A number of my students at Luther pointed me to a recent Time article on the growing trend in Britain and elsewhere of people getting "De-baptism Certificates" (see picture). The certificate reads:
After due deliberation, I,
_____________________________
having been subjected to the Rite of Christian Baptism in
infancy (before reaching an age of consent), hereby publicly revoke any
implications of that Rite and renounce the Church that carried it out.
In the name of human reason, I reject all its Creeds and all other such
superstition in particular, the perfidious belief that any baby needs
to be cleansed by Baptism of alleged ORIGINAL SIN, and the evil power
of supposed demons. I wish to be excluded henceforth from enhanced
claims of church membership numbers based on past baptismal statistics
used, for example, for the purpose of securing legislative privilege.”
People can get these from the National Secular Society of Britain whose President, Terry Sanderson, says that "The growing amount of interest in the concept of de-baptism
indicates that people are not just indifferent to religion – which has
been the traditional British approach – but are actually becoming quite
hostile to it." They apparently started offering these certificates by download from their website five years ago and now offer personalized certificates on parchment paper for a modest price.
In England, Argentina, and Italy, the countries seemingly in the forefront of this movement, the numbers of church members plays some role in the political life of the nation in a way those same statistics here never have. This is pointed to in that the certificate explicitly asks to not to be included in padding church membership figures for the sake of legislative privilege, something that makes little sense in the US. However, the broader fact that people feel they want some official exit strategy that the gaining of this certificate seems to provide tells us that there is a growing anger, as Mr. Sanderson notes.
A couple of comments.
First, the anger many feel at the church is (mostly) rightly directed. The church (and individual churches) are full of problematic, mis-behaving people who hold various kinds of pretty offensive beliefs. Whether that makes us any different than anybody else is another question. So if you've a mind to critique the church, or its members or leaders, it is like shooting ducks in a pond. For many, clerical abuses (sexual and otherwise) are symbolic of centuries of misuse of power on the part of churches seeking to cloak their sin in piety. But it also connects directly to the political agenda of this power, whether it be the Pope's comments about condoms in Africa earlier this Spring or the righteous zeal of George Bush claiming Jesus as his most important political philosopher. One hears some direct reaction to abuses of the church's power, especially political power, in the de-baptismal certificate's language.
Second, the anger many feel at irrational beliefs and backwards thinking is also (mostly) rightly directed. I get fed up with magical and anti-intellectual dogma as much as the next (thinking) Christian. How can it possibly be that, as some surveys report, in 2009 as many as 1 in 4 Americans reject evolution and believe in a literal 7 day creation of the world? This survey breaks down the statistics in such a way that there seems to be a direct correlation between low educational achievement, religious adherence and rejection of evolution. One hears notes of this kind of intellectual irritation in the de-baptismal certificate's language.
Third, the mocking character may, in light of points one and two, feel enjoyable to those for whom this is a desirable development (that is, the availability of such de-baptism certificates). However it is a significant caricature of the teaching regarding baptism held by most of the main Christian bodies. Elements of baptismal theology that could be developed in a much more sophisticated way in response to the language of the certificate include the meaning of sin, redemption, the church as the 'body of Christ' into which one is baptised, the action of God in baptism, and the daily return to the waters as part of a humble and faithful baptismal life. In debates I've learned the hard way that the most important work is to critique the best of your opponent, rather than simply rejecting a hollow caricature, and that is what this certificate does. It does not do justice to the communal and ritual aspects of baptism and baptismal life, elements that are of very profound significance for human life, not just this Christian sacrament. And the too easy rejection of sin and evil in the name of reason falls quite hard on the blood-soaked ground of the horrors of 20th century tyranny in the name of the nation. One can ignore the complexity of what Christians call sin and evil, or the Devil and his pomp and his works, but not for long. Another school shooting will shatter that whitewashed dream of rational utopia.
Fourth, that such mocking is so easily accepted tells us theologians how terribly we've done with baptismal teaching, both for those going through the process themselves or for their children, and for the general public. Too many books on baptism are scholarly, theological and historical, and priced at levels only research libraries will pay. My colleague at Yale, Bryan Spinks, is a case in point. He's among the most significant scholars of Christian baptism (and is an Anglican priest himself) but his books are likely read only by fellow scholars--not even by seminaries and pastors, let along the general public. How can we envision doing compelling public education about the real and vital teaching we confess and practice regarding what God does through the sacrament of baptism? That is where this whole development leaves me. People still may reject it, but what they'll be rejecting will be a whole lot more substantial, complex, and compelling as a way of understanding a way of life, and I'd bet fewer would so quickly throw it out as irrational because it will make sense of their lives rather than seeming to be nonsense.
Anon, and peace,
Chris
Recent Comments