A question to our religious members concerning Baptism

[Alyeska]

Back in the early 90s I was baptized a Methodist. This was not my choice. I was coerced into this by my family over concerns of making my grandmother upset if I did not do this. I was told this was my choice, but then my family did their best to guilt trip me into the choice they wanted me to make. The threat by my grandmother being a serious one. I got sick and tired of being harassed over the issue for more than a week and lied and told them I changed my mind.

By this point in my life I already had serious questions regarding religion. My parents were Methodist, but raised me in a remarkably secular home for my formative years. They encouraged me to learn more about science. I was quite aware that church and science did not get along very well and I questioned why religion would disagree with factual reality. At this point I was probably a Deist without even knowing what the concept was. I ignored church and at best had a view that something started the world. All the bible readings were simply old tales of questionable veracity. I'd already started to spot inconsistencies in the stories as told by the many pastors I'd heard.

What is the status of a baptism done under coerced circumstances? And what part would my beliefs play in the status of the event?

[StarSword]

Whether one is baptized or not should be an entirely personal choice, because in my reading of the scriptures, being baptized means you are choosing to accept Christ as your personal savior, etc. If one is coerced into baptism, or has it done when one has no clue what is going on*, the sacrament is meaningless. I'm lucky in this regard; I was never pressured to be baptized by my family, so when I decided to do it a couple years ago it was completely my choice.

My personal feeling is that one does not need a whole lot of mumbo-jumbo to have a connection with God, so I prefer the liturgically simpler denominations like United Methodist. I could never be a Catholic, Anglican, or Episcopalian for this reason. (Personal anecdote: the one time I went to an Episcopal service, with my maternal grandparents, I got totally confused a quarter of the way through because I couldn't figure out when I was supposed to genuflect or whatever.)

* I would argue that infant baptism is invalid, since as far as the baby can tell he's just getting wet for no apparent reason.

[Formless]

Speaking as a former catholic, Baptism isn't as important in that worldview simply because there are two other sacraments you are required to go through in order to fully embrace god/christ in your life-- Communion and Confirmation. And yes, those two are supposed to be in theory a matter of personal choice rather than something you can be pressured into. Whether someone who has been raised to make that choice can really make an honest choice in the matter I will leave up to personal interpretation (I think most can guess my opinion in the matter).

The baptizing of infants is just a ritual to allow the other two sacraments to happen and classically was a magic ward to keep children out of Limbo should they die before they are old enough to go through with the other sacraments. Adults that convert to Catholicism obviously have to make the choice themselves, and that process includes a fast track towards meeting the other two sacramental requirements as well.

[Alyeska]

My parents also made me suffer through Confirmation classes, but I flatly refused to be confirmed. They did this knowing I was an Atheist at this point. It took a couple more years before my Mother realized just how badly they had treated me and that forcing the issue doesn't create faith.

[Eulogy]

It's jsut a stupid make-believe ritual that clubhouse members make you take before they will let you go to all of their parties. Only it's adults, not kids playing pretend.

If you were coerced, then it doesn't really mean anything. You are under no obligation to honestly think that their boogyman is real. Therefore, unless baptism has legal ramifications (which would be bad), having some lunatic spray water all over you has no effect whatsoever on your well-being, nor does it change your (lack of) belief.

If your grandma is still alive, and tries to make you more religious, don't hesitate to tell her to shove it. If it hurts her precious feelings, too bad.

[Johonebesus]

It depends entirely on the denomination. There are basically three big traditions of Christianity in the West. The Orthodox/Schismatic churches have an older notion of religion, with great emphasis on ritual. For them, baptism is a spiritual rebirth that does not require choice.

For Protestants, baptism must be a voluntary choice, however, one could argue that a degree of coercion is not the same as being baptised against one's will. Maybe you didn't really want to go through with it, but you did choose to do it. Maybe the alternative was to you more unpleasant, but still you chose to get baptised over putting up with your family's nagging. Some would say that it still counts, others that it doesn't count since it was insincere, and indeed was a sin.

