Do Presbyterians Dedicate Infants?

I was recently asked about whether it's wise for Sessions to offer parents the option of "dedicating" their infants in worship, deferring baptism until the time when the children are ready to make their own profession of faith. Here are a few thoughts in response.

1. There is no such thing as "Infant Baptism" or "Adult Baptism" in the Book of Order. There is simply "Baptism." In W-2.3008 ("One Baptism": Its Meanings) are found these words: "Baptism, whether administered to those who profess their faith or to those presented for Baptism as children, is one and the same Sacrament." That means a worship bulletin should never read, "The Sacrament of Infant Baptism," but simply, "The Sacrament of Baptism."

2. W-2.3007 declares: "Children of believers are to be baptized without undue delay, but without undue haste." Sessions considering the wisdom of offering an infant dedication rite as a regular alternative to baptizing infants ought to ask themselves how delaying a child's Baptism a dozen years or so is not "undue delay." I can think of a few cases in which it may be prudential to delay baptism until the time of a child's profession of faith - for example, in the case of a family in which one parent is Presbyterian and the other Baptist - but these are rare exceptions. In such a case, it may make sense to offer a special prayer for the infant and the parents during a worship service, making it clear to the congregation that this is a way of honoring both traditions within that particular family.

3. Nowhere in the Directory for Worship is there mention of the dedication of unbaptized children. True, it's not prohibited, but considering how the Directory goes out of the way to mention every other conceivable liturgical observance, the omission is noteworthy. It's not as though parents are offered two choices, as on a menu, and it makes little difference which one is selected. On the contrary, the preponderance of material in the Book of Order dealing with the Baptism of infants indicates that this is the normal practice. This is clearly seen in W-2.3007, which states: "Baptism calls for decision at every subsequent stage of life's way, both for those whose Baptism attends their profession of faith and for those who are nurtured from childhood within the family of faith." The assumption here - while not explicitly stated - is that those for whom "Baptism attends their profession of faith" were not "nurtured from childhood within the family of faith."

4. Unbaptized children are not members of the church. Although we may sometimes hear Presbyterians describing confirmands' profession of faith as the occasion of their "joining the church," that's sloppy language that doesn't take account of the fact that our churches keep a Roll of Baptized MEMBERS" (G-5.0301). Why would parents want to receive the benefits of membership for themselves but not offer those benefits to their infant children?

5. If parents elect to delay their child's baptism, their child is not invited to receive the Lord's Supper (W-2.4011). While it's true that few ministers, seeing an unbaptized child approaching the Lord's Table, would turn that child away, that doesn't alter the fact that they are not included in the invitation to partake. There have been several overtures to the General Assembly in recent years to amend this section so as not to limit the invitation to the baptized, but they have failed to get through the Assembly.

Bottom line? All things being equal, Presbyterians consider it the norm to baptize children of church members when they are young, without "undue delay," and Sessions ought to encourage this practice.

Taxation? Representation?

Recently I felt led to submit a letter to the editor to The Presbyterian Layman. They're not my favorite publication - due to what I've come to perceive as a longstanding pattern of deliberate distortion of the news - but recently they published an open letter that seemed so obviously based on a misunderstanding of Presbyterian polity that I felt I just had to respond.

The open letter was written by Winfield Casey Jones. I'm copying the text of my response below:


Open letter based on two common misunderstandings of Presbyterian polity
Posted Tuesday, February 22, 2011

The February 21, 2011 article by Winfield Casey Jones, "Larger churches systematically under-represented," appears to be based on two common misunderstandings of Presbyterian polity.

The first has to do with representation. The Form of Government says there are two types of members in a presbytery: ministers and churches. That's why the elders who vote in presbytery meetings are called "commissioners," not "representatives." Commissioners are not members of presbytery; their churches are. It's a fine distinction, but an important one. Never has our polity incorporated the Congregationalist idea that presbyteries are meant to be "representative" of the people in the pews, either numerically or in accepting instructions on how to vote.

