In the name: towards alternative baptismal idioms

Ecumenical Review, The, July, 2002 by Gail Ramshaw

The current debate

"Then Jacob asked the wrestler, `Please tell me your name'." (Gen. 32:29)

We read in the correspondence of a 19th-century Philadelphia Quaker:

   I asked him what constituted a valid baptism, and he said the one vital
   thing was that the words "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost"
   should be pronounced at the identical moment when the water touched the
   forehead of the person being baptized; that if there was a moment of time
   between the two things the baptism was not valid: and he said that in
   baptisms in the English church these fatal moments did continually
   intervene through carelessness or ignorance of the vital point at issue,
   and consequently most of their baptisms were invalid. (1)

Theologians have not agreed with this particular person about ritual precision. Most contemporary churches demonstrate their concern for the validity of baptism by stipulating, as essential to the rite, the use of both water and an idiom (2) derived from Matthew 28:18, usually translated into contemporary English as "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit". Despite the widespread assertion that this phrase is the only legitimate baptismal "formula", baptisms are, in fact, sometimes being conducted using alternative naming of God.

Why is this being done? The primary objection to the Matthean text is that the titles Father and Son reflect, more than the being of God, the androcentric world-view of first-century Christians, who inherited from their ancient Near Eastern past the myth that the king is the son of the father-god and who shared with their Greco-Roman context a thoroughly patriarchal philosophy, science and culture. Current feminist Christian investigation of triune language searches for phrases outside of androcentric categories to articulate the mystery of the Trinity. (3) This raises, of course, profound ecclesiological--and ecumenical--issues. The ecclesial enquiry worldwide is whether any alternative Trinitarian idioms are appropriate for use at baptism.

The Western medieval concern for the validity of sacraments built upon the Roman imperial practice in which a specific judicial form of words spoken during a specific action guaranteed its legal validity. Adherence to the authorized pattern of legal action created and maintained the unity of the Roman empire. The idea that the use of a legally authorized linguistic prescription maintains unity is behind the phrase "the baptismal formula".

Two problems arise with continued use of the term "formula". First, in contemporary parlance the word "formula" designates a precise directive without which the anticipated transformation cannot be effected. We associate the word "formula" with mathematics, chemistry or magic. A formula is deemed efficacious because it is seen to work; if you "plug in" these certain words, you get the desired outcome. Yet contemporary sacramental theologians, seeking a more communal understanding of eucharist, no longer speak of a "moment of consecration" as if certain words, spoken by the priest at a specific moment, effect the transformation of the elements. The current Vatican decision authorizing use of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari also demonstrates a move "beyond a medieval theology of magic words", (4) In the modern context, I contend, continuing to speak of one historic idiom as "the baptismal formula" maintains a rigid literalism that detracts from a more holistic conception of baptism within the community.

A second problem with maintaining the idea of a single "formula" is that there are, in fact, many millions of Christians who have long since been baptized with alternate idioms and forms of practice. For example, many theological conservatives maintain the primitive Christian practice of baptizing "in the name of Jesus". The African Kimbanguists, citing John the Baptist's contrast between his own baptism with water and the baptism of the coming one (Luke 4:16), do not use water. Baptists see profession of faith, not a specific baptismal ritual, as entry into the church; and many Orthodox consider chrismation essential to the validity of the rite. Thus asserting that an "alternate" baptism could not be valid overstates the current degree of uniformity of practice.

Neither the German nor the English reformers found a translation of the Latin word formula significant in their discussions of baptism. More systematic work on the historic use of the term "formula" is called for. In examining this controversy, this essay does not use--and indeed discourages--the use of the term "formula". What it will do is threefold: (1) analyze the differences between the two ways of "naming" the God in whose "name" baptism is conferred: (2) discuss why historically the church has mandated that the rite of baptism names who God is, rather than what God does; and (3) suggest alternative idioms that satisfy both the theological tradition and our contemporary need. As for Jacob, so for us: the name of God is not apparent. Even in the story of Jacob's wrestling match, it is only Jacob, not God, whose name is made known.