I have been ruminating on the subject of baby dedication for sometime now. My wife and I dedicated our oldest child when she was 10 months old in a church we no longer attend because we moved provinces. We have not yet dedicated our youngest child because, well, we haven't gotten around to it and we are looking for a time when we can get the majority of our respective families out to our current hometown and church.
I have noticed, however, in recent years a small but growing trend amongst some of my own family members and friends that baby dedication is being done in one's own home or in a non-traditional ecclesial setting (i.e. chapel, small-group, etc). While these couples are good evangelicals who are either in full-time ministry or planning to be, they seem to think that although baby dedication is a necessary rite for parent's and their children to go through, the physical context is either irrelevant or a traditional church setting is non-desirous.
It is here that I find myself disagreeing with this current practice; not baby dedication itself, but the intentional removing of the ceremony from a traditional church context to that of one that is more conducive to the desires of the parents.
I believe that this removal of baby dedication from a traditional church context/service is founded upon an heretical or at least quasi-semi-heretical ecclesiology, namely Donatism.
Now, let me first say that this new practice is not a full-blown return to Donatism like the one Augustine fought against over the efficacy of the sacraments as administered through repentant bishops who had renounced the faith under severe duress in times of Roman imperial persecution. What I am saying is that this new practice is Donatistic in that it intentionally excludes the remainder of the congregation of which the parents and children belong in order to have control over which hand-selected people the parents want to be influential in their child's lives.
Dedicatory Donatism is a threat to our churches because it states through not dedicating children at church (or dedicating them at church to appease the congregation, but then having the "real" dedication at one's home/small group) that only those who are deemed worthy by the parents are worthy to be influential on their children.
I believe that by cutting off one's children from the rest of the congregation, they not only manifest a schismatic mentality with regard to who is worthy and who is not, but they evidence that they actually do not believe that God is in the midst of all of his congregations and its constituent members, and is therefore, willing and more than able to use these very people to minister to their children.
In effect, what a dedicatory Donatist is saying is: "I believe that God is only capable of ministering to this child of ours through the people we have hand-picked." By divorcing the dedicatory act from the rest of the congregation, then, the parents are malnourishing their child by having such little faith in the God who calls and uses the foolish and weak of this world to the shame the wise and strong. By not allowing all members of the body of Christ to speak into and minister to their children they have shown that they cannot trust God to use other Christians whom they may not like (or whatever their reasons are), but must sovereignly choose those whom they deem fit for para-parental service.
Matthew records: "Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them. Jesus said, 'Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.' When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there.
I do not deny that these parents who dedicate their children in a non-traditional manner have the best intentions for their children and that there is a strong temptation to only surround your children with only edifying and constructive people (especially Christians), but to wrench this sacred practice out the church is, I argue, to wrench your children away from Christ and to prohibit them from being brought to Christ through his church who ministers to them in Word and sacrament/ordinance.
Children of Christian parents don't need to be taught that there are two churches: the big one where we meet on Sundays as formality and the small one that really matters with the parent's friends who really matter. What children need to be taught is that they belong to God in Christ and that part and parcel of belonging to God is that they belong to his church, not some quasi-church that excludes based upon relational pragmatics.
About Me
- Bradley Penner
- Husband of one wife, father of two kids and seminary student. I play tennis for fun (and exercise), drink copious amounts of coffee and cheer loudly for the Vancouver Canucks and BC Lions
My Quibblo Personality Quiz Result for: NT Use of the OT -- Test Your View!
| NT Use of the OT -- Test Your View! |
Single Meaning, Multiple Contexts and Referents view  |
Fun quizzes, surveys & blog quizzes by  |
5 comments:
I feel like I'm with you here, but I'm trying to figure out exactly why. Some questions for you:
What makes a church a church? Is it the larger group just because of its largerness? Or that it is institutionalized? Or that it has ordained leadership? Or just that it is actually the church in question?
Would it actually be donatistic also to have a dedication in only one of a church's three services; the one that caters to young adults? Or is it also donatistic to do it in an evangelical denomination, period, since these are also gatherings of Christians who have chosen specifically to meet together to the exclusion of other churches?
And is it donatistic to have a small group that is the church within the larger church?
I guess I'm asking what makes it donatism?
And my other question is what makes baby dedication an issue like this anyway? Is it anywhere near on par theologically with baptism or the lord's supper? Isn't it by definition more about the parent's dedication of the child to God and therefore not really about something God has specifically ordained a la communion or baptism? And if it is a dedication, isn't it more sensical that it be the people who will be in the child's life the longest; for the long haul?
I tend to ask the most questions when I am closest to agreeing. I like what you are saying. I can't stand the way the church has become the place and people of preference and not the place God puts you in. I can't stand the elitist way we act about our "churches within the churches". But I do wonder if this isn't just the natural extension of evangelicalism. What makes this donatistic, and evangelicalism not?
Great post. For the record all my kids were dedicated in a larger church setting, so don't feel like you've offended me or anything. That said, what made those ceremonies special was that we had dear friends and family present, so I understand what people are trying to do.
thanks brad
Thanks for responding Jon. I always know I can count on you!
I think what makes a church a church is from the definition that John Calvin provides: (paraphrasing) The proclaiming and hearing of the gospel and the right administration of the sacraments (ordinances). If these two elements are not present, then one has either "chapel" or some gathering of religious-minded people, but not the event of church. So, size really doesn't matter, but what does is that a group of people are called to fellowship over Word and Sacrament.
I think institutionalization and ordination are realities that we are stuck with, but that they are also good for the church. I think they give concrete delineations as to who is in official leadership and in what particular denominaiton/tradition this event (dedicaiton et al) is occuring.
