We know from history that the Romans took customs and observances of the people they conquered and stirred them all together in one big pot. They did this to placate them. VPW knew people on the outside would want to see baptisms but that wasn't possible because of the TWI doctrines involving baptism.
Dedicating babies to God was nothing more than an effort to appease those on the outside looking in.
the salt covenant always seemed kind of weird to me. if eating salt together was a figurative reference to the deeper meaning behind breaking bread together, then didn't simply eating together imply the same commitment?
I was discussing this with someone at work last week:
in some cultures, eating at the same table is an act of intimacy.
here (in my experience anyway) eating off the same plate or giving someone a bite of my sandwich is intimate.
this came up because he was telling a story about a guy who got upset about his girlfriend eating off of his plate, so my co-worker called him on the carpet about where else her mouth has been so share his stupid french fries because you can't expect some benefits without giving some yourself. I wish I could quote the exact language but I'm sure it would offend. it was very funny, however, and started the discussion of intimacy and food.
our custom of the bride and groom feeding each other cake is the same thing as sharing salt.
My son went through a twi dedication... since we were corps, skipping it wasn't even a consideration. Still, in the back of my brain I thought it was much ado about nothing. The ceremony was nice but it didn't make me any more committed to raising my kid right.
BUT, like so many things in twi, whatever the original intent, the effect was to make us all more afraid to walk away... we would be breaking our vow to raise our children in deVerd... would God visit our broken vows on our children??????
I'm so thankful I can now give big ol wet raspberries to all of it!!!
I have a GREAT kid in spite of being a twi-head when he was little, not because of it.
In answer to your question... I never saw leadership pressure anyone to have their kids dedicated. But then again, that's probably not something that was done openly and who knows what happened behind closed doors.
Our area quit doing baby dedications in the nineties. I suspect tithad to do with the whole 'kids are such a blight on the fellowship' attitude. They quit doing children's fellowship, too.
We know from history that the Romans took customs and observances of the people they conquered and stirred them all together in one big pot. They did this to placate them. VPW knew people on the outside would want to see baptisms but that wasn't possible because of the TWI doctrines involving baptism.
Dedicating babies to God was nothing more than an effort to appease those on the outside looking in.
Don't even get me started with salt covenents.
Just my opinion.
We also were reminded recently that twi was fond of CONDEMNING something,
RENAMING it, then declaring the RENAMED version perfectly acceptable.
My daughter was dedicated in the United Church of Christ long after I left TWI.
My wife suggested it. We had a long talk with the minister about it. I explained to the minister that I had reservations about the Church and that I would raise my daughter with both a knowledge of Christianity and a certain amount of skepiscm. The minister was ok with that and did the dedication. It was a nice service. I don't regret it.
Baby Dedications - "This one goes out to Bobby and Sally and..."
Well, we always enjoyed Way Baby Dedications and Weddings, too. Baby D's shouldn't have been an "event", and weren't intended to be such, although as we know, God only knows what they ended up actually becoming over the years. And they were designed to be completely voluntary, for those who wanted to do them and not compulsory in any way for parents or anyone else.
They could be at an event - like before, during or after a meeting but they're dicey in any "meeting" context, baby's being as unpredictable as they are. If they can be done reasonably quickly I always found them to be enjoyable with the local fellowship, like a "branch" meeting but you never know how they're going to be so you have to be flexible, keep a sense of humor and most of all, quick. We always did them very informally and with something following like a breakfast, or dinner or something. Coffee, whatever.
The idea of dedicating a child "to God" is a gesture made by the parents, entirely between them and God. So - that begs the question, why a "ceremony", be it small or large? The ceremony simply shares with those close to us and formalizes the hopes of the parents for their child, that they'll be goodun's before God. How that water flows under the bridge over the years can be rough in the best of lives so it's not a bad thing IMO for parents to stop and take a few minutes to do something like this.
We did ours in the Way Woods the first year after he was born, during Corps Week. There were quite a few families there. The Boy, bless his lungs, screamed and wiggled and VPW was there, cracking up, all these babies - it was like herding baby cats. The Boy let out a whelp and he yelled "He's all boy huh?!" It was no biggie. And the best part of it was that when we actually did the dedication with a good friend of ours he stopped crying immediately and started looking around like "what's this? What's going on?" and then started laughing and giggling. Hey, he was ours, whatever he did was going to be fine with us at that point. :) And to add, we dedicated The Girl, too. She actually behaved quite a bit better, and even today is known for her deportment.
