Baptism of children adopted from Asia - are we for it or against it?

I have some friends who went through the process of adopting a child from Korea. This was an act I wholeheartedly supported, and was very happy for them. They couldn't have kids on their own, and if I've ever known any woman who was abolutely called by God to the office of Mother, it's her.

But one thing bothered me - during the process, they mentioned often, esp. her, how excited she was to have the baby baptized once he/she arrived. I thought that a bit odd, to be excited about a baptism, but on the other hand, this is also a woman whose faith, though it isn't all that intellectually mapped, is very deep, very real, and very important to her. But I found myself cringing at her desire - nay, her eagerness - to baptize the child once it came.

So let me spell out, for the sake of honesty, two things that affect me from my own context in this thinking:

1. I'm not a big fan of baby baptism to begin with. Though I'm UCC, I think the Baptists have it right on this count: baptism should really only be for believers. I'll accept baby baptism, I'm not adamant against it, but my preference is for believer baptism, and I wish that all Christians would get away from baby baptism.

2. I'm very sensitive to Asia, specifically non-Russian Asia, its history, its indigenous religions, its people, and its culture; and am very protective of it. Most of non-Russian Asia, of course, is Buddhist.

3. I don't feel this about a Muslim child, or a Russian Orthodox, or a Central American Catholic, or a South American tribal animist, etc. I'd happily raise any of those children as Christians, my form of Christianity, and never worry about it. It's really only Buddhist or Jewish that I find myself feeling this way.

So, that said, there is much of me that felt it very rude, maybe even wrong, on the part of the parents to baptise their child, given that there is a good chance that the baby's biological parents were Buddhist. Although, since they are Korean, this baby has the highest chance of all Asian babies of having Christian parents.

Now, I know intellectually that one is not "born" into any religion, except Judaism, and it pisses me off when people say "I was born a Christian!" Yeah, well, no you weren't, fuckbag. So, in that sense, even if the baby's parents were Buddhist, that doesn't make the baby Buddhist. And if the new parents are Christian, of course the child will grow up in a church and more than likely be Christian - or at least be raised Christian - so, in that sense, why not just go ahead and have the kid baptised since it's gonna spend its life in the church anyway?

But on the other other hand, I also have a strong reverance for religion, and I don't hold Christianity as inherently better than any other religion. And, quite truthfully, if I were to adopt a kid from China or Korea, more than likely it would be raised in the church (since that's what I do), but I'd also feel like I have an obligation to teach and offer to the child the religion of its ancestors. And I wouldn't baptise the child, but then, I wouldn't baptise any child of mine, so that's not unusual. I also would not change the child's name to an American one - I'd add my family name, but keep the child's full name as well.

So, I'm not looking for kudos nor to be shat upon. I'm only looking for discussion, to hear what you all think, as well as to perhaps help me sort out those thoughts that are theological vs. merely personal (and I say that knowing, of course, that there is no absolute objective theology; it's all personal, but there are times that one has difficulty reducing the eisegesis in favor of the exegesis).

Thanks all!

And why do you presume that the child's parents were Buddhist?

and then my friends received her when she was about 6 months old.

And as mentioned, since the baby is Korean, the greatest chance is that her parents were Buddhist. Though being Korean, there's still a decent chance that her parents were Christian.

In the Reformed tradition, baptism is the beginning of a process whereby the child, later the believer, becomes a member of the covenant community. Unlike many traditions within Christianity, we don't hold baptism to be salvific, but rather an act of gratitude and, again, entrance into the covenant. And again, we believe it to be a process. At baptism, the child is welcomed into the community, and the parents and congregation covenant to raise the child in the faith.

The process is completed (as much as it's ever completed) at confirmation, when the child, now a believer (one hopes), takes on the full commitment of membership in the covenant for her/his self.

I don't see how it's inappropriate for the parents to promise to raise the child in their faith. Nor do I see how it can be wrong to welcome the child into the covenant community. The people of God are not white Europeans only, and this child will be raised in her parents' household. If she chooses, she can eschew that faith choise when she's older, but why would the parents not want her to know the fellowship that they find in their faith?

Interestingly, I am a dedication sponsor to a Chinese baby adopted by some good friends who are Disciples of Christ. It never occurred to me that it might be inappropriate to dedicate her, and I look forward to the day when she chooses (yes, we hope) to be baptized.

Besides, some of the largest mega-churches in the world are in Korea. That she would have been raised Buddhist is a cultural assumption that may not be at all accurate.

Maybe I wasn't clear in my OP, and I know I wasn't clear because it's way too long and I normally only do that when I am being unclear; but I wasn't asking so much to be told I am wrong or that my theology is deficient. My goal with asking the question and putting forth this situation was not to say that I am right and everyone else is wrong, nor that I am wrong and everyone else is right, nor anything in between. It was only to explore why I am bothered by one particular situation, that of baptising a buddhist baby, or, in general, of baptising a baby whose parents aren't Christian.

And granted, as I said in the OP, I know that coming from Korea there's a better chance of the parents being Christian than from any other non-Russian Asian country. I stated that straight out. So yes, there is a chance that the baby's parents are Christian.

