Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) blogs

• Home
• Mission and Staff

Subscribe to this blog

Recent posts

• Our Challenging Way: Faithfulness, Sex, Ordination, and Marriage
• Unity, Confessions, and the Book of Order
• Come and See
• Please and Thank You
• Back to Basics on Ash Wednesday

Categories

• Theology (32)
• Worship (26)
• Faith (23)
• Spirituality (13)
• Leadership (11)
• View all categories →

Archives

• View all archives →

See all PC(USA) Blogs →

PC(USA) Home →

Richard Mouw on "Effusive" Baptizing

Charles Wiley

Below is the Benedictory column from the current issue of The Presbyterian Outlook.  Since the Outlook does not post Benedictory columns online, they have given me permission to reprint it here.

It is interesting to look at baptism, a subject of much theological conviction in our tradition, discussed principally as a practice.  Mouw suggests that the physical movements of the baptizer conveys the meaning (or lack thereof) of baptism.  

Mouw isn't happy with a "moist finger" baptism.  I remember seeing an old Theology and Worship video that struck me as a "moist towlette" baptism.  I wonder if our need for order for worship hurts our sacramental practice.  In order to avoid crumbs on the table or a difficult breaking of the bread, we cut the bread 90% through so the minister can display perfectly mirror image loaf halves with no muss, no fuss.  Or to avoid water on the floor, we dampen the baptized instead of using enough water to symbolize washing or even dying and rising with Christ.

I would love to hear your reflections on Mouw's piece.  Have you reflected on baptismal practice? Has your practice influenced your theology?  Has your theology shaped your practice?  

“Effusive” Baptizing By Richard J. Mouw

Those of us who have frequent occasions to be present when Catholics celebrate the Eucharist know the awkwardness of not being invited to a meal where our Lord himself is the host. But the lack of hospitality on the Catholic side is matched in our Presbyterian/Reformed ranks by a history of hostility toward the Catholic Mass, which is described, for example, in our Heidelberg Catechism as “an idolatry to be condemned” (Q&A 80).

It is interesting, though, that there has never been a similar anti-Catholic sentiment on our part over the other major church sacrament: baptism. Churches in the Reformed tradition have from the beginning typically accepted Catholic baptism as legitimate. This was undoubtedly due, in part at least, to our nervousness about giving any credence to the Anabaptist insistence that a person baptized as an infant, whether in a Catholic or Protestant congregation, had to be re-baptized as an adult in order to join one of their communities. But the deeper issue has been that theologically we have viewed any application of the waters of baptism, when done in an ecclesially proper manner, as a valid sacramental act.

There are real issues, however, about what actually constitutes “validity” in baptismal practice. And this is what has occupied our attention for several years in our official Reformed-Catholic theological dialogue. As a representative of our denomination, I have the privilege of serving as the Reformed co-chair of the dialogue, and it has been a profound learning experience.

The main challenges regarding a “valid” baptism, however, came from our Catholic friends. Two factors loomed large: what gets said at baptism and what gets done by way of physical application of the waters.

A valid baptism, our Catholic partners insist, has to be done with the saying of the words “in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”

More interesting to me as a Presbyterian who witnesses many baptisms as I travel around in our denomination, is the Catholic insistence on “effusion” (or “aspersion”). This points to the need for the pastor who applies the waters of baptism actively to sprinkle or pour the water. In short, the hands have to move and there should be evidence that the person being baptized did get wet.

Having been sensitized to all of this, I have to express some concern about our Presbyterian practices. Strictly speaking, on the what-gets-said factor, we are fine with our Catholic friends. The traditional Trinitarian formula … seems to be consistently employed. I do worry much, though, about a minimalist approach to the rest of our baptismal liturgy. Our forms are theologically rich, but they seldom are given extensive expression. The worst case scenario is when the baptizer gives the impression that, say, the baptism of an infant is primarily an occasion for reminding the congregation to support church education programs. What often gets ignored is the reality of a transaction that takes place on God’s part, as once again the covenant promises are “signed and sealed” to an individual in the application of the baptismal waters.

And then there is the lack of “effusive” activity. I’ll put it bluntly: a moist thumb touch is not adequate. I worry much that the lack of a real “washing” motion in our baptismal practice corresponds to a significant theological defect: a failure to proclaim to all that it is only through the atoning work of Jesus Christ that the stains of our sin and guilt can be removed.

So, to all who administer the waters of baptism, two simple lessons from the Reformed-Catholic dialogue: say more about baptism, and keep those wet hands moving!

RICHARD J. MOUW is president of Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, Calif.

Re-published with permission of the Presbyterian Outlook www.pres-outlook.org

• Posted at 2:23 a.m.
• Tweet

Categories: Faith, Leadership, Theology, Worship