Baptizing in the name of the Source and the Servant and the Guide.

Huh?

There seems to be some ecumenical document between the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and various Reformed Christian denominations, including the United Church of Christ.  The document notes that the Catholic Church will not recognize baptismal formulas which are not the Trinitarian formula found in Matthew 28:19 - 20, i.e., "the Father, Son and Holy Spirit."

But dealing with Protestants is like herding cats, even - strangely - when it comes to adhering to "biblical" language.  According to UCC pastor Chuck Currie:

I do not use the traditional language of "Father, Son and the Holy Spirit" during baptism as I try to refrain from using gender specific language for God in most cases. You can download the basic outlines of the baptism liturgy that I use here to see what language I do incorporate.


Actions taken by the General Synod of the United Church of Christ speak to but not for the local church. Therefore, as a minister in the UCC I am not bound by any agreement made regarding baptism and may (and will) continue to use the language that I currently do. Inclusive language is important in theology and a important trait of many UCC congregations and our denomination as a whole. None of this is to say that I am opposed to the agreement. Ecumenical agreements are important and when and where Christians can find unity it is important to foster those relationships.

Currie's preferred baptismal formula is to baptize in the name of the "Source, Servant and Guide."

*Yuck*

How many things are theologically wrong with that formulation?

1.  It denies the integral relationships which make up the Trinity.  Is a servant necessarily begotten?  Is a servant begotten by a source?  What's the relationship of a "guide" to a servant or a source, or vice versa?

These aren't abstract questions.  They go directly to the heart of orthodox Christianity.  Deny the relationship between the persons of the Trinity - such that the Father begets the Son and Son is begotten by the Father and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (or through the Son, if you swing in the Eastern Orthodox direction), and you've got polytheism, not Trinitarianism.

2.  It denies the equality of the persons of the Trinity.  Orthodox Christianity affirms that each person of the Trinity is equal to each other.  While the notion of "Father" and "Son" gestures at an inequality, such inequality is not logically inherent in the two terms.  "Servant", on the other hand, cannot logically be anything other unequal to the Father (and maybe the Spirit.)

Do that and you have moved in the direction of an Arianism that posits that the Son is a lesser being.

3.  It gestures at Modalism.  Father, Son and Spirit are mutually exclusive, but Source, Servant and Guide are not.  What happens to the concept of "person" when the divine persons are reduced to a job description.

4.  It's not biblical.  Matthew 28:19 - 20 affirms that Christ instructed that disciples followers be baptized as follows:

18. Then Jesus approached and said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.


19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,

20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.

It seems like a poor trade just to be politically correct.