A lot of the churches that do Believer's Baptism baptize via immersion. It's how I was baptized. I mostly prefer it too, but refuse to get dogmatic over it, one way or another.

Me too--at least, I can be dogmatic about it, but I usually choose not to, even when I have to grit my teeth through infant baptism services in my current church. NSM over the infant issue as over the "child of the covenant" way in which it's presented, which is a very Presbyterian thing and one of my lingering points of disagreement with my denomination, because if you follow it all the way back to its origin it smacks of predestination, and I don't see how anyone could love and worship a God who just arbitrarily picks who goes to heaven and who goes to hell.

But baptism? Not that big of a deal. Another legacy of my Baptist upbringing is that I believe the sacraments are symbols rather than actual means of transmitting grace or spiritual power. So the "fire insurance" aspect of infant baptism has always puzzled me, though I understand the theology behind it intellectually, because my gut reaction is, "But it's just water. It doesn't mean anything unless the kid comes to believe someday and then decides it does."

I had a college roommate who'd been raised Catholic but then joined a charismatic church that practiced believer's baptism by immersion. By their standards, her infant baptism by sprinkling didn't count. She invited a bunch of us from our college Christian fellowship group to come to her baptism. While we were there one of my friends, a Catholic, realized that Jen had had a Catholic baptism as a baby and was so upset and offended by the idea that this church didn't think it was a real baptism that he very nearly walked out of the service. I could understand where he was coming from, though we ended up having a long, polite, and educational talk about our different perspectives on sacraments coming from opposite ends of the Christian tradition.

I grew up in a church that only practiced what's sometimes called Believer's Baptism. That is, you had to be of an age (I think it was abitrarily set at 12 at my church, but other churches are different) where it was clear it was your choice, and you had to take classes to understand it, first.

The Mormons do that, too. And of course all the Anabaptists do.

I had mine baptized, but theyr'e both atheists; I'm the only believer in my family. This is because I'm really really opposed to prosetylizing. Yes, I know about the Great Commission, and I flunk it. I tell my kids what I believe, and why, but I don't say "You need to believe this too." I guess I really believe in faith by ocnviction.

I was baptized as an infant and confirmed at age 12. The former was more of "welcome this child into the church" and the latter was "this person has made the choice to become a Christian in the Methodist tradition." I think both can have a place. I also think that 12 is kind of young to make decisions on where you'll spend the rest of your spiritual life. But then, I'm biased in as much as my confirmation didn't "take".

ETA: Which makes it sound like my confirmation was faulty in some way, and I don't really mean that. I mean that I don't think I really had enough life experience at that point to make an educated commitment to a spiritual path.

I also think that 12 is kind of young to make decisions on where you'll spend the rest of your spiritual life.

Yeah, I agree. But I think it's pretty much standard, or even a bit late. Mormon kids join at 7, and I forget what age Catholic kids are confirmed at.

Oh, that reminds me. I was skimming through Showtime listings the other day and one of the movies they have coming up is apparently a Mormon version of Pride and Prejudice.

I was baptized as an infant and confirmed at age 12. The former was more of "welcome this child into the church" and the latter was "this person has made the choice to become a Christian in the Methodist tradition."

That's my experience (Presbyterian, and later UCC).

and later UCC

United Church of Christ? As in the "we welcome everyone" commercials? I have such a love on for everything I've heard about that denomination. If I could get past my basic theological issues with Trinitarian doctrine I might be looking for a local congregation.

I was baptized at 8 or 9. In some ways that's young, I suppose, but I understood what it meant and wanted it. There wasn't a specific age at which you were supposed to be baptized, because it was all about becoming a believer (usually couched in the Baptist buzz-phrases "ask Jesus into your heart" or "make a decision for Christ"), though I never knew of a child being baptized younger than 6 or 7, and children raised in the church who hadn't "made the decision" by age 12 or so got a certain amount of pressure/attention from pastors and Sunday School teachers.

If I could get past my basic theological issues with Trinitarian doctrine

What's that? I mean, what's Trinitarian doctrine? Belief in the separateness of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit?

I also think that 12 is kind of young to make decisions on where you'll spend the rest of your spiritual life.

Well, its not like they hold you to it with guns or something.

I think its more a rite of passage. You're raised in a tradition and then they respect that you're old enough to embrace it consciously.

Raq, I really like the "we don't practice infant baptism" answer. It's true and concise and politely ends a discussion that is potentially yet not necessarily nosy.