Dedication and Blessing of Memorial Garden

Liturgy for the dedication of our new memorial garden and wall, Monken Hadley, 3 March 2019

The Lord be with you

and also with you.

As the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make,

          shall remain before me, says the LORD;

                   so shall your descendants and your name remain.

Isaiah 66:22

As the rain and the snow come down from heaven,

          and do not return there until they have watered the earth,

                   making it bring forth and sprout,

                             giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater,

so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth;

          it shall not return to me empty,

                   but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,

                             and succeed in the thing for which I sent it.

Isaiah 55:10-11

As the earth brings forth its shoots,

          and as a garden causes what is sown in it to spring up,

so the Lord GOD will cause righteousness and praise

          to spring up before all the nations.

Isaiah 61:11

The boundary lines have fallen for me in pleasant places;

I have a goodly heritage.

Psalm 16:11

Let us pray.

God, our Father, at the dawn of creation you placed your children in a garden to find delight in their work and worship:

Be present with us as we walk in this garden, and open our eyes to the beauty of your creation.

Jesus, our Companion, on many occasions you withdrew with your friends to a garden for quiet and refreshment:

Be present with all who come to seek your company in this place, and renew them in their stillness before you.

Jesus, our Redeemer, you suffered anguish and betrayal in a garden, and there you submitted to your Father’s will:

Be present with all who come in sorrow and pain to this place, and give them the grace of knowing your redeeming love.

Jesus our Saviour, after your crucifixion your body was laid in a tomb in a garden, and there you first revealed yourself to your friends after you rose from the dead:

Be present with all who come to this place when all seems lost, and awaken them to new life by your resurrection power.

Holy Spirit of Truth and Power, our Advocate and Friend,

Be present with all who come to this place seeking direction and strength, fill their hearts with the love of God, and send them out in witness to Jesus.

We now dedicate this Memorial Garden to the glory of God and the memory of all whose lives are honoured here, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Amen.

Let us give thanks.

For the beauty of your creation and for this place of peace and refuge

We give you thanks.

For treasured memories of those who once journeyed with us

We give you thanks.

For the solace and comfort of friends who still surround us

We give you thanks.

For the promise of resurrection life for all who are in Christ

We give you thanks.

For those who made this Memorial Garden possible

We give you thanks.

May it remind us of your everlasting goodness.

Amen.

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,

and the love of God,

and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit,

be with us all evermore. Amen.

The first memorial wall and garden was erected in Monken Hadley in 1981. Three decades later it was clear that within a few years no space would be left for adding plaques. An extension was proposed in 2015 which was to be funded in memory of Jessica Yorke who had grown up in the church and died in her thirty-seventh year in April 2014. It took about four years from conception to realisation of the new garden and wall. The story is told in the February and March 2019 editions of the parish magazine.

Affirming Gender Transition and Baptismal Faith

In a previous post I expressed unease about offering a divine stamp of approval on a person’s gender transition as a means of welcoming and affirming trans people.

Chris Newlands introduced the General Synod motion which called on the House of Bishops of the Church of England “to consider whether some nationally commended liturgical materials might be prepared to mark a person’s gender transition” with a story about someone who approached him wanting a liturgical rite akin to baptism, because they were not sure that God knew them under their new gender identity.* This is arguably a clear case of the cruelty of heresy. We want to reassure this person but doing so by means of such a rite runs the risk of reinforcing the heresy rather than refuting it, suggesting that the person really did need to be re-introduced to God.

Nevertheless, the House of Bishops responded by commending the liturgy for the Affirmation of Baptismal Vows as “an ideal liturgical rite which trans people can use to mark this moment of personal renewal” (GS Misc 1178). Such re-purposing of a rite that relates to Christian Initiation is apparently thought appropriate on the grounds that baptism is a suitable moment to celebrate our unity in diversity and has something to do with personal renewal and with being welcomed and affirmed by God and the church. But the mixture introduces several tensions. 

First of all, baptism stresses our unity in Christ irrespective of gender or ethnic distinctions or social class. It seems therefore problematic to highlight gender at this moment by affirming a person precisely with regard to their gender identity. The same applies for the Affirmation of Baptismal Vows. (Note that the church is not given guidance for celebrating a Baptism, an Affirmation of Baptismal Vows, or a Marriage service when one of the parties involved is a trans person but guidance for liturgically marking a person’s gender transition.)