He's 25 and turned our rather well, if I do say so myself. She is 23 and would make any Father proud. I'm the Dad, they're The Kids, The Mom and I - we've got their backs. Our kids have been the little cups to pour our love into year after year.
The dedication itself was just one of many significant events we had together over the years. And probably the one he remembers the least, y'know? But I've always remembered it and always will. :)
Tonto. :) Thanks. I understand waysider, no disrespect is taken, at all. I mostly meant to direct my post to your question YIdon'tgotochurch, was anyone reproved for NOT doing a dedication. It would be an insult, IMO, to ever do such a thing to a parent - it would cross over into their personal responsibilities and concerns for their own children and place the ceremony above the hearts and intents of the parents. That be bad.
As a ritual performed amongst a community it has a significance, one of personal decision by the parents to do so. For a lot of churches it's different than a baptism, which I don't feel accomplishes anything more, but some churches do.
In the Way there weren't any baptisms of course and I actually don't feel that what the Way did was meant to be baptism "by another name" or a way to placate Way members with something like it. If baptism is intended to sanctify the child in a specific way by the ritual itself, and they Way didn't believe that baptism accomplished that, there would be no purpose in offering an alternative by a different name.
My own training in Baby Dedications was along the lines of - here's something that parents may want to do and it's a fine thing to do. We do it as a way to join together with parents and their children. BUT (and here's the big but) while we're not in the business of Baby Dedications, it's not perfunctory or compulsory AND it will likely be something we'll be called upon to do more as families grow. So do it if you can and do it for the parents. That was it in a nutshell. There was nothing demeaning about it, at all.
It's something that should be done carefully, and with the overall understanding that it's being done by these parents, with their child, for their reasons and supported cheerfully by others in the church they're a part of. If it's done as a ritual that's expected of all parents in order for them to be "good parents" or members in good standing in the church, it loses it's significance for the parents who choose to do it.
Which isn't another way of saying "....and every parent SHOULD choose to do it". Because as you stated Yidont, a parent makes their decisions for raising their children on their own, over a lifetime. That matters more in the child's life than anything else, of course.
Usually it would be done privately or with immediate friends and family. In a larger fellowship environment there's inherent difficulties. :) But if a family requested it be done before the congregation or fellowship, that would possible, as long as it was done with that personal focus so everyone else could support it without feeling less or more for it.
With both my children though, and with my son specifically, The Mom and I prayed together before all of that, on our own, for a healthy happy child for us. I made committments that day I still owe on and will forever. For me, God answered that prayer.
There's a great section in the gospels I think of in relation to how we view children, in Luke:
18:15. And they brought unto him also infants, that he might touch them. Which when the disciples saw, they rebuked them.
18:16. But Jesus, calling them together, said: Suffer children to come to me and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
18:17. Amen, I say to you: Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a child shall not enter into it.
Baby D's have a way of inspiring people in the same way a wedding does. It can remind everyone of how simple and pure life can be, could be, was. Is, for this child.
People often look at children as distractions - get 'em outta here. But a society without children is looking at a short jump off a short pier. This little record shows Jesus as a person who respected these parents who wanted to bring their children to Him. God knows - maybe then as now, we need all the help we can get and (maybe then as now) real help can be hard to come by. Reproving a parent for not dedicating their child - that would fall on the "no help" side.
I never viewed baby dedications as an empty ceremony, but as the parents' public declaration of their commitment before God to bring up their kids in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
The parallel I see is in the wedding ceremony. Marriage isn't in the ceremony, per se, but it's a public declaration of a couple's commitment to each other before God. Couples could (and do!) get married without a ceremony and be no less married, but many choose to make their commitment with their family and friends witnessing the event.
I also believed that Baby Dedications were a public act by the parents to bring them up in the nurture & admonition of the Lord. It has to do with Sampson's parents (I think) taking him up to the temple and dedicating (vowing a vow for him to serve God) him to the Lord.
