What Happens to Babies When They Die?
by Paul Hazelden
Public Health Warning
This article is not written for
instruction in pastoral care. It addresses some of
the theological issues raised by this area. But if
someone's baby has died, they will probably appreciate an arm
around the shoulder rather more than a theological
dissertation. |
Contents
Introduction
The starting point of this article was the question posed in
the title: what happens to babies when they die?
What is their eternal destiny? On what basis does
God decide on their fate?
However, it soon became clear that this is one aspect of a
much wider question: what is the fate of those who
cannot choose to follow Jesus? There seems
to be two main groups of people to whom this applies:
- those who cannot understand the gospel; and
- those who have never heard the gospel.
In the first group, we have both babies and some mentally
handicapped people (or whatever the politically correct term
happens to be this week...); in the second group, we have many
atheists, agnostics, and a large number of those who follow other
religions.
Strangely, the second group has been the subject of a fair
amount of discussion (along the lines of "What about the
unevangelised?"), while the first group has been almost
totally neglected.
The issue in general raises some
interesting questions (such as, precisely what is the
gospel message, and how much of it do you need to understand in
order to be saved?), but applying the issue to the first group
adds some further twists. Exacty how old do you need
to be before you
can choose to follow Jesus? How well do you need to
understand the gospel message before you can make this
decision?
You can describe the process of salvation in a number of
different ways, but the problem exists whichever set of words you
choose. For example, you can talk about 'exercising
saving faith' rather than 'choosing to follow Jesus,' but the key
issue remains unchanged. Some people can do it,
whatever the 'it' is, and some people can't.
Stating the Problem
Before we go any further, let's be clear about the
problem we are seeking to address.
| Standard evangelical theology says that only
people who have chosen to follow Jesus will get to
Heaven. This means that all those who
cannot choose to follow Jesus will be consigned to
Hell, which appears to be both unfair and unjust.
|
We should note that the standard approach
makes perfect sense in the context of an evangelistic address -
if people can follow what you are saying, they can choose to
follow Jesus. However, it does open to door to some
tricky apologetic questions. And it creates serious
pastoral problems further down the line.
As I see it, the problem presented to us by this issue falls
into two parts: theodicy and consistency.
- Theodicy - we need to present a Biblical position which
supports the goodness of God in a way that makes sense to
people.
- Consistency - we need to describe a theology of salvation
which takes seriously all the Bible teaches about God and the
way He works.
Our Purpose
What are we really attempting to do in this article? The
temptation is to search for a way of interpreting the standard
evangelical position which does not offend either our emotions
or our moral principles.
However, aiming to change our theology until we reach a point
where God no longer offends my personal sensibilities does not
sound like a terribly useful direction to explore. I
must accept that I may well not like some of the things He says
and does. If He needs to conform to my standards and
expectations, presumably He also needs to conform to those of
everyone else in the world. This would leave us with
very little we could say about Him.
However, if God wants us to be involved in evangelism which
engages the mind, it would seem very strange for Him to leave us
without some reasonable answer to give when people ask us about
this area. The purpose of this article is to
discover what answer He expects us to give. This
answer may not be totally satisfying, it may not provide all the
answers we would like, but it must work at some basic
level.
If part of the gospel message is something the unregenerate do
not like and do not wish to hear, well, that is sad, but there's
not a lot we can do about it. We dare not compromise
the message to make it more acceptable. But this is
a very big 'if.' We have no right to place any
hindrance in the path of someone who is interested in finding
God - and that must surely include dubious theological issues as
well as the obvious social and personal stumbling blocks.
Possible Answers
People have advanced various suggestions and
positions. I attempt to summarise the main ones
below.
The Cop-Out
You can phrase this in various ways: "We are not told what
happens," "We don't need to know what happens," or "We can
safely leave that question with God" for example.
This approach is not very helpful. On the pastoral
front, people do need some form of answer to the
question, and on the theological front it touches on issues
which are central to our faith. If we can't answer
some straight questions in this area, a great deal of the
Christian faith starts to look very unclear and uncertain.
Hell is Justified
Some people give the blunt but logically obvious reply that
babies and the unevangelised go to Hell when they
die. It hardly needs to be said that this
response produces serious problems - emotional, pastoral and
apologetic.
People who adopt this position generally go on to
say that if God does this, He must be right to do it, so there
is no moral problem. If we don't like it, then the
problem is ours.
If we leave the answer at this point, it is essentially a
simple refusal to address
the problem: unless you can explain why this is morally correct
behaviour for God, you are driven to the conclusion that God's
goodness is so different to ours that the term is effectively
meaningless when applied to Him - which conclusion would lead to massive
problems in every aspect of theology.
However, people who go down this route generally go further:
not only (they say) is God right to send
babies to Hell, but we know why He is right to do
this. Babies are born 'in sin'. They are
not innocent: they are born sinful, sharing the guilt of Adam's
rebellion.
This may be sound theology, but it sounds like pretty dubious
ethics. Not only is God refusing babies entry to
Heaven because they have not done something they could not do,
but He is also actively sending them to Hell for
something they have not done and an event they had no control
over.