The Guidance tries hard to maintain the integrity of the existing rite but it is difficult to amalgamate celebration of (acquired) gender identity with our identity in Christ without corrupting the rite. It may be possible to minimise this when such an Affirmation is made alongside other candidates in a main service but it will be maximised where a service is centred around the trans person whose affirmation is the reason for the rite being celebrated in this time and place.

Secondly, the Affirmation of Baptismal Vows is “intended for those who are already baptized and confirmed and who, after preparation and instruction, come to make a public act of commitment” (from the current rubrics). For a committed Christian “to re-dedicate their life and identity to Christ” in the context of gender transition raises questions about their dedication to Christ prior to this “serious and lasting change.” Is a service of re-turning to Christ really the most appropriate for those who have gone through the gender transition in close fellowship with Chris? And even if the re-dedication is not seen as a re-turning, does it nevertheless drive too much a wedge between before and after in terms of the person's discipleship?

And has the House of Bishop considered the possibility that people who have no Christian commitment may approach the church with a request for a service of celebrating their gender transition in the same way that some couples without Christian commitment approach the church for a marriage service? While this may be an opportunity to encourage people to explore the Christian faith, it would surely prove hard for them to do so in the right spirit if the question whether or not they can have a gender transition celebration service hangs on their decision to commit to Christ in a much more explicit, focused way than in a marriage service.

It is noteworthy that, departing from GS Misc 1178 as well as from the original rubrics, the new Guidance explicitly makes the service available to those who have not been confirmed with no expectation that confirmation would necessarily follow in due course. It also remains silent on the need for “preparation and instruction” prior to the public act of commitment. This makes it look as if the aspect of the liturgy which is to do with (understanding and) affirming the Christian faith very much takes second place to the affirmation of the gender transition.

Thirdly, baptism presumes a journey, a history of before and after. This may at first make it especially suitable for marking a gender transition which also knows a before and after. But the question is if and how the two transitions (from slavery to freedom on the one hand, from one gender to another on the other) are related. Is it possible, even necessary, in celebrating such a rite to equate living in the previous gender identity with living in rebellion to God, in darkness and in slavery? The implied answer seems to be: “The minister should be guided by the wishes of the candidate regarding the way in which past experiences may be mentioned or reflected upon.” But such matters are never private and personal in a way that does not impact on others because the rite, maybe reinforced by the trans person’s testimony, could well communicate to others in the congregation who are ill at ease with their identity that they are living in rebellion to God and need to repent.

The potential impact of the service on those who belong to the trans person’s history needs to be taken into account as well. “If members of their family are to be present, the minister will wish to be sensitive to their pastoral needs.” Indeed, especially if a gender transition is intimately related to the breakdown of a marriage or in other ways has profoundly altered relationships. This may prove difficult to do. The desire to affirm the trans person and the celebratory tone of the rite may well drive away any notion of sin on the part of the trans person although even the weakened, alternative form of the Decision still asks the candidate “Do you repent of your sins?”

A liturgy of thanksgiving for having successfully managed a gender transition or a thanksgiving service for the gift of an external gender presentation that corresponds to one’s internal gender perception would have posed much the same theological questions that were raised in the previous post but it would have avoided the issues raised here. Did the House of Bishops shrink back from devising a new liturgy in the belief that a service for marking gender transition would be more readily accepted if its existence was only acknowledged in the rubrics? Or were they genuinely excited about the Affirmation of Baptismal Vows as “an ideal liturgical rite” for marking a gender transition. unaware of the theological and pastoral issues this might raise for at least some clergy?

* Source: Ian Paul, On welcoming transgender people

Gender Transition and Implied Narratives

There is some weird as well as wonderful material in Common Worship, the collection of the Church of England’s provision of contemporary language services. But I am not aware of anything within it that clearly teaches something which I do not believe. This may be about to change, making for interesting times. I refer to the Pastoral Guidance for use in conjunction with the Affirmation of Baptismal Faith in the context of gender transition which is new guidance for parishes planning services to help transgender people mark their transition (see press release). So what is the story?

While not all gender nonconformity is rooted in gender dysphoria, gender transition is often painful and persons going through the process are in extra need of support. For those who have contact to their local church, it would be a huge thing to have their transition, their acquired gender and their new name recognised and affirmed by the church in a way that says “you are safe, you are welcome, we love you for who you are, and as God’s community we stand by you in your isolation and vulnerability” (using the words of one such person).

