When parents in the PCA present their children for baptism,
they take three vows regarding their children. The first vow recognizes the
child’s need of Christ. The second vow recognizes God’s covenant promises to
his people and their children. In the third vow, the parents “unreservedly
dedicate your child to God….” The language of dedication goes back to the late nineteenth
century and earlier Presbyterian books of order. For many, the language of
dedication is too much like the practice many Baptists have of a dedication
ceremony for their children. (Just as an aside, it has always been curious to
Presbyterians that many Baptists will argue against any New Testament basis for
infant baptism, while apparently failing to recognize that there is even less
evidence for any practice of infant dedication.)
This overture seeks to change the language of that third vow
by replacing the clause “Do you now unreservedly dedicate your child to God” with the
following: “Do you now acknowledge that God in his providence has placed this
child within the covenant family, and entrusted (him/her) to your care….” The
vow that follows remains unchanged, spelling out the parents’ responsibility,
relying upon divine grace to set before him a godly example, to pray with and
for him, to teach him the doctrines of our religion, and to bring him up in the
nurture and admonition of the Lord.
I have already seen some discussion of this overture online,
and the views have been mixed. Some like the change. Some like the change but
wish that the language were more eloquent, and some don’t like the change at
all. I remain somewhat at sea with regard to this overture. I admit to being
uncomfortable with the “dedicate” language, but I am also not particularly
happy with the proposed change. After some thought, and a reconsideration of
the vows as a whole, my preference would be as follows. The second vow reads: “Do
you claim God’s covenant promises in (his) behalf, and do you look in faith to
the Lord Jesus Christ for (his) salvation, as you do for your own?” It seems to
me that this vow sets the stage for the third vow, and the proposed change is
really a repetition of the second vow. On the other hand, the language of dedication appears
to me to be unnecessary, so that the third vow, uttered in the context of the
first and second vows (the second vow particularly) should simply eliminate the
first clause, and read: “Do you now promise, in humble reliance upon divine
grace, that you will endeavor to set before (him) a godly example, that you
will pray with and for (him), that you will teach (him) the doctrines of our
holy religion, and that you will strive, by all the means of God’s appointment,
to bring (him) up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord?”
I suspect that many will not like my proposal any better
than they like the one in this overture. Some may like it even less. But as I say,
I am still somewhat uncertain in my own mind, and I look forward to hearing the
debate at General Assembly. Perhaps more clarity will come from an abundance of
counselors.
1 comment:
Hello Brother,
just a thought. Many Baptists are uncomfortable with baby dedications. As a pastor, I am not because I see it as a marked reminder to parents that among other things, their local church means to faithfully and actively take part in the evangelization of their child, in the spiritual instruction of their child, and stands as a means of help for the parents to better do these things. I recognize (as do other Baptists) that "infant dedication" is not any biblically mandated thing, and so do not treat it as such. I would however see the above reasons, motives, etc. as being biblically mandated in a sense, for the local church. The other reason I (and others) have little heartburn about the issue would be the language involved. "Baptism" is a biblical term, and as such is not the same as infant/child/adult dedication of any sort. It is a rite governed by the Word, and not by my efforts to uphold the RPW in any ancillary discipleship efforts. Thanks for the article. Sam Hendrickson
Post a Comment