presurfer sends along this link to a information page on how to perform an "emergency baptism."
first off, i'm not making fun of anyone. i believe rev. ken is entirely sincere in his presentation.
i would take odds with a couple things.
1 -- the disctinction that a member of the clergy gets "first dibs" on baptizing someone. baptism is not an ordinance that is reserved for only the clergy. if that were to be true, the great commission would only be valid for the clergy. and we've already got too many christ-followers who act as though that is true, no matter what they tell you they believe. if you belong to the christ by faith, you are empowered and equipped to administer the symbolic action of baptism as a new believer's public profession of faith. this mentality of "laity is the junior varsity to the clergy's varsity" is what brought about famous and popular heresies such as infant baptism, confession to priests alone, "the mother church" and papal infallibility.
2 -- exactly what constitutes a "valid" baptism. i agree that a baptism should be in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. my only point of contention is that a symbolic action of faith isn't invalid simply because the administering person maybe flubs or forgets a line. i've witnessed baptism where the youth pastor nervously said, "I baptize you in the name of Jesus." His doctrine wasn't bad. He was just nervous. Should the "senior pastor" have jumped in the water and said, "NO NO NO NO! You've done it all wrong! Let's take this thing again from the top!" Of course not. the first baptism i performed, i remembered all parts of the trinity, but I forgot to remind the gal to bend her legs. I dunked her...her legs went out from under her, and a tidal wave of spa water drenched the backs of the entire rear row of the choir. everyone (except the rear row the choir) got a good laugh out of that one. does it invalidate the experience? no. it made a real, reverent act of obedience memorable and joyful.
3 -- the addenda to the "components" of the baptism, including blessing of the water, the thrice-applied water, the oil (and most troubling to me, the prayer that the believer would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit). anything added to the grace of God is legalism. anything taken away from it is heresy. Either baptism is essential for salvation, or it is symbolic of a gift already given. Either a person receives all of the Holy Spirit at salvation, or he receives none of Him. You can't have these things both ways. The Bible must be our template for administering the ordinances; anything beyond or apart from it invites traditions that honor man and not God.
i understand the occasional need for an "emergency" baptism. but the emergency occurs when the person has the strong desire as well as the ability to obey God's command for believers to be baptized, despite circumstances that normally wouldn't allow for it. Every once in a while, though, it isn't possible for a person to be baptized (like, anecdotally, when a terminal woman with open back wounds that had to remain dry placed her faith in jesus of nazareth as the Christ, and died two months later). that person is no less heaven bound, for if she were, it would render the words of Jesus on the cross to the thief as ugly, malicious lies, and would leave frayed the very thread of grace that God Himself has woven through the tapestry of His Holy Word.
For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free--and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. 1 Cor. 12:13