Ex Opere Operato!
A casual observer might wonder why I have taken such a keen interest in the subject of baptism. It isn't just that there is a school of thought called "Federal Vision" doing the rounds in Anglican Evangelical circles, my interest predates this. I am a Charge Nurse who has worked in children's intensive care for over a decade and a half. I have lost count of the number of infants I've seen die; not I hasten to add because our death rates are higher than anyone else's - it's just that I've been on this scene a long time! Not surprisingly I've puzzled over the subject of infant salvation and the related topic of the role of infant baptism.... or is it related?
There was an incident recently where the parents wanted their dying child baptised into the RC church. "In Extremis" it is not unknown for healthcare professionals to baptise infants - ironically I had to describe to an RC colleague what she would need to do to perform the rite.
As I understand it, according to Canon Law 861, an RC baptism is only valid in such circumstances if the person performing the rite does so with the "requisite intention", ie does the healthcare professional intend what the Church intends by the act? This seems, at face value, to be a denial of the principle of ex opere operato. How can anyone have assurance that they know what your intentions are?
The link between the parents faith and their child's salvation is broken by the intrusion of a third party, in the form an individual or institution, or so it seems to me. I have always taken the view that 1 Corinthians 7 v14, which indicates that the children of believers are "holy", is sufficient ground for assurance.
I have been challenged that such a stance "denies the sign" to the infant, a curious accusation. Yet it strikes me that Baptism does not make the child holy to the Lord but the parents faith does - in fact the rite is not mentioned in the Corinthian passage at all. In this circumstance I would not "deny" the parents the sign if that's what they want - but the sign of Baptism does not alter the childs status in God's sight one iota.
I suppose this begs the question as to who exactly is the sign aimed at? Is it for the infant's benefit, the parents', the Church's or God's? (And if you want to hedge your bets and say 'all of the above' we will need to unpick them individually!)
The use of the term Covenant in this context can be a bit confusing. God makes promises to mankind which can be called covenantal, fair enough. But sometimes the word does not mean a unilateral promise but implies a degree of conditionality - "I will do this, if you will do that..." So when the rite of Baptism is said to be 'covenantal' it raises some confusion, in my mind at least, as to what we are saying. Are we saying the infant's salvation turns on the rite of Baptism being performed correctly?
When I hear the word 'covenant' used in the context of Baptism it could mean (a) simply that the promise of salvation is to 'you and your children' [fair enough] or (b) the promise of salvation is to 'you and your children' on condition of Baptism. I personally do not find the use of this word in this context very helpful when it's meaning is left 'hanging in the air' unexplained.
Would I Baptise an infant 'in extremis' if asked to do so? Yes, if the parents affirmed their faith in Jesus. But the rite simply acknowledges a status which already exists, it does not move the child into a covenantal relationship with God, that would not be my 'requisite intention', a la Canon Law 861. The 'sign' - in such circumstances - may be a comfort to the parents in their loss and a witness to their faith in Christ for the on-looking public.
There was an incident recently where the parents wanted their dying child baptised into the RC church. "In Extremis" it is not unknown for healthcare professionals to baptise infants - ironically I had to describe to an RC colleague what she would need to do to perform the rite.
As I understand it, according to Canon Law 861, an RC baptism is only valid in such circumstances if the person performing the rite does so with the "requisite intention", ie does the healthcare professional intend what the Church intends by the act? This seems, at face value, to be a denial of the principle of ex opere operato. How can anyone have assurance that they know what your intentions are?
The link between the parents faith and their child's salvation is broken by the intrusion of a third party, in the form an individual or institution, or so it seems to me. I have always taken the view that 1 Corinthians 7 v14, which indicates that the children of believers are "holy", is sufficient ground for assurance.
I have been challenged that such a stance "denies the sign" to the infant, a curious accusation. Yet it strikes me that Baptism does not make the child holy to the Lord but the parents faith does - in fact the rite is not mentioned in the Corinthian passage at all. In this circumstance I would not "deny" the parents the sign if that's what they want - but the sign of Baptism does not alter the childs status in God's sight one iota.
I suppose this begs the question as to who exactly is the sign aimed at? Is it for the infant's benefit, the parents', the Church's or God's? (And if you want to hedge your bets and say 'all of the above' we will need to unpick them individually!)
The use of the term Covenant in this context can be a bit confusing. God makes promises to mankind which can be called covenantal, fair enough. But sometimes the word does not mean a unilateral promise but implies a degree of conditionality - "I will do this, if you will do that..." So when the rite of Baptism is said to be 'covenantal' it raises some confusion, in my mind at least, as to what we are saying. Are we saying the infant's salvation turns on the rite of Baptism being performed correctly?
When I hear the word 'covenant' used in the context of Baptism it could mean (a) simply that the promise of salvation is to 'you and your children' [fair enough] or (b) the promise of salvation is to 'you and your children' on condition of Baptism. I personally do not find the use of this word in this context very helpful when it's meaning is left 'hanging in the air' unexplained.
Would I Baptise an infant 'in extremis' if asked to do so? Yes, if the parents affirmed their faith in Jesus. But the rite simply acknowledges a status which already exists, it does not move the child into a covenantal relationship with God, that would not be my 'requisite intention', a la Canon Law 861. The 'sign' - in such circumstances - may be a comfort to the parents in their loss and a witness to their faith in Christ for the on-looking public.
No comments:
Post a Comment