Questions for the church are (1) Can we “unconditionally affirm” trans persons in the sense of loving them as they are without communicating that they are only welcome and included if their gender identity conforms to their biological sex but without explicitly affirming the transition itself? 

(2) If it is not possible to affirm trans persons without affirming transition processes, does the church have the authority for claiming God’s approval of gender transition itself? 

(3) If the church can be confident in speaking on God’s behalf into such situations, can we offer the divine stamp of approval on every gender transition or would the church need to exercise discretion and distinguish between right and wrong transitions?

I see at least three alternative stories that one could tell: (1) Gender is related to biological sex and gender nonconformity is the result of confusion, rebellion or illness. Trans persons are to be loved and affirmed as persons but their nonconformity is not to be encouraged and is potentially a problem. This first narrative is painful for trans people but this does not prove that it is wrong. Some Christians believe that this is the story told in Scripture.

Deuteronomy 22:5 deals with the issue of cross-dressing, women presenting themselves as men and vice versa. The use of the phrase “abomination to the Lord your God” signals that this cannot be readily dismissed as irrelevant to the church.

The situation with eunuchs is different. Deuteronomy 23:1 prohibits men with crushed or severed genitals to enter the assembly of the Lord but does not use the word translated “abomination” and Isaiah 53:3-5 envisages the acceptance of eunuchs. The law is presumably meant to discourage the practice, while the promise affirms that this does not mean that eunuchs themselves are rejected by God. Jesus, in Matthew 19:12, differentiates between different types of castrated males: those who are eunuchs due to birth, those who become eunuchs because of social and political obligations, and those who voluntarily become eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom.

The de-sexing of a eunuch is, however, arguably not the same as transitioning to a different gender and gender nonconformity is not the same as transvestism. The plausibility and truthfulness of this first narrative must but also deserves to be examined.

Another narrative: (2) Gender is a fluid concept at the interface of an individual’s identity and role expectations within society, loosely related to biological sex. The church has no mandate to validate gender stereotypes in general or specific identifications of individuals and welcomes all regardless of their gender or other identities and without making anything of those identities.

This ‘agnostic’ narrative has the advantage of making no controversial claims about gender which are difficult to justify. It is tolerant but it may be considered insufficient given that for many gender is a decisive aspect of their identity and especially so for trans people. Some Christians are in fact more confident about identifying male and female roles in Scripture but even if passages such as Ephesians 5:22-32 are read as role defining rather than encouraging Christians to live out existing roles in a certain way, they would not define the roles of men and women in general but specifically of husbands and wives. In my view, there is little about gender, separate from biological sex, within the Bible and one would need to turn to tradition or science for establishing gender roles.

The Guidance arguably binds the conscience of clergy to a third narrative, something like this: (3) Our souls (or minds?) are gendered in the same way that our bodies are sexed. Where there is incongruity between the gender of the soul and the sex of the body, it is the gender of the soul that should be affirmed and validated by the Church.

The rationale for this is presumably the conviction that it is impossible to welcome and affirm trans people without validating their self-identification. There do not seem to be any criteria for establishing someone’s gender objectively which would allow us to speak, e.g., of a female brain in a chromosomal male body. Consequently the Guidance must assume that every individual’s self-identification is true and healthy, given that a divine stamp of approval could hardly be given to something untrue or unhealthy.

This raises a number of questions in relation to anthropology and eschatology:

What is gender? Does the Guidance assume that there are typical ways of being a man or a woman which are independent of our biological sex, gender stereotypes which we endorse by validating someone’s claim to have discovered their true gender?

If so, are our souls gendered in the same way that our bodies are sexed?

If so, is congruity between the gender of the soul and the sex of the body desirable?

If so, should we encourage sex reassignment surgery and proclaim that a person’s resurrection body will correspond to the gender of their soul?

Are the options binary? The Guidance only speak of male-to-female and female-to-male transitions. It is not clear whether intergender, agender, demigender, genderfluid, pangender or culturally defined "third gender" identities are also to be affirmed.

I am concerned about being tied to a particular story (a) without any justification for preferring this narrative over others and (b) without any exploration of the impact that accepting this story has on other areas of our belief. This is without even talking about the use of the Reaffirmation of Baptismal Vows in this context which for both theological and pastoral reasons I consider inappropriate in any case.

