Winter 1994 - Quarterly Review

upon the way of salvation or upon the way of sin, depending upon the
choice to be made by the child" (p. 117). Arguing a relationship
between theological thought and political developments, Goodloe
writes: "So that today in a great democratic country like America there
are those who cling to the Catholic inheritance of original sin and
baptismal regeneration; but as democracy increases, in both state and
church, the worth of the individual advances, and the 'whosoever will'
teaching of Jesus is on the march!" (p. 106). It is not difficult to
discern here the basis of infant baptism understood primarily, even
exclusively, as dedication of the child by the parents, as well as the
rationale for incessant requests for "rebaptism" in adulthood. Such
emphasis on the human capacity for decision and positive action
effectively vitiates the leveling nature of baptismal grace offered as
antidote for the sin of all persons. When it is believed that persons are
able to achieve salvation through their own merits and efforts, those
who have lesser resources and power can be blamed for their own
situation. Theological, sociological, and political positions from the
Puritan "signs of election" to the judgments of Social Darwinists to
contemporary criticisms of affirmative action and welfare programs
provide evidence of this. Little sympathy for "the poor" is offered by
views which deny the inherent sinfulness and helplessness of all
persons and, instead, emphasize the ability to determine one's own
destiny.
If the current baptismal rituals can be taken as evidence, Methodism
may be returning to more orthodox concepts of the power and
pervasiveness of sin. The first question addressed to a candidate (or to
parents or sponsors) is, "Do you renounce the spiritual forces of
wickedness, reject the evil powers of this world, and repent of your
sin?" This inquiry is significant for the relationship between the
church and "the poor." It recognizes the universality of human
sinfulness—a condition which includes both the powerful and the
oppressed. This sinfulness is identified as not only individual but also
corporate and systemic. Ministries of peace and justice are surely
dependent upon such a recognition. It is, however, of both interest and
concern that this question to baptismal candidates has emerged as a
chief focus of dispute and opposition in the church to the new liturgy.
Many contemporary United Methodists are uncomfortable with
assertions of their and their children's sinfulness and are oblivious to
the scope of evil. For too long, most Christians have understood sin as
personal action in violation of moral codes of behavior. Fruitfully
GOOD NEWS TO THE POOR: BAPTISM AS LIBERATION 391