It removes the word “sacrament” from the rite. It reduces baptism to an organizational membership ceremony of some kind.
It has NO renunciation of evil. It does not admit to the reality of Satan, spiritual evil, worldly corruption or our own sinful desires. It does not warn that this false Trinity of the world, the flesh and the devil can separate us from God – rather, it says that “new birth is a gift that none can take away.” There is no expression of the need to continually “repent and return to the Lord.” Baptism is a magical, immediate entitlement to eternal life. It claims to “bestow the forgiveness of sin” without ever really acknowledging our status as creatures who have trespassed in rebellion against our Creator.
It has a few holdover phrases from the ’79 Prayer Book, but is completely detached from the Biblical message. In fact, it removes some of the most Biblically accurate statements from the ’79 BCP. “… made members of your Church” (yes, big “C”) displaces deliverance “from bondage to sin” in the Thanksgiving over the Water.
Read it carefully and please follow and read the linked material also.
My liturgics professor used to say that all bad liturgy begins with the phrase – “wouldn’t it be neat if….”
The 1979 Baptismal rite is a disaster as well. The 1928 BCP is far better, and 1662 is better still.
If I spent much time reading this now, I’m sure I’d have a lot to comment on. But it’s a busy workday, so I’ll just note one of the first things that struck me early in the linked baptism liturgy.
at one point there’s this response:
Presider Our help is in the name of the eternal God
People who is making the heavens and the earth.
Is making?!?! Um….
the original quote from Ps. 124:8
Our help is in the name of the LORD, the Maker of heaven and earth.
(NIV)
The heavens and earth are MADE. This whole “God is continuing to create” is very slippery theology…
Karen B.
It is “Process Theology” in which God is continuing to “evolve” or change. Thus we have “new truths” that come from God. Of course, these “truths” sound a lot like what we want to be true anyway.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
In the immortal words of Al Jolson:
“You ain’t seen nothing yet!”
Does this newrite still give you the benefit of ECUSA’s vaunted Baptismal Covenant?
[blockquote] [i] From the Revisionist Dictionary:[/i]
BAPTISMAL COVENANT
(1) Traditionally, the covenant made at baptism by which we repent, renounce “sin†(1), profess Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, and become members of Christ, redeemed by his atoning sacrifice. “Obdurate sin grieves the Holy Spirit and violates our baptismal covenant.â€
(2) For Progressives, two related ideas: first, that baptism irrevocably confers good standing in the church so that neither “sinful†conduct nor heterodox belief disqualifies any baptized person from holding church office; and second, that baptized persons need not trouble themselves about “sin,†repentance, and amendment of life. “A moratorium on ordaining noncelibate homosexuals would betray our baptismal covenant.†[/blockquote]
Ireanaeus: the newrite simply deletes your item (1) from the dictionary and keeps (2) as the [i[ only [/i] definition that ever existed, at any time in any place in Church history.
Oh, and the newly approved dictionary changes “For Progressives” to “In the undisputed history of This Hierarchical Church…”
I would say, after reading the text, that it’s not sufficient but I’d probably accept the baptism itself as vaild.
That wasn’t nearly as bad as I was expecting. I’ve been to a non-Episcopal baptism one time where they did not baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and I remember walking away very disturbed. I think they used “Mother/Father, Redeemer, Sustainer” or some such bizarre thing. At least this one uses the Trinitarian formula.
I found it ironic they took pains to omit the word “Sacrament” but used other, archaic words like “Tripudium.” I mean, talk about obscure. I was also a bit put off by the note on the last page: “get gifts from the kitchen, carry them to the table and place them on the table…” From the kitchen? Sounds like you are making a commercial break snack run for Coke and nachos.
The Baptismal creed was also a bit peculiar. There wasn’t anything particularly theological horrendous there, but to call it a creed did not sit well with me either. I mean, if you wanted to sing it as a presentation hymn or something, that would be more liturgically appropriate.
But I was concerned that the whole Baptismal covenant was basically omitted, especially the part about “respecting the dignity of every human being.” Given that that is the self-justifying stock answer from revisionists for just about everything, I was shocked that was omitted.
All things considered, it could a lot worse. I’ve seen flakier stuff, particularly at the Episcopal seminary I attended.
Of course this will not be viewed as anything worth inhibiting anyone for. As long as the deed and the dough are secure, BeerKat doesn’t care.
