Sacrament of Baptism Drama at King of Kings Omaha
How a “Baptism Service” became an orthodoxy problem rather than a contextual innovation.
One of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS)’s most avant-garde congregations, King of Kings Omaha, has apologized for instituting, in 2024, a quarterly “Baptism Service” that combined actual baptisms with so-called “renewals of baptism.” The latter were performed using water and a baptismal form, contrary to Ephesians 4:5.
The deviation into enthusiasm, complete with cattle water troughs and kiddie pools, attracted attention because one renewal service drew particular attention and offense (the baptism service has since been deleted) due to a particular individual involved and the nature of the service, which was broadcast for all the world to witness.
Concerned pastors and laymen raised alarms through official ecclesial channels and activated dispute-resolution mechanisms by appealing to Nebraska District President Rev. Richard Snow, and Council of Presidents (COP) chairman, Rev. Brady Finnern. Synod President Rev. Matthew Harrison was also alerted and involved.
By LCMS standards, the review and decision process was incredibly swift and remarkably decisive, even if a little puzzling. Snow initiated direct conversations with the pastors involved and scheduled in-person meetings rather than the Synod’s habit of indefinite “discernment” and “prayerful contemplation.”
Ad Crucem News was aware of the situation from the outset but decided to delay public reporting while the ecclesial process was given time to function. This was not deference to secrecy, but restraint that tested whether the Synod would, when pressed, act differently in the wake of the Southeastern District scandal. Happily, that seems to be the case.
The investigation focused on two separate questions. First, it examined the baptismal practice itself, which was found to be heterodox. The use of water and baptismal rites in “renewal” ceremonies was recognized as causing real confusion, and the practice was criticized as being incompatible with orthodox sacramental doctrine. Second, the pastoral care of a specific individual was examined to determine whether the discretion afforded to pastors was appropriately used to protect Christ’s Church from scandal. The conclusion was that forgiveness was properly granted, but that the form of the public performance and broadcast had caused confusion and offense.
Given the public nature of the problems, the resolution was necessarily public. Statements have been issued by DP Snow and by the King of Kings pastors involved. The practice of renewal rites using water was explicitly repudiated. Rebaptism was condemned not only in theory but also in practice. The parish committed to using confessional forms for the remembrance of baptism that do not reapply water and to restricting the administration of baptism to proper pastoral contexts. Apologies were offered for the confusion caused, and responsibility was accepted rather than deflected.
This satisfied the core confessional requirement that public error be met with public repentance and correction. So, all parties are to be commended, including the complainants, who did not confuse charity with silence.
