RSS
Home
Atheists Dry Off With Debaptism
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
.jpg)
Some atheists think they can undo their baptism with a de-baptism. Why do they even care?
The title of the USA Today article says it all - Atheists choose 'de-baptism' to renounce childhood faith. I'm not sure that Hemingway could have summarized it better. When a person becomes a Christian they repent and believe the Gospel. They renounce their previous life (repent of sins) and proclaim that they belong to Jesus. These proactive steps might explain why de-baptisms are taking place. It is somewhat of a reversal process. De-baptism is actually another borrowing of the Christian worldview by atheists. Why do it at all?
Hard to Shake Baptisms
Some atheists in the above the article think de-baptism is immature and that rituals as such should be left to the religious. Yet, other atheists give much credence to their baptisms. Why? Why do their baptisms hold so much weight that they must try to be relieved of them?
Up until last summer, Jennifer Gray of Columbus, Ohio, considered herself "a weak Christian" whose baptism at age 11 in a Kentucky church came to mean less and less to her as she gradually lost faith in God.
Then the 32-year-old medical transcriptionist took a decisive step, one that previously hadn't been available. She got "de-baptized."
If Gray's baptism meant so little as its meaning became less and less then why all the effort of de-baptism? This is akin to getting a tattoo because your boy/girlfriend liked it. Breaking up. Saying the tattoo doesn't matter anymore. Then starting a tattoo removal process. Something matters.
"It was very therapeutic," Gray said in an interview. "It was a chance to laugh at the silly things I used to believe as a child. It helped me admit that it was OK to think the way I think and to not have any religious beliefs."
Why does Gray admit that it was "therapeutic?" Why did it take this act to help her to think religious beliefs were silly? Was she not convinced of her own convictions before de-baptism? How did she go through with it since this de-baptism was tied to "religion?" What was so pressing from the act of baptism that Gray had to try to undo it?
The original baptism apparently had some effect if she needed this act to finally clear her mind. What if this de-baptism does not take? If Gray's meaningless baptism weighed so heavily on her, how can she be sure her meaningful de-baptism will not up upset her life somewhere else? The tension might build and another type of (ir)religious activity be needed.
Legit?
...said Greg McDowell, the Florida state director for American Atheists, an advocacy and networking group. "It's a bit of satire. People will play the fool by waving their arms in the air and saying, 'I got de-baptized!' But the paperwork is still legit."
What does it mean that the paperwork is legit? Does this mean that atheism is recognized as a religion and this is one of their legal, religious acts? If not, maybe it's time they registered themselves as such. Borrowing a religious act and claiming it legitimate points to being a religion. For atheists to even call themselves as such relies on the very God they deny. Similarly, de-baptism relies on baptism in the sense that the physical act is the same.
Speaking of Paperwork
The National Secular Society is actually offering a Certificate of Debaptism. The declaration is geared towards infant baptism. What if the one denouncing their baptism was a baptist?
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.”
No Real Debaptism
There is not really a de-baptism. Speaking of the physical act itself that is. To the onlooker de-baptism looks just like baptism. The irony is that these atheists would need an act of God to have a true de-baptism. Just as baptists go down in the water and come out wet, these atheists would have to go down in the water and come out dry. This would take an act of God.
The whole thing is just silly. Why would an atheist spend any time worrying about their past religion by doing this act? Why not live it up only worrying about self?
The word of God really is living and active dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart (Heb. 4:12 NIV). This verse may shed light on why these de-baptisms took place. It was a need to do something. An action to try and take away any last bit of conviction. Not only do these atheists borrow God so they can renounce Him. They now borrow His order of doing things such as communion and baptism only to renounce them. What's next: de-church, de-altar call, de-prayer, de-praise, de-repent, de-Gospel, etc.
Christians should not be upset, but in prayer. It is not baptism that saves in the first place and it is not de-baptism that is damning anyone. It is sin. Christians must continue to proclaim that being right with God is only found in repentance of sin and believing the Gospel of Jesus Christ alone by faith alone.
Please consider subscribing via email by clicking "Subscribe" above. Also, consider using the "Share This" button below to share on your favorite social networking site such as Twitter, Facebook, Digg, Stumbleupon, etc.
Related Articles:
Comments
