On Baptizing Infants

    

The recent decision of Archbishop Elpidophoros to baptize the adopted child of an openly gay couple in Greece is only the latest addition to a series of actions which have raised Orthodox eyebrows, coming as it does hard on the heels of his decision to consecrate as bishop an archimandrite deposed by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, and his pro-abortion remark at the March for Life about women having autonomy over their own bodies. Baptizing the child was intended as a demonstration of how “progressive” the archbishop is and has indeed garnered such praise from the predictable pro-gay outlets. It is of a piece with his pro-abortion remark at the March for Life rally, and gives colour to the accusation that the Greek Church in America is simply the Protestant Episcopal Church in Byzantine dress. But here I would like to examine not the behaviour and values of the archbishop, but the more basic question of the conditions which must be met before any baby can be baptized. (Spoiler alert: these conditions were not met by the gay couple requesting the baptism in Greece.)

We begin by observing the indissoluble link between baptism and faith. The link is as old as Mark 16:15-16, which reads, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved”. Note that believing is coupled with baptism as one of its conditions. This is why in every baptismal ritual a profession of faith is required from the candidate. That is, the candidate is asked a series of questions in a kind of liturgical grilling, and must respond in a certain way before the baptism can proceed.

Thus we read the following in the Apostolic Tradition, a document expressing the liturgical practice of Rome in the early third century. The one baptizing “shall say, ‘Do you believe in Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was born from the Holy Spirit from the Virgin Mary, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate and died, and rose again on the third day, alive from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father, and will come to judge the living and the dead?’ And when he has said, ‘I believe’, he shall be baptized again” (the second of three immersions).

The Church first questioned the candidate to ascertain whether the candidate had faith—and not just any faith, but the faith of the Church. That is why the questions were so detailed, because there were other rival groups with other faiths—groups such as the docetic Gnostics who did not believe that Christ was born from Mary or was crucified. The questions were detailed as they were for the purpose of excluding candidates who held such Gnostic views. It is clear that the early Church did not view “inclusiveness” (that modern magical word) as necessarily good or virtuous in itself.

We see this also in our present Byzantine baptismal ritual. The baptismal candidate is asked (three times, no less!) if he renounces Satan and all his works. Then after renouncing Satan three times, he is again asked three times if he has renounced Satan. This is followed by a similar series of repeated questions asking if the candidate unites himself to Christ and if he believes in Him. This confession of Christ includes the candidate’s recitation of the Nicene Creed, followed by another three-fold series of questions asking if he has now united himself to Christ.

This is rather a lot of grilling, and it is done as an expression of the absolute necessity of expressing rejection of Satan and acceptance of Christ by faith. Note the necessity of rejecting Satan as well as that of accepting Christ. We will return to this later.

Next we note that believing in Christ included a change of behaviour on the part of the candidates. In Jerusalem in the late fourth century, for example, the candidates were required to provide evidence of a changed life before the baptism could proceed. The bishop sat down in church surrounded by his presbyters. “Then one by one, the ones who are seeking baptism are brought up, men coming with their fathers, and women with their mothers. As they come in one by one, the bishop asks their neighbours questions about them: ‘Is this person leading a good life? Is he a drunkard or a boaster?’ He asks about all the serious human vices. If his inquiries show him that someone has not committed any of these misdeeds, he himself puts down his name; but if someone is guilty he is told to go away, and the bishop tells him that he is to amend his ways before he may come to the font” (from the diary of Egeria, chapter 45).

Here we see what was expressed in the baptismal questions—namely that belief in Christ necessarily entails rejection of Satan, and that rejection of Satan is expressed in a life of righteousness, in conformity with the teaching of Christ and His Church. The Church therefore requires not simply intellectual assent to certain dogmas, but commitment to a moral life as defined by its teaching. If this moral component is lacking, the baptism may not proceed; the candidate must “go away” and “amend his ways before he may come to the font”.

