When you recite the Apostles’ Creed and say, “I believe . . . .”

“The man or woman in the early centuries of the Christian tradition who with great seriousness and excitement said ‘I believe’ and then repeated the Christian community’s confession of faith was not attempting to state the personal beliefs of a private individual. On the contrary, the primary intention and meaning of that affirmation was to identify herself or himself as a participating member of a community and a tradition, both of which were quite objective to the individual and, in fact, formative of that individual’s new life.

“Fundamental, important beliefs thus point not so much to a private subjective world as they point to some historical tradition and to the community that bears that tradition and lives from or within it. The symbolic contents of the creed, what was believed, were thus actually more creative of the individual’s inner or subjective life than the reverse; and that public content had that crucial shaping role because it was, in turn, the significant factor creative of the tradition in question, of the community in which every individual lived and acted, of the ‘world’–nature, history, the divine–surrounding the persons in that tradition and community.

“‘Belief’ on the deepest level has reference to the symbolic forms that structure the perspectives, the norms, and thus the life of objective historical communities. This is evident enough in religious communities where there is an explicit correlation or coherent unity among beliefs about reality (expressed in a creed or its equivalent), rules or law covering ordinary behavior, rituals and practices, and thus a total and all-encompassing style of life shared by the whole community.

“To say ‘I believe’ in that context is first of all to associate oneself as participant on the deepest level in such an objective religious and yet also social world borne by a given historical religious tradition and embodied in both the inner and the outer life of each member of that community.”

Langdon Gilkey, Message and Existence. An Introduction to Christian Theology (Minneapolis: Seabury, 1979), 24-25. (Emphasis added.)

The Covenant and Infant Baptism

a sermon by Calvin P. Van Reken*
Scripture reading: Genesis 17 and Galatians 3

Today in the church there are many people who wonder why we baptize infants. Even some who are Christian Reformed think it acceptable, maybe even preferable, to dedicate babies. But we didn’t dedicate Austin John this morning – he was baptized. God is the one who acts in baptism, the minister is only God’s agent.

This morning Austin's parents did not dedicate him to God. No, this morning God did something, God claimed Austin as His very own child. Dedication is something we do. Baptism is something God does.

This morning I want to tell you why children, even infants, receive baptism. In telling you about this I will need to touch on what baptism means. For this I will need to explain the broader context, the greater reality, of which baptism is a part. Let me start, though, with the underlying reason why so many people today struggle with infant baptism. That reason is that our society is radically individualistic. The church and popular theology have been significantly affected by this individualism.

Radical Individualism

At the beginning of its European immigrant origins, America was settled populated with people who were willing to leave the familiar surroundings of villages and cities, of family and friends, to come to the New World; striking out on their own where the success and failure, life and death, would be almost entirely up to their individual abilities. They did not and could not count on any social network to support them. It was up to each individual to make it in the world. Of course, there was cooperation, but it only worked when it was to everyone’s benefit. “If I can get ahead by working with you, or helping you, then I’ll do it, but not simply because of other social ties, not because you live in my village or even because we are related.”

What developed then was a society where the individual’s decisions were the most important in determining the course of that person’s life. A society in which social ties were largely based on individual self-interest. You can see the effects of this today: while counties in Europe have become increasingly socialistic, setting up programs so that everyone has health care, retirement income, education, and the like. The US has been very reluctant to follow Europe’s example. (I’m not here making any claim about whether that’s good or bad, just that the US is different.)

We can see this radical individualism in our own attitudes, too. It’s possible, even common, in the US for one family member to be quite wealthy, and his brothers and sisters to just struggle to get by. You may have some very wealthy friends, but they probably have never given you any money. Our idea is that each person is responsible for his or her own success and failure, even members of the same family.

It’s quite different other places. In parts of Africa, if one family member starts a business and has success, all his family members, relatives, even fellow tribes members will come to him with expectations of help. One person cannot succeed unless everyone in his clan does. This makes it very hard to succeed, to build and accounts in part for some of the financial troubles in Africa.

The reason people have a problem with infant baptism

Now, what does this have to do with infant baptism? Well, individualism says each person stands or dies on his/her own merits. Apply that to Christianity and it means each person as an individual stands or falls on his/her own. It isn’t your family, or relatives, or church that secures your salvation, you must do it yourself.