If a church has multiple services, then just pick one. The point is that the parents cannot control who attends the specific service, even though more young adults may attend one over the others. Plus, from a pragmatic-parental standpoint, one service may work better than the others with the kid's eating and napping schedule!
Just because one is in an evangelical denomination does not, by definiiton, label one a "donatist" because unless we all worship one big building, evangelical and mainline alike, then we are bound to meet in different locations. Plus there's the whole paedo or credo baptist thing, not to mention: where is Jesus in the Eucharistic elements thing. The sword could cut the other way with our mainline friends who are excluding themselves from the restored gospel as found by the brothers Wesley and Whitefield.
I don't think that small-groups are donatistic, unless they statr to act like a church (i.e. baptism, dedications and communion). If they are for scriptural study, edification and communal prayer that would be a logistical nightmare for those "larger" congregaitons (Beulah?) then I'm cool with that. Just don't go acting like a church when you're not!
I guess what makes Donatism today (neo-Donatism?) is the deliberate exclusion of other Christians from participating in the whole life of the church, including the lives of other christians, (e.g. dedications) because of their supposed "spiritual" (or whatever) undesirability and therefore perceievd inability to minister to these children as they are raised in the church.
Really, these neo-Donatists have, in my view, a very diminished view of God and his ability to use whomever he so chooses to accomplish his will, especially in his church. These parents seem to want to "play God" by doing the choosing for him, as if they are more informed and wise than God as to who is most capable and competent to speak into their child's life.
I gotta go now, but I'll post again on my thoughts about baby dedication.
Thanks again.
So, about the nature and function of baby dedication.
First off, I feel the need to compare and contrast with those who are paedo-baptists and their doctrine of confirmation. I think the spiritual/theological emphasis for paedo-baptists is in the baptism of the infant with their confirmation being more of a glorified formality.
For credo-baptists, the spiritual/theological empahsis is more on their baptism at the "age of accountability/understanding" with baby dedication being more of a glorified formality. Either way the emphasis is put on the baptism with the dedication/confirmation being a formality.
So, in a sense, it seems that dedication and confirmation are both ecclesial creations meant to complememnt baptism (either at the beginning of the child's, life or when they "grow up), meaning that the questions are begged: Why have these rites of passage anyways? If these rites have not been ordained by Christ, then why practice them?
I admit that I have wondered why I want my kids dedicated, if it does not carry the same spiritual/theological weight as baptism and communion. Are we not just creating another sacrament/ordinance with either dedication or confirmation? Either baptize your kid when they are a newborn or wait until they grow up. But stop producing ecclesial ceremonies just to appease the person and or their family.
While I'm not fully ready to give up on baby dedication, I am looking for greater biblical warrant for its continuation.
I agree with you Jon, that christian parents are dedicating their child to God, but that many parents quickly forget that they are dedicating their child IN THE CHURCH to be raised (in part) by the church.
I agree that it is important that family members and those who will be most active in the child's rearing try to attend the dedication, but not to the exclusion of the rest of the congregation, lest we start playing God.
As a final thought, I believe the neo-Donatism in our churches today does not revolve around the deabte over whether a minister is "spiritual" enough to make the sacarments efficacious or not. Rather, it is over whether you can find "spiritual" people to hang out with so that they will make you more spiritual (or whatever your goal is). That is the real tradgey.
hey thanks for answering! good stuff!
I think "the deliberate exclusion of other Christians from participating in the whole life of the church, including the lives of other christians" is a good definition and also a real problem today (the ramifications of which my not be felt immediately, but will not be good for the church). George Barna's Revolution is a classic case of this and in my opinion is absolute heresy. and i don't throw that word around.
i'm not sure about the next part of the above-quoted statement is the whole story. i'm not sure it is always about the excluded's "supposed 'spiritual' (or whatever) undesirability and therefore perceievd inability to minister" as much as it is wanting to just hang out with a preferred crowd and find increased intimacy among the liked. this doesn't make it better, but seaks to the consumer-mindset for sure.
and for some i imagine it is an elitst thing, unfortunately. "avoid the supposedly judgmental and the church time will be better" is just the new judgmentalism.
thanks for replying so well. great convo. sorry it took me awhle to come back.
i agree with you about dedication. i really wanted to do it, and did it, with each of our kids. each was in the church, and while some were able to have more family present than others it was always extra meaningful to have family and close friends present (even ones not in the church usually) but that a huge part of this meaning is that they came to the church where those kids attend, rather than have us all disappear to our own place of choosing to have a sort of narcissistic spiritual group-high of some kind.
that said, i've been at some really meaningful "home-dedications" which to me were contextually somewhat justifiable (i.e. missionaries home from the mission field for a short furlough).
Still, i resonate and think i agree with everything you've said. thanks brad!
it would be nice to have more of a biblical warrant for either dedication or confirmation, but i suppose the warrant is the stuff that happens in and around the biblical accounts of baptism: the conversations, the prep, the discipleship, the community forming, and all that. cornelius' household didn't just get baptized. they'd been a god-fearing home already, they'd had a meeting with the apostles, and so on. there was build up and i'm assuming follow up.
i suppose we want dedication because we recognize something good about paedo-baptism, and there is confirmation because of that something good being recongized in credo-baptism. it would be cool if we could amp up both on either side of the "divide" and really live in the best of both worlds while still believing in one baptism. I guess by adding to the sacrament, that's exactly what we're trying to do. But whichever one is the "add-on" to baptism is always going to feel like a bit of a glorified formality i suppose.
unless we see the "one baptism" as an event with life-percussions, or echoes/foreshadows in time and experience. that's a cool way to look at it. that's actually how i felt when my kids were dedicated. it made me thirst for their baptism day, and yet celebrate (and desperately submit to) God's involvement in their lives already.
Post a Comment