On a minor point, I note that Canon Law proscribes that a child brought to baptism must have at least one godparent of the same sex as the child and one of the opposite sex. I would assume that this must still be read as referring to biological sex but this could lead to intrusive questioning or to a situation in which a child has three godfathers or three godmothers. It would be useful to clarify what is and is not desirable and legal in this case.

Postscript: Matthew Lee Anderson offers a critique in Baptizing the Spirit of the Age in which he observes:

At the heart of the guidance is a prioritization of the “pastoral,” which effectively cordons the ceremony off from meaningful theological reflection. This leaves the guidance grossly underdetermined, reducing priests to cheerleaders for those on their way to a new sex.

Martin Davie, The House of Bishops and Transgender: Fifteen Wasted Years, castigates the House of Bishops for failing to answer key questions which had been raised in  Some Issues in Human Sexuality, the discussion document the House published in 2003, and for failing to offer an adequate theological justification for the position the House adopted then or now.

The Swearing In of Godparents

The baptism liturgy in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer addresses only godparents, not parents. More recent liturgies have taken into account that, in our culture, parents exercise greater responsibility for bringing up children in the Christian faith than godparents. Hence parents and godparents are addressed in the same way. This is problematic because Canon Law does not treat parents and godparents the same.

In Common Worship the Presentation of Candidates functions similarly to the section in the ASB titled "The Duties of Parents and Godparents." But while in the 1980s it may have been still possible to pretend that the parents in question are able and willing to fulfil these duties, the fact that nowadays a good many parents are not baptised themselves (and maybe only a minority confirmed) presents a serious obstacle.

In addition, if the 17th century saw greater "parent mortality" (alongside infant mortality) than the latter part of the 20th century, we have again entered a time when one of the parents may well be absent, more often as a result of the death of a relationship rather than bodily death.

Should we go back to the earlier practice? We might require three godparents but allow both parents to act as godparents, provided that they are baptised and confirmed. Parish priests should probably still be allowed to dispense with the requirement for confirmation but the reasons and conditions should be clearly articulated in each case. The widespread abuse of this permission, taking it as a license for never requiring confirmation, threatens the plausibility of confirmation as a rite within the Church of England.

At Ordinations the oath of allegiance, the oath of canonical obedience, and the declaration of assent are often made prior to the service. It may be worth exploring this option for baptism services. The practice would need careful preparation - we would want to minimise the risk of godparents turning up too late to make their declarations prior to the service - but there would be clear advantages.

If, within the liturgy,  the parish priest confirms that the godparents have made their declarations rather than asks the questions, parents and godparents can present the candidate(s) without the awkwardness which often arises from not wanting to differentiate between Christian and non-Christian parents at this point. I suspect we usually leave it to the Hindu father or agnostic mother to decide whether they stand alongside godparents and, in response to the questions put by the priest in the Presentation of Candidate, mumble promises which they have no intention of keeping or keep shtumm, dissociating themselves from what is going on. Either way this does not help teaching the congregation the meaning of the event.

Another advantage is that the "swearing in" could use the most appropriate language without need to worry about whether it is readily understood by all present - godparents could be given a leaflet which explains their commitment prior to making the declarations.

Presentation of the Candidates

There was no Presentation of the Candidates in previous baptism liturgies of the Church of England, as far as I can tell, but it is optional in Common Worship only

"as covered by the opening rubric in this section; the questions in this section still remain"

according to Gilly Myers, Using Common Worship: Initiation Services  - A Practical Guide to the New Service (London: Church House Publishing, 2000), 87. And again Simone Jones and Phillip Tovey, contributing "Initiation Servioces" to A Companion to Common Worship, vol. 1 (ed. P. Bradshaw; SPCK, 2001) comment:

"This is an important new feature of the rite, although the act of presentation itself - but not the spoken texts that follow - was subsequently made optional in the Miscellaneous Liturgical Proposals."

Candidates who are old enough to answer for themselves are asked whether they  wish to be baptized which is straightforward enough. The president addresses the whole congregation, reminding us

Faith is the gift of God to his people.

The currently proposed experimental rite omits this. The words themselves are hardly difficult to understand, maybe the concept is; maybe it is felt to be inappropriate or at least unnecessary to say so here. There is no commentary to explain the reasoning behind the experimental rite.