Wait a minute, though, we Protestants know the basic teaching of salvation that it is not earned at all, it is by God’s grace in Jesus Christ through faith. The requirement on our part is to have faith, so radical individualism concludes each individual must have personal faith to be saved. Now little children do not have any faith in Jesus, a three month old can hardly frame even simple ideas, he’s not at a stage of basic recognition of what is familiar and what is not. The fact that small infants can’t have any faith in Jesus seems to imply that they can’t be saved–so they shouldn’t be baptized.

Let me make it clear, the main reason people in the US object to baptizing infants is due to the influence of radical individualism which says each and every individual needs to have faith of his or her own to be saved. Now, while radical individualism may be a good way to think if you want a prosperous society, it isn’t the basis for how God thinks or acts. So let’s consider the account in the Bible in which God explains how he planned to save us.

God’s Deep and Wide Covenant

In Genesis 17, God confirms his covenant with Abraham. A covenant is sometimes said to be like a contract where each party promises something and agrees to some conditions. A person could have a contract to supply windows for a new house, that’s his side of the deal and in return he will get paid. But we didn’t really have a contract with God Almighty; he simply announces what he will do and what our responses to Him must be.

Look at what God says in verse 7 of Genesis 17. “I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you.” Here you should note four things. First, that God establishes his covenant. It isn’t contingent on Abraham, it doesn’t depend on his descendants, God establishes it. Second, it is an everlasting covenant, it is established by God. He makes it and he will never let go of the promises included in it. Third, one promise that God makes is that he will be Abraham’s God. That is, Abraham will belong to God. This is a promise of salvation. Fourth and important for us this morning as we consider infant baptism, the covenant is not just between God and Abraham but “Abraham and his descendants for the generations to come.”

God doesn’t just think in terms of individuals, his eye is on whole generations of a family. God not only makes promises to living persons, but to future generations. His covenant grace is deep; it is generational.

The idea is rather simple, really. Remember, being in the covenant means you belong to God. Now suppose someone, say Bob, is a rancher and Bob owns a herd of cattle that roam around the range. They all have Bob’s brand on them. One day Bob is out checking his herd and he finds that some new calves were born. Now consider this: to whom do the calves belong? Is this a hard question? Bob doesn’t think, “When these calves grow up I can buy them.” He doesn’t worry that they don’t have his brand on them. Rather he rounds up the new calves and puts his brand on them, they belong to him. Infant baptism is God putting his name on a child who belongs to him. He is claiming a child as his own. He shows us that the child is in the covenant.

In Genesis 17, God goes on to tell Abraham that the sign of this everlasting covenant is to be circumcised. Each of Abraham’s male descendants must receive circumcision when they are eight days old. This was branding them physically so that they would be identifiable as belonging to God. And Abraham is told not just to circumcise his own sons, but anyone in his household.

Listen to Genesis 17:13 – “Whether born in your household or bought with your own money they must be circumcised.” You see, the covenant extends not only to Abraham and his sons but to anyone that belongs to Abraham. It makes since, what belongs to Abraham, belongs to God, because all belongs to God.

God’s covenant of grace not only deep, extending through all generations, it is also wide. It includes even those who are not, physically speaking, the children of Abraham. And right after explaining circumcision to Abraham, God goes on to make it clear that girls and women are in the covenant too. He tells Abraham that her name will not be Sarah; He gives her a new name. Who gave you your name? Wasn’t it your parents? The ones you belong to? So by renaming Sarah, God makes it clear that Sarah is also in God’s covenant.

So God’s plan of salvation is to make a covenant with Abraham, to be His God to save him and his wife, his sons, his daughters, his servants; down through the generations, long after Abraham himself is dead. God’s salvation extends to all who are connected to Abraham,

Covenant “connections”

Now this seems to our ears rather unfair. Why should Abraham’s great grandson be included in God’s covenant, while some other person’s grandchild is not included? It would be fairer to let each person decide for himself or herself whether he or she wants to be in the covenant. Then it would be each person’s choice rather than what ancestral connections you have. You see, our radical individualism finds a flaw in God’s plan. Salvation is too important; it shouldn’t be based on what connections you have.

