Why We Baptized James

I mentioned some months ago that I would explain in greater detail why we chose to have James baptized at Pearce. The decision was difficult, and we spent many hours talking it over in much greater detail than I'll write here. I'm leaving out the whole question of infant baptism in the early church, not because it's unimportant, but simply because what we found on this terribly important question was so inconclusive. Eventually, these were the three big points for us in deciding to have James baptized:

1) God's salvation in Jesus has no efficient agent or action except Jesus. We came to see baptism as a true participation in his death and resurrection, not as a post-conversion proof of authenticity.

2) We came to see the meaning of baptism as "entrance into the covenant people." We are committed to James being en Christo, which is much less a matter of personal decision and responsibility than a conversion experience seems to be.

3) While we celebrate and rejoice with those who have had dramatic conversion experiences, we don't regard them as absolutely necessary. (Note: regular confession and repentance must be necessary, of course) We don't know what will happen to our little boy in 10 or 20 years (God help us as parents!) but we think it entirely appropriate to regard him as a Christian, a member of the body of Christ, having received his baptism for the remission of sin and participating in his death and resurrection with the Spirit. Baptizatus est.

This is all very general, and of course we uphold many other "volitional" practices (such as communion) in keeping with the traditions of those before us. Sometimes I remember back on this decision and think we made a lot of fuss over nothing, and sometimes I think the whole think was much too weighty for us and our feeble wisdom. Oremus invicem.