Mr. Jones bases his analysis on the concept of what he calls "representative power." While that may be how Congregationalists operate, in a Presbyterian system it's a misnomer. When ministers and elder commissioners come together to constitute the presbytery, they are forming a body that's intended to become, by the power of the Spirit, more than the sum of its parts. "Presbyters are not simply to reflect the will of the people, but rather to seek together to find and represent the will of Christ" (G-4.0301d). The presbytery – not the congregation – is, in fact, the fundamental unit of church government (hence, our name). That's why the constitution declares that powers not specifically assigned to congregations, synods or the General Assembly are "reserved to the presbyteries" (G-9.0103).

Practically speaking, as Mr. Jones accurately points out, ministers and elders sitting in a presbytery meeting continue to be informed by the "life, values, ethos and theology" of the congregations in which they spend much of their time. Distinctive local perspectives are extremely valuable, and ought to be freely shared. Yet, when such individuals enter into the common life of the presbytery, they agree to take a larger view, collectively assuming responsibility "for the mission and government of the church throughout its geographical district" (G-11.0103). They pledge themselves to represent the interests of every congregation in that area, not just their own.

The Form of Government does, of course, contain a fixed formula for increasing the numbers of commissioners from larger churches. Up to the 2,000-member mark, it's one additional commissioner for every 500 members; above that mark, one for every 1,000. Personally, I could be convinced that amending the formula to apply the 1-500 ratio consistently, even above 2,000 members, is a good idea. Many presbyteries, including my own, allocate some of their additional elder-commissioner slots resulting from the annual rebalancing of minister-elder parity to accomplish just that.

The second misunderstanding implicit in Mr. Jones' article has to do with per-capita apportionments. "The system" does not in fact say to congregations, "we want you to pay a per-capita that is strictly proportional to your membership." This form of direct apportionment is not used by every presbytery. Individual presbyteries may choose to say something like this – and most do – but the Form of Government does not require it. The Form of Government only mandates that presbyteries pay per-capita. How the presbyteries come up with the money is up to them.

The General Assembly PJC has ruled that, even in presbyteries that do expect congregations to remit per-capita contributions, those contributions are voluntary. The General Assembly has declared, however, that sessions deciding how to respond to such an appeal ought to consider it "a solemn moral obligation" to comply.

Mr. Jones' argument evokes echoes of "no taxation without representation." In fact, that association is wrong on two counts, because per-capita is not taxation, nor is the election of elder commissioners representation.

Carl Wilton, Stated Clerk
Presbytery of Momouth

Interesting Times

Some Presbyterians have been concerned, recently, to read a letter signed by more than 50 pastors of large Presbyterian churches, expressing their dismay about the future of the denomination and expressing their desire to create new ways of being the church.

Because the letter speaks frankly of creating new structures outside the denomination, some have seen it as the first step towards a split, or schism, in the church. Indeed, the letter itself acknowledges "the appearance of schism" - dancing right up to the edge of advocating a split in the church, without actually saying so.

Others aren't so sure, preferring to read the letter as advocating a more flexible, "missional" approach towards church order. Such an approach would replace some of the hard-and-fast institutional boundaries of our present polity with more flexible, "permeable" structures.

It's hard to say whether the signers of the letter are still in the process of working out a specific list of changes they'll be calling for, or whether their minds are already made up and they're just being cagey.

The three senior leaders of the denomination - General Assembly Moderator Cynthia Bolbach, Stated Clerk Gradye Parsons and General Assembly Mission Council Executive Director Linda Valentine - have issued a letter of their own. Their tone is conciliatory, an invitation to dialogue.

All of this, of course, is being played out against a backdrop of presbytery voting on proposed amendments to the Form of Government - particularly the controversial new language replacing G-6.0106b, dealing with qualifications for ordained officers.

I understand there is an old Chinese curse that goes like this: "May you live in interesting times."