Recommended Posts
excathedra
i got my son baptized in the catholic church for the sake of the grandparents. that's the last time he attended
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
We know from history that the Romans took customs and observances of the people they conquered and stirred them all together in one big pot. They did this to placate them. VPW knew people on the outside would want to see baptisms but that wasn't possible because of the TWI doctrines involving baptism.
Dedicating babies to God was nothing more than an effort to appease those on the outside looking in.
Don't even get me started with salt covenents.
Just my opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
the salt covenant always seemed kind of weird to me. if eating salt together was a figurative reference to the deeper meaning behind breaking bread together, then didn't simply eating together imply the same commitment?
I was discussing this with someone at work last week:
in some cultures, eating at the same table is an act of intimacy.
here (in my experience anyway) eating off the same plate or giving someone a bite of my sandwich is intimate.
this came up because he was telling a story about a guy who got upset about his girlfriend eating off of his plate, so my co-worker called him on the carpet about where else her mouth has been so share his stupid french fries because you can't expect some benefits without giving some yourself. I wish I could quote the exact language but I'm sure it would offend. it was very funny, however, and started the discussion of intimacy and food.
our custom of the bride and groom feeding each other cake is the same thing as sharing salt.
Edited by potatoLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheHighWay
My son went through a twi dedication... since we were corps, skipping it wasn't even a consideration. Still, in the back of my brain I thought it was much ado about nothing. The ceremony was nice but it didn't make me any more committed to raising my kid right.
BUT, like so many things in twi, whatever the original intent, the effect was to make us all more afraid to walk away... we would be breaking our vow to raise our children in deVerd... would God visit our broken vows on our children??????
I'm so thankful I can now give big ol wet raspberries to all of it!!!
I have a GREAT kid in spite of being a twi-head when he was little, not because of it.
In answer to your question... I never saw leadership pressure anyone to have their kids dedicated. But then again, that's probably not something that was done openly and who knows what happened behind closed doors.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Our area quit doing baby dedications in the nineties. I suspect tithad to do with the whole 'kids are such a blight on the fellowship' attitude. They quit doing children's fellowship, too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
We also were reminded recently that twi was fond of CONDEMNING something,
RENAMING it, then declaring the RENAMED version perfectly acceptable.
So, "infant baptisms", bad.
"Baby dedications", good.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jim
My daughter was dedicated in the United Church of Christ long after I left TWI.
My wife suggested it. We had a long talk with the minister about it. I explained to the minister that I had reservations about the Church and that I would raise my daughter with both a knowledge of Christianity and a certain amount of skepiscm. The minister was ok with that and did the dedication. It was a nice service. I don't regret it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Baby Dedications - "This one goes out to Bobby and Sally and..."
Well, we always enjoyed Way Baby Dedications and Weddings, too. Baby D's shouldn't have been an "event", and weren't intended to be such, although as we know, God only knows what they ended up actually becoming over the years. And they were designed to be completely voluntary, for those who wanted to do them and not compulsory in any way for parents or anyone else.
They could be at an event - like before, during or after a meeting but they're dicey in any "meeting" context, baby's being as unpredictable as they are. If they can be done reasonably quickly I always found them to be enjoyable with the local fellowship, like a "branch" meeting but you never know how they're going to be so you have to be flexible, keep a sense of humor and most of all, quick. We always did them very informally and with something following like a breakfast, or dinner or something. Coffee, whatever.
The idea of dedicating a child "to God" is a gesture made by the parents, entirely between them and God. So - that begs the question, why a "ceremony", be it small or large? The ceremony simply shares with those close to us and formalizes the hopes of the parents for their child, that they'll be goodun's before God. How that water flows under the bridge over the years can be rough in the best of lives so it's not a bad thing IMO for parents to stop and take a few minutes to do something like this.
We did ours in the Way Woods the first year after he was born, during Corps Week. There were quite a few families there. The Boy, bless his lungs, screamed and wiggled and VPW was there, cracking up, all these babies - it was like herding baby cats. The Boy let out a whelp and he yelled "He's all boy huh?!" It was no biggie. And the best part of it was that when we actually did the dedication with a good friend of ours he stopped crying immediately and started looking around like "what's this? What's going on?" and then started laughing and giggling. Hey, he was ours, whatever he did was going to be fine with us at that point. :) And to add, we dedicated The Girl, too. She actually behaved quite a bit better, and even today is known for her deportment.
He's 25 and turned our rather well, if I do say so myself. She is 23 and would make any Father proud. I'm the Dad, they're The Kids, The Mom and I - we've got their backs. Our kids have been the little cups to pour our love into year after year.
The dedication itself was just one of many significant events we had together over the years. And probably the one he remembers the least, y'know? But I've always remembered it and always will. :)
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
tonto
Socks, this is just beautiful. We feel the same way about our son and daughter.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Socks(and others)----------Sorry if my post seemed to come down so heavy.
I meant no disrespect to those who partook of the experience.
I was only addressing my opinion on the origin.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Tonto. :) Thanks. I understand waysider, no disrespect is taken, at all. I mostly meant to direct my post to your question YIdon'tgotochurch, was anyone reproved for NOT doing a dedication. It would be an insult, IMO, to ever do such a thing to a parent - it would cross over into their personal responsibilities and concerns for their own children and place the ceremony above the hearts and intents of the parents. That be bad.
As a ritual performed amongst a community it has a significance, one of personal decision by the parents to do so. For a lot of churches it's different than a baptism, which I don't feel accomplishes anything more, but some churches do.
In the Way there weren't any baptisms of course and I actually don't feel that what the Way did was meant to be baptism "by another name" or a way to placate Way members with something like it. If baptism is intended to sanctify the child in a specific way by the ritual itself, and they Way didn't believe that baptism accomplished that, there would be no purpose in offering an alternative by a different name.
My own training in Baby Dedications was along the lines of - here's something that parents may want to do and it's a fine thing to do. We do it as a way to join together with parents and their children. BUT (and here's the big but) while we're not in the business of Baby Dedications, it's not perfunctory or compulsory AND it will likely be something we'll be called upon to do more as families grow. So do it if you can and do it for the parents. That was it in a nutshell. There was nothing demeaning about it, at all.
It's something that should be done carefully, and with the overall understanding that it's being done by these parents, with their child, for their reasons and supported cheerfully by others in the church they're a part of. If it's done as a ritual that's expected of all parents in order for them to be "good parents" or members in good standing in the church, it loses it's significance for the parents who choose to do it.
Which isn't another way of saying "....and every parent SHOULD choose to do it". Because as you stated Yidont, a parent makes their decisions for raising their children on their own, over a lifetime. That matters more in the child's life than anything else, of course.
Usually it would be done privately or with immediate friends and family. In a larger fellowship environment there's inherent difficulties. :) But if a family requested it be done before the congregation or fellowship, that would possible, as long as it was done with that personal focus so everyone else could support it without feeling less or more for it.
With both my children though, and with my son specifically, The Mom and I prayed together before all of that, on our own, for a healthy happy child for us. I made committments that day I still owe on and will forever. For me, God answered that prayer.
There's a great section in the gospels I think of in relation to how we view children, in Luke:
18:15. And they brought unto him also infants, that he might touch them. Which when the disciples saw, they rebuked them.
18:16. But Jesus, calling them together, said: Suffer children to come to me and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
18:17. Amen, I say to you: Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a child shall not enter into it.
Baby D's have a way of inspiring people in the same way a wedding does. It can remind everyone of how simple and pure life can be, could be, was. Is, for this child.
People often look at children as distractions - get 'em outta here. But a society without children is looking at a short jump off a short pier. This little record shows Jesus as a person who respected these parents who wanted to bring their children to Him. God knows - maybe then as now, we need all the help we can get and (maybe then as now) real help can be hard to come by. Reproving a parent for not dedicating their child - that would fall on the "no help" side.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
Thanks for sharing your perspective, Socksness.
I never viewed baby dedications as an empty ceremony, but as the parents' public declaration of their commitment before God to bring up their kids in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
The parallel I see is in the wedding ceremony. Marriage isn't in the ceremony, per se, but it's a public declaration of a couple's commitment to each other before God. Couples could (and do!) get married without a ceremony and be no less married, but many choose to make their commitment with their family and friends witnessing the event.
Edited by Linda ZLink to comment
Share on other sites
Gillian Rules
I also believed that Baby Dedications were a public act by the parents to bring them up in the nurture & admonition of the Lord. It has to do with Sampson's parents (I think) taking him up to the temple and dedicating (vowing a vow for him to serve God) him to the Lord.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.