The fact is, though, that a lot of other important things that happen to a person are because of their connections to others, not because of any individual choice. My great grandparents packed up and left the Netherlands and moved to the US. As a result, I am a citizen of the USA, not the Netherlands. I’m a member of the CRC, not the Protestant Church of the Netherlands. I went to Calvin College, not the Free University in Amsterdam. My parents decided to live in the suburbs of Chicago, so I cheer for the Chicago Bears and the Bulls and the Blackhawks. Not for the Detroit Lions, Pistons, or Red Wings. When the University of Michigan plays Michigan State, I hope they both lose.

All of these facts about me can be traced to a decision that my great grandparents made, I had no voice in their choice, but it had a great effect on my life. It’s true in all our lives that who we are connected to makes a lot of difference.

It’s also true in the Bible. Consider how the fortunes of Israel would ebb and flow depending on what sort of king they had. If they had an evil king, they would soon have trouble in their lives. God’s judgment affected the whole nation. Foreign peoples would invade and threaten Israel or Judah. Living under a bad king meant a more difficult life, perhaps even an early death.

A second and important case in the Bible is the fall into sin. When Adam and Eve sinned, every one of their descendants, including you and me, was seriously affected. Our lives were altered for the worse, far worse. Instead of loving God and each other, we are born with a disposition to hate God and to hate others.

We got this disposition to be self-centered and fearful because of a decision of Adam and Eve. But we had no part of it, did we? We weren’t back there in the garden, chosing to sin against God. Why should we have to suffer so because of the decision of someone else? Well, because we are connected to Adam and Eve, they are our parents and what they decide has effects for us. So the idea that Abraham’s descendants are favored by being included in the covenant with God, even though they didn’t choose it fits a pattern we know. God does not deal with us based only/primarily on the choices we each make individually. He works with families, communities, nations, and humankind as a whole.

If we now look at Galatians 3, we can see how God’s covenant was advanced perfectly in Jesus Christ.

Connected to Jesus by faith

Jesus, a descendant of Abraham, came into our sinful mess and lived a perfect life; he died as a sacrifice for the sins of those who belong to God and he rose again. The connection that matters for salvation is not a blood connection to Abraham, but a faith connection to Abraham’s seed, believing not just that he died but that he’s living today. Such faith connects us to him and all the promises and benefits that he has earned--salvation, peace, joy, contentment, an eternal home. These belong to us as well because we are connected to him. We are not physical descendants of Jesus – our connection is not one of blood – our connection is by faith.

That brings us back to the question, though; don’t we each individually need to have faith to be connected to Jesus? To be baptized? The straight answer is – NO.

Remember God works through families and communities; families with a true faith, communities of faith. What belongs to a family of faith and to a community of faith – belongs to God. Sometimes a person will reject the faith of his or her family and break off any connection with the community of faith. When that happens, we don’t know exactly what to say. God knows who belongs to him – we can’t always tell, but usually we can. A child in a Christian home is a child of the covenant – there’s faith in that home. A family or a person who chooses to identify with a community of faith – there’s faith there, too.

The problem with our radical individualism is that it robs us of the comfort and consolation of God’s grace so often because we know ourselves too well – our sin and lack of faith to be comfortable with the idea that our future condition and our eternal destiny depends on us. If you are baptized into Christ Jesus your connection to him by faith is what makes all the difference.

The child that was baptized this morning is too little to have his own faith yet. Someday you may be too old and perhaps you may not be able to remember who you are. Sometimes even now you may be overwhelmed and wonder whether you have faith.

Remember, what matters is that you belong to Jesus, that you are connected to him, not just as an individual, but because you are a member of his family. You have been baptized, and God has placed the mark of his ownership on you. So even when your faith wavers, or your mind wanders, or your life seems headed in the wrong direction, you need to that you belong body and soul to your faithful Savior, Jesus Christ. This is our only comfort in life and death.

*Dr. Van Reken delivered this sermon at Beckwith Hills Christian Reformed Church, Grand Rapids, Michigan, earlier this year.