The hope that the Covenant would assume a significant place in the general life of the Church has been abundantly fulfilled. The Covenant is now often used in preaching and teaching, and has sent down its roots deeply into the awareness of many in our Church. And it has become very common for the Covenant to be renewed not only at a Baptism and at the Easter Vigil, but also at other major events in the life of the Church, and increasingly at Ordinations so that those who are to be ordained renew their baptismal commitment with the whole assembly before they go on to make their ordination vows. This is theologically significant in that Ordination is thus seen as the fruit of the discernment of particular gifts for the ministry of Word and Sacrament for the People of God rather than as an elevation to a higher status. The ordained person lives out his or her baptismal identity within the larger context of the common baptismal vocation.
Sorry Mr. Toon, but I have seen nothing but good fruit springing from recovery of a baptismal ecclesiology. At the same time, we cannot be naive nor unrealistic in our expectations. No liturgical text can of itself renew the life of the Church. And so I come to my final point: it is an absolute imperative that much more energy be devoted on the part of all of us to the ministry of Christian formation. Now as I am nearing the time for retirement, I often find myself saying to my students, “Teach? in season and out of season, teach. Our people are hungry to deepen their understanding of the faith. I have had this confirmed for me time and time again. Whether it be the catechumenate, or adult education during the coffee hour, or an open forum where questions can be asked and engaged respectfully: all such occasions should be seen as opportunities to nourish God’s people, to strengthen faith. It is imperative for the Church to claim such opportunities at every level of our corporate life.
I am convinced that much of the conflict in our Communion today has resulted from not making basic education and continuing education a higher priority for laity and clergy alike: education in Scripture, education in basic theology, the exploring of moral issues, mining the riches of our extraordinary liturgical tradition. Throughout my ministry as a teacher of liturgy in seminaries, now for over four decades, I have regularly been involved in lay education in parishes. And this has not meant asking people to read big, fat books. My goal has always been to enable people to reflect on the meaning of their faith and to connect faith in Jesus Christ with the realities of their daily lives. The fruit of this has been to enter more deeply into the symbols of our redemption which form the central meaning of the sacramental life.
I’ve only had time to skim the article- but on first reading Fr. Weil’s defense of the baptismal covenant rings true.
That is, if you consider this writing completely out of context. Consider the website the article appears on: Inclusive Church. So we know the article supports and advocates for liberal theology. Consider also, Fr. Weil’s other writings in which he has advocated for full and equal participation of non-celibate gay and lesbian individuals in the ordained ministry, as well as communion without baptism, among other liberal theological perspectives.
So Fr. Weil makes it sound like the baptismal covenant’s in line with Scripture and Tradition in this article, and conveniently ignores that he (and the Episcopal Church at large) has undermined that position elsewhere.
I sped-read this. I have commented on the shotcomings of Dr Weil’s writings elsewhere.
I have no particular problems with the Baptismal Covenant per se. I think that Dr. Weil and others have, however, taken the idea of seeking justice for all people and Paul’s “there is no Jew or Greek…” seriously out of context with the liturgical formularies and Scripture itself. One should not expound on one part of Scripture, and certainly not liturgy, at the expense of another-that very Anglican principal is at the core of how we read Scripture together as a Baptized community. And if this was their intention in the 1970’s, then perhaps we do need to re-examine this part of our liturgy.
Randall
We didn’t have a “recovery of a baptismal ecclesiology.” We had a stealing and turning on its head of a baptismal ecclesiology in order to facilitate another agenda.
“we felt that it was necessary and pastorally useful to spell out – as it were, to flesh out – the implications of keeping God’s holy will and commandments”
Or at least God’s Holy will and commandments as we re-interpreted them.
AP+
BCP28, when I first saw the re-written baptismal service (the “baptismal covenant”) I didn’t see anything wrong with it, either. But based on how it has been used to re-write the faith entirely, I definitely think that rather than trying to defend it, we go back to some form of the older baptismal service until we are able to agree on liturgical forms. Common Cause uses the 1662 as its doctrinal and liturgical point of reference. Using 1662, 1928, or some cleaned-up versions thereof to avoid “thee” and “thou” which some moderns can’t abide, would be a better idea at this point.
In the early Patristic period, cathecumens needed their senses cleansed before receiving the Sacrament of Holy Baptism. Their minds being full of the immorality of the pagan culture, their bodies engaged in a wide variety of lustful practices, they needed focusing on the 10 Commandments, the Creed(s), and the Our Father, with teaching on living the Christian Life once baptized.
Dr. Weil misconstrues Gregory’s writings to be about “inclusive love” (as described in the recitation of the Baptismal Covenant) rather than about the Purgative, Illuminative and Unitve Way of progressing in the Christian walk. Failure to live Christ-like, of course, includes having charity for all, and resisting the temptation to despise those with whom one disagrees. But…the notion that until we learn how to all come to the table in complete acceptance of one another (with all the loaded code which Dr. Weil’s other convictions add to it) we are somehow scandalizing the Grace of Holy Baptism is an unhistorical and vapid argument.
I am reminded of many enjoyable hours spent in Fr. Weil’s lectures and of how captivating his prose can be.
Sadly, he has used these gifts to make one passage of Holy Scripture to contradict another.
He cites Fr. Toon’s familiar argument against the 1979, that it is a reflection of UN groupthink, and dismisses it out of hand, referring back to the Trinitarian formulations that begin the rite. Then he continues with an outrageous interpretation of St. Paul: [blockquote] …in its extensive implication that there must be neither black nor white, neither gay nor straight and the list will continue as long as human beings struggle for justice in the name of Christ.[/blockquote]
As a co-writer of the rite, I think that we must take Fr. Weil at his word, the 1979 rite is meant to confuse justice with a tolerance for sin and corruption, finally dismissing the holiness of God for a familiarity with vice.
I believe Fr. Weil to be a man who loves the Lord and who has received some of the best theological education available in the West. Sadly, that love and knowledge has not been enough to protect him from his ‘friends.’
Sorry, but…
We don’t need to clean up any Thees and Thous.
Randall
Howard+
Thanks for your comment. My rector studied with Weil; I never met him and only know him through writings. It at least helps me understand him.
Randall
Thee and Thou don’t bother me. I love the language. I especially like it because this is a form not used today in ordinary speech, so it is a way to express reverence for God alone. But if “Thee” instead of “You” is a stumbling block that keeps people away?