old to be baptized as an infant. These are tough calls with three choices: Baptize as an infant, baptize as an adult, or wait. Sometimes, all three can feel uncomfortable for different reasons.

There are usually talks involving pastors/elders, parents, the child and maybe a Sunday school teacher. I've never been in one where a younger child expressed a reluctance to be baptized. However, I've been in a few such meetings where an older child thought he was old enough to make his own decision, but didn't feel quite ready to do so yet. In those cases we decided to wait. 

Baptists, of course, deal with similar issues in deciding when a child is "old enough," too.


----------



## goodnews (Aug 27, 2010)

Jack K said:


> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> > I am not trying to enflame anything, but I am genuinely curious. If a child is old enough to resist in that manner should not baptism wait until he can make a credible profession of faith?
> ...



Lawrence, I actually think that's a great question. And, I think Jack's take is very good, generally speaking. To be more specific in my situation, I had two excited couples who hadn't been to church since they were children, and their kids had never been to church. Both couples had been in our church a couple of years and were convinced of our covenantal understanding of the Church. To be perfectly honest what you're asking didn't occur to me or my elders, although in retrespect maybe it should have. At any rate, it surely was a learning experience for me. But, I probably wouldn't have handled it any differently, even with hindsight, except maybe I'd baptize the two "runners" first. 

However, it's even less cut and dry when you consider Dylan, whom as i said before, is autistic, and pretty severely so (I am by no means an expert on such cases and do not want to offend anyone here). According to man, he'll never be able to understand or articulate even the simplest of concepts. I fully believe that the Lord could help him make a credible profession of faith, but what if it doesn't happen in a way that's obvious to us? How do Credo-Baptists handle such situations (I'm not trying to enflame either, just curious as I think this is a worthwhile discussion)? Since Dylan is mentally a pre-schooler I think a good case could be made for him being baptized under his parents. I'd love to hear some more opinions.


----------



## Wannabee (Aug 28, 2010)

goodnews said:


> However, it's even less cut and dry when you consider Dylan, whom as i said before, is autistic, and pretty severely so (I am by no means an expert on such cases and do not want to offend anyone here). According to man, he'll never be able to understand or articulate even the simplest of concepts. I fully believe that the Lord could help him make a credible profession of faith, but what if it doesn't happen in a way that's obvious to us? How do Credo-Baptists handle such situations (I'm not trying to enflame either, just curious as I think this is a worthwhile discussion)? Since Dylan is mentally a pre-schooler I think a good case could be made for him being baptized under his parents. I'd love to hear some more opinions.


 
It's a legitimate question from a paedo perspective I think. I suppose it's easy to answer though. We would simply not baptize him unless he professed faith. There is no dilemma. If he is mentally not mature enough to articulate faith in Christ then he would be treated as any other infant; nurtured in the love of the Lord and entrusted to His providence. Salvation is not dependent upon physical baptism, so will have no bearing on his/her standing before God.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 28, 2010)

For a fast child who is running away, a long-range squirt bottle might help..but you gotta remember to lead your target a bit.


----------



## goodnews (Aug 28, 2010)

Wannabee said:


> goodnews said:
> 
> 
> > However, it's even less cut and dry when you consider Dylan, whom as i said before, is autistic, and pretty severely so (I am by no means an expert on such cases and do not want to offend anyone here). According to man, he'll never be able to understand or articulate even the simplest of concepts. I fully believe that the Lord could help him make a credible profession of faith, but what if it doesn't happen in a way that's obvious to us? How do Credo-Baptists handle such situations (I'm not trying to enflame either, just curious as I think this is a worthwhile discussion)? Since Dylan is mentally a pre-schooler I think a good case could be made for him being baptized under his parents. I'd love to hear some more opinions.
> ...



I think that's consistent and reasonable, Biblically speaking. I have been told by a Baptist minister that they would try to baptize such individuals. I guess I'm dealing with a higher quality of "credo" types over here. Thanks.

---------- Post added at 09:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:28 AM ----------




Pergamum said:


> For a fast child who is running away, a long-range squirt bottle might help..but you gotta remember to lead your target a bit.



 That's a good call as my aim definitely leaves something to be desired. But these two were using a more advanced zig-zag pattern of flight. I was thinking a Super-Soaker might suffice a tad better.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 28, 2010)

A trap door with in-ground pool underneath for reluctant credo kids.....


----------



## LawrenceU (Aug 28, 2010)

Pergamum said:


> A trap door with in-ground pool underneath for reluctant credo kids.....


 
Reminds me of the rural church where I once preached. The baptistry was in the floor right behind the pulpit. I mean right behind it. There was a hinged door that covered it when it was not in use. I think that is where I developed the habit of not standing directly behind the pulpit when I preach.


----------

