Tradition, precept, or something in-between?
Putting Principles into Practice
Roughly two months ago my wife gave birth to our second child, a daughter. Isla Pearl has already enriched our little family in many ways. One favorite (and anxiety-inducing) sight is seeing our son Amos doting on his sister. He’s still learning to be gentle and not too loud, so as not to harm or startle her. But he’s coming around.
Another conversation that has arisen in recent days is how to proceed with a baby dedication. We had one when our son was roughly three months old, and our intention has been to do the same with her. A pastor-friend took a Sunday off to come do the first one, but we don’t expect him to again. We have an alternative plan we’re considering.
What will strike some readers as curious about our deliberations is the fact that we intend to observe such a practice at all. After all, I’m the one who first wrote positively about the Regulative Principle of Worship back in June of 2022. This initial article—"Is the Regulative Principle of Worship a Straitjacket?”—prompted a fruitful exchange on Churchatopia between Dr. Robert Picirilli and me. It led to five articles/essays in total, which can be read (or reread) below:
The So-called “Regulative Principle of Worship”
On the Validity of the Regulative Principle
More on the Regulative Principle
On the Regulative Principle: One Last Time, Maybe!
Briefly, the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW hereafter) states that only things prescribed in Scripture, particularly for New Covenant believers, should be observed in Christian worship. Corporate worship of God should be founded upon specific Scriptural direction.
A simple mantra I’ve heard many use to summarize the RPW is, “read the Bible, preach the Bible, sing the Bible, pray the Bible, see the Bible.” (The last refers to how we see biblical truth come alive through the ordinances or sacraments.) Some Reformed Christians also see occasional elements as being warranted, such as oaths, vows, solemn fasts and thanksgivings. Even the collection of an offering could be included since giving has Scriptural warrant.
It’s true that there is no specific verse which spells out the RPW. This principle is based on deductive reasoning from Scriptural principles:
1-God is the proper object of worship;
2-Idolatry is the consequence of improper worship;
3-God knows best how He desires to be worshiped;
4-His Word gives direction in how we should worship;
5-Therefore, the wisest path to honor God and safeguard against idolatry is to let Scripture prescribe the ways in which we worship Him.
Some would construct the principle or argument differently, but most versions closely parallel what I’ve presented here.
A second crucial qualification is that, as with almost anything, interpretation is involved. One needs to discern which elements in Scripture are intended for corporate worship, and then apply them to their specific context. There is a two-fold challenge in this. The first is exegeting the text itself, and the second is distinguishing between the element (e.g., reading the Bible) versus secondary questions known as forms and circumstances. (Which Bible version should be read? What part of the Bible should be read? How many verses?) Note that the RPW is preoccupied with the proper elements of worship, while acknowledging the need for prudence and circumstantial reasoning about the ways those elements are practiced. Scriptural principles still inform these, but contextual wisdom becomes much more relevant.
The third and final qualification is the historic origins of the RPW, at least in its Reformed version. (The Anabaptists expressed their own commitments to “sticking to the Bible” in worship, even if they did so differently.) The Reformers were breaking with Roman Catholicism over the many ways they had imposed unbiblical traditions on people’s consciences. In part, the RPW was a mechanism or standard to purify Christian worship. But more specifically, it was intended to protect the consciences of worshipers from things not mandated by Scripture.
So What about the Baby?
The potential tension is squaring a commitment to the RPW with something not mandated in Scripture such as a baby dedication. Very simply, since there is no New Covenant requirement for parents to dedicate their children to God and His service (at least liturgically), should we have anything like a brief ritual or ceremony in a worship service to allow them to do this?
Let me frustrate everyone, especially my friends, but giving a classic Jacksonian answer: Yes and no.
Some approaches to baby dedications border on being unbiblical because of how they are described, understood, and enacted. However, some approaches can, I believe, be consistent with the RPW because of how they are described, understood, and enacted.