In baptism the Lord is adding to our number
those whom he is calling.

This can be said in more straightforward language, if one feels the need, but the experimental liturgy again experiments with theological emphases as much as with words:

Today we thank God for these children/candidates
who have come to be baptized.
Christ welcomes them into his Church.

None of this is wrong, of course, but the stress is now on the coming of the candidates rather than the Lord's calling and instead of Christ doing the adding to the church, he welcomes them, again suggesting that God receives rather than initiates. The experimental rite offers an alternative along similar lines. Becoming part of God's people is not obviously God's work but something which parents and godparents are asked to help to make happen. CW continues

People of God, will you welcome these children/candidates
and uphold them in their new life in Christ?

As pointed out previously, the experimental rite omits "new life" -- "support them" suitably substitutes "uphold them" but the welcome is omitted. The answer in CW is

With the help of God, we will.

The experimental liturgy characteristically omits "with the help of God" here and in subsequent answers, presumably to shorten the service rather than because "with the help of God" is unintelligible.

At the baptism of children, the president then says to the parents and godparents

Parents and godparents, the Church receives these children with joy.
Today we are trusting God for their growth in faith.
Will you pray for them,
draw them by your example into the community of faith
and walk with them in the way of Christ?

Combined with the next question, this may be long but is it hard to understand? 

In baptism these children begin their journey in faith.
You speak for them today.
Will you care for them,
and help them to take their place
within the life and worship of Christ's Church?

The experimental liturgy combines the two paragraphs. It omits reference to the reception of the children by the church which is odd, given that the point of addressing the congregation immediately beforehand was to secure this welcome. It also omits both "draw them by your example into the community of faith" and "help them to take their place within the life and worship of Christ's Church". This is surely way of acknowledging that in many cases we're not likely to see much of the family in church, unless a school place might depend on it, and maybe to suggest that this is all right although it will make it that much harder for the congregation to make good on its promise to support the children in their journey of faith. A conflated version which still preserves the content, except for omitting "care" which is taken as read, might look like this:

Parents and godparents, we gladly welcome these children at the beginning of their Christian journey and trust God for their growth in the faith.You speak for them today. Will you pray for them, and by your example and encouragement help them to take their place within the life and worship of Christ's Church, walking with them in the way of Christ?

The answer better be, "With the help of God, we will."

 

Short Preface for Baptism of Christ

I could not find any pointing for either the extended preface or the short preface for use with the Eucharistic Prayer on the Baptism of Christ, so I have attempted to point the short preface myself. I normally use the music in Common Worship: President's Edition rather than the simple chants in Music for Common Worship II: Music for the President published by RSCM but I did not want it to be too elaborate.

normal type: low note (f)
underlined: reciting note (gis)
italics: lower note (g)
bold: lowest (dis)

And  now we give you thanks for Jesus  Christ our Lord,
whose  willing submission to the way of  right-eous-ness,
is the pattern of our calling to be his people and live in his way.

UPDATE: Gordon Giles suggests that while the text is not quite long enough to fit the usual chanting method, it still works as follows (pitched as in the President's edition; mine above is pitched to my greater comfort):

And now we give you thanks

A - C              B     A      B

for Jesus Christ our Lord

A - C             B - A -   B

Whose willing sub -mis-sion- to-   the way of righ- - teousness

B - - -       -              C - A-G - G-A - C  - A -  A - B-A  - A

is the pattern of our calling to be his pe-ople 

A - C ---                                          B - A - B

and live- in his---------- way

B-   C-A - G - G - A - B - A

I shall be singing the extended preface for Epiphany-tide. I did not get a chance to do so last week because we had a carol service without Eucharist at 10.30am.

The Signing with the Cross

Why is the sign of the cross made at baptism? This was of course hotly debated during the Reformation. Here is the canonical answer, referring to canon law first published in 1604:

First, It is to be observed, That although the Jews and Ethnicks derided both the Apostles, and the rest of the Christians, for Preaching and Believing in him who was Crucified upon the Cross; yet all, both Apostles and Christians, were so far from being discouraged from their Profession by the Ignominy of the Cross, as they rather rejoiced and triumphed in it. Yea, the Holy Ghost by the Mouths of the Apostles, did honour the Name of the Cross, (being hateful among the Jews) so far, that under it he comprehended not only Christ Crucified, but the Force, Effects, and Merits of His Death and Passion, with all the Comforts, Fruits and Promises, which we receive or expect thereby.

