Baptismal formulae

While I too resonate with the howls of derision over this pedantry, I think it is important to look at it from the other side too.

In the quest for mutual recognition among the churches, baptism has been one of the "wins". With the exception of those churches who don't believe that God might be capable of recognising a combination of baptism and faith if they were arrived at in the wrong order, almost all Christian churches now recognise the validity of each other's baptisms. But as in all such negotiated settlements, the come at the price of some greater level of prescription - prescriptions which may discomfort some of us at times, but which are better than alientating ourselves from the rest of Christ's Church.

In the case of baptism, the prescription is actually remarkably minimal - that the baptism use the trinitarian formula in its traditional "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" form. Although all the churches know that in New Testament times there were baptisms done just in the name of Jesus, this practice was given up by the third century because of the rise of heretical groups who denied the divinity of either the Son or the Spirit or both. It was considered important that baptism, as the rite of initiation into the body of Christ, make clear the nature of the faith that was being embraced. The trinitarian formula continues to serve something of the same function - insisting on it allows the Church to say that people baptised into non-trinitarian groups like the Mormons or the JWs have not been validly baptised into the body of Christ.

While, in other contexts, I would often use alternative designations for the Trinity, and while I would personally have no qualms about recognising the validity of the baptisms described in the article, I do think we'd be well advised to be a bit scrupulous about making sure we use the agreed phrase whenever we are baptising. What's the point of deliberately conducting a baptism in a way which we know will cause it to be questioned by others? At best it is naive, and at worst it is ecumenically stupid and arrogant.

Given that it is our (Baptist) tradition that most often accuses other traditions of baptising in ways we can't recognise as valid, it is surely incumbent on us to make sure we are not further compounding the scandal ourselves.

Peace and hope,

Nathan

______________________________________ Nathan Nettleton Pastor, South Yarra Community Baptist Church