The motion expresses uncertainty about the current provision - what is mandatory, what can be replaced with other words, what can be omitted altogether - and acknowledges that the clergy who expressed dissatisfaction had not in fact fully and creatively explored the options currently available.
So what is the problem? On the one hand, "unease expressed is not about the number of words in the service, but that those words do not connect with too many people." On the other hand, "there were some complaints that the service was too long and wordy".
What does it mean that the words do not connect with many people? The motion points towards lack of understanding rather than potential misunderstanding. In other words, the concern expressed was not that some words ("sin," "devil") have wrong or unhelpful connotations in our culture but that many words have no connotation, words that are only understood by those with a knowledge of the biblical story. Thus, e.g., people who have never heard about an exodus from Egypt will not be able to appreciate how baptism is like the deliverance "from slavery in Egypt to freedom in the Promised Land." As it turns out, the experimental liturgy seeks to address both concerns, the stated and the one that was left unstated.
How might one respond to the problem? The main options are maybe these:
(1) Affirming the irreducible complexity of baptism. Baptism has to be in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit regardless of how many of the people gathered for the event have any understanding of the Trinity. This much is agreed by all. In addition, one could argue that among other things baptism makes one a participant in God's story with his people.Those prepared for baptism should have an understanding of the basic story line and outside observers should not expect to fully understand the sacred rites of this or any other religion to which they have never given much thought. One can affirm the irreducible complexity of baptism
(a) and leave everything as is, hoping that any who lack understanding of what's going on will get a sense of something big happening and will develop the curiosity to want to find out more about the Christian faith;
(b) and add more words to explain what is happening. Symbolism, poetry, allusion as much as technical terms are ways of saying a lot in few words; if one wants to say the same thing (to the extent that this is possible) and yet be understood, one will usually need (many) more words.(2) Reducing the number of mandatory words, allowing these to be strong, weighty words, but creating more space for ad libbing explanation of what is going on. E.g., those who retain the traditional abjuration (there is of course an alternative already in CW) might explain why we speak of the devil and renounce evil rather than merely affirm that we, too, are opposed to evil in all its forms. Clergy or a baptism support team may have already explained during preparation how we move from the stark (outright rebellion against God) via deceit and corruption to the subtle (sins that separate us) but for the benefit of outsiders maybe this should also be explained during the service?
(3) Using only words which someone dropping in from the street will comprehend, but making sure that the essentials of baptism are present (cf. above on the Trinity) and understood.
So which way did the Liturgical Commission jump? One suspects that because there was in fact a concern about the service being too wordy, in spite of the initial disclaimer, adding more words to explain what is going on in baptism was not seriously considered.
The second option is actually difficult to pursue, if one wants to retain the various elements of the service. "The decision" can already be reduced under current provisions albeit only at the loss of some strong, weighty words. The "prayer over the water" uses more words than necessary (for the baptism to be valid) but any reduction would mean a loss in content, as under the current proposals. CW probably isn't "wordy" given the content to which it gives expression.If so, the only way to reduce words would be to reduce content.
Clearly, the Liturgical Commission went down the third route but combined it with a desire to reduce the number of words. What does this mean? A loss of content. Maybe they should have faced up to this.
Is this still baptism? Of course it is. Is it a watered down version of the current provision? Of course it is.
At best, this provision occupies the middle ground between the bare necessities of emergency baptism and a truly rich and meaningful liturgical celebration.
But, it is argued, CW offers a meaningful liturgy only to the initiated. Those without an understanding of the Christian faith do not find the current provision meaningful. So the new provision has the advantage of being meaningful because it is understood. Alas, how is it understood?
At worst, the provision offers a water ceremony to which on various occasions non-Christian meanings can freely be attached. Words such as "evil" are understood but not necessarily in a Christian way; even to follow Christ can be understood in a non-Christian way and frequently is, as many who have prepared parents for the baptism of their children can testify.
Does the trial baptism liturgy only respond to the widespread loss of Christian vocabulary or does it also respond to the loss of Christian faith of which the loss of Christian vocabulary is the belated consequence? And if the latter, does it do so by calling to faith in Christ crucified or by watering down the Christian faith itself in the hope that it will become more palatable to our post-Christian culture?
