God coming down to us
Believe it or not I have actually been thinking about "Baby Dedication" a lot lately. Not because I am thinking about going over to that practice, but I have been trying to understand people's reasoning for that practice. It makes no sense to me, and actually grieves me that it is being done! This practice of "baby dedication" has no Biblical support (if you want to argue that point, then we can, but trust me it isn't there! I know about Samson, Samuel, etc. but go for it if you want!), but yet somehow people think they need to do this instead of applying the covenant sign of baptism on this child.
I think the reason why this practice disturbs me so much is because it is completely a man-centered activity. The parents are bringing this child "to the Lord" and are promising to raise them in the fear and admonition of the Lord. Sure, God's grace is needed for that child to come faith, and grace is needed for the parents to teach and train them faithfully, but at its core "baby dedication" is man-centered. Listen to these words, "We are committing to bringing up our child, by God's grace, to be a child of faith." Sure God's grace is recognizes as being needed, but this sentence is completely man-centered. Whereas the Sacraments, especially important here is baptism, are totally God-centered - God is doing something in the Sacrament. When we baptize children we are watching God, through the ordained minister, come down and put the sign of the covenant on that child, and then God promises "the forgiveness of sin through Christ's blood and the Holy Spirit who produces faith" (HC Q&A 74).
I could go on proving the case for infant baptism, but I want to put a different spin on it. While I was thinking about all of this I was wondering why this practice of "baby dedication" was not done across the board in credo-baptist (believers-baptism) circles. For instance, I am pretty sure that Reformed Baptists do not do this practice. Obviously Reformed Baptists have a lot that is different from Broad Evangelicals who do this, not the least of which is a Reformed soteriology (doctrine of salvation) rather than an Arminian soteriology. Right off the bat, just having an Arminian theology explains a lot of why "baby dedication" could be done, but I don't want to go that route either. I want to connect "baby dedication" with one's view of worship.
Granted these two things are not totally connected because their are Reformed churches that have a faulty view of worship that do practice paedo-baptism (infant baptism). However, I wonder if where ever "baby dedication" does take place this connection is true. One of the most amazing things that I have come to appreciate about worship on the Lord's Day is that God is coming down to us. All to often we think of our Sunday worship as being something where we go up to God. But how amazing is it to think that God is coming down to us! Our praise and worship of God in the Sunday service is our response to what God is doing through his Word and Sacraments. We have six days in which to serve the Lord in our vocations and callings in the world, we need a Sabbath! We don't need a seventh day where all the responsibilities are on us to do everything, but here is a time when God has promised to come down and meet us and serve us! This is why many of the Reformers didn't call their church services "Worship Services" (which implies we are gathering to do something), but "The Divine Service" (which means that God is gathering us to do something to us). We don't need to stand for 20 minutes singing song after song in order to raise ourselves up to heaven. We are there to receive from God and then respond to his working through our praise for what he has done.
I could keep going talking about the proper view of worship, but I need to take this back to connecting this to "baby dedication" if you don't already see the connection. If we understood that in worship God is serving us and doing something to us, then where would our bringing forth a child to "dedicate" him or her fit into that scheme? It doesn't! This only makes sense in an environment where we are doing all the work and God is passively receiving - depending on us to bring our praise (and apparently our children as well) to him. But if we understand God to be active in "The Divine Service", then our sitting back and watching God come down and apply the sign of the covenant to his covenant child is an awesome thing!
If you want to discuss this further (either on what I presented about worship or baptism) then please comment - and you can do so anonymously if you want.
posted by Mark Vander Pol at 7:17 AM
2 Comments:
I used to mostly agree with baby baptism, from when I went to Christ Reformed in Anaheim, but I never understood baby dedication. I think it's just a public proclomation, like a wedding. It should already be a given that Christian parents will raise their kid in the fear of the Lord, but maybe they want to publicly state it. You can't do that with a marriage. Well, a couple can elope or go down to the courthouse, but it should be in front of the people of God, and the certificate is just to please the state.
As for baptising babies, i don't get it because i understand the covenant to be the invisible church aka believers only. It is inconsistent to baptise babies and require interviews for adults. If a baby grows up and turns out not to be a believer, they aren't part of the covenant, so the baptism wasn't bringing them into it. Plus that leaves nothing to show for when they actually do become saved, if they grow up to become a believer. No public proclomation besides "oh hey it turns out we were right about Billy." Unless the church does withhold membership from children.
Ms. Stupid -
Just a couple of comments in response. You said, "I understand the covenant to be the invisible church..." Well, there are a couple of problems with that. No where in Scripture is it said that the the covenant community is made up of believers only. In the OT think of Ishmael and Esau as just two quick examples. They were in the covenant by virtue of their circumcision, but yet not ultimately counted among the elect. In the NT think of Jesus telling his disciples that there are weeds among the wheat, and the examples of those being baptized who are not saved (e.g. Simon the Sorcerer, Apostates [Heb 6], etc.). So by making the covenant applicable only to the invisible church you completely ignore the visible church and the real blessings that are to be found in that covenant community (Heb 6).
I don't like your use of the term "interview" for what takes place for adults. First of all it is not an interview, but an opportunity for that individual to make a public profession of faith to the Consistory of their church. The pastor and elders rejoice in this time, but yet they take it seriously to determine as much as possible if it is a credible profession. Also it is not just for adults. This, Lord willing, is something that older children should do. Again this is not an interview, but it is a time when a child (or an adult) comes to the realization that what God did through Christ in redemption is not just for others, but for them - when they come to true faith (which for baptized children raised in a covenant home is something that takes place throughout their lives).
"If a baby grows up and turns out not to be a believer, they aren't part of the covenant, so the baptism wasn't bringing them into it." Actually that is exactly what baptism was doing - that child was in the covenant community of the visible church just like Ishmael and Esau. That child did partake in many of the benefits of being in the covenant community, but the Holy Spirit in his wisdom did not apply the seal of the covenant beyond the sign. You continue by saying that there is "nothing to show for when they do become saved..." First of all you make "coming to faith" something of a "conversion experience" which if you are baptized and raised in a covenant home quite often never happens! It is in God's grace a slow coming to faith over your whole lifetime. Nothing to show for it!? There is everything to show for it! God's covenant faithfulness and a realization that the sign of baptism that was given as an infant was not only a sign, but is also a seal that the Holy Spirit actually worked through! That is hardly nothing! Also in my Reformed circles, this public profession of faith is what is required to come to the Lord's Table, which is a huge thing - we are now able to "discern the body" and come participate in our Lord's flesh and blood.
Finally, I really think that it is hard to honestly hold to believers-only baptism if you understand that in baptism it is God doing the work. If it is God coming down to us and doing the work, why wouldn't we baptize infants and have them be a living part of God's covenant community. One last point, if you also would hold to a proper (Biblical!) understanding of the visible and invisible church distinction and not blend them together, then believers-only baptism is untenable on that ground as well.
Post a Comment
<< Home