Baptism - getting down with the Kids ...

... And out there with the people is causing some controversy amongst some, who prefer not to be named, and others who do - the most notable being Michael Nazir Ali, former bishop of Rochester.

Many years ago when the earth was and I was younger I attended a training session on occasional offices during which we were asked to describe how we liked, and did, ours. Having complied, the person leading the weekend took us to task for setting aside the solemnity and import of the service for some shallow popularist entertainment. Where some saw energy and dialogue, the making accessible of the service and the clergy being one with the people before us the leader saw something shallow and almost meaningless.

One of those present, feeling themselves to be under attack, defended themselves vigorously by saying that this was the way forward and that 'If we wanted them to come we needed to do it in ways that made them feel safe, comfortable and 'entertained'!' And that was where the touch paper was lit!!!  And the firework show continues ...

There is in this baptism issue a collision of posturing, misrepresentation, misunderstanding and extremely clever people (they know who they are) and this, fuelled by an ever-friendly press, makes for some great reading and - I was going to say 'a storm in a tea cup'  but let's be positive and say instead- an opportunity for clarifying what baptism is all about.

What is Baptism?
Is it the beginning of the Christian journey - the initiation we claim it to be - or something else? Does our paedobaptist (we baptise babies) position add to the challenges or merely make the issues for all who present themselves more apparent?

Is it an invitation to embrace, and takes the first teetering steps of, faith or an invitation for some to make promises they have no real intention of keeping as payment for a nice service, a piece of paper conferring entry to a church school, an opportunity for a party and have conferred on some the honour of being a 'godparent'.

We baptise because Jesus' earthly ministry began with baptism and we take up our oil, water and candle to emulate Him (I favour the Eastern rite which adds communion to the equation, but that's for another day). Baptism involves the indwelling of God's Holy Spirit (Chrism), a ritual washing away of sin (water) and a passing from darkness to light (candle) - with the call to walk in that light (God's word being a lamp to guide our feet and a light for our path). This defines our 'mechanical actions' but we have the words to contend with too.

The Words
Because, quite often, we baptise those who are unable to answer for themselves (babies) we involve third parties (sponsors or godparents) to speak for them and they, in doing so are making promises to God, but do they intend to keep them? Ecclesiastes 5 tells us that it is better not to vow than to make a vow and not fulfil it.

Now some tell me that what others say is up to them but I wonder how my being complicit in encouraging, permitting and abetting others to make a vow there's no intention of keeping goes down with God; I wonder how a God feels about them that make it too!

Ever experienced the joy of the half-hearted baptism party? The mumbled, often inaudible responses, some on their mobiles ('No it ain't finished yet, put the water on in about five minutes....') and others  obviously disengaged. Would 'more accessible' words change all this?

This is the root of the present debate: Are we turning the baptism service into something that is so 'watered down' that it is no longer fit for service or making the service it real for those that come (the few that do - I understand we 'do' no more than 10% of the sprogs on offer these days)?

I have to be honest and, nailing my colours to the font, say that I think that there is a great danger that we are looking to overcome something that has less to do with the IMD (Index of Multiple Deprivation) position that those coming to church for baptism occupy (which is, by the way, a really nice and polite way of saying that they're 'thick, chavvy or ignorant') and perhaps more about the way the clergy understand, instruct and deliver the service.

The words of the service in the common Worship volume are, as I understand it, totally accessible (and open to our own adaptation should it be needed) and having brought the candidate into play, the first element- the Decision - is not at all bad. It goes like this:

'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.
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,
I come to Christ.'

The published format  of the new 'accessible' service gives us:
'In baptism, God calls us to a new live. 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 its many forms?
And all its many forms.
And all its empty promises?
And all its empty promises.
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.
Do you believe in God the father, source of all being and life, the one for whom we exist
I believe and trust in him.'

So we've lost any reference to the devil (which should stop the sniggering!) and rebellion against God (isn't that religion?) and dumbed down 'evil'  and the effects of sin and even though I can understand the views of both camps in this element of the service alone - I have to say that  the 'promise to follow him for ever' is perhaps best enacted with 'fingers crossed' in the rubric!

I personally find nothing in the baptism service that cannot be dealt with by good preparation and explanation during that preparation and during the service for those who come to the service on the day.

I think the opportunity presented it the 'over the water' bit as it stands:

'We thank you, almighty God, for the gift of water to sustain, refresh and cleanse all life.'
How hard is this to understand?
 'Over water the Holy Spirit moved in the beginning of creation.'
Genesis one - God is Creator - God is Trinity, three-in-one

'Through water you led the children of Israel from slavery in Egypt to freedom in the Promised Land.'
Excellent  - 
redemption, Pascal lamb, Passover - all found here

"In water your Son Jesus received the baptism of John and was anointed by the Holy Spirit as the Messiah, the Christ, to lead us from the death of sin to newness of life.'
Wow - what's so hard here - Incarnacy, obedience, baptism, repentance, new life in Christ!