Next we note that these conditions are not waived in the case of infants. Instead, it is presupposed that the ones raising the infants will do so in such a way that the infant will himself come to hold to the faith and live the life that such faith requires. That is why the Church accepts the words of the sponsors as an acceptable substitute for the infant making the replies to the questions himself. To quote from the Apostolic Tradition once again: “All those who can speak for themselves shall do so. As for those who cannot speak for themselves, their parents or someone from their family shall speak for them”. Why are the parents or someone from the family stipulated as the substitute speaker?—because those are the people who will raise the child to have the required faith and righteousness.

Finally, we may connect the dots. If sincere and fervent acceptance of the Church’s faith and morality are necessary for baptism, and if those bringing infants to baptism are thereby promising to raise the child in that faith and morality, then only those with that faith and morality are allowed to bring such children to baptism. If a parent does not share the Church’s faith or if he or she rejects the Church’s morality, then that parent is not in a position to bring the child to baptism. It is as simple as that. No one is “entitled” to baptism; the candidate must meet certain conditions.

A few more remarks may be added. The oft-heard heard cry of “Suffer the little children to come unto Me” (from Mark 10:14) is utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand, not only because the children in the text were not coming to be baptized, but also because the mothers bringing them obviously had fervent faith. The words cannot be ripped from their context and used as a moral bludgeon to overthrow the consistent baptismal discipline of the Church from the beginning which made requirements of the candidates in terms of faith and conformity to its moral praxis. Unless the parents now bringing the children have the same fervency of faith and morals as the mothers bringing their children to Jesus, this text has zero relevance to the discussion.

    

This is not, as is sometimes said, “blaming the children for the unbelief of the parents”, but simply recognizing that the parents are not competent to bring the children for baptism. Baptizing such children would not result in the children becoming devout Christians, but apostate Christians, since the children would not be raised to be true Christians, but merely nominal ones. Sacraments are not magic, which is why faith is always required from those coming to the font. And arguably it is better to be an honest pagan than an apostate Christian, for a pagan can always repent and become a true Christian, whereas a merely nominal Christian might imagine he is a true Christian when in fact he is not.

When all is said and done, therefore, the real issue is this: What is required of someone coming to baptism? What constitutes Christian faith? The answer: Christian faith consists of renouncing all that one has in total loving obedience to Jesus (see Luke 14:33). Merely giving intellectual assent to certain propositions embodied in the Creed is not true faith, and is not sufficient to save. That is why the Church does all that liturgical grilling prior to baptism.

Confusing intellectual assent and outward respectability with true and faith and moral righteousness is disastrous, for it gives a false sense of spiritual security. State churches (such as those in England and Greece) usually baptize every baby brought to the font on the assumption that the parents have true faith. The falsity of the assumption is proven by the number of people actually attending Church every Sunday. More importantly, this false assumption is dangerous, for it encourages people to imagine that they are Christian, when in fact they are not. It is not enough for them to give an intellectual nod to Church dogmas; they need to repent and give their lives entirely to Christ. Otherwise they have the name of Christian, but not the reality of salvation. By baptizing indiscriminately, the Church unwittingly distorts and dilutes the Gospel by not insisting that the true conditions necessary for baptism be met.

The recent baptism of the adopted child of an openly homosexual couple by Archbishop Elpidophoros is a spectacular example of this distortion and dilution. It is not enough to be a Greek celebrity or a long-time friend of the archbishop. Before one can bring a child to baptism, one must repent and live according to the Gospel.

