Baptism Liturgy -changes for CofE

Certain usual suspects in the British press have made uninformed and inaccurate comments about a trial of a baptism liturgy. They did so in conformity with their mission to leave their readers more angry, more scared or both. In this case by painting the changes as trendy disposal of hallowed tradition. They also made out that it was at the personal initiative of the current Archbishop of Canterbury when in fact it was a response to a motion at General Synod before the current ABofC was appointed.

Statement on proposal to Synod on baptism service wording: A Church of England spokesman said:
"The report in the Mail on Sunday (Jan 5) is misleading in a number of respects. The story claims that "the baptism ceremony had not been altered for more than 400 years until it was changed in 1980". This is the third revision in 30 years.

 If you follow one of the links  (to a pdf) you'll be able to read the liturgy in parallel with the current 30 year-old provision (which, frankly, does need looking at).

Here's the current introductory paragraph:
Here's some salient bits.
Faith is the gift of God to his people.
In baptism the Lord is adding to our number who have come to be baptized.
those whom he is calling.
People of God, will you welcome these
children/candidates
and uphold them in their new life in Christ?
All With the help of God, we will.

And its proposed replacement:
Today we thank God for these children/candidates
Christ welcomes them into his Church.
Will you promise to support them
as they begin their journey of faith?
   All We will.

The charge to the parents is currently thus:
Parents and godparents, the Church receives these
children with joy.
Today we are trusting God for their growth in faith.
Will you pray for them,
draw them by your example into the community of
faith
and walk with them in the way of Christ?
With the help of God, we will.

In baptism these children begin their journey in faith.
You speak for them today.
Will you care for them,
and help them to take their place
within the life and worship of Christ‟s Church?
With the help of God, we will.


The proposed alternative:
Parents and godparents,
you have brought these children to baptism
and speak for them today.
As we trust God for their growth in faith,
will you promise to care for them,
pray for them,
and help them to follow Christ?
We will.

I think I prefer the brevity and directness of the newer 'charge'.

Now to the decision bit:

In baptism, God calls us out of darkness into his marvellous light. To follow Christ means dying to sin and rising to new
life with him. Therefore I ask:
Do you reject the devil and all rebellion against God?
I reject them.
Do you renounce the deceit and corruption of evil?
I renounce them.
Do you repent of the sins that separate us from God
and neighbour?
I repent of them.
In baptism God calls us to new life. We die with Christ to all that destroys, and rise to live with him for ever. Therefore I ask: Do you reject evil? I reject evil. And all its many forms? And all its many forms. And all its empty promises? And all its empty promises.

Do you turn to Christ as Saviour?
I turn to Christ.
Do you submit to Christ as Lord?
I submit to Christ.
Do you come to Christ, the way, the truth and the life?
I come to Christ.

And the newer version:

The candidates, together with their parents,  godparents and sponsors, may now turn to face the font, a cross, or the large candle.
Do you turn to Christ?
I turn to Christ.
And put your trust in him?
And put my trust in him.
And promise to follow him for ever?
And promise to follow him for ever

(I think I'd recommend that the response have the word 'I' in them -perhaps instead of all those 'and's)

And the signing with the sign of the cross:

Do not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified.
All Fight valiantly as a disciple of Christ
against sin, the world and the devil, 
and remain faithful to Christ to the end of your life.

Do not be ashamed of Christ. You are his for ever.
All Stand bravely with him.
Oppose the power of evil,
and remain his faithful disciple to the
end of your life.

Then the prayer of the water  and there are a handful of shorter alternatives in the proposed revision -which I welcome since the older version was deadly. For the profession of faith, the proposal is to use the shorter responses from Common worship Initiation Services p.178, which is great as these are more succinct than the broken up Apostles' Creed currently used and something of a return to the ASB approach.

Altogether the revision-proposals tend to shorten the service which I feel is good since the current service is overly wordy and ponderous. I also feel that the content is good. It still makes clear what it is to be a baptised disciple of Christ, it still makes clear that parents are to help children become Christ-followers. I like the simplicity of the language and I like the way the responses echo the questions which makes them easier to process. I'd found the medievalism of the current questions a bit embarrassing -not because I don't 'believe' but because I know the service gets used with people who tend not to be so au fait with the more theologically 'commited' language and in terms of helping them to understand and appropriate the responses the revised set seem to hold more pastoral potential, in my view.

So, overall, I'd have to say I like the look of the new stuff and I hope it broadly becomes commended and comes into use. For a pretty good comment explaining the background and offsetting the Mail's rabble-rousing, go here. A quote from which says nicely what I've alluded to above when I mention medievalism:

On paper, saying ‘I reject evil… in all its many forms.. and all its empty promises’ did indeed look as if it was going to be colourlessly vague and managerial. But said out loud by the parents and godparents, it had surprising weight and gravity, a surprising Augustinian sobriety about it, pointing to evil as a familiar and participatory thing that humans do, rather than to a remote abstraction; to someone else’s problem. It seemed, in fact, to name the darkness more successfully than talking about the devil or about sin would have done, given that both those names now carry an obscuring freight of associations from pop culture, almost all of which point away from what the church wants us to notice about ourselves.