Dedication of Infants
The following article appeared in “Ministers’ Forum” No. 14 (September 1979) when I was Minister of Summerhill Parish Church, Aberdeen. The suggestion of dedicating infants was neither new nor original and I certainly would not claim to have invented the practice! However, the article possibly did help to bring the matter into a more public debate. Please remember that the article reflects the position as it was in 1979.
I received a number of letters and comments from ministers on the subject, all of them (with one exception) positive and/or making constructive comments and suggestions. One anonymous contributor to the October 1979 issue expressed “considerable alarm” about the article but it was clear from the comments that followed that the writer had not actually understood the issues.
Quite a number of ministers in the Church of Scotland now offer dedication or blessing of babies as an alternative to baptism in appropriate circumstances.
The following words are extracted from the Church’s website “Since 2003, the Church has provided orders for the thanksgiving for, and blessing of, a child. The blessing ceremony takes place at morning worship following the same pattern as that for Baptism, except the wording and promises are different, and no water is used. Nothing is required of the parents in either commitment or belief.” In my original article, I suggested that some parental commitment should be expected but I have since changed my mind and would be in full agreement with the Kirk’s current position.
The first paragraph (in brackets) is the foreword inserted at the time by the editor of Ministers’ Forum.
[A colleague recently spoke to me rather bitterly about those ministers who do not take the Church of Scotland’s position on Baptism seriously and undermine the ministry of those who do so by indiscriminatingly baptising. This article offers an alternative which would be theologically tenable and pastorally helpful. We invite comment.]
There is no doubt that there are three main events in family life with which the church is connected in many peoples’ minds. These are, of course, births, marriages and deaths. We may not like this situation but even in these secular [11] days it still appears to be a fact. Certainly these events very often give ministers valuable opportunities for pastoral care and teaching. However, problems certainly do arise when the family concerned does not have even a nominal connection with the church. In the case of marriages and deaths, the problem is not normally so acute. Most ministers will agree to solemnise a marriage between parties when neither is a member or adherent of his [12] congregation – if only to prevent them “joining” purely for the sake of having a church wedding.
Normally, of course, at least one of the parties will reside in the parish and a wise minister will certainly give them some teaching on the subject of Christian marriage.[13] In the case of a funeral there are often excellent evangelical opportunities among the bereaved relatives. It would be a rather rare event for a minister to decline to officiate at the funeral of a parishioner without very good reason.
The most difficult situations arise when a minister is asked to baptise the child of a couple where neither parent is a member or adherent. We might usefully remind ourselves that in the Church of Scotland baptism, as regulations presently stand may be administer to a child:
1. whose parents, one or both, have themselves been baptised, are in full communion with the church and undertake the Christian upbringing of the child;
2. whose parents, one or both, have been baptised but not in full communion are such that the Kirk Session is satisfied that he or she is an adherent permanently connected with the congregation and supporting the work and worship of the church and will undertake the Christian upbringing of the child:
3. whose parents, one or both, have themselves been baptised, profess the Christian faith, undertake to ensure that such child grows up in the life and worship of the church and express a desire to seek admission to full membership of the church;
4. who, being of unknown parentage, or otherwise separated from his or her parents, is in the view of the Kirk Session under Christian care and guardianship. (Act XVII, 1963)
Now clearly there are those non-members who will seek baptism for their child not through faith but through superstition, ignorance or social convention. But, equally, there are others who feel that in some way God ought to be involved in the arrival of a new member of the family, even though they may not desire to be members of a church. Such parents are naturally proud of their child and want others to share in that pleasure.
No matter how carefully, sensitively, positively and even theologically a minister explains to them his reason for not being able to administer the sacrament, the feeling of hurt and rejection is bound to be very real. Often the parents will go away, believing wrongly (but understandably) that the church has in some way rejected them and their child.
How do we get round this problem of pastoral care? Do we take our stance on the undeniable fact that the Gospel is truth and that if people misunderstand its teachings, then the loss is theirs? Or, do we adopt a cavalier attitude to the whole matter and decline to be “dictated to” be some Act of Assembly? Or, again, so we try to find loopholes in the Act in order to break it in spirit rather than in letter and so remaining “as to the law blameless”?
None of these alternatives is satisfactory. The first may be true but can seem very insensitive in its application. The second and third are basically compromising and thus less than honest.
Another alternative would be to dedicate infants where baptism does not appear possible or appropriate. This is not to pander to superstition or ignorance but would be appropriate where parents wish to acknowledge that their child is a gift from God and also wish the child to have some kind of Christian training and influence during the formative years. Such a ceremony is not common outside the Baptist tradition and has no official status in the Church of Scotland.[14]
Before some readers hold up their theological hands in horror, let us remember the alternatives. These are (1) an apparently negative response or (2) a baptism that is possibly clandestine. Furthermore, how is it un-theological or unscriptural to seek the blessing of God on a child and to acknowledge the church’s care and interest?
Clearly there would need to be careful teaching both of the congregation and the parents. It would need to be understood that it is neither a sacrament nor a baptism without water.[15] It should not be done carelessly or as a matter of course.
Such a ceremony would ideally take place during a normal diet of worship. It might take a form along the following lines: [16]
MINISTER TO CONGREGATION: The parents of XY have come of their own free will to give thanks for the gift of their child and to claim publicly the blessing God up him her and to express their wish that s/he may be brought to know the truths and duties of the Christian faith.
MINISTER TO PARENTS: Will you now, in the presence of God, affirm your wish that this child may be brought up to know the truths and duties of the Christian faith through the life, worship and teaching of the church? [17]
The minister would then ask the congregation to undertake its responsibility to this child and all other children in our midst. Assent could be indicated by standing. The minister would then, by prayer, ask the blessing of God upon child and family.
Clearly such a ceremony is experimental and would require adaptation and alteration in the light of circumstances and experience. It would not in any way preclude the administration of baptism at a later date.
For those who have reservations, it should be made clear that accepting the possibility of dedication would not imply that the church would be pandering to the world or being satisfied with second rate. There is no substitute for a true Christian commitment. Nevertheless, our Lord accepted people in the first instance at their own level. Surely his church must do the same and present a positive face to the world.