Just what does the tradition of a christening really mean?

Many people today have their babies Christened and have no idea of the implications.

1. To receive into the Christian Church by baptism; baptise.
2. To give a name to a baptism.
3. To name and dedicate; give a name to; name.

Colloquial to make use of for the first time.

baptism.

baptismal /bap'tizmuhl/, adjective –baptismally, adverb /'baptizuhm/noun.

1. a ceremonial immersion in water, or application of water, as an initiatory rite or sacrament of the Christian church.

2. any similar ceremony or action of initiation, dedication, etc.

****************************

What happens when a person gets baptised? The person that I refer to here, is not an adult, but a mere child – and human rights apply to every person born without regards to his/her age – is compelled, without being asked whether he consents of not, to take part in a religious action. Even worse than this, he is made, without his consent, the object of a religious act performed by others.

However insignificant this external act may be at the request of the Christian parents, a religious official sprinkles water on the baby’s head while reciting religious formulae. The conviction of the person performing the act, what is expressed in the act itself and the legal consequences of that act for the baptised person are very important.

According to the opinion of the overwhelming majority of theologians and practising priests and pastors, baptism establishes an non-removable relationship between God and the baptised child. God calls the child by his name, the Protestant service says, and claims him for his own. Baptism is an irrevocable act of God’s grace. The baptised person is imprinted with an indelible seal, so that, according to Catholic canon law (– which is, of course, not valid according to civil law –) he can never leave the church. Protestant theologians also do not hold any radically different views from the above.

What, then, happens when a child is baptised?

People presume to coerce another person into accepting a religious ideology irrevocably for the rest of his life without asking him whether he consents or not – and in this case the act of coercion is all the worse because the victim is a defenceless child. It reminds one of the Christian Middle Ages and the church’s practice of keeping slaves, who were regarded as belonging to the church and to God for the whole of their lives, as inalienable (unable to be transferred) property which could not be disposed of by men. In this present age in which we now live there is evidence of freedom in that they can always, in accordance with civil law, leave the church afterwards. (Church figures re congregational numbers still consider those who leave the church as children of God. This causes untruthful elevated figures of Christian believers.) The religious education of children cannot, in my opinion, be quoted as justification of infant baptisms, because, even though a child does not come of age in the religious sense until he is fourteen years old, this does not mean that he does not possess, until he is fourteen, the inalienable human right to religious freedom. This basic human right cannot, however, be adequately expressed while the child is still so young, which is why those who have a legal right and duty to educate the child – in other words, the parents – have to justify their right.

In any case, the much boasted right of the parents reaches the limit beyond which it cannot go when it encounters the human right of the child to religious freedom. This basic human right precludes not only the baptism of infants, but also all one-sided religions – or, for that matter, a-religious – indoctrination on the part of the parent.

People who would like to keep this tradition alive and who care about their child’s welfare, should opt out of the religious aspect and go for non- religious baby naming ceremonies.

Jim Lee. 10/1/03