Alternate Trinities, Alternate Baptisms and the Baptism of Desire

My father was a lifelong Presbyterian. But the Presbyterian churches in his hometown changed under him. In his childhood it was a solidly faithful branch of the Christian faith. In his later years, the national Presbyterian body to which both of the Presbyterian churches in his hometown belonged had gone so far over into generic religious liberalism that one commonly heard criticism of denominational religious services that invoked Sophia, goddess of Wisdom, as a non-sexist alternative to God the Father. By the time my father died, his church had a woman pastor who felt the need to explain, at my father's funeral, why we were doing something as old fashioned as reading the Bible. Not because it was the word of God, since according to her the Bible was merely a record of how people felt about God in the past. (I was not a Christian at the time, but a Norse Pagan, but I was offended, particularly since she never consulted the family before making these remarks.)

Many mainline Protestant churches are experiencing this change from Christian faith to something.... different. One of the things that is often under attack is the Trinity. The religious liberal would not accept God as Father any more than he will accept the Son, Jesus Christ, as more than a religious teacher like the Buddha. So instead of saying 'In the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit', we have 'In the name of the Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer' or some other alternate, non-sexist Trinity.

Alternate trinities lead to alternate baptisms, and here is where the problems come in. Many people baptized as children in a religious liberalism 'church' will at some point become Christians and want to join a Bible Christian church like the Catholic Church (or any other church which is faithful to what Christ taught rather than running after the less-sexist Sophia). Upon joining it will be asked if you are baptized. In the past it could be assumed that if you were baptized in any well-known Christian denomination the correct Trinitarian baptismal formula was used.

Now the person desiring to join a faithful church must not only know whether he was baptized but whether the correct words were used? And who keeps records of such things? Certainly not those who go to those churches where alternatives to the Trinity are even an option. People who have their children baptized in such churches are either religious liberals for whom Christ and Buddha are equals, or are naive enough to not know how far their denominational body has departed from Christian teachings--- not that uncommon in many small-town congregations where many of the people are conservative enough to walk away if Sophia-worship were to be done in their presence.

And so there will be more and more people who are sure they were baptized but are not. And since the way to being saved involved believing and being baptized, this is a problem. What happens to a person who lives as a Christian but was never baptized? Surely Jesus would have not made baptism a part of the being-saved process if it wasn't in fact necessary? But our loving Heavenly Father would not condemn someone because of a non-baptized status the did not know about, would He?

But the Bible and the Church have taught that there is something that Catholics name 'The Baptism of Desire'. This is when a person desires to be baptized but they are not able to be--- perhaps they die suddenly while they are being taught in preparation for their baptism. Such people may not have full theological knowledge about the sacrament of Baptism, but just a desire to follow Jesus and do what He wants--- as in the case of the Good Thief on the cross, to whom Jesus promised Paradise.

I would say that a Christian person who through no fault of his own was invalidly baptized and does not know it, because he desires to do all that Christ asks of him, will experience the Baptism of Desire. But an actual water baptism as taught by Christ and practiced in the faithful Church is much better and more sure.

Why not just re-baptize everyone upon joining a new church or congregation? This would show disrespect towards valid baptisms. Perhaps the only thing to be done as alternate 'baptisms' proliferate, is for Christian families to ask pastors to write a note on the back of baptismal certificates, indicating the baptismal formula used. Witnesses can sign to indicate that the written formula was in fact the one used. And of course the baptismal certificate must be carefully preserved.

Do Catholics have to worry about alternate 'baptisms'? There is far greater discipline on such things in our Church. And yet there are a significant number of way-out-there liberal Catholic priests who certainly think everything about the Church is sexist and must be changed. It's not impossible that some of them are out there performing alternate 'baptisms' in a 'just-us-liberals' environment.

The Church does teach that even a baptism performed by an unbelieving or wicked priest, if done properly, is valid. But there must be minimum standards to distinguish between a Christian baptism and, for example, a Norse Pagan baptism --- yes, there is an ancient Norse custom of sprinkling a child with water in the name of the gods. It is not at all uncommon in Norse Paganism to use nicknames of the gods instead of their names in worship--- Thor is called upon as 'the thunderer'. Suppose a Norse Pagan were to use words like 'Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer' as nicknames for their favorite Norse Pagan gods, and so baptized his Pagan child in the name of the Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer? I'm sure there are religious liberals in formerly-faithful denominations who would believe the rite to be spiritually the same as their own post-Christian alternate baptisms--- much to the dismay of the Norse Pagans, who tend to reject the notion of all religions being the same when Christianity (or post-Christianity) is included.