Infant Baptism with Vow for the Congregation?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Parakaleo

Parakaleo

Puritan Board Sophomore
For the baptism of a child, the ARP and OPC Directory of Public Worship both include a short charge to the congregation, to support this child and family with prayer, godly example, and encouragement. In some PCA churches I've been in, this charge takes the form of a question/vow presented to the congregation, to which they respond, "We do". For those in the PCA (and other denominations, too), is this something that is done in your church? Do you feel the congregational vow is more meaningful than the simple charge?

I've searched a little through PB and haven't seen this brought up before.
 
It's optional, but I've never seen it not used. In fact, until this morning, I didn't realize that it wasn't required. I recall an anecdote from a pastor one time about a man in a former church who would never respond with the 'I do' because he didn't feel himself capable of undertaking that responsibility.

PCA BCO 56-5
To the congregation (optional):
Do you as a congregation undertake the responsibility of assisting the parents in the Christian nurture of this child?
 
I recall an anecdote from a pastor one time about a man in a former church who would never respond with the 'I do' because he didn't feel himself capable of undertaking that responsibility.
Click to expand...

I am glad that he was honest about it. I think some are not honest in taking the vow. While I appreciate and practice the biblical pattern of taking godly vows, I feel the charge is sufficient and preferable in this case.

From the OPC DPW:
As [name] is baptized into Christ and becomes a member of his visible church, the whole congregation is obligated to love (him/her) and receive (him/her) as a member of the body of Christ. For "we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body," and therefore are members of one another. Christ claims this little child as his own and calls you to receive (him/her) in love and commitment. Therefore, you ought to commit yourself before God to assist [name of child] and (his/her) parents in (his/her) Christian nurture by godly example, prayer, and encouragement in our most precious faith.
Click to expand...

From the ARP DPW:
Following the baptism, the minister shall encourage the congregation to welcome each new member in the household of God, and charge those who have been baptized, or the parents of such, and the members of the congregation, to be faithful in their covenant with God and with one another.
Click to expand...
 
I, too, never realized before that the congregational vow was optional. I suppose that's wise. We want to be slow to impose vows on those whose consciences might be troubled by them.

But I'm not sure consciences ought to be troubled. I wonder, based on Matthew 5:33-37 and Scripture's general teaching about integrity in speech, if our tendency to consider formal vows as a different category from everyday pledges is right. Promises and pledges tend to get made rather flippantly by the typical American. We ought to take integrity in what we say more seriously whether or not those words come attached to a sacrament. With that in mind, I really don't see how the congregational vow following a baptism is any more binding or solemn than having the congregation sing a few verses of "Take My Life and Let It Be." Both contain serious and hard-to-keep pledges. Any member whose conscience allows him to do one ought to be ready to do the other.

The vow to assist the parents surely doesn't have to be part of the service, but I'm not convinced it's a bad idea. It reflects an actual, scriptural role of the church. To promise to undertake it, in the Lord's strength, knowing that we will have failures and in many ways appear ill-equipped, but embracing the duty nevertheless because God calls for it and gives us his equipping, is a vow to take seriously but certainly also a promise we may make.
 
They do it in every credo Baptist church I've been in too for baby dedications.

The subject of baptism aside, we are obviously commanded by scripture to love all of our brethren, but on a practical level you can't love and support and encourage every Christian with kids in the world, or even all of them in your church if it has hundreds of people. So I don't take that vow any more, unless maybe it is a person in my midweek small group I know I will be in regular contact with, or have some sort of ongoing fellowship with. Vows have to be taken seriously.
 
I would hope it's usually understood that not every individual will have close dealings with every child. It is actually one of the beauties of the vow that not everyone taking it will keep it in the same direct manner. It is a corporate vow. The congregation takes it together, as one, speaking more as a church than as individuals. We are not saying "I do" as much as we are saying "we do."

A particular individual's role may end up being no more than watching the nursery on occasion, or praying generally for the youth of the church, or contributing to offerings that support needy families, or even something less direct than those examples. But by supporting the church, one supports the child who is a part of the church.

