An argument for infant baptism?
I had an interesting conversation with a colleague of mine at work that was cause for more deep reflection than I had thought initially necessary. As has been mentioned on this blog before, I am a Neonatologist who works in a high level neonatal intensive care unit. An unfortunate part of my job includes dealing with the inevitable demise of fatally ill infants and the repercussions as it affects their families. In situations when death is unavoidable or preferable, it is not uncommon for families to request to have either the hospital chaplain or their own clergy baptize the newborn before the end.
I have historically looked upon this practice as an unfortunate misunderstanding of the Savior’s Atonement and been repulsed by it, because one of the greatest comforts I have in my job is the knowledge of where my patients go when they pass from this life. Modern revelation is quite explicit on what their fate is, and what the state is of those who believe that infant baptism is necessary (Moroni 8, D&C 137).
In the conversation with my associate, he mentioned that on occasion when death was imminent and no clergy was available, families have asked him, as the person of authority in the NICU, to perform the baptism. I don’t know official doctrines of other churches, but my understanding is that there is special dispensation for emergencies, and the baptizer need not be ordained. Regardless, I found myself contemplating what I would do in that situation. Personally, the practice is repulsive to me and I could not in good faith perform such a sham ordinance. On the other hand, it is a source of comfort to those families suffering such a great loss, so how could I deny them?
I brought it up to some of my family members during a reunion and was surprised by the answers I got. I though everyone would unanimously condemn the practice and under no circumstances perform it. However, a number of people actually said they would do it if they were in that same situation. So I ask, is there a valid argument for performing infant baptisms?
This really is an interesting question. I think I would probably do the baptism. Despite the scriptural injunction against infant baptism, which is, as you mentioned, rather explicit, I think the immediate need to comfort the family wins. I take my queue here from the practice of giving infants the sacrement. Fundementally, is there any difference between giving the sacrement and baptism? If we can give our kids the sacrment just to apease them, why wouldn’t you baptize a couple’s baby in comfort?
Comment by J. Stapley — 3/21/2006 @ 11:29 pm
In your position, I would baptize the infant. (I’d try to pray about the matter, of course.) It is possible that the lack of baptism would be extremely distressing to the parents, and I think that your obligation to comfort those who stand in need of comfort outweighs your obligation to correct false doctrine.
Comment by Julie M. Smith — 3/21/2006 @ 11:45 pm
I offer my opinion here.
Comment by Brad Haas — 3/22/2006 @ 1:18 am
Same deal with administering last rites for members of the RC faith. To me, it’s no big deal, it comforts them, and God’s perfectly capable of sorting things out without my assistance.
My thought: Think of others and how it will make them feel.
Comment by Mogget — 3/22/2006 @ 2:34 pm
I’d baptize for the reasons listed above.
Comment by Rusty — 3/22/2006 @ 2:43 pm
I think the Golden Rule says we should do it if asked in such a situation. Our own baptismal covenants say that we must comfort those who stand in need of comfort after all and comfort comes in different forms to different people
Comment by Geoff J — 3/22/2006 @ 3:21 pm
I’d do the baptism if the family wanted me to. I think it’s analogous to the response LDS people hope for from people whose distant ancestors get baptized by proxy because their names have been extracted from public records. I think LDS people would hope that even if others believe baptism by proxy is ineffective or even heretical, that they would not protest it but instead view it as a harmless practice that brings comfort to the LDS people who feel they are doing their duty.
It’s interesting that a family would ask hospital personnel to perform the baptism, even if their beliefs are different. I think if I believed in infant baptism and clergy was not available, I’d sooner have a non-clergy family member do it, or do it myself, than have a stranger from another belief system do it.
Comment by Beijing — 3/22/2006 @ 4:42 pm
Brad,
I appreciate the treatise on infant baptism, but the intent of this is not to defend or condemn the practice. My post is a response to an ethical dilemma about being asked to do something you find to be fundamentally wrong for the sake of providing comfort in a time of extreme despair.