In order to demonstrate my argument, let’s take note of a few necessary questions to ask when analyzing a practice, especially in a Christian worship service:
What are we intending to do? What we set out to do involves both our motivation and our understanding. Imagine I say, “I’m going to give this invitation at the end of the service in such a way that people cannot help but come forward to the altar.” I’m expressing a motivation that is difficult to defend on Scriptural grounds. I have predetermined that I think coming forward is necessary to spiritual faithfulness, and thus the ends justify the means. I can then employ whatever means I think will elicit the response I’m seeking. If I say, “If you’re a serious Christian who wants to see people saved, you must come forward right now, kneel here in this spot, and pray for that.” I’m throwing down the gauntlet. I’m binding on the consciences of worshipers something the Bible doesn’t require.
This question can be brought to bear on baby dedications in several ways: “Are we seeking to confer special grace on parents or their child by their participation in this ritual?” “Are we seeking to create a beautiful religious ceremony that will photograph well and look pretty in a frame or album?” “Do we want to spotlight one couple who we especially think to be important in our church family?” These are different goals, but they all fall short of Scriptural mandate. It would also be difficult to avoid inappropriate tactics or aesthetics in seeking to fulfill these unbiblical aims.
However, what if our aim is different? What if the goal of a baby dedication is quite different, such as, “To take a moment to bring Scriptural admonitions to bear upon a congregation, and especially one couple, about biblical obligations they have to raise their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord”? Moreover, “We want to elicit the commitment of the congregation to help them fulfill their biblical obligations to parents and their children”?
When we express our goals and intentions very clearly (and biblically) it has the benefit of (1) setting the tone for being clear about what we are and aren’t doing; and (2) setting parameters for how something is done. If our aims are as I’ve expressed them just now, it’s less likely that such a moment in a service will become a spectacle or distraction, filled with shallow sentimentality. If our aims are biblically chastened, the moment becomes much more weighty and ordinary at the same time.
What’s actually happening? We start by interrogating our motives and intentions. If we’ve properly (biblically) justified them, then we’re challenged to examine what’s actually transpiring.
Were you to drop in on a random worship service and see a baby dedication happening, how could you objectively describe what they were doing? If it’s anything like what I’ve described above, wouldn’t you just say there was (1) some teaching, (2) some commitments being made—vows, in other words, and (3) prayer? Now then, are teaching, vows, and prayers consistent with biblical worship? They are indeed.
We should also ask, “Is this specific expression of these elements being required of members?” No, though it is welcomed and encouraged, provided it’s understood biblically.
Perhaps one might be concerned with whether a baby dedication becomes too individualistic, focusing only on a select family. There are two problems with this objection. First, it ignores the fact that many elements of worship often start with or are led by an individual or smaller group of people. The preacher preaches. The vocalist provides some special music. A deacon prays a benediction. Does this mean these are necessarily individualistic? By no means. They assume the engagement of the people—listening, reflection, affirmation, edification.
A second problem with the objection of individualism is that it fails to see how a baby dedication—at least from my perspective—is challenging not only the parents, but the entire congregation. Just to illustrate, I’ve provided a brief excerpt from the last baby dedication I performed below:
[Church family], we are obligated to pray for them, encourage them, offer insight and input as needed, and provide the ministries that would best help baby _______ to come to know Jesus Christ, to become like him, and to serve Him. If you as church members pledge to do this for the _________ family, please say, “We will.” Response.
Such an approach clearly invokes the attention and obligations of the church, and invites their commitment.
In principle, it’s hard to see how such an approach and understanding of baby dedications is substantially different from people going to an altar to pray and being joined on either side by church leaders and members. It’s hard to see how it differs from the inclusion of a deacon or pastor ordination service within a worship service, something not that uncommon.
Is what we’re calling this an accurate description of what we’re doing? I’ve enjoyed listening to Colin Cowherd on sports talk radio through the years. Though he’s not a Christian or especially interested in religious things, he has a little intellectual tool that resonates with me. He calls it the “Say it Out Loud Test.” It has a way of often clarifying things. Let’s apply it to baby dedications:
“Father and mother come before congregation for the pastor to remind them and the entire church about what the Bible says about being biblical parents. He asks them all to promise to obey these instructions, and then prays over everyone.”
On this account of things, does it sound like biblical prescriptions concerning worship have been violated? I struggle to see how.
It’s no small thing that most pastors, me included, don’t really like to call these rituals “baby dedications,” but instead, “parent dedications.” Ultimately, to paraphrase former President Clinton, a lot of our discernment in this area depends upon what it is.
