Baby dedication?

This last Sunday at church - which is a rather largish Missionary congregation that was planted a few years ago - a number of families participated in "baby dedications". Basically, the moms & dads stood up front cradling their little one while the pastor prayed for them. It didn't last very long. The main gist seemed to be something about us as a church community coming around the families to support them in prayer, in material ways and in setting a good example of the Christian life for their children and that the parents are committing to raise them up as Christians.=. Nothing at all objectionable or unreasonable. My wife prefered the way the congregation of her youth did it - each child was prayed for separately - and felt that it emphasized the community aspects of the dedication much more effectively. Not growing up in a church that practiced baby dedications, I really have no opinion on that. All I do know is that I just plain don't get it.

What is the point, really? Regardless of whether the parents make a public profession of their intent to raise their children in the faith, they are still commanded by God to do so. Its good that they want to make a public declaration of that fact, but it is of no real consequence; the commitment they made when they had the child far exceeds any mere statement to that effect in front of a group of people. And accountability-wise, those parents should still be accountable to the leaders of their congregation and to those godly men & women God has put in their lives to support, guide & correct them in many other areas. On the plus side, they are introduced to and prayed for by the entire congregation, which is certainly a good thing. But even that functions as a kind of pseudo-entrance into church membership. This child, while likely not getting any voting rights in a congregational lead church, is still treated like a member of the community. So its not like the dedication is any way a preparatory step towards the final goal of church membership. The faith of this child is not presumed against in any way; they are treated like members of the church and full followers of Jesus Christ.

Which is probably why it just really seems to me that child dedications are deritualized baptisms. Instead of serving a spiritual purpose, ie, the child being reborn into Christ and thus better armed to live their faith, it serves the psychological needs of the parents. The parents want to do something for their child, they want the child to be part of the church and they want their child to be prepared for the life of faith, but aside from some informal prayers that frankly could be said by anyone, at any time of an individual's life, child dedications don't actually do anything for that child. No spiritual reality changes for that child. They get some prayers, some people who coo at them a bit and that's about it. Like I said, I don't get it.

If anyone has a different perspective, I'd be interested to hear it.

Ted Haggard

Of course, everyone has heard about it. The news plays the story ad nauseam not least for the wish of political fallout during this election cycle. Ted Haggard's gay maybe-not-quite-a-tryst-but-close-enough is the latest big deal. The wife has been following it more closely than I. I understand he has resigned or been fired from his pastoral position and as head of the NAE, which is as it should be. The drug purchase by itself would warrant some fairly serious disciplinary action. Stepping over into adultery - yeah, lets just go ahead and take your name off the office door.

I feel bad for the man. There are not many whose personal sins and temptations would make for such national display. And I daresay there are probably even those celebrating the revelation of his hypocrisy. He's got to feel incredibly low right now and I hope he is able to make it through this crisis with a solid faith. He seems to have been blessed with a remarkable and faithful wife, so he's incredibly fortunate in at least one way. I hope he picks up the pieces, spends a lot of time in prayer and finds a way to move on.

What I don't hope, however, is that the man makes some kind of return to public life. Ever. I don't mean that harshly, but I think its fair to say the man has defamed the name of Christ, demonstrated some blatant hypocrisy (which we all do, generally speaking, almost daily) and given a lot ammo to people that already had too much mud to sling. I believe that God can and does heal us of sin. I believe God can and does restore fallen people and that someday, after a suitable period of reflection, prayer and renewal, Ted may even be spiritually fit to step back into a pastoral role. So my reasons for hoping he stays under the radar are entirely due to the cultural backlash his return to prominence could bring. We don't need another national figure with egg on his face, no matter how old.