I have no intention of correcting anyone’s “false doctrines” by not wanting to perform the ordinance. Do I think I would be committing a sin by doing it? Not really. Does this mean I don’t care about the feelings of those suffering? Not at all. But imagining myself baptizing the most innocent of God’s creations…I don’t know if I could do it. This is a poor analogy, but in some ways the above comments remind me of the “well…I don’t want to offend, so I’ll just go ahead and…” (fill in the blank) argument. Kind of like the strawberry cocktail at my sister’s wedding party (inside joke).
Beijing,
Very well thought out comment. Thank you.
Comment by Chris S. — 3/22/2006 @ 4:54 pm
I know the situations are not really analogous, but the sentiments involved are–imagine how John must have felt when his Cousin requested this ordinance at his hands. That he did what he needed to do to make life better for others seems an example to us in similar situations.
Comment by Justin H — 3/22/2006 @ 6:50 pm
hmmm…while I appreciate the sentiment Justin, I think that comparing something that is most holy and exemplary to that which God has decried is quite uncomfortable. Pretty hard to swallow.
Comment by J. Stapley — 3/22/2006 @ 7:18 pm
J.–Thanks for the reply, and I’m sorry if I offend. As I pointed out, the situations aren’t analogous. But what John felt, I imagine, might have been similar to what Chris is describing.
I know that no matter how worthy I might feel myself, being asked to baptize the sinless would give me pause. That’s all I was comparing: John’s being asked to baptize someone more worthy than him to Chris’s being asked to baptize someone for whom the ordinance is equally unnecessary.
Comment by Justin H — 3/22/2006 @ 7:59 pm
Is there a doctrinal reason why a the parent can’t baptize his or her child? If I was in this situation, I think I would suggest that the parent do the actual baptizing, and offer to hold the child while the baptism was performed. I think it’s less the practice itself that’s an abomination, and more the doctrine that supports the practice, so I wouldn’t have a problem supporting the practice in specific situations where it would offer comfort to the parents.
Comment by Ariel — 3/22/2006 @ 9:07 pm
Justin, thanks for that clarification. In that context, I see better what you were getting at. Alas Ariel, my catechism is in French and I am too lazy to dig through it or I would find the info for you 🙂
Comment by J. Stapley — 3/22/2006 @ 10:31 pm
Chris,
So you meant infant baptism as in, you doing it in these situations, not infant baptism in general?
Rats. I wrote that thing just for you. :'(
Did you at least learn anything from it?
Comment by Brad Haas — 3/22/2006 @ 11:24 pm
Brad,
Yes I did learn a few things in reading your work, and I greatly apprechiate the effort. It must have taken some time to put it together. That said, eventhough I respect your opinions and faith, I see it as a philosophical attempt to justify a practice I believe to be in error.
Now, I don’t want this to turn into a debate about the historic evolution of the ordinance or whose doctrines are better. I have a great deal of admiration for faithful Catholics. It’s just, well, you asked.
Comment by Chris S. — 3/23/2006 @ 12:54 pm
I think you give the family comfort, in grace and with the Spirit.
My two bits. Better than lying to them and then billing them for being organ transplant donors.
Everyone in an NICU makes their own choices obviously.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — 3/23/2006 @ 7:52 pm
I would do it to comfort the family. Before they joined the church my parents lost my two oldest siblings a few days after their births. Before one of them died a random person told my dad that the baby would be condemned to “burn in hell” because he hadn’t had her be baptized. Loosing a baby is hard enough and the family need comfort more than anything, you can discuss doctrine later if you need to.
Comment by Starfoxy — 3/23/2006 @ 11:02 pm
Stephen,
I sense some NICU anger issues…
Comment by Chris S. — 3/24/2006 @ 1:59 pm
Chris, I’m with the others here, I’d do the baptism too. After all, in the case of a dying infant, and since you know where that infant will wind up regardless of what rituals are said over it just before death, I say do it for the parents. Set their minds at ease about the matter. That’s why I’d do it.