Concluding Thoughts
Notice in my reflections that I’ve said nothing of Old Covenant examples of baby dedications, whether it be Hannah and Samuel or Mary and Jesus. (While the latter occurs in the New Testament, Mary didn’t know she was living in “New Testament times.” Mary understood herself to be under the Old Covenant.) I’ve said nothing of Nazarite vows, dedications of the firstborn, and the like. I point this out because I think that in order to be consistent with the RPW, one cannot seamlessly select Old Testament practices and quickly baptize them.
Another caveat around my argument is that I haven't explored every aspect of how I’ve seen baby dedications done throughout the years. Were I go into more detail, I could indicate aspects which may or may not fit the vision I’ve defended here. For example, I’ve often been a little queasy about what is done and said when a baby is taken in the arms of a pastor. If no special grace is imparted by the pastor to a child (or parents), then why do that? I’ve concluded that in most cases it’s a tradition—a sweet one, no doubt—that hasn’t been fully considered. After all, who doesn’t want an excuse to hold a baby?
Pastors (including myself) need to remember that such an act, however well-intentioned, could communicate the wrong message to the church about what may be happening.
I think if people will carefully consider this caution and the context of my larger argument, they may eventually recognize my arguments are representing a legitimate commitment to the RPW. Yes, I do take a broader approach than Psalm-singing Presbyterians. That is to say, they think adherence to the RPW requires them to only sing psalms. I suppose there are other RPW-adherents who feel they can take biblical principles (not just prescriptions) and use them to justify most anything they want to do. In my view, that isn’t a recognizable version of the RPW. And I suspect both they and the Psalm-singing Presbyterian would call be a mushy moderate on the whole issue.
So be it. As our RPW-forebearers would say, “Our conscience is bound by the Word of God.” So is mine. Sometimes this means I must say no to some things, and “Let me think about it” to others. Ultimately, the aim is so we can faithfully and unreservedly say “Yes” to Jesus.
Related Reading/Listening:
Ligon Duncan, Does God Care How We Worship?
Matt Merker, Corporate Worship: How the Church Gathers as God’s People.
Derek Thomas, “The Regulative Principle of Worship.”
D6 Podcast Episode #371 – Celebrating Child Dedications (Kim Hudson)
Follow-Up
In Newsletter #79 I wrote about the enduring impact of Francis Schaeffer and C.S. Lewis. Recently, I discovered from Joel Miller that Lewis’s beloved A Grief Observed was originally published under a pseudonym, N.W. Clerk. Of course, that secret didn’t last!
Also, in Newsletter #70, I reflected on the legacy of two wonderful Presbyterian pastor-authors, Harry Reeder and Tim Keller. I finally got around to watching Keller’s funeral service, which can be viewed here. Reeder’s service can be viewed here. (I hope to get to it soon.)
Currently Reading:
Jonathan Leeman, Political Church: The Local Assembly as Embassy of Christ’s Rule.
Quote of the Week:
Despite massive technological advances, humanity has yet to master time. Time can be bought, borrowed, saved, managed, wasted, shared, squandered, spent—but not made…Being busy with many things is not a bad thing until it becomes unmoored from the spiritual realities of the world. Sabbath enables an intentional, focused engagement with the Creator of all things by disengaging from busyness. It allows people to look back at a week well-lived and celebrate the productive culture-making that has occurred. It provides an opportunity to reconnect with their source of identity and purpose. Worship, meditation, prayer, food, festivity, and delight are equally at home on the Sabbath.
Melissa Davis, “Sabbath as a Counter-Formational Practice in a Culture of Busyness.”
On My Mind: Authenticity
Recently I had the students in my World Religions course read an interesting article on religious authenticity. It’s entitled, “Authenticity’s Imperative” by Emily Wenneborg. It was the first time any of them had read anything serious on the subject, but I was pleased to see that these students avoided toeing the typical line on the unmitigated good of “being authentic.” In other words, perhaps authenticity (as we moderns have come to speak of it) isn’t always the highest good. Sincerity or “being true to oneself” has its limits, and not only in the domain of religious convictions. Read the article for yourself and see if you can track with Wenneborg’s analysis and response to contemporary, “remixed spirituality.”
Happy Labor-free Day!