Though as I've thought about this overnight, I think some of my being bothered has simply to do with the parents. People that will be wonderful parents, but also a pair who aren't overly sophisticated, and who have a somewhat unsophisticated sense of Christianity as being the only true religion, and certainly being the only religion that creates good, decent people. Kind of that weird protestant American idea of bringing people to church to make them better people, not for salvation or God's love or anything, but Christianity as moral rubric and a way to keep people out of trouble. And I am quite sure that they will say little, or nothing, about the baby's heritage to the baby as she grows up. And I am not trying to ridicule the couple. The problem could be me - it could be simply that I am thinking too much.

But I do have a profound respect for Buddhism, and profound respect for the cultures of non-Russian Asia, and, for the most, for all religious expression. For the most part, I don't see any one religion as any better or closer to the truth as any other (I make exceptions for Scientology, fundamentalism, Mormonism, and Jehovah's Witnesses). As I said in the OP, if this were an Amazonian baby, I wouldn't have given it second thought.

So the question is: is this a legitimate theological question worth thinking about? Or is it just my own baggage getting in the way and making a mountain out of nothing?

And these are the questions that I love best to ask - questions about whether it's my own being and cultural/social baggage that's fucking up the situation, or if the situation is indeed fucked up. God, I miss seminary and CPE sometimes; and I miss having live friends who can help with this stuff face to face.

who want to have the kid "done" in the same manner as going to the local K-Mart for the photo-shoot? These people probably saved the child's first bowel movement and fingernail clippings. Yuk.
Hell, yeah, I'd be pissed about that.

Too many people think that baptism is some kind of magical formula, or something to be done with the series of vaccines. Or worse yet, those who simply want a big party and lots of presents.

Hopefully, the pastor of the church has some kind of requirement for the parents and/or sponsors to sit down and hear about baptism, and know that they're doing something very profound: they're promising to do their very best to raise the child as a Christian.

It just gets complicated when the parents don't take their own faith seriously at all.

It was the answer I was getting at, but I think I was afraid to admit itbecause I like the parents a lot - they're my friends. But I think that's the real problem I have - a lack of trust in their ability to respect fully the culture of the baby. Add that in with the multiple times they, esp. the mother, said "I can't wait to have my baby to have a baptism!" before they even got the baby, and it made my toes curl.

StoryTeller's response below was perfect - and exactly how I would approach the situation, and how I wish I could be sure this couple would approach it.

I don't think my friends will be quite that sensitive. I *do* think they'll be wonderful parents, and thankfully, even though they are unsophisticated in their faith, they are in a UCC church, so there won't be any of the fundy bullshit. They do, however, hold in a somewhat limited sense to an American triumphalist Christianity, which is bothersome, but not at the level of our current administration or Robertson, et. al., and the parents are definitely Democrats who think the president is a fuckin' bozo. They are people for whom their faith is important, though, and in that sense they'll raise their baby in accordance with the baptismal vows more than most people do, so I have to give them credit there.

Couple that with my Asian triumphalism, and Houston, we have a problem.

Thanks

Hi Rabrrrrr, I'm glad my post made sense to you. :)

I just was wondering--what is "triumphalism"? I grew up pretty much living under a rock, so I'm sorry if I'm showing my ignorance here. I just haven't heard that term before.

Thanks!
ST

Or, more technically, Triumphalism is the attitude or belief that a particular doctrine, culture, or social system is superior to and should triumph over all others. Triumphalism is not an articulated doctrine but rather a term that is used to characterize certain attitudes or belief systems by parties such as political commentators and historians.

It is an "oberserver's term", used pejoratively. Few will identify themselves as "triumphalist".

We see this in the republican party and freepers a lot: triumphalist christianity, triumphalist nationalism, patriotism, racism, genderism, geographyism, etc.

...I can tell you our perspective about this question. My response is long-ish because it's a complicated issue. I don't want to give you some pat answer.

First, we attend a church that does "believer" baptism, meaning that we have a dedication ceremony for our children, but not baptism. The dedication ceremony is simply a time of prayer and blessing for the child and a promise by the parents to raise their child in a way that is honoring of our faith, and a promise from the congregation to support and help the parents as a community. Baptism is saved until the child is old enough to understand what it means and choose whether or not to make that sort of statement of their own faith.

My daughter, whom we adopted at 14 mos. from China, is now 8. She wanted to be baptized this spring, and after talking with her about it and making sure she really understood what it was about, we agreed. Her faith is quite real and personal to her, and it was very special to us to see her make this sort of public affirmation of her faith.

If I'm understanding your question correctly, it seems that you are wondering to what extent adoptive parents should influence their child toward the child's birth-culture faith (in this case, Buddhism, if any at all) or toward the faith of the parents. I think it's a fair question, but I think it does show a little misunderstanding of what it's like to be a family through adoption. Having an adopted child doesn't mean that now we have two separate cultures--one for us and one for her. Having an adopted child means that our family's culture becomes more blended. The challenge for us as parents is to decide what that is going to look like for our family and how to meet the needs of both our children (one adopted, one not adopted) in a way that works for all of us.