Comment by David J — 3/24/2006 @ 5:49 pm
Chris,
While I am usually the first to go for comforting families and accepting diverse beliefs, I would explain that my personal faith would not allow me to perform such an ordinace. I would then offer to find someone able to do so.
The way that I see it, this is one of those situations that offended Christ himself. The scriptural injunction is quite clear. I understand the pain that the family is submerged in, but this is one of thoise things that I perhaps can glimpse the condesention of Christ and understand his offense and indignation
Comment by Craig S. — 3/24/2006 @ 7:15 pm
Stephen,
I sense some NICU anger issues…
Just over getting billed for being a transplant donor. Actually wasn’t the billing, it was the follow-up collection efforts.
Yes, we’ve all got our organ donor cards signed, but gee, the UCLA NICU sure gives it all a bad name. On the other hand, I’ve nothing but praise for Dallas Children’s NICU and PICU units, though they know me too well (last time I was there, people broke into tears as we came in).
Not to mention, they could have just come clean with “we were way to aggressive, and that is why a child with a blood sugar of less than 200 currently has a ruptured brain stem” — I figured it out on my own and didn’t sue them. Almost, but I was unwilling to drag in the poor doctor who consulted with them and took their advice.
After all, when they poisoned Jessica, the doctor in charge came clean with me, in detail, as soon as he realized what had happened. I did not sue them. What is the use, it would not have brought her back and what use would the money be otherwise?
Anyway, enough about my lingering issues.
Is there a doctrinal reason why a the parent can’t baptize his or her child? just that they lack comfort and look to authority.
You can tell them that children are saved in Christ, but that you will annoint and bless the child — which will satisfy them, be in line with legitimate priesthood authority, and offend no one. May even do something (I’ve seen miracles, though not always the ones I wanted).
Anyway … some days are better for me to address such issues than others.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — 3/25/2006 @ 8:13 pm
Chris S. if you have any other comments, feel free to drop me an e-mail.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — 3/26/2006 @ 5:22 pm
While I can see how a desire to comfort the family might come from charitable impulses, I can’t see how performing the baptism would really do anything good in the final analysis. What happens when someone tries to teach them the truth. They have this experience to look back on where a priesthood holder agreed to baptise their child.
As Stephen points out, the only reason people would be coming to a doctor to do this would be out of a yearning for authority. While we hold authority, it would be counter-productive to use it in a way that taught false principles. As I see it, as actual priesthood holders, it is our responsibility to only use that authority in authentic ways.
Again, while I see the impulse to comfort as good, I wonder, if a dying person needed comfort, and was a smoker, I would certainly be willing to let them smoke. I might even lean out the door and ask if anyone had a cigarette–though it would be a dilemma for me. If, however, the person asked me to participate–hates to smoke alone–no, I don’t think so. And I don’t think most of us would go there. It seems to me that baptising children is farther up on the list of abominations (the WoW never uses the word) than a lot of things we would never do.
Comment by Steve H — 3/28/2006 @ 8:26 pm
Baptism is for those able to make the promise with God. Baptisms for the dead are performed for those who never had the chance to be baptised. They still have their agency on whether or not to accept the baptismal covanants. Why would my child be punished for my sins? God is just and the atonement of Jesus Christ covers children that die in infancy. If you have ever looked into an infants eyes do you honestly think that they are evil and should be sent to hell? I dont think so any way. I know that the Lord is merciful. According to mark 10:13-16, matt 19:13-15 little children go to heaven. In acts 8:12 MEN and WOMEN were baptized. No children were mentioned. 1 corinthian 7:14- Little children are holy, being sanctified through the atonement of Jesus Christ. In Chapter 18 verses 3 and 4 of Matthew it says that we need to be converted as a child and the same is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. The death of our Savior is eternal. I am greatfull for it. I turn to him everyday and I know that through faith all can gain a testimony of these things. To baptize infants is a sign of lack of understanding of the atonement.
