Russell Brand has reportedly been baptising people in a penguin enclosure. In one case at least, the person had only professed faith that day.
Objections have been two-fold. First there are concerns about whether or not Brand should be baptising given that he is currently waiting for court proceedings to be heard about serious criminal charges. On that matter alone, many churches would have restrictions in place via a safeguarding contract looking at how Brand interacted safely with others. Note that this isn’t about making a statement on guilt. It’s about being responsible and keeping everyone safe, including Brand himself against false accusation. Definitely, getting stripped to the waste and jumping in water with others would fall into tht unwise category.
It is important to be clear that this doesn’t in and of itself make baptism invalid. The heart state of the person administering baptism isn’t a factor for that. However, I do wonder given the context whether we are looking at a baptism or a celebrity show. A good pastor will also want to talk later to those baptised to get an understanding of why they got baptised and why by Brand.
Additionally, whilst some have expressed concerns about baptising people on the day of profession and how that profession was tested, I don’t see that as a Biblical issue. In the New Testament, baptism was an immediate response. It was the means by which you professed. Indeed, arguably, baptism is itself the test of your profession, not the thing you do once the profession has been tested.
The second big concern has been to do with authority and authorisation. By what authority did Brand act? There has been some push back to this concern. Don’t we have God’s authority? Doesn’t that mean anyone can baptise?
First, I’m not sure that when you look at the New Testament that you are seeing anyone and everyone baptising. You see clearly commissioned people doing so.
Secondly, it is worth thinking through what Jesus does in Matthew 28:19ff. Does he give individual authority to all believers separately or does he authorise the whole Church together to go and make disciples? I want to suggest that it is the latter
Thirdly, notice that the command is to make disciples and we are to do that by baptising and teaching. We would be clear that the second part of that is something that happens under the authority of elders in the local church. The two are closely connected and functions of discipleship together. It is important to remember that the priesthood of all believers is not a free for all to do as we please, authority and leadership does exist within the church to enable us to know how to follow the Great Commission.
It is reasonable, I would argue, to expect baptism also to come under the authority of elders (though as with teaching, others can do it under that authority) within the local church.
Faithroots 