Evangelicals believe (or believed) that God chose a few souls to get saved, with 99% of humanity doomed to damnation. If you're lucky enough to be of the elect, you have to fight it pretty hard to lose your salvation. If you're not of the elect, you're not going to be able to be a good Christian. Logically baptism ought not to be that important. A damned soul can get baptised over and over, and it doesn't matter. Methodists were sort of light Calvinists. A fellow named Wesely decided to keep a journal and tally his vices and virtues, like an accountant. He believed that if he was one of the Elect, his virtues should outnumber his vices. He also preached a highly structured life, for his version of predestination taught that one can lose salvation if one loses faith. Some called this practicing religion by method, giving the denomination its name. Methodists aren't very concerned about predestination any more, but I think the old timey doctrine would say that you were never one of the elect, for God foresaw your atheism, so your baptism was irrelevant. Whether or not you ever had the opportunity to be of the Elect would depend on how one falls on the Calvinist/Arminian spectrum.

[Alyeska]

If your grandma is still alive, and tries to make you more religious, don't hesitate to tell her to shove it. If it hurts her precious feelings, too bad.

Thank you so very much for the comment and the way it was said.

[Feil]

As I understand it, in the Methodist church, baptism is done by God, through the instrument of the church, for the receiving individual. The mind of the recipient doesn't matter, since it indicates God and the church making a covenant with the baptized, rather than the baptized seeking God. This is why infants can be baptized, despite not understanding what is going on. Or being asleep the whole time.

[Themightytom]

I think most baptisms are coerced since they involve infants that have no idea why water is being sprinkled on them. There isn't really a higher authority you can appeal to, because if you believe in one, the baptism is applicable, if you do not, then it does not exist.

[Covenant]

I had a fairly similar experience Alyeska, not being religious myself but at the time still having a kind of doubt-fueled mysticism that let me squiggle past it by holding my nose. Baptism is usually done to the very young to create some kind of Spiritual Squatter's Rights, or calling dibs on you for the big Shirts and Skins game in the sky. You don't need to vote into it, essentially, as long as you don't reject it actively. It's a riff on the ritual washing ritual (??) that was done all the time back in the day. They were really big on ritual washing afterall.

The confirmation is more like the opportunity for you to vote yourself in. That's when you gotta take the classes, ask the questions, then do the little ceremony up in front and such. I've still got the little doodads they gave me that day because, as dumb as it all was, it WAS done in good faith. But yeah, my experience was pretty much the exact same trajectory of yours except I was happy just to get confirmed and no longer have to attend the youth meetings because HOLY SHIT were those things annoying and patronizing.

Wasn't too long later we all stopped going. I've still been left with a paralyzing fear of clicky shoes, especially outside my door. It's usually nearly always the sound of "It's Sunday" and I always haaaated that.

[Demiurgas]

A spiritual baptism is always cooperative and willing. If you are getting baptised for no reason, which is basically what happens when you are being coerced, then of course, the baptism means nothing.

[Ahriman238]

I believe in the Methodist branch of the tradition, Baptism a.) makes you officially a member of the community, after which to what extent you participate in the community is your choice and b.) to cleanse you of the basic, sinful state of humanity and boost your morality to the point where you have a fair shot at actually turning out ok. In contrast to everyone who didn't get baptized, and are more-or-less damned by default.

[TOSDOC]

In my Presbyterian church, a baptism for an infant is seen as a christening ceremony and a spiritual welcoming of that infant into the congregational family. The congregation makes a spiritual promise to teach by example within the church's walls to the infant as he/she grows, but no pressure is placed on the infant to stay with the faith or actively participate as they grow.

Nor is it a prerequisite for confirmation or communion, (although privately my parents believed their children should not take communion with the congregation until they had completed confirmation class). In our confirmation class, we had a fellow student who was not baptised, and was baptised by his own choice after completing the class at the confirmation ceremony once he understood everything fully. For the rest of us already baptised, baptism was seen as a redundant step since we were actively participating in confirmation anyway and making the informed choice to take the next step. This is in line with Feil's reasoning above--God and the church have already begun forming a covenant with the baptised, which the confirmed now willingly completes.

In trying to answer your question from my perspective, I cannot think of a single Pastor, Deacon, or Elder in our church, past or present, who would even think of attempting to make anyone uncomfortable with a coerced baptism. I believe they would not say "you were baptised, you are one of us forever!!!", but rather "you were baptised here, and will always be welcome here if you desire it."