Okay - the Bible does teach us about corporate (or communal)
responsibility. There are various examples of people
being punished for something they did not do because they were
members of a group that was corporately responsible.
Families die because one member sinned. The
implication is that people punished in this way are supposed to
simply 'take it on the chin like a man'.
BUT...
- The principle of individual responsibility is taught
more clearly as the Old Testament progresses, so the idea of
corporate responsibility clearly has its
limits.
- We are talking about babies here - people who don't even
know they are part of this group being
punished. They can hardly be expected to take this
punishment 'like a man,' can they?
- And... we are talking about Hell. Eternal
destiny, torment, no second chances and no possibility of
remission. I can understand 'unfair' ordinary
punishment being justified sometimes. I can even
understand that it may sometimes be appropriate for God to
kill someone who does not personally deserve to die - since
God can also redress any injustice in the
afterlife. But sending someone to Hell is not an
injustice that can ever be redressed.
Unless God's behaviour in this area is understood to be
ethical, it is hard to see how the idea of His goodness can
have any meaning in human terms.
Limbo for the 'Innocent'
Another approach splits the two groups. People who
cannot respond to the gospel, for whatever reason,
cannot be treated as full human beings, and hence cannot be
punished in the same way as those who are fully morally
responsible. However, those who can
respond but do not, for whatever reason, must accept
responsibility for their fate.
I use the term 'limbo' here in its most general sense:
depending on who you speak to, people who adopt this position
describe the eternal destiny of babies in all kinds of
ways. As none of it can be demonstrated from
scripture, people are free to describe anything they like.
The people to whom is is supposed to apply are described in a
number of ways: they are sometimes called 'innocent' (which
largely pre-judges the issue); they are sometimes described as
'not responsible for their actions' or 'not morally
responsible' Whatever terms are used, the basic idea
is that only the morally responsible are full human and hence
subject to the instructions and requirements laid down in
scripture.
This answer clearly raises numerous other
difficulties: justifying some intermediate fate for the
not-fully-human from scripture; justifying the existence of such
a group in the first place; and so on.
On a personal note, one of my difficulties with this
approach is that it
tends to suggest the most morally responsible course
of action concerning babies who are born into predominantly
non-Christian lands would
be to kill as many possible - to ensure they go
to limbo, rather than Hell. This is a position I,
and most Christians I know,
would be very reluctant to adopt.
Infant Baptism
Sadly, this is possibly the commonest answer given to this
problem in the Christian world. It may well be the
most cruel. One of the main reasons why people have
their babies baptised is so that they will be sure, if the baby
dies, that it will go to Heaven. Emergency baptisms
are performed in Hospitals if it is feared that the baby will
not survive.
I still have difficulty coping emotionally with this
belief. It means that there is no hope for the dead
children of any non-Christian family. Many
Christians do not baptise babies: all of their children who die
in infancy are consigned to Hell as well. Place two
babies next to each other. If they both die, one
will go to Heaven because it has gone through a certain ritual,
and the other will go to Hell because it has not.
As I say, I have difficulty coping with this one.
It seems to me that anyone who believes this is true must
believe they are serving and worshipping a monster.
I have been talking with people about this subject for years,
and nobody has yet shown me how I could believe in a good and
loving God who behaves in such a way.
Faith of the Parents
A slightly watered down (and therefore, to me slightly more
acceptable!) version of the infant baptism position, is one
which teaches that children are covered by the faith of their
parents. Precisely what this means and how it
operates is generally unclear. There seems to be one
passage of scripture which can be interpreted in this way
('hence are your children clean') but very little to suggest how
this can be integrated into everything else evangelicals
believe.
It should be noted that both this position and that of the
infant baptist are implicit but absolute denials of the
traditional evangelical position. Acording to these
positions, you can get to Heaven either through
choosing to follow Jesus or through having the fortune
to have parents who baptised you or who exercised faith on your
behalf.
In any case, it does not solve the difficulty: instead of there
being some people who cannot do what is required to be saved, we
have some people who cannot have done to them what is
required. It doesn't really help.
Admit Our Mistake
None of these attempted solutions work. None of
them can work: if our salvation depends on us doing
something, there will always be some people who cannot be saved
because they cannot do that which is required.
The only possible answer is to re-examine our starting
point. I believe we have profoundly mis-understood
both the nature and the dynamics of salvation, and it is this
mis-understanding which causes the problems we have been looking
at.
The Nature of Salvation
Following the Rules
We talk about salvation as if it were something that works on a
set of rules. We argue about the rules: Is baptism
necessary? Is baptism sufficient? Is speaking in tongues
essential? But all these arguments are about the details of the
rules.
When we want to know if someone is saved, we apply the rules to
that person and see what the outcome is. Of course,
some of the rules are a matter of judgement (for example, does
this person seek to live a holy life?), but that is okay - in
the end, it is not down to us to decide, and we can be sure that
God's judgement is perfect.
