Charles Hodge—A man who was raised by the local church

It is probably the desire (and prayer) of every single mom that their son has not only a role model, but a male role model. For Mary Hodge that role model was their pastor, Dr. Ashbel Green. The description below conveys the lifelong impact made on her sons.

“Mrs. Hodge did not labor alone in the task of nurturing her children in the Presbyterian faith. The family benefitted from the support of the local church, the same Second Presbyterian Church that Hannah Hodge had joined a century earlier. Their pastor, Dr. Ashbel Green, was known as an Old School Presbyterian and took seriously his calling to train children in the Christian faith. Not only did he catechize Hodge and his brother, but as president of Princeton he also taught Charles the Bible when he matriculated at Princeton and preached frequently in seminary chapel.”

It is interesting that Hodge’s biographer only describes the spiritual influence of Dr. Green, but is entirely silent regarding any effort towards gender development. I began to wonder, “Did Dr. Green help him become a man”? Did he teach Charles to throw a ball or ride a bike (though I don’t think bikes existed at that time)? Did he sit down with him and explain the “birds and the bees”? Did he explain the complexities of the opposite sex or even the journey through puberty? If he did, Charles never said anything about it.

It is clear that much of Charles’ gender development came through the lens of the local church. Through the years, Charles undoubtedly observed godly men who showed him how to be humble, respectful, bold, patient, strong and sacrificial.

It should also be noted that part of the reason the local church embraced Mary Hodge and her two boys is their covenantal understanding of infant baptism. During the 1800’s, most Presbyterians believed that baptizing an infant placed the child in the New Covenant community, similar to the sign of circumcision that placed a Israelite child under the divine blessing of the Old Covenant, which God made with the nation of Israel. Later on, Charles himself defended the importance of this doctrine:

“To refuse to baptize one’s child, like refusing to circumcise one’s child in the Old Testament, put the child’s salvation in jeopardy. Including children with the covenant people did not remove their responsibility to affirm their faith upon reaching adulthood. Just as a Jewish child had to come to the point of submitting  to God’s covenant, so baptized children when they came to a ‘suitable age, and have the requisite knowledge…should be required to assume for themselves their baptismal vows, and should, as other church members, be disciplined for any neglect or violation of their covenanted obligations’”.

To be clear, the above position of infant baptism is NOT the same of baptismal regeneration (i.e. the doctrine that baptism regenerates a soul).

What are the practical benefits of this doctrine? Well, for the Hodge’s, this meant the local church helped raise her boys. It meant that each member of Second Presbyterian Church was a father, a mother, a sister and a brother to the Hodge brothers. It meant that each family viewed their responsibility to not just live consistent before God, but also to live as an example before impressionable, watchful eyes.

On a personal note, I don’t agree with the covenantal view of infant baptism or infant baptism in general. In my opinion, there is NO biblical evidence to support baptizing an infant. The New Testament clearly teaches that baptism is an external response of obedience by those who have repented of their sins and have trusted in Jesus Christ and Him alone (Rom. 6:3-5).

Yet I must admit I am sympathetic to this unique aspect of Covenant theology. If I was a pragmatist, I would attend a church that practices this doctrine; because I believe this understanding of infant baptism (though theologically unjustified) pushes the local church to act more like a spiritual family.

Look at the verses below:

Titus 2:1-5 But as for you, teach what accords with sound¹ doctrine. ² Older men are to be sober-minded, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness. ³ Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, ⁴ and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, ⁵ to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.

James 1:27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.

I guess what I am trying to say is......This doctrine often brings proper focus SO THAT THE VERSES ABOVE WILL BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BODY OF CHRIST!

So what is the answer….covenant theology? No! The answer is a proper understanding of the local church and a renewed desire of commitment, both to God and to each other.

Also, I believe local churches need more baby dedications. Please understand this is NOT to be understood as a quick fix or even a top priority by churches with an unbiblical or imbalanced ecclesiology. It is always necessary to begin with the pillars of a healthy church: 1) expositional preaching, 2) biblically-qualified leadership, 3) God-exalting corporate worship and 4) gospel-centered ministries. But within the lens of a healthy local church, baby dedications help remind the members of their responsibility to each other and often serves as a corrective for unholy living and the sin of non-commitment (Heb. 10:24-25).

I know someone might ask, “Is a baby dedication biblical? I would say that though there is no command that requires it, yet some traditions are profitable (if kept in their proper place) and can be used as instruments (i.e. small group ministries) to remind us of our biblical responsibility to each other. 

Therefore, baby dedications can be used to shepherd, not only the parents of that child, but also the church family as well.