The Church of England is to simplify the language for baptism ceremonies.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, admitted to a sense of “eyes glazing over” during some services.
The General Synod, the Church’s national assembly, voted to back a Liverpool Diocese motion calling for more accessible text to be available.
Dr Tim Stratford, from Kirkby, Merseyside, said it was not a request for “christenings without Christianity”.
How about “Spalsh and Dash”.
So, lets dumb down everything! How pathetic!
Has anyone looked at what they want to adapt? Or have we seen what might be suggested? Perhaps this will be an appropriate contextualization of the service.
As it is I just took a peak at Common Worship and see a bit of the point. I do think the Commission is clunky hortatory prose, and I am not sure why it is there. Sounds more like a prebaptismal education session with parents and godparents.
The Decision, on the other hand, are the renunciations. I think it is worth considering how we can help people think about baptismal renunciations. Dumbing down is a danger here, but, I am not particularly enamored of the way Common Worship states them in the first place. Perhaps improvement is in order.
The Blessing over the Water is taken almost whole cloth from our ’79 Book. Must say I like the narrative form in which is presented. This reworking gives me the most pause.
Nevertheless, might we actually see what the finished product is before we reject it out of hand?
I don’t like the “Common Worship” words either, so this is not much of a “dumbing down.” What the heck is wrong with just using the Cramner???? We do at our parish in Virginia. (We add back to the 1928 service what was in the 1662) We go through the whole thing while people stand. We have the font in the rear of the nave so that the symbolism of Baptism as the entrance rite into the Church is evident. (And before anyone says, “Well, nobody wants the old words” we have one major problem at our parish. We are growing beyond our space!!)
Yes, before people dismiss this out of hand, I think they need to see the changes and consider that Anglican/Episcopal baptism is far more wordy and elaborate than baptisms in most other Christian churches. (I’d imagine that Orthodoxy has an elaborate service but I’ve never witnessed one.) Coming from the RCC, I can say that an Episcopal baptism is nearly twice as long and more involved than an RC baptism. That was one of the first big differences I noticed.
Personally, I find our baptisms to be very beautiful but I love prose and am fairly well-versed in theology. I can understand how many folks would benefit from and be enriched by simpler language.
I agree with this plan. The entire process could be simplified and shortened. I mean, you only have eternity left after going through all of this cumbersome ceremony.
Better yet, could there be an “Ap” for that?
Recchip,
[blockquote] (And before anyone says, “Well, nobody wants the old words†we have one major problem at our parish. We are growing beyond our space!!) [/blockquote]
Well done – keep up the good work!
[blockquote]Coming from the RCC, I can say that an Episcopal baptism is nearly twice as long and more involved than an RC baptism.[/blockquote]
Depends on if you’re using the Extraordinary form or not! 😉