Although ancient Greek and Jewish traditions included rituals that involved cleansing with water, they did not link them to anything as ambitious as the salvation of one's soul like the early Christian church came to do. The earliest baptisms that gave rise to our present day ceremonies began in Roman occupied Israel, and were simply a water dunking pledge that was made by Jews to keep the God of The Old Testament number one in their hearts, although survival required them to make a verbal gesture to the Roman emperor, who was presented to the people as a god himself. Kind of like crossing your fingers when acknowledging the Roman god, while an old world pledge of allegiance down by the river to make a statement of what one really believed. A testimony in front of your friends. Jesus himself, a teacher of the old ways who was horrified at the Romification of Judaism, submitted to baptism for this very purpose. In fact, it was during his baptism that we are told the holy spirit entered him for the first time. We know this from the writings in the oldest gospel, Mark. Many years later Matthew, in his gospel, would interpret a story of divine conception from an Isiah prophecy in the old testament, but Mark seems to have missed that little item. Anyway, still under the brutal yoke of Rome, baptism stayed alive, encouraged by the gospels, as the new Christian church began to see the ritual as an excellent way to get its' subjects to pledge loyalty to its authority, in return for salvation. The many faiths and churches that sprang up over the centuries have come up with their own ideas about the whole affair. In 370 AD, the Catholic Church decided that infants had to be baptized, insuring not only their obedience, but that of their parents, and while many churches now offer this optional early christening as a welcome to a life with Christ, the Episcopal church teaches that salvation itself comes through infant baptism. In his confirmation the Episcopal catechist answers a question about his baptism in infancy by saying, "in my baptism, wherein I was made a member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the Kingdom of God." That has come a long way from the river where Jesus was dunked with a fist shake against Rome. Nothing wrong with offering your child God's love with this gesture, and kudos to those parents who decide to do that. But, we should be aware of this sacrament's origin, and know that there are no spiritual consequences for not participating, and also be aware that this belief is far from universal within the Christian community. The Bible states in many places that an understanding, and acceptance of the scriptures is required before a person can be baptized. Mark has this to say about it: Every creature who is baptized must first believe the gospel which they have been taught. Baptism is only for those who are capable of hearing and believing the gospel. No one is included in the command if they cannot first hear, understand, and believe the gospel (Mark 16:15,16 ). So, clearly infant baptism is not called for in scriptures, and seems to be forbidden. How would a priest explain this to a parishoner, who as a new parent, questioned the trumping of the gospels by a Catholic church practice?
It is important for modern Christians to understand what ceremonies came from where (none of them were faxed down from heaven), and why the church over the years implemented its' own version of various celebrations carried over from earlier times. Constantine, who recognized Christianity as a legitimate Roman religion* (among many others) did not allow himself to be baptized until he was on his death bed. Since baptism was believed to cover all sins prior to the sprinkling, he wanted to make sure that he did not have any more time for another quick sin, even an evil thought. Constantine's acceptance of State sanctioned Christianity proved to be a most disastrous thing, as it legitimized, even forced the joining of church, and state, and don't we know what havoc that resulted in over the next twelve or so centuries. A nightmare unfolded for gnostics as millions of people were put to death because they put their thoughts about God before the teachings of man and his church, and the state.
When people follow the commandments of man, in the forms of government, and church over the teachings of their own God, then they enter troubled waters. All of which is why the founding fathers rejected any roll of church in the public affairs of men with the passage of the Constitution's first amendment. They were all too aware of what had happened in Europe since the death of Christ. They undoubtedly believed in the simple message of Jesus (even though they rejected the Church's bible; Jefferson edited his own), but mostly they held a Unitarian belief in the power of a God that set forth the events of the universe in which they found themselves a wondrous part of, and they make many references to such a gift, and privilege. (continued below ad)
There are a lot of modern churches, and ministries that are now doing good work for those in need. They have shaken the shackles of the original Christian church, and you will find a noticeable absence of the old ceremonies, rules, judgments, and condemnations that so burdened the seeking souls of old. People now feel free to seek God on their own terms, and that includes when to be baptized, if at all. After almost 2,000 years, it appears as though the gnostics, who were so viciously persecuted by the early church of Rome, might finally be vindicated. We should be so enightened as to also seek God on our own, and live the simple message of Jesus, without the politics and trappings of organized religion muddying up the river.
In the end, baptism is an affirmation of faith, love, or just starting over. For most people it has become a personal decision, not a directive, and that is a very good thing.
* (When Constantine (a capable politician who always knew which way the wind was blowing) agreed to "legalize" Christianity there were caveats that the new religion's leaders had to agree to, in order to insure unity on the political and social calendar of Rome. The Sabath (Saturday) had to be changed to the day that the rest of the empire had reserved to worship the sun, and any annual celebration had to also conform to the shared date of December 25, which on the Roman calendar marked the winter solstice, the day that began the return of the sun's strength. Small political compromises for the early church fathers to agree to in exchange for no more lions in the arena, and a place in the government that would all to soon grow to become the government itself.)
