From: “Joe Thacker”
Subject: Unusual Baptism Circumstance
Wise Counselors,
Last night our Session was posed with an interesting circumstance. One of our elder’s sons is a missionary in Brazil, and he and his wife will be making a return trip to the USA for a wedding this Spring. Since their move to Brazil, a child has been born to them. Due to the circumstances they are in, the baby is yet to be baptized. The son wondered about having the baby baptized in our chuch while they are back in the States. Though the family is from an ARP church, the Session is all for baptizing the baby — seeing this as an extraordinary circumstance. (Also, the family would be in no position to return to the ARP church they attended in Canada when they were residing in Maine.)
So, it seems pretty clear that the vows to the parents would be pretty standard, but what about vows to the congregation? We will certainly be praying for this family while they are in Brazil, but the standard vows don’t seem to apply since a) they will be thousands of miles away in Brazil; and, b) they do not have membership in our local congregation, or even our denomination (PCA). Any suggestions?
As I already mentioned, the Session was unanimous in their decision to perform the baptism, but is there anything glaringly wrong with that decision?
And let me request permission to share any insights provided with the Session, unless stated otherwise (of course, I can keep advice anonymous).
Thanks in advance,
Joe Thacker
RP Church
Lookout Mt. GA
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 11:26:46 -0800
From: “Dale Courtney”
Subject: Unusual Baptism Circumstance
Joe,
In my experience, this is a fairly common occurrence.
I was in the military for 20 years. We had our “home” church in Orlando. The military chapels (and chaplains) didn’t do baptisms — or, if they did, it was a private, affair. There were certainly no congregational vows.
No matter where we were stationed in the USA, we took our kids back to Orlando for them to be baptized.
pax,
Dale
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 13:37:00 -0600
From: Jeff Meyers
Subject: Unusual Baptism Circumstance
On Feb 8, 2005, at 1:18 PM, “Joe Thacker” wrote:
As I already mentioned, the Session was unanimous in their decision to perform the baptism, but is there anything glaringly wrong with that decision?
Nothing at all wrong with that decision. The child is baptized into the body of Christ, which, after all, is larger than the local church.
The vows are added for clarification of what is already there in Baptism. They are not even necessary. There’s nothing about people taking any vows before or after Baptisms in the Bible.
And the child might have been baptized by a pastor anywhere. The presence of the congregation is not necessary, if it is appropriate and helpful, all things considered.
JJM
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 14:46:34 -0500
From: “Brian D. Nolder”
Subject: Unusual Baptism Circumstance
Jeff:
I’m assuming the congregational vow was added to formalize the Reformation principle that the congregation, not simply one couple, are ‘the godparents’?
BDN
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 13:44:52 -0600
From: Mark Horne
Subject: Unusual Baptism Circumstance
Joe, the congregations takes vows as representatives of the Church universal. They don’t have to take those vows for a particular infant if a family moves into town and the infant has just been baptized at another Church. Nor do they need to refrain from taking those vows if the family is going to soon move away.
This is a good teaching opportunity as to what those vows mean and what our baptismal obligations are to all other Christians.
Mark
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 14:30:18 -0600
From: Jeff Meyers
Subject: Unusual Baptism Circumstance
On Feb 8, 2005, at 1:46 PM, Brian D. Nolder wrote:
I’m assuming the congregational vow was added to formalize the Reformation principle that the congregation, not simply one couple, are ‘the godparents’?
I’m not sure if this is correct. I’m glancing again at Old’s “The Shaping” and I don’t see the 16th century Reformers adding congregational vows. Parents took vows, and in some cases godparents. Not all of the Reformers thought godparents were wrong. The major mistake made by the Reformers was their misunderstanding of sacramentum as equivalent to “vow,” especially the kind taken by soldiers. This is even true for Calvin (Inst. 4.15.13). I suspect the congregational vows came to prominence in America. But I haven’t studied this. But it’s also true that the Reformers went overboard in wanted to explain everything. The sacraments don’t seem to work for us unless everything is verbalized.
Bottom line: no matter what rationale we may come up with for congregational vows, they are NOT necessary for the valid administration of the sacrament. They MAY be part of the bene esse, but they are not of the esse of Baptism.
JJM
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 16:04:32 -0500
From: “Brian D. Nolder”
Subject: Unusual Baptism Circumstance
I didn’t mean that the Reformers used congregational vows (hey, not even the OPC uses them!). What I meant is that they may be in the PCA’s DPW as a way to formalize that principle.
BDN
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 15:30:10 -0600
From: burke
Subject: Unusual Baptism Circumstance
I didn’t mean that the Reformers used congregational vows (hey, not even the OPC uses them!).
Are you saying that in the OPC, the congregation does not vow to help train up the child in Christ, assisting the parents where needed?
Burke
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 16:50:51 -0500
From: “Brian D. Nolder”
Subject: OPC DPW (was Unusual Baptism Circumstance)
Burke:
It is not in our DPW, though many congregations do make the vow (including ours), and it will likely be the revised DPW that we will (hopefully!) approve this summer.
Brothers, I would ask you to pray about this (but also, remember the confidentiality of this list): the major author of the proposed revision that will likely be coming before our GA is a fan of Jeff’s book, and his own orders of service are explicitly covenant renewal. The OPC may end up with an explicitly covenant renewal model of worship in its DPW.
BDN