Fakes and frauds, folks. Fakes and frauds. When will the leadership of the clergy and laity get the gonads to rise up and say ENOUGH!
Another thing (and one I take umbridge at) is that the “deacons” in the service are not ordained deacons but “lay deacons” – a rather interesting oxymoronic phrase.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Something I put into the discussion back at NPA:
[blockquote] Somewhere (probably in more than one place), I’ve read TEC folks saying that Baptism is “an affirmation of who we already are.”
Again, sounds OK if you turn up the volume on grace. But really it is acceptance of calling toward who we are meant to be. There is a response – it is a Covenant, after all.
This is going to sound snarky and tangential, but I really can’t see it any other way: the newrite’s approach to the church is mired in the effort to justify LGBT. There is no need to change. You are loved just as you are. There is nothing to renounce or repent of. [/blockquote]
8 & 9 – I agree that it meets the standard of “water, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” But what would we do about Confirmation, in which those presented are asked to “reaffirm their renunciation of evil”? They never renounce it in this newrite.
And the difference between “being baptised” and “not being is…what? Sort of takes the wind out of the problem of communing “nonbaptised” persons, wot?
I am intrigued by something from the funeral rite. What does it mean when it says, Alien egg (with small hole) below right edge of Table for processional cross as part of the instructions for setting up the church? Can anyone enlighten me? The bit about dancing to the altar had me stunned. I doubt if it will work in Peoria. Would not be popular here in London either. And that, I think, is part of the problem. There is creativity here, certainly, but it is liturgy for the better-educated and comfortably off, those who are comfortable with artistic experimentation. Despite the commitment to J & P, it is hard to imagine a working-class congregation taking to this kind of thing.
Hmmm. This looks like it proceeds from St Gregory of Nyssa in California. They regularly use a liturgical dance in Communion. In addition they incorporate shinto and buddhist bells, prayer umbrellas etc in their services. Laughably, everybody kisses a copy of the Bible during the service, then it is returned to rest in a Shinto sacred space. Their nave is decorated with a mural of “spiritual saints” including Gandhi. They are out there – and “there” is not a place where I want to be.
Did anyone notice “All Saints Company” not “All Saints Church”.
Wow!
Oh dear…SGN in San Francisco?! That explains quite a bit. It’s not a liturgy, it’s a remake of the Rocky Horror Picture Show….Everybody up on your feet, dress up, throw things, dance. Will the 70’s *ever* be over in that freak show?
[i] “Get gifts from the kitchen, carry them to the table and place them on the table…†From the kitchen? Sounds like you are making a commercial break snack run for Coke and nachos [/i]
Not to mention oven mitts.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
[i]What do you make of the of the scripture that say, “I make all things new?†[/i]
In that verse (Rev. 21:5) the speaker is Christ Himself, not some home-baked liturgist.
Could it be that sin, the world and the devil do not get mentioned becuase they are the driving forces behind it?
I mean that in ALL seriousness
[i]Could it be that sin, the world and the devil do not get mentioned becuase they are the driving forces behind it? [/i]
Nor would we, in any event, want to wound their self-esteem.
Irenaeus #22 – ROTFL. That’s very Episcopalian. 😉
Timothy #13 – you are right on that, but then the sacrament of Confirmation in TEC is problematic, as well. Especially since the Christmation in the BCP Baptism is explicitly confirmatory as regards the Biblical ‘sealing’ of the Holy Spirit, which reduces pastoral office of Confirmation to a mere reaffirmation or Baptismal vows, which means very little in the scheme of things apart from being a rite of passage/membership ceremony.
Good points in #25, Senior Priest. We are pretty much incoherent when it comes to catechesis and initiation. One might say we are “postmodern” (someone absolve me for throwing this in – I am truly sorry.) We have a bunch of little clerical and congregational narratives of what it all means, but no unifying Gospel and way of discipleship.
I stumbled on to All Saints’ Company when I read they were bringing some of their musical concepts to the LA Diocese’s Cathedral. There was going to be a workshop etc. Some things in CA (where the liberals reside) are just plain scary when it comes to their theology. What concerned me was this:
“Now as the founders Donald Schell and Rick Fabian leave St. Gregory’s and begin full-time work for All Saints Company, they are able to offer their resources to churches around the Anglican Communion, collaborating with them to develop their liturgy, architecture, music, leadership team, congregational organization.”
They are now attempting to expose the rest of the Communion to this stuff. This is no longer a local issue.
Why is it that heretics are better at evangelism than believers?