In other words, because "we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God." (1 Corinthians 1:23-24).

Secondly, The Honour and Dignity of the Name of the Cross, begat a reverend Estimation even in the Apostles Times (for ought that is known to the contrary) of the sign of the Cross; which the Christians shortly after used in all their Actions, thereby making an outward Show and Profession even to the Astonishment of the Jews, that they were not ashamed to acknowledge him for their Lord and Saviour, who died for them upon the Cross. And this Sign they did not only use themselves with a kind of Glory, when they met with any Jews, but signed therewith their Children when they were Christned, to dedicate them by that Badge to his Service, whose Benefits bestowed upon them in Baptism, the Name of the Cross did represent. And this Use of the Sign of the Cross in Baptism was held in the Primitive Church, as well by the Greeks as the Latins, with one Consent and great Applause. At what time, if any had opposed themselves against it, they would certainly have been censured as Enemies of the Name of the Cross, and consequently of Christ’s Merits, the Sign whereof they could no better endure. This continual and general Use of the Sign of the Cross, is evident by many Testimonies of the ancient Fathers.

In other words, because the church has always thereby professed "Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God." (1 Corinthians 1:23-24).

Thirdly, It must be confessed, that in process of Time, the Sign of the Cross was greatly abused in the Church of Rome, especially after that Corruption of Popery had once possessed it. But the Abuse of a thing doth not take away the lawful Use of it... Nay, so far was it from the purpose of the Church of England to forsake and reject the Churches of Italy, France, Spain, Germany, or any such like Churches, in all things which they held and practised, that as the Apology of the Church of England confesseth, it doth with Reverence retain those Ceremonies which do neither endamage the Church of God, nor offend the Minds of sober Men; and only departed from them in those particular Points, wherein they were fallen both from themselves in their ancient Integrity, and from the Apostolical Churches which were their first Founders. In which respect, amongst some other very ancient Ceremonies, the Sign of the Cross in Baptism hath been retained in this Church, both by the Judgment and Practice of those Reverend Fathers, and great Divines in the Days of King Edward the Sixth, of whom some constantly suffered for the Profession of the Truth: and others being exil’d in the Time of Queen Mary, did after their return, in the beginning of the Reign of our late dead Sovereign, continually defend and use the same. This Resolution and Practice of our Church, hath been allowed and approved by the Censure upon the Communion Book in King Edward the Sixth’s Days, and by the Harmony of Confessions of later Years; because indeed the Use of this Sign in Baptism was ever accompanied here with such sufficient Cautions and Exceptions against all Popish Superstition and Error, as in the like Cases are either fit or convenient.

In other words, because abuse is not an argument for disuse and this is demonstrated by the fact that those who testified with their lives to Christ crucified even against "all Popish Superstition and Error" steadfastly held on to the sign of the cross.

The Canon continues by demonstrating that the sign of the cross is not essential to baptism, as witnessed in the liturgy where it is altogether purged from all superstition, but nevertheless obligatory:

Lastly, The use of the Sign of the Cross in Baptism, being thus purged from all Popish Superstition and Error, and reduced in the Church of England to the primary Institution of it, upon those true Rules of Doctrine concerning things indifferent, which are consonant to the Word of God, and the Judgments of all the ancient Fathers: We hold it the part of every private Man, both Minister and other, reverently to retain the true use of it prescribed by publick Authority, considering that things of themselves indifferent, do in some sort alter their Natures, when they are either commanded or forbidden by a lawful Magistrate; and may not be omitted at every Man’s pleasure contrary to the Law, when they be commanded, nor used when they are prohibited.

It still is obligatory in the Church of England, even though liturgical revisions have gradually moved us away from the practice commended here and in the Book of Common Prayer (1662). First, the ASB allowed and indeed privileged the position before the baptism, thus rendering invalid the Canon's claim that Baptism is completed before the sign of the cross is made (in a section not cited here, see the full 1604 Canon Law here). Then CW in effect prohibits the use of the traditional form of words in their traditional place: "The possibility of signing with the cross at the prayer after the baptism is provided for; but if this is done it should be accompanied by the text provided at that point in the rite, not the text provided for the Signing with the Cross after the Decision." I wonder why.

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.