Of course, there are all kinds of rules in the Bible: laws,
instructions, principles, warnings and so on. And
of course, these rules are important. The rules are
given to help us understand how God wants us to
live. But no set of rules, no matter how perfect,
can offer us eternal life.
Grace
We even preach grace as though it comes to us through the
operation of certain rules. We tell people: if you
pray the sinners'
prayer, then you will experience God's grace.
Most Christians are very aware that we are saved by God's
grace, not by our own works. For many of us, that
was the key turning point in our lives: when we stopped trying
to work for God's blessing or earn our salvation, and instead
received salvation as a free gift.
But when someone wants to know how they, too, can receive the
free gift of salvation, we start to explain the
rules. You must believe in Jesus. Or
we take them through the Four Spiritual Laws. Or we
lay hands on them and get them speaking in tongues.
Or we invite them to an Alpha course.
Now, I have nothing against any of these tools.
But salvation is not a matter of following a set of rules,
whether they are described by the Four Spiritual Laws, or in any
other way.
Developing a Relationship
We naturally turn the Bible's teaching into a set of
rules. We like it that way. We are
comfortable with rules. But salvation is not about
rules; it is about relationship. Let me say that
again.
| Salvation is not about rules; it is about
relationship.
|
Salvation is about a relationship with the living
God. The rules are important and useful in so far as
they help us understand Him and our relationship with
Him. But you cannot gain or sustain a relationship
through following rules. Rules can help prevent you
from messing up a relationship, but they cannot create a
relationship in the first place.
You develop a relationship not by following a set of rules, but
by giving yourself to the other person.
(I am talking about real relationships here: the
'I-Thou' relationships in which we encounter another person as a
significant individual. The word can be used to
describe social interactions where we use other people in
certain ways, responding to their role or function in a given
situation, but that is not what I mean here.)
Being born again means (among other things) being born into
God's family. Family is all about
relationships. Following Jesus - being His disciple
- is all about the relationship you have with Jesus.
Eternal life is all about knowing God - having a relationship
with Him. However you look at it, we are talking
about relationship, not rules.
Damaging the Relationship
Why do we need to be saved? Because of
sin. Sin is what broke the relationship in the first
place. So restablishing the relationship again must
be linked with the forgiveness of sins.
I have talked about this at more length elsewhere (PT022) - but in
summary, I believe that God dealt with the issue of sin through
Jesus' death on the cross - end of story. Jesus died
for the sins of the world, so the sins of the world have been
forgiven. All of them.
When there is a crime, there needs to be a punishment, so that
justice can be maintained. This is what has been
done. But sin is not just a
legal problem: it is also a personal problem. When
offence has been given, in order to restore the relationship you
need apology and repentance.
So people people do not go to Hell because of their
sins. They go to Hell because they refuse to accept
God's invitation to a new life with Him. They refuse
to live in a relationship with God, and after death they will
not go to live at His place. So there is only one
fate left for them, only one place left for them to
go. Heaven is the place where God is, and they don't
want to be with Him.
In this way of looking at things, salvation is not the point at
which your sins are forgiven: it is the point at which you
accept the invitation to a new life made possible by the
forgiveness of your sins. It is when you choose to
take up the opportunities made possible by Jesus' death.
In passing, this is also the answer to the challenge of
universalism: the doors of Heaven have been thrown open to
everyone, but not everyone wants to go through them.
Back to the Issue
Looking at salvation this way makes very little difference to
our evangelistic preaching. Our sins have been
forgiven by God's sovereign act; He opens His
arms wide to welcome us home, but we choose whether to turn
around and come home, or keep on heading off in our own
direction. But it makes a massive difference for
those who cannot respond.
In the traditional formulation, the default is that everyone
goes to Hell unless they choose to believe in and follow
Jesus. The alternative formulation reverses
this:
|
Because Jesus has paid the price for our sins, everyone
goes to Heaven unless they choose to reject God and the
salvation He offers.
|
In practice, this understanding of salvation makes very little
difference to most of the things we do, the way we do them, or
our motivation for doing them. Most people choose to
reject God and go
their own way. It is still our duty to reach out to
these people and invite them to come back to God.
The Buddhist, Hindu or Moslem will not go to Hell because of
their religion, but because they reject God - because they
reject the light they have
received. Most people turn away from God, either to
atheism or to (sometimes fervent but always empty) religious
ritual. I believe that very occasionally, someone
who has not been told about Jesus and the way of salvation may
sincerely desire to serve and follow God. I believe
such people will get to Heaven. But this is
speculation: the Bible is silent on this subject.
What we can be sure is that the vast
majority will perish unless we show them the way.
The responsibility to reach those who have not heard still rests
on our shoulders.
But to answer the original question -
what happens to babies when they die? - I believe the answer is
very clear: they go to Heaven. Not because they
believe, not because they have been baptised, not because they
are innocent, and not because everyone goes there; but because
God loves them, and Jesus died for them, and because they have
not chosen to reject His life and His love.
Links
This article is one of a group of three, each of which
should be read in the light of the other two, as together
they deal with a set of inter-related issues. The three
articles are: