Alien Baptism?

[Baptist Renegade]

Well, they're ordained by someone, and thus licensed to work in their name. Since they also carry out church functions in the field and on the base, I think the definition of a church (in the sense of something like a local assembly) can be a bit more generous than the private organizations that meet in your neighbourhood.

I'd probably extend servicemen a bit of liberty if they're in an active combat zone and want to be baptized. They might not know when they're getting back to the baptistry at First Baptist Church of Midwest, USA--if ever. It's public, Trinitarian, done with water, administered to a confessing believer by a duly ordained minister of a Christian church. Perhaps not ideal circumstances, but good enough.

Actually, I would as well. You have Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen who are going out into combat with no guarantee that they will make it home so of course I am sympathetic to this but there may be some issues when they do return home and affiliate (as they should) with a local congregation. Perhaps the Didache was addressing some of the difficulties of their time (I.E., rampant persecution)? The practice of "Transfer by letter" I believe comes from the Pauline epistles where Paul "commends" people to other congregations that they should be "received" upon their arrival.

As far as military chaplains are concerned, I understand that they are ordained and that they are, in fact, tasked with conducting religious services and the ecclesiastical structure gets things convoluted here as we try to flesh through everything here! According to the Roman Catholic Church, the Church is "Wherever the Bishop is" (of which I adamantly disagree) so the authority to baptize and administer the Sacraments (Communion, etc.) is conferred upon the priests and bishops under the guise of "Apostolic Succession." This means that a military chaplain who is a Catholic priest can administer a legitimate baptism that is recognized by Roman Catholics worldwide. Most Protestant denominations acknowledge their baptisms as being "Universal" (small c "catholic") in nature and therefore one's authority to baptize is according to ordination credentials, synods, presbyteries, etc. which extend outside of the local congregation. Herein lies the problem with Baptists who do not acknowledge any authority beyond a local Church congregation!

There are Baptist Chaplains in the military but if they truly are "Baptist," wherein is their authority to baptize? Baptist preachers are licensed, ordained, and sent out as evangelists and missionaries operating under the authority of their respective home church and in such cases, they are authorized to baptize under the authority of their sending church usually with the intent to plant new churches or whatever. I guess we could say that whoever this Baptist Chaplain baptizes during a combat deployment may be techncally considered as a member of this Chaplain's home church until they ultimately affiliate with a congregation of their own? I am guessing that this Baptist Chaplain could provide a certificate or an official letter or something stating the conditions of the baptism, and that the prospective congregation could receive this person under such conditions? I think I would much prefer this than to require them to be "Baptized Again" because the authority of their baptism was in question.

Perhaps I am overthinking things but this is a legitimate issue is it not?

 

[illinoisguy]

It has been my understanding that Baptist chaplains in the military are authorized by their ordaining/sending local churches to administer baptism by the authority of that church. Presumably when the soldiers return home, they would be given a letter by the chaplain's church which they could use to transfer membership to a church in their own locality. Or something like that.

This paragraph comes from the Southern Baptist Convention manual for chaplains.

"Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. These are the two ordinances of SBC churches. Through the endorsement process, each cooperating SBC church provides the chaplain with the necessary credentials to administer these ordinances and the scope of ministry. Therefore, endorsed Southern Baptist chaplains are to administer baptism and the Lord’s Supper under the authority of the chaplain’s local Southern Baptist church."

 

[JesusFan]

Well, they're ordained by someone, and thus licensed to work in their name. Since they also carry out church functions in the field and on the base, I think the definition of a church (in the sense of something like a local assembly) can be a bit more generous than the private organizations that meet in your neighbourhood.

I'd probably extend servicemen a bit of liberty if they're in an active combat zone and want to be baptized. They might not know when they're getting back to the baptistry at First Baptist Church of Midwest, USA--if ever. It's public, Trinitarian, done with water, administered to a confessing believer by a duly ordained minister of a Christian church. Perhaps not ideal circumstances, but good enough.

I just think that the Holy Spirit can still save a lost sinner without there being any water available nearby

 

[Ransom]

I just think that the Holy Spirit can still save a lost sinner without there being any water available nearby

It's not a matter of salvation, but of public testimony of one's identification with Christ's death, burial and resurrection, and initiation into the visible church--obedience to Jesus by participating in the ordinance he commanded for that purpose.

 

[Ransom]

I am sympathetic to this but there may be some issues when they do return home and affiliate (as they should) with a local congregation.

When I was interviewed for membership in my church, I was asked if I was baptized. It sufficed that I told them yes, and briefly summarized the circumstances (summer of 1989 by the elders of my hometown Brethren chapel). They didn't ask for more than that, but I certainly could have put them in touch with at least one of the elders, with whom I'm still in regular contact.

Would a military chaplain not keep records of rites like baptisms, funerals, etc. so he could verify that Corporal So-and-so was baptized as he claimed? Let him confirm with the querying church, and let them decide whether the army chaplaincy counts as like faith and practice.

Perhaps the Didache was addressing some of the difficulties of their time (I.E., rampant persecution)?

Perhaps, but chapter 7 seems to be dealing primarily with the practical issue of baptizing when water is limited. The Didache originated in the Middle East, so water shortages in the desert were probably a valid concern from time to time.

The practice of "Transfer by letter" I believe comes from the Pauline epistles where Paul "commends" people to other congregations that they should be "received" upon their arrival.

More broadly, it was an ancient way of vouching for someone who was going from one community to another. People didn't carry ID cards validating their identity, so (for example) a messenger to church B from church A would carry a letter of commendation from a mutual friend or well-known authority. Today we might call it a character reference.

A transfer of membership letter typically commends the member to the new confirmation, affirms that he is a member in good standing, and maybe lists some pertinent details such as baptism or ministries he participated in. So largely the same thing as Paul's letter of commendation, but with a specific application.

 

[JesusFan]

It's not a matter of salvation, but of public testimony of one's identification with Christ's death, burial and resurrection, and initiation into the visible church--obedience to Jesus by participating in the ordinance he commanded for that purpose.

Agreed, was just addressing the aspect that they could be saved apart from water applied to them in any fashion