The Decision

Baptism involves a turning away from evil (darkness) and a turning towards Christ (light). The experimental liturgy seeks to express this in language which is more accessible than the provision in Common Worship. I have argued before that the desire to use not only more accessible language but also fewer words meant that inevitably content gets lost. Here is a closer analysis. I shall use the more respectful EL (experimental liturgy) this time to contrast with CW (Common Worship):

CW: In baptism, God calls us out of darkness into his marvellous light.
EL: In baptism God calls us to new life.

What is obviously lost is the darkness-light contrast (1 Peter 2:9). This raises a bigger issue. Baptism can be described using various metaphors. Some would argue that we need many metaphors to see baptism in its glorious multi-faceted light; others that there is an overload of images in the current provision. Those in the latter group need to decide which metaphors to drop altogether and which to keep. If the light-darkness metaphor is kept, often symbolized in the giving of a lightened candle, why drop it here? Will this not risk making the giving of a lightened candle less meaningful?

More seriously, EL is anodyne in its invitation to a new life. CW gives us rather more of the relevant background story. In effect, it says

Without God we live in darkness. In baptism God calls you to step into his glorious light.

This is different, isn't it?

CW: To follow Christ means dying to sin and rising to new life with him.
EL: We die with Christ to all that destroys, and rise to live with him for ever.

What's the difference? CW reminds us that baptism signifies something which is followed up by following Christ; there is a continuing dying to sin. This is less clear in EL which maybe focuses on dying and rising as a one off event. But the expression "die...to all that destroys" is hardly more intelligible than the traditional phrasing, leaving aside the question whether "sin" is one of the words we should drop from our vocabulary, because it is so often misunderstood, or re-claim. The biblical witness is complex, the baptised have already died to sin (Rom 6:3) and yet have to put to death sin (Col 3:5). Expressing this accurately in accessible language will take a few words.

The expression "to live with him forever" makes me think of life after death, CW's "rising to new life with him" is something that happens now. Both are true, obviously, but in the context of initiating someone into the life of faith in Christ, it may be unwise to gloss over the time of discipleship before death.

Baptism means death and life. Baptism declares you dead to all that is wrong in the eyes of God. You are to rise to a new life with Christ, life that will never end.

CW offers no fewer than six verbs (3+3) to describe the actions that follow, EL is content with four (1+3). First the turning away from death and darkness. CW has "reject," "renounce" and "repent". We refuse to have anything to do with "the devil and all rebellion against God". We formally declare that we won't have anything to do with "the deceit and corruption of evil" and we begin a life of repentance. 

In using three different verbs, CW adds to EL's rejection both a more formal and stronger act (renounce) and a link to future acts which will still be necessary (repent), thus keeping a fine balance between baptism as a unique turning-point and the need for ongoing turning away from sin.

EL's rejection of evil in "all its many forms" and with "all its empty promises" is again rather anodyne. Evil no longer has a face; there is no longer a rebellion against God from which we must distance ourselves. In other words, there is no spiritual warfare (hence no "fight valiantly" earlier at the signing with the cross). There is also no longer anything about sin severing relationships. Here as elsewhere the idea that following Christ might be counter-cultural has been removed. Who would not want tor reject evil in all its forms and with all its empty promises? 

Therefore I ask:

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, the way, the truth and the life?
I come to Christ.

A liturgy which is more accommodating to our culture needs to drop any allusion to John 14:6 (Jesus said him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me"). EL suggests instead a promise to follow Christ forever - not a bad invitation as such but what it is not made very clear what following Christ might entail.

Submission? Not in EL. Submission is not hard to understand but hardly a word to mention in public with a favourable connotation. EL offers us "put your trust in him" instead - again not a bad invitation but does it mean trusting Christ for our salvation, trusting his promises and commands?

EL invites a turning to Christ but Christ is not named "Saviour" any more than "Lord". This is not to suggest that the framers of the liturgy do not know Christ as Saviour and Lord but it is to ask whether those who engage in this liturgy are thereby helped to put their trust in Christ for their salvation and to submit to him as Lord. Is it only the language which is inaccessible or are we embarrassed about the content?

It's decision time.