As an adoptive parent of a child from China, I think it is very important for our family to recognize and celebrate her birth culture. In fact, because we have the advantage of also homeschooling, we are planning to study Chinese history and culture this coming year. My second daughter, who is not adopted, will be studying the same subjects--at her own grade level. We're going to try learning Chinese as a family, though I don't have any illusions about us becoming bilingual. We have open discussions about culture, race, and the struggles she faces in putting together what it all means to live in a family that isn't genetically your own.

When it comes to religion, we will study Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, and other religious influences in China. We will also study communism and the effect that the Communist Party has had on religious expression in China. I want BOTH my daughters to know and understand these things, and to recognize both the beneficial as well as the detrimental effects these belief systems have had on China.

But when it comes to what our family teaches, we do teach our kids the Christian faith. Regardless of the heritage of any of us, this is what my husband and I feel is the right thing for our family. I think it's interesting that you only feel this is a problem if the child's heritage is Jewish or Buddhist. If you really feel that all religions have equal merit and value, you would be troubled about changing any religious heritage. I'm not saying this to criticize, but just to point out that I think it's hard to really be that neutral about something as deeply personal as faith. If we really feel like "any religion will do, thanks" then I don't think that religion probably really has much impact on our lives. And in that case, why have a religion at all? It ends up just being a cultural accessory or, worse, confining ritual and rules that are ultimately meaningless.

The reason we teach our kids Christianity is one I know will be unpopular with most of the people reading this. But my husband and I aren't Christians because our parents were, or because we tried out a lot of different religions and liked this one the best, or because we do or do not belong to a certain political party, or because we live in a society that is traditionally "Christian." We are Christians because we honestly feel that Christianity has a deep truth that more adequately addresses the human condition and all its problems and offers the truest and best solution to those problems. We are Christians because we have experienced a God that is powerful as well as personal, loving, and provides meaning and purpose to our lives. A God that helps us to behave morally, ethically, and with love and mercy and compassion, honor and respect for our fellow humans. This is a faith that says we ALL, regardless of religion or politics, race, gender, or ethnic heritage, are made in the image of God. That we all have enormous, priceless value and should be treated accordingly. For us, this isn't just a belief system. It's a Person that has transformed our lives.

I'm not trying to put down other religions when I say this. But if this is our honest belief, then how could we in good conscience refuse to teach our children this and help them experience what we have? At this point, pursuing the truth we have found becomes more important than trying to replicate a culture that cannot be regained. (The replicating culture issue deserves a post of its own...complicated subject.)

The other point here is that Christianity is not a Western religion, regardless of it being portrayed as such. It's not an American religion. This is a huge error that the Religious Right has encouraged. Christianity is a global religion that started in the Middle East, and spread. The expression of the Christian faith is in many ways similar no matter what culture its in, but in other ways takes on a cultural flavor all its own (sometimes for better, sometimes for worse). China has a pretty long history of Christianity. There were Christians in China long before William Carey went as a missionary, long before the Boxer Rebellion. In fact, there are biblical references and allusions in even some of the Chinese characters themselves, which originate from circa 1500 BCE. There is no reason to feel that we are depriving our daughter of her heritage when in fact Christianity is a religion that belongs to the entire world.

I don't know how your friends will end up handling the issue of culture, or what sort of Christianity they will be passing to their child. But try not to be too worried--the adoption community today puts enormous emphasis on the importance of parents teaching their kids about their birth culture. It's not like it was when the first wave of Korean children were adopted overseas. So if your friends are at all connected with the international adoption community, there will be a certain expectation for them to at least acknowledge their child's birth culture. As for their religion? Unless their are wacked-out, hateful fundies, they could do a lot worse than teach their children the Christian faith. :)

Hey, Rabrrrrrr - what she said, OK? :)

Well said!

I think my friends with the daughter from China would say similar things. They attend a playgroup made up of other kids from China, that will, as the kids grow older, learn together about Chinese culture.
It would be gret if your friends could connect with other parents of Asian children--but it doesn't sound likely.

Other than that--the above says it all!

We have similar playgroups here. It's hard to get the girls together as often as I'd like, but there are even organizations to help families with kids from different countries connect with each other. We belong to our local chapter of Families With Children From China. I don't know if there's an equivalent for Korea or not. But those sort of groups are SO helpful!

It's great to connect not only with other families who have adopted from the same country as you, but it's also really nice to try to connect with some families from that country. We have tried here, but I know we could do better on that. The cultural and language barriers get to be pretty draining after awhile, at least for me, but I know it would be so good for my children. And for me.

said that it depended on your emphasis, that believer baptism emphasizes what the human being does while infant baptism emphasizes what God does.

He likened infant baptism to setting up a trust fund for a newborn baby. The fund exists whether the child knows about it or not or even if s/he decides not to draw on it as an adult. But it's always there, just the same.

The analogy doesn't hold up entirely, but it's one way of looking at it.

Because someone is making an investment (promise) in the child's future. And at some point, the older child/young adult can make the choice for themself whether or not they want to invest (continue) or to reject that which was promised on their behalf.

In our tradition, that's what we call Confirmation. O8)

salvation" Lutherans.