No words about much more water

What makes for a meaningful baptism service, meaningful also to those who know very little about the Bible? Should Noah's ark re-appear?

In the ark a few, that is eight souls, were delivered through water. And this prefigured baptism, which now saves you– not the washing off of physical dirt but the pledge of a good conscience to God– through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who went into heaven and is at the right hand of God with angels and authorities and powers subject to him. 

1 Peter 3:20b-22, New English Translation

ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, who of thy great mercy didst save Noah and his family in the ark from perishing by water; and also didst safely lead the children of Israel thy people through the Red Sea, figuring thereby thy holy Baptism; and by the Baptism of thy well-beloved Son Jesus Christ, in the river Jordan, didst sanctify Water to the mystical washing away of sin: We beseech thee, for thine infinite mercies, that thou wilt mercifully look upon this Child; wash him and sanctify him with the Holy Ghost; that he, being delivered from thy wrath, may be received into the ark of Christ's Church; and being stedfast in faith, joyful through hope, and rooted in charity, may so pass the waves of this troublesome world, that finally he may come to the land of everlasting life, there to reign with thee world without end, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Book of Common Prayer (1662)

The Alternative Service Book (1980) made the ark disappear. The Common Worship provision, from what I can see, makes no mention of the ark either, anywhere. Instead, we have allusions to Genesis 1:2, the Spirit of God hovering over the waters at creation.

Water and words in Common Worship

I am seeking to discern what a minimalist but canonical order of service for Holy Baptism might look like under the provision in Common Worship and offer a commentary on how outsider-friendly this is. (An emergency baptism obviously uses fewer words - very few words - but if the person who has been baptised survives, the other words are used at a subsequent service.)

The greeting echoes Scripture and will be very well known to many Christians but maybe not very comprehensible to non-Christians:

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,
the love of God
and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit
be with you all
and also with you.

The introduction to the service does not have mandatory words and could offer an opportunity to explain what baptism is about in the most accessible words of which the president is capable.

Silent prayer follows. People just settling in an unfamiliar environment and surrounded by children of various ages making various noises likely find it difficult to make much use of this and especially if prayer is unfamiliar to them as well.

The Collect offered is the following; the alternative Collect of the Day may be more accessible. Maybe the introduction above needs to focus on making this prayer more intelligible.

Heavenly Father,
by the power of your Holy Spirit
you give to your faithful people new life in the water of baptism.
Guide and strengthen us by the same Spirit,
that we who are born again may serve you in faith and love,
and grow into the full stature of your Son, Jesus Christ,
who is alive and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit
now and for ever. Amen.

The Liturgy of the Word includes at least one reading from Scripture, a psalm and a Gospel Reading. This offers much opportunity to reflect but also for outsiders to get lost. The readings are normally not specifically chosen to shed light on the rite of baptism and are unlikely to be readily accessible to outsiders, unless a paraphrase or Children's version of the Bible is used. The Sermon is the one big opportunity to address outsiders about what is happening but maybe at the cost of not doing much to help the congregation hear and respond to the readings of the day.

The Liturgy of Baptism begins with the Presentation of the Candidates.This may also take place earlier, between the introduction to the service and the Collect. I am not sure whether the first statement of the rubric "The candidates may be presented to the congregation" merely alludes to its alternative placement, refers to an additional (initial, informal "hello, this is the ___ family") presentation prior to the following or is intended to mark this whole section as optional. UPDATE: The words are in fact obligatory, see the blog post on the Presentation of the Candidates. We move on to The Decision.

In baptism, God calls us out of darkness into his marvellous light.
To follow Christ means dying to sin and rising to new life with him.
Therefore I ask:

Do you reject the devil and all rebellion against God?
I reject them.

Do you renounce the deceit and corruption of evil?
I renounce them.

Do you repent of the sins that separate us from God and neighbour?
I repent of them.

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.

"Where there are strong pastoral reasons," an alternative, much shorter form may be used. Some clergy argue that there are always "strong pastoral reasons" to do so but, rightly or wrongly, the rubric seems to me to imply that the alternative form should be the exception rather than the rule. This deserves a separate blog post.

The Signing with the Cross is obligatory. (More on this in a future blog post.)

Christ claims you for his own.
Receive the sign of his cross.

But what is the sign of the cross? How will it be understood by outsiders? The following maybe seeks to stress that the cross is not an arbitrary symbol of Christianity:

Do not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified.
Fight valiantly as a disciple of Christ
against sin, the world and the devil,
and remain faithful to Christ to the end of your life.

