back back to Letters previous previous story  |  next story next

Rome, Putney, and ‘Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’ in the baptismal formula

From Canon Erik Wilson
Sir, — Contrary to the Revd Dr Giles Fraser (Comment, 7 March): the Vatican is surely right in insisting on the traditional Trinitarian baptismal formula “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”.

The images used in the so-called “feminist” formulae are each common to other religions, and indeed in art and literature. To whom do the alternative baptismal terms “Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer” refer? In Ancient Near Eastern mythology, gods were credited with bringing order out of the chaos of already existing material and in this sense being “creators”. In Islam, creation is seen as the work of Allah. We speak of artists creating great works of art.

There are many redeemers. Boaz was a kinsman redeemer. Bruce Willis, aka Officer John McClane, redeems the hapless hostages in the Die Hard movie. The goddess Artemis is depicted as having many breasts. She is the sustainer. There are some, no doubt, who would describe the landlord of our local pub as their sustainer.

There is nothing inherent in those terms which would link them to the biblical revelation of God. Furthermore, in the biblical revelation, the Father is more than the Creator, the Son is more than the Redeemer, and the Holy Spirit is more than the Sustainer, though each one is involved in all three — creation, redemption, and sustenance.

As Anglicans, we may have other issues with the Vatican, but muddled baptismal formulae should not be one of them.
ERIK WILSON
St Barnabas Vicarage
8 The Crescent
Middlesbrough TS5 6SQ

From Mr James Bradley
Sir, — Those reading Dr Fraser’s comments last week might be justified in asking with which part of Matthew 28.19 the author has difficulty.

“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” seems to be fairly clear. Scripture says it; Tradition affirms it; Reason is informed by these.
JAMES BRADLEY
St Stephen’s House
16 Marston Street
Oxford OX4 1JX

From Mr Clifford Longley
Sir, — May I take issue with the Revd Dr Giles Fraser’s column in your last edition, where he offers two reasons why it might be “time to snub the Pope”? His reasoning is so thin, I can only suspect that he has a third reason that he is not telling us.

The first is the instruction from Rome that anyone baptised in the name of the “Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier” rather than Father, Son, and Holy Spirit would be deemed in Roman Catholic canon law not to have received the sacrament validly.

It strikes me that Church of England canon law would raise precisely the same objection, and not to admit this could be construed as disingenuous and tendentious. In this respect, Rome is referring to a matter of internal Roman Catholic discipline. As far as I can see, this has no implications at all for the Church of England parish of Putney, whose affairs are Dr Fraser’s proper business. He can baptise his flock in the name of Dawkins, Grayling, and Hitchens for all Rome cares, although Dr Fraser might get a visit from his archdeacon.

That is unless, of course, Putney is the centre of the True Church, and he wants all Roman Catholics to join it; for that is the mirror of his second problem: some remarks by a Roman Catholic parish priest who apparently upset Dr Fraser by “interpreting Jesus’s call for us all to be one as a call for us all to become Roman Catholics”.

The priest presumably believes the Roman Catholic faith is true, and would like that truth to be recognised. Dr Fraser presumably thinks his version of Anglicanism is true, and would like that to be recognised instead. I do not understand why one view is self-evidently outrageous, as Dr Fraser supposes, and the other, perfectly respectable. This is not the same as saying that everything the Pope says I agree with.

In the process of debating church unity, one of the questions asked, usually by the Roman Catholic side, is “Where is the Church which Christ founded?” If you believe it is, or is to be found in, the Roman Catholic Church, then you have a duty to become a member of that Church, because that is what you believe Christ wants. If you do not believe that, then you have no obligation to go over to Rome, and indeed you would not be admitted (though I hope the rejection would be a lot more courteous than a snub).

The Pope would most emphatically tell Dr Fraser to stay in Putney, if that is what Dr Fraser’s conscience tells him to do.
CLIFFORD LONGLEY
24 Broughton Road
Orpington, Kent BR6 8EQ

From the Revd Zam Walker
Sir, — Oh dear! The Vatican is revealing its true colours and entrenching its conservatism by insistence on one image of the Trinity. By limiting the description of the Trinity — that most amazing of Christian doctrines — to one static, hierarchical model, and refusing to recognise other ways to describe it, the Vatican is revealing its inherent misogyny, fear of losing power, and, dare I say it, lack of imagination.

The key feature of the Trinity is surely that it is God-in-community: the relationship is more important than the particular terms. Even the Roman Catholic Catechism states that God is beyond gender.

If there is insistence on exclusively masculine language, there is clearly no place for anything feminine other than as adoring supplicants, and this surely contradicts the teaching that all are made in God’s image.

The dynamism of the Trinity needs to be embraced and recognised in order truly to manifest and liberate the doctrine, modelling community in an encompassing exchange of love, joy, and energy. If other terms help us understand this, surely that can only be to the benefit of the whole Church.

When the depiction of the Trinity is dynamic not static, modelling community, not hierarchy, inclusivity is the underlying theological motif, releasing power to transform unjust structures and end alienation. This, for me, is the essence of the radical gospel of Jesus.
ZAM WALKER
Jointly United Reformed Church
Minister for Brighthelm Church & Community Centre
Brighthelm Manse
22 Braemore Road
Hove BN3 4HB


back back to Letters up back to top previous previous story  |  next story next


© Church Times 2006 - All rights reserved

Website by Baigent