Comments
Gary8/5/2022 1:07 pm
Add to this that Elpidophorus may be the next ecumenical patriarch and it's easy to see the continuing harm done to the Church. Pray for our Bishops to stand against evil and to stand for God.
Panagiotis8/5/2022 2:23 am
To compare any Orthodox Church to a protestant church is absurd in my humble opinion...... Also, sometimes it is not what is said that is important, but rather what is not said that is important. I cannot recall hearing or reading anywhere of any Orthodox Bishop issuing a public statement in support of the Archbishop and this baptism. If I am wrong, then please let me know. Just my humble opinion.
Fr William Bauer PhD8/4/2022 6:01 pm
What does the abbreviation GOA stand for?
Nicholas Pantelopoulos8/4/2022 3:07 pm
A very good commentary. Finally, after days of outpour of intellectual sophistries, on the one hand, and fundamentalist moralistic diatribes or political statements on the other, an attempt to address the integrated relationship between faith - doctrine and worship - sacraments. Sadly, even Mount Athos failed to produce even a convincing "political statement, as they made no single attempt to put forward a sound biblical and theological one. The ancient fathers would produce treasures of theology, and today, what most do is virtue signal to make sure that the world knows that they are with the right side! I want to add only two important items to this piece which I think the author decided to skip and cannot be stressed enough in light of the "apology" proposed by the "Archdeacon" who dared to drop the glove, so to speak, against the whole Church, saying that She fears to address serious questions about faith and doctrine in the present age, just like She had, back in the early centuries, bringing forth the christological controversies which led to the formulation of doctrinal statements (horoi) of Ecumencial Councils. As if these doctrinal controversies and debates were purely "academic" in nature and once the horoi were determined the heretics walked away continuing their "careers" in the Church. He omitted to mention that those who did challenge the Church were defrocked and anathematized for attempting to tinker with the teaching and faith of the mystery of the Incarnation. The Church must take a stand against his heinous and arbitrary tautology between the terms "gender" with "flesh" in relation to the mystery of the union of natures! A tautology that, to imitate S. Athanasius, only Hell can vomit! For in Christ we have two natures, fully divine and fully human, and that the Logos acquired human flesh in its totality, to become perfect man without sin, from the Most Pure and Holy Mother of God, and not simply a particular "gender". This alone speaks volumes about the theological acumen of this unfortunate apologist! ____ PS. I support the institution of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which means its seniority, which is not based solely on a lip-service of seniority of honour (such a term does not exist in Canon law but among the calvinists), but in its primary role and privileges in the Orthodox Church. This said, I do not support pretenders who claim to be its defenders but are rather subverters of this sacred primate Church independent of their affiliation.
Susan8/4/2022 12:24 pm
Gustav: Have to agree with you. Also have to agree with Fr. Lawrence. There is a distinction, unfortunately, between the pious people of the GOA and the leadership of the GOA, the latter of which seems to want to fit into a Protestant world, or at least not differ too much. The negative influence of freemasonry is also felt there. But yes, there are many deeply religious people in the GOA, who must be very frustrated with the trends, and hope only in God. May they prevail some day.
Gary8/4/2022 5:10 am
A very good article. Thank You!
Gustav8/3/2022 10:22 pm
While I agree that what Arch. Elpidophoros did was wrong, I'm not sure I agree with your article Fr. Farley. The scandal here is the public way in which the baptism took place. If every baptism was reliant upon the righteousness of the parents, we would have very few members of the Church. Moreover, though I am not a member of the GOA, I really find your odd comment about the Greek Archdiocese to be unwarranted. "...[the] Greek Church in America is simply the Protestant Episcopal Church in Byzantine dress..." How could you say such a thing? You belong to the OCA.... your Metropolitan concelebrated with the Patriarch of Constantinople who directly appointed Arch. Elpidophoros. Shouldn't we attempt to set a watch around our lips before saying such things about our brother Churches? Isn't it the protestants who are always in-fighting and relishing in attacking their own? Why participate in this spirit? There are many faithful GOA clergy and laymen. Let's see what happens in the coming months before making such claims, perhaps? You know very well that the Episcopal "church" is worlds apart from any jurisdiction in the One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church. God forgive me if I am wrong in my thoughts and comments.
Arthur Samouris 8/3/2022 6:08 pm
AMEN!!!! Thank you Fr. Farley!!! We have veered off course and need to hear these type of corrections.
Here you can leave your comment on the present article, not exceeding 4000 characters. All comments will be read by the editors of OrthoChristian.Com.
Enter through FaceBook
Your name:
Your e-mail:
Enter the digits, seen on picture:

Characters remaining: 4000

Subscribe
to our mailing list

* indicates required
×