Thread: Revising Baptism liturgy Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025883
Posted by Clotilde (# 17600) on :
 
I heard that the Church of England is revising, or providing more alternatives for Common Worship baptism.

Can a friendly shipmate confirm this?

My experience is that CW baptism is wordy and theologically dense, personally I'd like to see - heresy I know some will cry - Baptism Lite.

What I mean is fewer words, more positive welcome, clear symbolism.

Any thoughts?
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
It needs to be less wordy but the structure of the CW baptism liturgy is much better than anything else we've had in the C of E. If you use it imaginatively it is a great teaching aid.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Can't you now use alternatives for the blessing over the water? That being a particularly wordy bit
 
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :
 
I certainly don't think there can be such a thing as 'baptism lite' — there is only one baptism, after all.

I find the Common Worship Baptism service strangely unbalanced. Lots of tough words for the candidate ('do you submit to Christ as Lord?'), which is certainly inappropriate as such, but they're not put into proper context by similarly tough words about the devil. Yes, there's 'Do you reject the devil and all rebellion against God?' but that's over in a flash and is rather understated, when compared to the BCP or especially to the older (pre-Vatican II) Roman version ('go forth from him/her , unclean spirit and give place to the Holy Spirit').

I would like to see a stronger emphasis on baptismal regeneration. I find that the Roman Rite, 1662 BCP, and certain foreign Anglican liturgies (at least the 1979 American book) better in that regard. That said, the Common Worship isn't that bad.
 
Posted by 3rdFooter (# 9751) on :
 
Heresy [Two face]

Actually, I think it is entirely possible to put an accessible service together from Common Worship. We can't fit all of our communities baptisms into main Sunday Eucharist ( [Waterworks] ) so we have a service for up to 4 families at a time. This means the church can be quite full of (being kind) occasional worshippers.

We put an explanation of baptism in at the beginning; a sentence here and there that explains the next bit (e.g. 'living water' rather than the canal); and keep things moving at a good pace. The local populace seem to like it and feel that things are done 'properly'.

It is not over long. This Sunday was 35-40 minutes with 4 children. I wouldn't want to slim it down anymore. I am not sure you could have a service where nothing was left to be explained. A few hanging questions are openings for further conversation. When I am invited to the family party afterwards, there is usually at least one conversation that starts "When you said...."
 
Posted by 3rdFooter (# 9751) on :
 
Apologies for double post.

We have retained the ASB 'soldier(s) and servant(s)' in the welcome because the demilitarised version seems lacking in commitment.
 
Posted by TomM (# 4618) on :
 
The House of Bishops have certainly asked the Liturgical Commission to prepare some texts for consideration that are a bit less wordy. The General Synod paper behind the move is available here: GS1816A

In short, the request was for something more like the text for the blessing of the water authorised for use at Emergency Baptism (which is strictly illegal for use in 'regular' Baptism). As I understand from my sources in the Commission, such texts are still in development, and they would intend to trial them in a number of churches for a period of time before they would be put to Synod and the Bishops for authorisation proper.

[ 06. August 2013, 09:43: Message edited by: TomM ]
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Can't you now use alternatives for the blessing over the water? That being a particularly wordy bit
[Hot and Hormonal] We just used the Prayer Book blessing of the water. CW's goes on a bit much!

Thurible
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
I do hope they shorten it and make it more welcoming to parents who rarely go to church.

I have it on good authority that Bishop David Stancliffe, who is responsible for the long-winded bits, steadfastly refused to enter into debate with those on the liturgical commission who dissented from his view on this.

[ 06. August 2013, 14:30: Message edited by: leo ]
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
The really wordy bit (which I confess to rarely having used) is the 'Commission' (pp72/3 of CW Christian Initation). Most of the content should already have been discussed with the parents/godparents, so all that is needed is a brief bidding and response (a condensed version of the alternative on p73).
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
We have a fairly user-friendly laminated card with all the essential CW bits......we use oil, water, the sign of the cross, and the baptismal candle, so there's plenty of visual stuff.

Most of our baptisms are celebrated (it's a sacrament, so I think that's the right word!) at 12 noon on Sundays, after the 1030am Mass. This seems to work for us, and it's helped by the fact that we only ever have to have one family at a time (demand is relatively low in these backstreets....). Father always uses the service for some fairly simple and basic teaching, and it rarely lasts more than 20-25 minutes. All the same, we often get favourable comments about the church, and the general atmosphere of welcome......

As I say, this works for us. YMMV, but ISTM that the fewer hard-to-understand words, the better - let the Holy Spirit work in the hearts and minds of those present....

Ian J.
 
Posted by Clotilde (# 17600) on :
 
It seems to me "Baptism lite" is OK-ed by holy church! After all some baptisms are done pretty quickly.

The words of CW seem to me too many, they go on and on and I for one don't like satan / devil talk. Not saying shouldnt be there but saying lets have more laternative texts that are shorter.

I like the visual stuff - candle, oil, robe .. that speaks more than the words - but I guess that's the nature of sacrament.

Does anyone know of a less wordy liturgy of baptism in modern english - of any denomination?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
ISTM that Common Worship does lend itself to some judicial trimming down, as I have said. I don't think a 20-25 minute service (which includes Father's teaching bits)is over-long, even in these days of the instant soundbyte. Anything less than that, and you'll be getting complaints of being short-changed!

Ian J.
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
I'm inclined to agree with Bishops Finger. Utilizing the options to trim down the baptism order, it shouldn't take more than five to ten minutes, set within the normal Sunday service.

The order contains that which is common to most of "Western" Christendom:


I'll certainly grant that the Common Worship materials are, in fact, overly wordy. That said, they are almost always accompanied with the rubric "in these or other words." Let the "other words" be a summary!
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
I think all of the churches I've known have trimmed the CW baptism service. My current church omits the "Do you submit to Christ?".

The bit we do have which I think is unnecessary is when the baptism takes place in the context of the main Sunday eucharist, replacing the usual opening with a different greeting.

It's cutting up the bits of the baptism and slotting them into different parts of the mass strikes me as silly, and many churches just lump them together in the middle. Much more sense.

I'm very glad to have the Apostle's Creed in full rather than "Do you believe and trust in God the.."
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0