Richard Mouw on "Effusive" Baptizing

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

Comments

[Viola Larson]

Thank you Dr. Mouw, and Wiley for posting this. I loved this article. Just this last Sunday my third great granddaughter was baptized in a Lutheran (Missouri Synod) service. Not only was she baptized with plenty of water but the pastor stood by the font for the sermon dipping his heads in as he expressed a point on returning to our baptism in the midst of troubled times. Water was dripped over and over as he caused all of us to remember our baptism.

[Mike Poteet]

Amen to it all. When I started in pastoral ministry, I just decided I wouldn't give parents a choice, just a warning: "Your baby will get wet." And I explained why. Never did any parents complain (at least to my face), though some parishioners did. I tried to educate them, as well.

The most egregious "moist finger" baptism I ever saw was a pastor of a large PC(USA) megachurch who deferred to the wishes of a small girl's parents and didn't even have her take off her Easter bonnet when the time came for the water to be applied. ?!?!?

[Charles Wiley]

Someone not comfortable with public commenting said to me that she was a bit uncomfortable with this line in reference to the baptism of children: "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."

Thoughts?

[Viola Larson]

Calvin in his section on infant baptism states this on the meaning of Baptism:
Scripture shows, first, that it points to that cleansing from sin which we obtain by the blood of Christ; and, secondly, to the mortification of the flesh, which consists in participation in his death, by which believers are regenerated to newness of life, and thereby to the fellowship of Christ." (Book four , chapter XVI (1-2) Henry Beveridge trans.)

He adds a bit more to that part but the cleansing of sin by the blood of Christ is his first priority.

Also in the beginning of chapter four writing of 1 Peter 3:21, Calvin states:
"... the only purification which baptism promises is by means of the sprinkling of the blood of Christ who is figured by water from the resemlance to cleansing and washing. Who then can say that we are cleansed by that water which certainly attests that the blood of Christ is our true and only laver?" (book 4, chapt XV, (2)

[Viola Larson]

To add a little more, I think Mouw is right, if I am reading him right. Because we fail to grasp the amazing work that Christ has done by shedding his own blood for us (and our infants) we fail to be lavish with the water of baptism.

[Teresa Stricklen]

Hooray to Mouw for this great article! I wonder, though, if it's a theological defect as much as it is a deep suspicion of ritual action that many Presbyterians have that leads to dry-cleaning baptisms. Our tradition emphasizes the promises of the Word in words so much that we can diminish the importance of ritual action to the detriment of theological meaning.

[Anita Stuart-Steva]

I, too, inform the parents that their child will get wet. I use a shell and dip it in the water for each person of the Trinity. The water pores down as the oil did on David when he was anointed. It is important to see the cleansing...to see the sign. I also use the stole liturgy found in our alternate baptism service. It is significant after cleansing the sin to have them put on Christ. Then, as I carry the child down the aisle I explain that this child has died to the life he/she would have led without Christ and now has become one with him and his body, the church.
Ritual is important to make the intangible tangible. It takes time and effort, but is essential if we are truly to "remember".