For The Record

Submit birth, marriage and obituary records online.


PDF documents on this site require the free Adobe Reader:

Get Adobe Reader

2008-02-05 issue:

The liberty in baptism is not individualism

by Patrick N. Weybright, Lancaster, Pa.

Print Article


The 16th-century Anabaptists denied the authority of societal powers—in their time, the church-state—in favor of scriptural authority. It is refreshing that Chad Mason (“Mennonite but Not Anabaptist,” Jan. 8) describes the rejection of infant baptism as a political action that demonstrated Anabaptist refusal to submit to worldly authority. Certainly infant baptism no longer serves as a societal “rite of entry.” However, Mason does not acknowledge the theological rationale for adult baptism, which remains valid.

This is the principle of liberty in baptism embraced by Anabaptists from Menno Simons to H.S. Bender. Community should remain central to Mennonites. However, a forced community, which infant baptism necessarily implies and Mason seemingly deems acceptable, is antithetical to voluntariness in Christian commitment. It is an error to confuse baptismal liberty with individualism.

Furthermore, merely identifying that infant baptism is no longer a “rite of entry” ignores the possibility of a modern equivalent of this rite. How should Mennonites reject the authority of our own human hierarchies? Has the dominant (Christian) culture become so much the kingdom of God that we are now ready to embrace it? The Mennonite church has largely replaced radical Anabaptist values with Mennonite culturalism as what makes us distinctive. Rather than become increasingly cozy with mainstream culture and mainstream Christianity, our denomination should look for new ways to reject the kingdom of this world. A withdrawal from voluntariness in Christian commitment is no remedy.


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

Associated Article: Mennonite but not Anabaptist