Our faith is tied to Christ crucified. The cross is and remains a scandal, challenging us in our sin, the world in its rejection of the Saviour and the devil in his rebellion against God. Being a disciple of Christ engages one in a fight and faithfulness is not a given. Outsiders may well not get what this is all about although they might get a sense of the Christian life including a battle for loyalty to Christ. Could the wording be clearer? I think so but at the cost of brevity. "As an apprentice of Christ fight with courage. Fight whatever distracts you from Christ and separates you from God, whether within you or around you, whether by way of natural inclination or through a personal force beyond our understanding, and stick with Christ, loyal to the end of your life."

May almighty God deliver you from the powers of darkness,
restore in you the image of his glory,
and lead you in the light and obedience of Christ.
Amen.

Again, this presumes knowledge of biblical themes which outsiders might not have. But it isn't so much the language which is difficult to access but the content which means nothing much can be done short of losing the content or having an explanatory leaflet to hand. Maybe the sermon could talk about darkness as being not only a deprivation, as all evil is, but also power; about how humanity is special within creation in our vocation to reflect God's glory but spoiled and in need of restoration; and about what is so great and enlightening about the "obedience of Christ".

The Prayer over the Water may be one of the most demanding parts of the service for outsiders. The seasonal provision for Epiphany/Baptism of Christ/Trinity has more punch/coherence than the standard provision but its link between the Spirit and water would need explaining. The responsive form may be the most accessible although I'd happily lose "For your Spirit, sweeping over the waters" and "Father, accept our sacrifice of praise..." There is a logic to these but I am not confident that even most regular worshippers would be able to explain it.

Praise God who made heaven and earth,
who keeps his promise for ever.

Let us give thanks to the Lord our God.
It is right to give thanks and praise.

Father, for your gift of water in creation,
we give you thanks and praise.

For your Spirit, sweeping over the waters,
bringing light and life,
we give you thanks and praise.

For your Son Jesus Christ our Lord,
baptized in the river Jordan,
we give you thanks and praise.

For your new creation,
brought to birth by water and the Spirit,
we give you thanks and praise.

For your grace bestowed upon us your children,
washing away our sins,
we give you thanks and praise.

Father, accept our sacrifice of praise;
may your holy and life-giving Spirit
move upon these waters.
Lord, receive our prayer.

Restore through them the beauty of your creation,
and bring those who are baptized
to new birth in the family of your Church.
Lord, receive our prayer.

Drown sin in the waters of judgement,
anoint your children with power from on high,
and make them one with Christ
in the freedom of your kingdom.
Lord, receive our prayer.

For all might, majesty, dominion and power are yours,
now and for ever.
Alleluia. Amen.

The Profession of Faith is the Apostles' Creed in question and answer form, except "where there are strong pastoral reasons" to use the shorter, alternative Profession of Faith. This illustrates the contemporary problem in a nutshell. For many, many years in our region most people would have known this Creed by heart whether they assented to it or not. Now most don't. Should we therefore keep it to ourselves? Maybe not.

The actual Baptism takes place with the words

N, I baptize you
in the name of the Father,
and of the Son,
and of the Holy Spirit.
Amen.

and water, of course, preferably not too little. Again there is no escaping the fact that Christians believe in one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, however hard this is to comprehend. The signing of the cross can take place now instead of earlier, but in this case different words are given, words which highlight the anointing rather than the sign, introducing another concept which would be unfamiliar to outsiders.

The Commission has words provided but they are not mandatory; "similar words" could be used instead. There are no proscribed words for the Prayers of Intercession either. 

The Welcome is reasonably straightforward.

There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism:
N and N, by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body.
We welcome you into the fellowship of faith;
we are children of the same heavenly Father;
we welcome you.

The Peace is introduced with these or other suitable words

We are all one in Christ Jesus.
We belong to him through faith,
heirs of the promise of the Spirit of peace.

The peace of the Lord be always with you
and also with you.

The Blessing might be this or another suitable one

The God of all grace,
who called you to his eternal glory in Christ Jesus,
establish, strengthen and settle you in the faith;
and the blessing of God almighty,
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,
be among you and remain with you always.
Amen.

The Dismissal

Go in the light and peace of Christ.
Thanks be to God.