For The Record

Submit birth, marriage and obituary records online.


PDF documents on this site require the free Adobe Reader:

Get Adobe Reader

2008-01-22 issue:

Water on infants is not baptism

by Albert J. Meyer, Goshen, Ind.

Print Article


I was surprised to see an article focusing on the term “rebaptism” in the Jan. 8 issue of The Mennonite (“Mennonite but not Anabaptist”).
“Anabaptist,” from the Latin root for “baptize again” or “rebaptize,” was the pejorative name their enemies gave to our forebears in Europe. Actually, our forefathers and foremothers—and many who have followed since—have not thought they were rebaptizing anyone. They simply did not regard water poured on the head of a kicking and screaming infant (or any infant too young to know what was happening) as baptism at all. Our German-speaking brothers and sisters do not call themselves “Wiedertäufer” (“rebaptizers”), but “Täufer” (baptizers”). Our forebears and their followers have baptized on confession of faith in an attempt to implement the Great Commission, with its call to baptize and teach.

In the Reformation and since, not all who have called themselves Christian have agreed. We must listen to others who have called themselves Christian who have thought that there were times when Christians should engage in military destruction and killing—but that does not mean that we think they are right. The fact that many who have called themselves Christian think that rites involving water poured on candidates too young and weak to object are a kind of baptism does not mean that we think our forebears were wrong and that their enemies were right. And the fact that some enemies of our forebears called our ancestors “re-baptizers” does not mean that what we and our Confession of Faith call “baptism” can or should be called “rebaptism.”


Associated Issue: Mennonite but not Anabaptist - Jan. 8, 2008

Associated Article: Mennonite but not Anabaptist