"From Life's First Cry"; a liturgical introduction to infant baptism.
For reasons which become apparent as this series of 'blog' articles unfolds I have decided to start towards the back of Lee Gatiss' booklet "From Life's First Cry: John Owen on infant baptism and infant salvation".
In Appendix 3 is a suggested liturgical introduction to a baptismal service for infants which includes the following paragraph "God said to Abraham in Genesis 17 that the promises he signed and sealed through circumcision were for Abraham and also for his children - that he would be their God and they would be his people. Hence the children of believers were circumcised as babies under the Old Covenant". The next paragraph starts "this privilege has never expressly been taken away from our little ones..." etc.
Firstly a general observation; it is interesting that circumcision here is placed in the context of the Abrahamic Covenant rather than the Mosaic Covenant which is generally where the New Testament writers and their antagonists placed it. Surely the logic of this Abrahamic association is for a continuation of circumcision into the NT era and yet there clearly is some sort of discontinuity over circumcision as the NT era dawns.
Secondly; it seems a bit of a stretch to assert that it was "believers" who had their children circumcised under the Old Covenant. One immediately thinks of the pharisees who were assiduous about all matters of the law and undoubtedly had their children circumcised - surely they and their predecessors wouldn't be described as "believers". Conversely Timothy was raised in a Godly household and wasn't circumcised!
Thirdly, isn't it the case that people may have their child circumcised for more cultural reasons than as an expression of faith? If we are to assume a covenantal relationship exists between God and the circumcised/baptised why limit the sacrament to "believers" anyway? The logic of the sacrament is that the baptised have a covenantal claim to have their children baptised whether they believe or not.
Fourthly; it strikes me that this liturgy blurs the distinction between the Abrahamic Covenant and the "Old Covenant" - it simply assumes that they are the one and the same when clearly they are not, Gal 3 draws a clear distinction.
In fairness I should add that when Lee introduces this liturgy he writes that this suggested format "no doubt has its shortcomings", and that it is not a formula he would use unthinkingly in every circumstance.
5 comments:
Pete,
Thanks for your typically thoughtful comments.
A couple of thoughts from me:
You write: Firstly a general observation; it is interesting that circumcision here is placed in the context of the Abrahamic Covenant rather than the Mosaic Covenant which is generally where the New Testament writers and their antagonists placed it.
Hmm, I am unconvinced: where the inspired writers do distinguish between the convenant made with Abraham and that made at Sinai (which is not always as clear as we might like), circumcision is placed with Abraham (which ought not to surprise us, since the OT does the same, and since circumcision was, in fact, given through Abraham not Moses).
That is, surely, part of the point of Romans 4: Having earlier raised the question of the value of circumcision (in 3:1), and having established that there is no distinction: all are alike under sin (3:8-20) and are alike justified by faith (3:21-31), Paul turns to address the relationship between circumcision and justification, and does so by turning to Abraham, because it is with Abraham that we see the basic pattern and meaning of circumcision.
Secondly; it seems a bit of a stretch to assert that it was "believers" who had their children circumcised under the Old Covenant. One immediately thinks of the pharisees who were assiduous about all matters of the law and undoubtedly had their children circumcised - surely they and their predecessors wouldn't be described as "believers". Conversely Timothy was raised in a Godly household and wasn't circumcised!
Timothy was not raised in a godly household: he was raised by a godly mother (& grandmother). He had not been circumcised because his father was a Greek (and presumably an unbeliever). We know that from Acts 16:1, which Luke then repeats two verse later in 16:3. So Timothy is clearly an anomalous case - which is why Paul rectifies the situation by circumcising him!
And as for referring to members of the people of God as "believers": Of course, not all of them were true believers, but it still makes sense to speak of them as a group as believers, just as it does with churches today. any number of church members may be, in actual fact, unbelievers, but since we cannot read people's hearts, we deal with professing Christians as believers unless and until they make it clear that they are not true believers by clearly acting in contradiction to their profession.
Thirdly, isn't it the case that people may have their child circumcised for more cultural reasons than as an expression of faith?
(If I were being blunt and rude, my response to that would be: "So what?", but, of course I am far too polite for that.)
The motives that people may have for an act, do not necessarily determine the nature of that act. People may get circumcised (or baptised) for purely cultural reasons, but that does not change the God-given meaning of circumcision (or baptism): it is still a sign and seal of God's covenant with His people.
If we are to assume a covenantal relationship exists between God and the circumcised/baptised why limit the sacrament to "believers" anyway? The logic of the sacrament is that the baptised have a covenantal claim to have their children baptised whether they believe or not.
I do not think that it is fair to say that that is the logic of the sacrament.
That would mean that baptism/circumcision created a covenantal relationship with God, but that is wrong, not least because that would be to make human being the decisive actors in the relationship, whereas the Scriptural language makes it clear that it is God who makes a covenant with people (see e.g. Gen 9:12, Gen 17:2, Dt 5:3, Isa 55:3, Isa 61:8, Jer 31:31, Jer 32:40 Ezek 34:25; the only exceptions that I am aware of to this pattern are Neh 9:38 & Ezra 10:3, but those do not concern a covenant that binds God).
Moreover, circumcision are signs and seals of God's covenant. They are not there to change one's relationship with God, but to mark it as what it is. We see that in Rom 4:11a "[Abraham] received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised."
In other words, God makes His covenant with His people by sovereign grace, the sign of which is either circumcision (B.C.) or baptism (A.D.), but the condition of receiving the benefits of that covenant is faith.
Fourthly; it strikes me that this liturgy blurs the distinction between the Abrahamic Covenant and the "Old Covenant" - it simply assumes that they are the one and the same when clearly they are not, Gal 3 draws a clear distinction.
But Galatians 3 does not use the language of the "Old Covenant" at all!
If the wording were simply changed to substitute "before Christ" for "under the Old Covenant", that would not materially change the meaning. Perhaps that would be better?
Hi Tim, Many thanks for your thought-provoking comments - I'll have to muse a bit more on these things.I doubt that this forum will resolve issues which have puzzled Christians for centuries and I don't rate this 'blog' any higher than my personal musings on an issue which baffles me. The central issue as I see it (and maybe I haven't expressed myself very clearly) is this; does circumcision/baptism in itself alter my relationship with God? There is a school of thought within Evangelical circles who would say 'yes' to thatquestion.
Post a Comment