Well, these times sure are getting more interesting.

New Presbytery Office

The Monmouth Presbytery office is now in its new location, in the former manse of the Plumsted Presbyterian Church in New Egypt:

Mailing address:
PO Box 188
New Egypt, NJ 08533

Phone: 609-286-2590
Fax: 609-286-2595

Physical location:
14 Front Street
New Egypt, NJ 08533

Tracking GA Amendment Voting

Want to track the voting on Amendments to the Constitution, sent down by the 219th General Assembly for votes by the presbyteries? The Office of the General Assembly maintains a running tally online.

This is the official tally; however, a couple of advocacy organizations are providing their own online tracking of the voting on Amendment 10-A (which would provide new text to replace G-6.0106b, having to do with qualifications for ordained officers).

The Covenant Network, which favors passage of the new language, is one of these.

Another is the Presbyterian Coalition, which would like to see the present language retained.

What's the difference? The GA tally, as I've said, is the only official one. The only way information gets added to it is when presbytery stated clerks report their presbytery's vote on the official reporting form, and staff members of the Office of the General Assembly post those results.

Besides getting information from the official tally, the websites of the advocacy organizations may also accept results from unofficial reports, sent in by supporters of their organization. For that reason, those tallies may be a little more up to date than the official tally. However, since they are unofficial, they could also contain incorrect information.

Hall's Index

Through an article in the newsletter of the Presbyterian Historical Society, I've become aware of a newly-completed online resource that's part of the PHS website. It's called Hall's Index of American Presbyterian Congregations, and it's a respository of basic information about every Presbyterian church in the country that's ever existed, of the PC(USA) and its antecedent denominations, as well as the Cumberland Presbyterian Church.

The information there is pretty limited: mostly the name and location of the church, and the date of founding.

Still, you may be interested to go to the site and look up your church's listing.

It's mostly a tool for historical researchers, but is available to anyone.

The Presbyterian Historical Society is supported largely by per capita funds.

Time to Sharpen Our Pencils

At the next meeting of Presbytery - which will be on Tuesday, January 25 at 7:00 pm, at Sayreville - we'll be voting on the proposed New Form of Government - the part of the Book of Order that contains most of the rules and regulations that guide our life together (the other parts of the Book of Order are the Directory for Worship and the Rules of Discipline).

If a majority of presbyteries across the country approve it, it will replace the existing Form of Government, effective in the summer of 2012.

According to a list of frequently-asked questions on the PC(USA) website, the New Form of Government allows church councils (the new name for the governing bodies of Session, Presbytery, Synod and General Assembly) considerably more flexibility than they presently have, to adopt their own operating procedures. The new book is a great deal slimmer than the old one, and intentionally so. From the FAQ document:

"In the proposed new Form of Government, councils are empowered to decide what process will work best to carry out the mission of Jesus Christ and fulfill standards in their contexts. That decision may well be to transfer the process currently in place within the 2009—2011 Form of Government into the council’s manual of operations. But councils also will have the opportunity to rethink and perhaps reinvent procedures that are now problematic or do not serve the council well."

The best way to find out what parts of the present book will no longer exist, if the new revision is passed, is by examining the comparison charts on the PC(USA) webpage. One chart starts with the current book, aligning the sections of the new book alongside it, and the other starts with the new book.

If the proposed New Form of Government passes, it will be time to sharpen our pencils, both at the presbytery and session levels of government. That's because we'll have to figure out what to do about the many rules and regulations from the present book that would disappear. Each session in our presbytery will be expected to have a policies manual that addresses this question. Some sessions may decide to simply take all the material that's dropped out of the old book and place it in their manual. Others will decide to enter a thoughtful process of deliberation, by which they'll determine which specific sections to keep and which to rewrite.

It will be an exciting, although at times also confusing, period in our denominational life. Now's the time for session members to start becoming familiar with the new proposal, and to begin thinking about what their church's policies manual may look like.