I wonder if American individualism has caused church members to have no category for corporate confessions and vows. The congregational vow is the promise of the church to support those parents and that child. In my mind, to opt out of joining that congregational vow would be to say that I don't view my service to Christ as taking place within the larger service of the whole church; rather, I do my own thing, and that particular child's nurture is not part of my thing.
 
From the RPCNA Directory of Public Worship:
The pastor should ask the congregation to rise and respond to the following question:
Do you, the members of this congregation, receive this person into your fellowship and promise to pray for him/her, and to help and encourage him/her in the Christian life?
Click to expand...
 
I miss this! The congregation's responsibility for its covenant children was very much impressed on us in a PCA plant where I was a young believer. It has been a privilege to watch these folks grow up and bring their own children for baptism.
 
To refuse to encourage and pray for a member of the Church would be a violation of the repeated charges given especially in the Book of Hebrews that, more than any other book, dramatically underlines the necessity of the Church to be a place of common urging on and encouragement. Vows solemnize something that is already required in some sense. The fact that parents are asked to state that they will raise their children in the Christian faith does not mean that they were not required to do so before they vowed to do so.
 
The historic reason for the relatively recent "option" on the congregational vow is because it may be common for people to bring grandchildren and/or others to bring children for baptism who were not themselves members of the local church. This kind of thing is very common in PC(USA) churches.
 
The historic reason for the relatively recent "option" on the congregational vow is because it may be common for people to bring grandchildren and/or others to bring children for baptism who were not themselves members of the local church. This kind of thing is very common in PC(USA) churches.
Click to expand...

This is very helpful. Thanks. Do you have the congregation vow? I'm still undecided. I don't know if the obligation of the congregation rises to the level of a vow, as opposed to a simple "amen" after a charge and a prayer. I don't think this is splitting hairs. There's good reason to reserve vows to very specific relationships and obligations.
 
A non-member would never have been permitted to bring a child for baptism in any PCA church I've been in. I heard this addressed by the question, "What local body is this child being joined to?" Baptism as an individual rite of passage would be far more at home in a RC or Lutheran church where individual communion might also be administered. None of this fits a church with a robust understanding of covenant theology. A grandchild perhaps might be baptised if he is being reared by the grandparents who are members.
 
I'm happier with the OPC way of incorporating the body in the occasion by means of teaching and a charge to the whole. I argue against the wisdom of a collective vow.

I find a number of burdens against it; but in answer to one thought urged in its favor, I say: How is this social avowal not a reintroduction of the notion of godparents?

"A single godparent was retained in baptism at Geneva and among French Calvinists, but some followers of Calvin, most notably in Scotland and eventually the English colonies in America, rejected them altogether.12" 12. W. Coster, Baptism and Spiritual Kinship in Early Modern England (Ashgate, 2002), pp. 84-5. source

From the same webpage: "They [godparents] were abolished in 1644 by the Directory of Public Worship."

I don't think the OPC practice is a modern invention, or individualist inclination. According to the above, Reformation Scottish Presbyterians, and their heirs in the colonies, moved furthest away from sponsorship accretions in baptismal practice, whether ancient or medieval in origin. In my opinion, addressing the whole congregation in the same capacity, and obtaining a verbal vow from them, is not an improvement.
 
I think this vow supposes the congregation is fit for such a responsibility, which is more along the lines of the Independent doctrine of regenerate church membership. The Presbyterian doctrine supposes the congregation as such is under the teaching ministry and rule of the eldership, and allows for the tares and wheat to grow together.
 
Contra_Mundum said:
I'm happier with the OPC way of incorporating the body in the occasion by means of teaching and a charge to the whole. I argue against the wisdom of a collective vow.

I find a number of burdens against it; but in answer to one thought urged in its favor, I say: How is this social avowal not a reintroduction of the notion of godparents?

"A single godparent was retained in baptism at Geneva and among French Calvinists, but some followers of Calvin, most notably in Scotland and eventually the English colonies in America, rejected them altogether.12" 12. W. Coster, Baptism and Spiritual Kinship in Early Modern England (Ashgate, 2002), pp. 84-5. source

From the same webpage: "They [godparents] were abolished in 1644 by the Directory of Public Worship."

