Every lawyer must yearn to be sued so that she can prepare a brilliant defense. Every banker surely anticipates the thrill of losing a lot of his own money so he can rejoice in turning a profit. Likewise, every minister yearns to be charged with heresy. It is the ultimate personal validation of one’s individual creativity within a professional calling. Sad to say, this event is quite unlikely for me because I stand in the precise middle of the spectrum of the Reformed tradition. To my right are the tight-lipped fundamentalists and to my left are the wild-eyed liberals.
I did not understand this situation years ago when I finished seminary and received the wonderful old Bachelor of Divinity (since disappeared in the mists of degree inflation). Examined by the proper judicatory and assuming I held rather advanced views, I attempted to start a rabid theological controversy over the doctrine of the immortality of the soul versus the resurrection of the body. To my surprise, I discovered my examiners recognized that every belief of mine illustrated the best of the Reformed consensus. With some chagrin on my part, I received the denominational seal of approval and sank without a ripple into the calm, still waters of perfect orthodoxy.
Since that time I have taught all of the heresies of church history with considerable enthusiasm, but lamentably have never been charged with one myself. I am envious of Martin Luther who went to the Leipzig Disputation (1519) accompanied by 200 armed (!) students ready, willing, and even eager to spill their blood for the doctrines they had learned in his classroom. I cannot imagine my students willing to spill their cold coffee for me, but one never knows his warm defenders until he has come under hot attack.
If the statute of limitations has not expired, I may still have a chance to be noticed. Because the Presbyterian church has a free rather than a fixed liturgy, as a new pastor I felt responsible personally, biblically, theologically, and linguistically for the shape of the sacraments celebrated in the congregation I served. Studying this subject carefully, I realized that in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) the baptismal formula is not free but fixed! Ministers are required to say “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (W-3.3606). Since I am resolutely old-fangled, I don’t suppose anyone minds too much that I still use the earlier “Thee” form rather than the new-fangled “you” form. I figure time does not make ancient couth ungood.
More seriously this mandated formula created for me a conflict between polity and theology. Without doubt polity matters but biblically-attested theology matters more, so for 40 years plus I have quietly baptized individuals “into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (cf. Matthew 28:19; Acts 19:5; Romans 6:3). The truth is that baptism represents our incorporation into the name of the triune God — the ecclesiastical celebration of our union with Christ effected by the power of the Holy Spirit. According to Galatians 3:27: “As many of you were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”
I grant the New Testament uses the Greek word “en” (en) which is translated by the English “in” and therefore “in the name” is not incorrect if properly understood. However, in dealing with baptism, the New Testament also uses the Greek “ei”” (eis) which is translated “into.” I am convinced that the common English usage of the word “in” is seldom understood to mean incorporation. In baptism it is too often thought an adult is making a decision, or a child has one made for him or her, to be identified with the Christian God or, even more incorrectly, with the Christian church. This misunderstanding makes the sacrament of baptism the choice of the individual or parents rather than the act of God that it really is.
The modification from “in” to “into” is so subtle (like me) as to be virtually unnoticeable (again, like me). Moreover, I would imagine Permanent Judicial Committees might need to engage much more destructive deviations from constitutional requirements before they get on my case. Perhaps they might even consider those terribly up-to-date and misguided pastors who (presumably thinking to avoid sexist language) reject the whole formula and baptize “in the name of Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer” ignorantly appealing to the divine work schedule rather than the three holy names of the one personal God.
Since there is nothing on earth more stubborn and persistent than a true Calvinist who thinks he is divinely right, I will continue to affirm my understanding and practice until caught and corrected. Calvin set us stubborn Presbyterians a wonderful example when he was told he was wrong. Calvin responded, “You are not charging me with error, you are attacking God’s Holy Spirit” (Institutes I.18.3; again at IV.17.20).
I now suspect my personal orthodoxy was established at my trial sermon before the Presbytery of East Arkansas. The text was John 1:6 which properly reads, “There was a man sent from God, whose name was John [Calvin].” I demonstrated to all and sundry that in grammatical form this verse was an ellipsis and required the name Calvin for proper understanding.
Unfortunately, I do not understand all elliptical expressions. The other day I heard a young woman described as “built like a brick house.” I suspect an ellipsis somewhere in that phrase because, while certainly shapely, she did not look all that sturdy to me.
Charles Partee
Presbyterian Outlook
September 2002
