No Headline Present

bracing waters of the Pentland Firth, a Nairn minister has taken the

plunge and declared himself unable to baptise babies on conscientious

grounds.

He has walked the plank and been deposed by his presbytery, but has

appealed, and while he treads water the whole question of baptism will

once again be debated. Observers may be tempted to recall last year's

convulsions over the question of women elders and wonder why challenges

to universally accepted practices are capable of creating such a

stramash. But before attempting to answer that question, let us look at

the latest case.

The Rev. Sandy Shaw is a charismatic evangelical. That means he has

sympathy with those who have the gift of tongues, and he has a strong

attachment to the idea of baptism in the Holy Spirit, which in practice

means he would prefer ''believer's baptism'', i.e. the person being

baptised should not only be able to assent to the baptismal vows but be

able to claim a special relationship with Christ, sometimes described as

being ''born again''. Babies can obviously do neither, and since he can

find nothing in his Bible about infant baptism he has declared he will

no longer subscribe to it.

''It's not that I won't, but I can't,'' he told me this week, the day

after the presbytery of Inverness deposed him from the ministry by 51

votes to two after giving him two months paid leave to consider his

position.

The presbytery is adamant that it is not going to be drawn into

discussing the doctrine of baptism or even the ''Swiss'' arrangement

that Sandy Shaw floated, in which he would swop pulpits with a

baby-baptising minister in order to keep families in his parish happy

and salve his conscience.

''It's not up to us to think up arrangements to keep him happy, or to

change the doctrine of the Church of Scotland on baptism. That's for the

General Assembly,'' says the Rev. R. J. V. Logan, the presbytery clerk.

''We must uphold the doctrine as it now is.''

At Tuesday's presbytery meeting Sandy Shaw was asked two questions.

First if he adhered to his ordination vows (which include a promise to

obey the rules of the Kirk), and second if he would baptise babies. He

answered yes and no respectively, thus effectively putting him in the

position of pleading guilty to contumacy. The procedure in such cases is

plain. The presbytery can depose him without further ado and, having had

two months to think about it, this they did.

When asked why he did not just up and join the Baptist Church or the

Pentecostals, where his views on baptism would be more at home, he

replied, ''When I was eight I met Jesus Christ in the Church of Scotland

and was nurtured there. If I had to leave, it would be with great

regret.''

At a private meeting of evangelicals in Crieff this week discussing

the issue, Sandy Shaw's position was supported by only one other

minister, the Rev. Stewart Lang of Ruchill. Together they appear to be

as much in a minority as those ministers last year who said they could

not ordain women elders on ''conscientious and biblical'' grounds and

when it came to the crunch could muster only a few of their theological

sympathisers to vote for them.

So, is this just a storm in a font? The answer must be no, for a

number of reasons. The first is that despite Sandy Shaw's

idiosyncrasies, he knows how to keep the media happy. To the irritation

of those who believe that discipline cases in the Kirk are sub judice

Sandy Shaw has been busy holding forth to all sections of the media, and

as his appeal goes to the synod of Southern Highlands it will no doubt

attract attention. A man fighting for his job makes good courtroom

drama.

However, as it does Mr Shaw may be well advised not to refer to the

synod as a ''mickey mouse affair'' as he has been wont to do, and

perhaps prepare a speech in his defence this time. (Inverness presbyters

were dismayed that a man who, in the words of one, had been paid for two

months ''to sit on his bottom'', had nothing to say for himself.) If

unsuccessful at synod, he is likely to appeal to the General Assembly,

and this in itself will guarantee the issue national exposure.

Another reason that the issue cannot be shoved under the pew is the

practical one that the Kirk as a national church offering the ordinances

of religion to all who wish them cannot be seen to have ''no-go'' areas

for infant baptism, one of its two central sacraments. This is not a

question of disciplining one man but of ensuring that there is a

universal standard.

The other reason that this will not go away is that it foreshadows

(like the women elders issue) deep divides within the Kirk on theology

and practice that may get deeper as the decade advances. At present

those like Sandy Shaw are akin to a Militant Tendency, but with one

difference. They are not organised or competent in the politics of

dissent. Should they become so then the waters will become even more

stormy.