I don't think the OPC practice is a modern invention, or individualist inclination. According to the above, Reformation Scottish Presbyterians, and their heirs in the colonies, moved furthest away from sponsorship accretions in baptismal practice, whether ancient or medieval in origin. In my opinion, addressing the whole congregation in the same capacity, and obtaining a verbal vow from them, is not an improvement.
Click to expand...

Godparents replaced the parents as the sponsors of the baptism. This is unseemly except in extraordinary circumstances (such as when the parents are dead or incapable of discharging their duties) as parents have a natural duty to their children. In the case of the PCA practice, the congregational vow is one of assistance only and is not a usurpation of natural obligations.
 
MW said:
I think this vow supposes the congregation is fit for such a responsibility, which is more along the lines of the Independent doctrine of regenerate church membership. The Presbyterian doctrine supposes the congregation as such is under the teaching ministry and rule of the eldership, and allows for the tares and wheat to grow together.
Click to expand...

To be clear, the PCA vow does not invest anyone with a responsibility or commission to teach. That would come separately to those called to that particular task. The whole-congregation vow is a pledge of assistance and support for the parents, who are charged with nurturing their child in the faith. If the congregation as a whole is not fit for the responsibility of encouraging and supporting each other in such a basic Christian duty, what shall we make of instructions such as those in Hebrews 10:24-25?
 
SRoper said:
Godparents replaced the parents as the sponsors of the baptism. This is unseemly except in extraordinary circumstances (such as when the parents are dead or incapable of discharging their duties) as parents have a natural duty to their children. In the case of the PCA practice, the congregational vow is one of assistance only and is not a usurpation of natural obligations.
Click to expand...

I stand by the comparison. The sponsors did not immediately replace parents at the font, but eventually supplanted them entirely. It is clear initially they were made prominent to acknowledge a form of "community responsibility" in regard to the child. I would place this accretion alongside the many 2-4th century developments in liturgical practice intended to enhance the simplicity of Christian rites, so as to compare "favorably" with the competitive mystery religions.

I grant the PCA has its reasons for allowing (thankfully not mandating) the practice. I see danger in excessive multiplication of oaths.
 
MW said:
which is more along the lines of the Independent doctrine of regenerate church membership. The Presbyterian doctrine supposes the congregation as such is under the teaching ministry and rule of the eldership, and allows for the tares and wheat to grow together.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Are you suggesting that the session is knowingly allowing the unregenerate into membership?
 
Jack K said:
If the congregation as a whole is not fit for the responsibility of encouraging and supporting each other in such a basic Christian duty, what shall we make of instructions such as those in Hebrews 10:24-25?
Click to expand...

"The congregation as a whole" includes baptised children, whether they have made a personal profession of faith or not. Nurture of children is a parental responsibility by nature and by grace, Eph. 6:1-4. It is the responsibility of the rulers to rule in spiritual matters, Heb. 13:7, 17. It is never considered the duty of children to assist in the nurture of children. Nor is it the duty of other adults who may or may not be qualified for such a responsibility.
 
The original (optional) question to the congregation in the PCA's 1973 edition of its BCO:

(4) Option question to the congregation (covenant family). "Do you as a congregation of Christ's Church receive this child of the Covenant, promising with God's help to be his sponsor to the end that he may confess Christ as his Lord and Saviour and come at last to His eternal Kingdom? Jesus said, "Whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth Me."
Click to expand...

The above was changed to the present reading in 1975. I'd have to research the reasons behind the change. Also, it appears that the above was not a part of the prior PCUS (aka Southern Pres.) BCO (I think--need to confirm that).
 
For what it's worth, the ARP Directory of Public Worship includes both the charge and question posed to the congregation:

Because the child who is baptized is thereby marked as belonging to God and welcomed into His household, it is fitting that members of the congregation promise to surround the child with concern and love in Christ, that he may continue in the fellowship of the Church, and be guided to confess Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, that he might live in His eternal kingdom. The congregation* shall be asked to give affirmative response to the following or equivalent question:

Do you the members of this congregation undertake with these parents the covenant responsibility for the Christian nurture of this child?
Click to expand...

The asterisk beside "congregation" is footnoted as follows:

The Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church does not recognize sponsors customarily called Godparents.
Click to expand...
 
Yes, they are in different sections. :)

I don't think I've ever met you, Blake. We need to meet at Synod this June!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top