Baptism-lite

[Gob]

Church of England baptism services may be re-written to remove some references to Christianity.

The plan for a new ‘baptism lite’ service designed to make christenings more interesting to non-churchgoers will be considered next month by the Church’s parliament, the General Synod.

Supporters say the baptism service should be ‘expressed in culturally appropriate and accessible language’ that is readily understood by ‘non-theologically versed Britons’.

But traditionalist clergy said the idea amounted to ‘dumbing down’.

The plan for a new 'baptism lite' service which uses 'accessible language' and makes christenings more interesting to non-churchgoers will be considered next month by the Church's parliament

The new service would be used at 150,000 christenings each year. If the plan is accepted, it will be the third full re-write of the baptism ceremony in around 30 years – the version in the Church’s Book of Common Prayer went virtually unaltered for more than 400 years until 1980.

Complaints centre on three sections of the baptism service from the Church’s latest prayer book, Common Worship, authorised for use in 1997.

In one, parents, godparents or an adult being baptised are asked to ‘reject the devil and all rebellion against God’ and to renounce ‘the deceit and corruption of evil’. They are asked to ‘submit to Christ as Lord’.

The Reverend Dr Tim Stratford, from Liverpool, who is putting the plans before the synod, said in a paper that ‘there remains some unhappiness about the language not being earthed enough’.

He added: ‘The concern is one of the language not making strong enough connections to life choices in such a way that it can be heard.’

Dr Stratford and his supporters have also called for a new version of prayers that refer to the symbolic role of water in baptism.

He said that among clergy from poor and inner city parishes ‘there was a strong plea for a shorter prayer in direct but poetic language that allows the Gospel to resonate better with people’s experience of life’.

He added: ‘This was not a plea for a prayer in Scouse, but for a prayer that the majority of non-theologically versed Britons would understand.’ A third part of the service was condemned as too long and not ‘direct’.

Stephen Parkinson, of the Anglo-Catholic Forward in Faith organisation, said there were problems with the 1997 service, but added: ‘Simply dumbing it down is not the answer.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1BQXva7DT

[oldr_n_wsr]

Why are bother having the kid baptised if the Christian references are removed. Just dunk the kids head under water at home (or in your backyard) and have the party.

[Crackpot]

I'm guessing it's because they're using crude given the title of the thread.

[Gob]

Bugger, fixed that!

[Reality Bytes]

The Daily Fail strikes again yanno I want a job with them, just trawl the net looking for something innocuous which you can twist to suit your agenda and then sit back and watch the fuss over nothing

The Liverpool motion is not in any way suggesting a "baptism-lite" it's merely part of an ongoing process of standardising the various church services into a "common worship" which has been ongoing for many years.

Here is the actual motion that will be debated: http://www.churchofengland.org/media/11 ... 01816b.pdf

Where in that is there any suggestion of removing references to christianity? Does the Daily Fail even know what is involved in a baptism service? FFS all the motion is suggesting is making available some alternative prayers in some cases if used this could make the service longer not lighter!

These are not journalists they are muck spreaders.

[Guinevere]

Well put RB --- the point isn't to take christianity out of the service but to make the service accessible to more by moderning the language and the format. It's something every church does on a somewhat regular basis. The Episcopal Church of the US in 1983 "modernized" their Book of Common Prayer to provide a less formal version of many rites. Now pretty much every church uses the 1983 version for all major services. And while I enjoyed the old language, I understand the need to make the words more understandable and the process more open.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Sounds like when the Catholic Church went to "non-latin" masses and when they turned the alter around to face the congregation. am I dating myself?

ETA
And when they said the women didn't have to wear viels into church, and we didn't have to fast for 12 hours(?) before receiving communion and we could eat meat on fridays (although you're still not supposed to eat meat on fridays during lent IIRC).

[dgs49]

The Church of England and its affiliates in the U.S. are greatly influenced by a cadre of clergy who are under the impression that the role of the Church is to follow the culture rather than to guide it.

This trend was manifest when they started ordaining women, ordained a gay bishop, and generally made themselves more "friendly" to constituencies who heretofore would have been considered unrepentant sinners.

Since religion is all made-up garbage anyway, I suppose one's theology should have this sort of flexiblity, if it adds contributors at the collection box.

OTOH, if there is a God, and if the Bible means anything, the Church of England is going straight to hell.

Did I mention that a fairly substantial number of CoE and Episcopal priests have applied for entry into the Roman Catholic Church?

Can't imagine why.

[Guinevere]

Bullshit dgs. The Episcopal Church of the US just isn't disgustingly biased and closed-minded like its Catholic predecessors That makes it, well christian, in my view.

[Big RR]

OTOH, if there is a God, and if the Bible means anything, the Church of England is going straight to hell.

Please elaborate--who/what is going to hell? the leadership? the members? The buildings?

[Gob]

The Daily Fail strikes again yanno I want a job with them, just trawl the net looking for something innocuous which you can twist to suit your agenda and then sit back and watch the fuss over nothing

But great for getting debate started

[Big RR]

So tp keep the debate going, tell me what does

‘reject the devil and all rebellion against God’ and to renounce ‘the deceit and corruption of evil’

What is rebellion against god? What is the deceit and corruption of evil? And how could I reject those if I didn't know what they meant. Likewise, if I didn't believe in a devil, how could I reject it? And is my nonbelief in the devil a reason that my child should not be baptized? Shouldn't solemn promises be made truthfully and with understanding?

My guess is that this is what the committee is looking at.