By Angus Harley

Today, seven were baptized in my assembly in the power of the name of Jesus. I rejoiced with those who rejoice in the Lord. However, I was, at the same time, somewhat in shock. I suppose I still am. Perhaps the reader can help me to negotiate what happened.

The whole baptismal service began with the declaration that there was power in the name of Jesus. Then there was a short, very basic, sermon describing what the significance of baptism was. We got to the ‘best part’, the baptism of the Christians. Preceding each baptism was a previously recorded short, 30 second, testimony that was shown up on the big screen. These testimonies were read from notes. I can’t quite see the point of doing such a thing. Baptism- a live event- was said, in the sermon, to be a public declaration. But surely that should also be accompanied by a live testimony of Jesus’ ‘power’. My guess is that the assembly has chosen this method as it does not require people, due to fear factors, to stand publicly and testify to Jesus. If this is the case, would this not defeat the whole public confession thing- at least to my old-fashioned mind? After all, isn’t there ‘power in the name of Jesus’? Why can’t someone, ‘in Jesus’ name’, overcome that fear? But perhaps I’m reading too much into this matter. Perhaps we need notes, in a 30 second recording, to testify to the power of Jesus’ name.

Each testimony was significant for what it what it did not say and for what it did say. Christ’s death on the cross and sin were never once, at all, ever, mentioned. No one used ‘repented’. The bog-standard, Evangelical Gospel-hall confession at a baptism was not at all in evidence. I did hear, however, the same repeated pattern- seven times- of a previously broken life, that, depending on the speaker, was selfish. Some traumatic event then pushed them to call upon the Lord in faith. For ‘Lord’ read ‘Jesus’. Now, as Christians, they were whole and were on their journey for Christ. They were now in the position of strength to recycle their hideous past and see it as a blessing, for it brought them to Jesus. Then each soul was baptized. Not in the name of the Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), for each was asked one question, ‘Have you accepted Jesus as your Savior and Lord?’

Any Liberal, Progressive, Christian, observing might have been pleasantly surprised.  No need to strait-jacket the Gospel. The cross, sin, repentance, guilt- put them away. It’s all about the journey; it’s all about my healing-process, my growth in Jesus, and what Jesus has in store for me. Exciting times! And the self-righteous, merit-loving, Christian might have left with a sense of pride and vindication. After all, he is not a ‘broken toy’ like the others, so he has no need to do the whole religious-therapy thing anyway. Perhaps he walked out of the building convinced that he was so whole and strong that had no need for this particular form of Christianity. Who knows?

I’m not ridiculing or doubting the salvation of these baptized brothers and sisters in Christ. I give to all the benefit of the doubt as young believers. But when every single one of them reacts by repeating the same pattern, over and over, one has to wonder what on earth is going on. For, I saw confessions that were not live and which focused on trauma-recovery. And a ‘public declaration’ that was embedded in a live sense only in the event of the baptism itself. Baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and the Spirit was not mentioned. Sin, apparently, was irrelevant, and the cross, too. Am I wrong to ask questions? Is it wrong to ask if, to many, the power of the name of Jesus in baptism is merely about their journey, and his power to facilitate them in the healing process? Or is this saying way too much? Am I being too picky? Too traditional?