Comment by Michael — 4/4/2006 @ 10:35 pm
Interesting predicament, Craig.
I’m quite surprised by the number of people who would use their priesthood in this way. To me baptizing an infant would clearly be using the Lord’s name in vain, unless the baptism omits God’s name and state’s that it’s done by authority of the State Board of Health, Medical Licensing Division.
Several commenters suggested that the sin of teaching repugnant doctrines was overcome by the injunction to comfort those in need of comfort, but there are obviously many ways to comfort grieving parents that don’t require breaking one of the first commandments. I’m interested to know how many commenters would smoke a cigarette or (insert other commandment here) because it would make the parents feel better. That would be interesting.
It also seems like the parents would be completely understanding when someone explains they don’t have the authority to perform protestant Christian ordinances.
The best solution would be to offer to give the child a true blessing by the authority and power of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Comment by Matt Evans — 4/11/2006 @ 9:25 pm
I do not think that there is a valid argument for baptising an infant, whatever the circumpstance is. I understand the need for comforting the family, but the real question is: would I perform an ordinance that has received a strong condemnation from a prophet? If other denominations feel it is OK, it is fine with me, yet I would not participate. In an extreme analogy, would we ‘bless’ some water and sprinkle over a house to make it a ‘sacred haven’? I feel this issue is more to do with bowing to pressures, however in distress, of men rather than following the laws of God.
Comment by AlexG — 4/20/2006 @ 2:12 am
I am assuming that you would only be baptizing, in this case, Mormon babies, right? In that case, more power to you. However, if you were to, say, baptize my son on his deathbed without my consent (because you’d never get it), then I think we would have some problems. Just after the birth of my son, my wife briefly lost her way and was converted to Mormonism. She was baptized in secret, etc, etc. Didn’t tell me. It’s a good thing that your organization has rules prohibiting the baptism of children under 8 because she would have most definately baptized him without my consent (see what zeal can do?). If that were the case, I would never have left her and she would have been left defenseless against Mormon dogma, or doxa as we’ll call it. However, thanks to your rules, I was able to stay and help her see episteme, if you will. So, thanks Mr. Smith for having the foresight (prophet and all that he is) in making your baptizmal rules.
Comment by Thomas Hobbes — 5/17/2006 @ 1:01 pm
Not sure what you are asking here, Thomas. The question was if, as a Mormon, a (Catholic) person asked you to baptize their baby for them. According to the Catholic catochism, in such exigent circumstances, anyone can baptize the baby.
As to your experience, you obviously have some unresolved issues. I hope things work out for you.
Comment by J. Stapley — 5/17/2006 @ 1:35 pm
This is a little OT, but a Catholic friend of mine is waiting to have her baby twins baptized til she can return to her home congregation MONTHS after the births of her children. She said current Catholic belief (and the current pope specifically) has not supported the doctrine of the necessity of infant baptism, and particularly the idea of limbo for unbaptized infants. She’s not worried. I know, different if their lives were actually at stake. But it was an interesting conversation.
Comment by LisaB — 5/17/2006 @ 2:09 pm
I had heard that the current Pope had brought some scholars together on the subject of Limbo, but I hadn’t heard whether anything had been anounced.
Comment by J. Stapley — 5/17/2006 @ 3:21 pm
Thomas,
It was so nice of you to stop by and respond to my post. In particular, I am glad you took the time to read the entire thread and gain a thorough understanding of the topic at hand. As you have so eloquently surmised, the purpose of this post was to “test the waters,” as it were, to the idea of introducing the doctrine of secret infant baptisms into the LDS church. Despite the explicit condemnation of the practice of infant baptism in LDS scripture, I still feel there has to be a place for it somewhere. I suppose I could wander the NICU at night throwing water around, gaining new converts left and right. Brilliant! Why hadn’t I thought of this sooner? The real secret to building a multinational religion is to get them before they know what hit ’em and worry about the technical details (like faith and repentance) later.
Comment by Chris S. — 5/17/2006 @ 3:37 pm