'We thank you, Father, for the water of baptism.
In it we are buried with Christ in his death. Dying to sin, rising to new lie, identification with Christ
By it we share in his resurrection.  Take the ticket and get on the ride - no universalist stuff here
Through it we are reborn by the Holy Spirit. Nicodemus would be proud of you guys

Therefore, in joyful obedience to your Son,we baptise into his fellowship those who come to him in faith. Obedience - ooh, a naughty word like submission

Now sanctify this water that, by the power of your Holy Spirit, they may be cleansed from sin and born again. Renewed in your image, may they walk by the light of faith and continue for ever in the risen life of Jesus Christ our Lord; to whom with you and the Holy Spirit be all honour and glory, now and for ever.

Sorry  - think we might be trying to fix that which isn't broken and in doing so rather than make baptism accessible probably render it quite limited and perhaps non-efficacious. The intentions are great but the reality is . . .

If we take into account the fact that we no longer have a proper creed in the baptism, preferring to have an 'affirmation' (easier to agree than to make a statement for ourselves isn't it?), and now want to remove the potential for telling the stories of our faith and the history that leads to do as we do (or perhaps did in the light of the changes we keep making) I do find myself in the 'conservative' camp here (but then seeing some who bill themselves as progressive of late I really would want to be associated as being one, with them, or of them!).

A long post for me (27 minutes of splurge) - I hope others find it of value - at least I understand where I am on this issue now :-)

Pax

ps. Just to reiterate (because I have deleted the comment that this relates to) this is not 'new' liturgy - take a look at  GS1816A it is merely an invitation to consider making changes - as we can anyway - in the baptism service. It's not being 'enforced' - Justin is not what you called him (but you might just be) - liturgy has to be consistent and yet remain contextually accessible (I hate the use of 'contemporary' here). So now you know!

Christianity - Free Lamborghini or McLaren anyone?

Here's a really quick splurge from my grey matter onto the electronic paper of this blog and I apologise for typos, rushed edits and and confusuioon but here goes:

Last night saw the second evening of an Alpha course that we are running jointly with our local Methodists and as we chatted about the Cross and addressed the question, 'Why did Jesus die?' I became very aware of the fact that, generally speaking, many churches (and members) I engage with appear  to fail to make the cost of commitment real and obvious.

For me the answer to the question 'Why' is summed up in the words of John 3:16:

'For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God didn't send His Son into the world to condemn the world but that through Him (Jesus) it (the world = us) might be saved!'

The 'Why' for God and the 'What' for us are both clearly visible.

God - Die

Us - Believe and accept that salvific act (made ONCE, for ALL, upon a CROSS)

Simples innit?

So here we are, God is offering us, free and gratis something that is precious and unique, namely:

i. Restoration of relationship with God,

ii. The breaking of the power of sin (which is of course death - and by coming back on Easter Sunday He handed it back to satan with the words, 'Whoops, broken it!', and

iii. The becoming of a new creation - through the indwelling and enabling of the Holy Spirit, one that is about to live within the freedom of 'free choice' making the right choices (and wrong choices, when they are taken, less often).

And all we have to do is accept it and keep it on the road. But it is just too easy to have God bear all the cost and us live with all the benefits. There is a cost for us too and many of my friends over the years have paid out (often sacrificially in terms of money, marriages and relationships) to keep cars on the road, aircraft in the air and radios on the airwaves. Others have devoted free time to trains (real and model) or stamp collecting or many of the other hobbies people have, and this is where it gets hard for me when it comes to Christianity.

I know people who put everything on the line for a hobby and know many people who claim to be Christian and yet are willing to do nothing but accept and demand and give the very minimum in time, money and energy.

If I were to offer you one of the top marques of car (Ferrari, Lamborghini, McLaren, etc.) free of charge, how many would take my hand off in the rush to accept it? But to keep a car like that on the road take some real commitment (and it's not just money I'm talking of here).

A friend with one such car told me how it cost him 'a few thousand' every year to keep his beloved super car on the road and yet, he claimed, it was worth it because look at what he had!

God, through the Cross of Christ offers each of us something that cost Him everything and lasts not just for our lifetime but for eternity and yet many of us will commit less to keeping it on the road than we do for our hobbies and pastimes - after all they cry, 'it's a free gift - how can it cost us anything?'

And oddly, these are also more, often than not the same people who complain about the lack of things being done in the church. They are the same people who wished to be served and to be cared for and to be provided for and to be made happy and listened to and obeyed (yep - that too) and yet they don't put anything in to keep the vehicle that is the church or the component that is their life working effectively and efficiently.

Now here's some questions:

Are you the problem or the solution?

Are you willing to pay (and I don't mean with mere money) to keep your faith on the road?

Is your faith an interest (your hobby) or a life-changing, life-long commitment?

Are you willing to pay what it takes or merely willing to take?

The time is coming when we need to realise that if you merely wish to be an associate member (and you're welcome as such) then you will also have to realise that whilst we can guarantee a life membership being open for you in Church, we cannot guarantee and eternal life membership.

Your choice