CoE may offer "Baptism Lite"

[Tangible]

The christening without much Christianity: Anglican church offers 'baptism lite' to attract non-worshippers | Mail Online

Church of England baptism services may be re-written to remove some references to Christianity.

The plan for a new ‘baptism lite’ service designed to make christenings more interesting to non-churchgoers will be considered next month by the General Synod.

 

[TomUK]

Hopefully this blog post will explain things a little clearer.

The Church Mouse Blog: Baptism lite - the low God version?

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

Well the most essential piece is the baptism itself. We have freedom in the rest of the rite, does that mean we should change it? Not necessarily. Without actually seeing the proposed changes (not just hearing that there is language they think others will not recognize/understand) it is hard to judge. If the idea is not to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit there is a big problem, then there is no baptism at all.

From the blog link I noticed that Godparents are not usually in prebaptismal discussions. I think this is a problem. The Godparent has in many circles become the baptismal equivalent of the best man/maid of honor. Many sponsors are not even Christian (or I should say actively Christian). More intention in including them in the pre-rite conversations should be the emphasis, not changing their vow because they do not understand what they are saying they will do. And selection should be better, not just best buds or relatives. They should actually take a role in the baptismal life of the child.

The change could be positive. That is, the rite could become clearer. But it could likewise become so watered down that it has no real meaning anyways. If someone ever gets hold of the proposed changes I would love for that to be posted. Then I can make more concrete responses.

 

[porterross]

Tang, I wouldn't look to the Daily Mail for anything more than feeding a need to find out which flavor of the day celebrity was doing what they do in order to get their photo taken. It's not in any manner pretending to be the height of journalistic excellence in Britain.

 

[Tangible]

Tang, I wouldn't look to the Daily Mail for anything more than feeding a need to find out which flavor of the day celebrity was doing what they do in order to get their photo taken. It's not in any manner pretending to be the height of journalistic excellence in Britain.

Kinda like USA Today?

 

[Heavens]

The christening without much Christianity: Anglican church offers 'baptism lite' to attract non-worshippers | Mail Online

Church of England baptism services may be re-written to remove some references to Christianity.

The plan for a new ‘baptism lite’ service designed to make christenings more interesting to non-churchgoers will be considered next month by the General Synod.

It's about the bucks. Grocery stores are also placing slightly less product in slightly smaller packages yet keeping the price the same to increase profits. They hope that people will just accept it.
It's happening all over.

 

[bach90]

I don't think it's necessarily to attract non-Christians. I'm pretty sure that a Muhammadan is not going to want to be Baptized, neither a Jew or a Hindu or, well you get my point.

The point here seems to be to simplify the rite a bit, as long as the essential form is there I think the ceremony would fall under the category of adiaphora.

 

[BigNorsk]

Seems strange that the ritual will now have been changed several times in the last 30 years after being stable for hundreds.

 

[goldbeach]

I'm concerned whether these are valid baptisms.

 

[lux et lex]

I'm concerned whether these are valid baptisms.

Why wouldn't they be? I'd think it would be better, especially for people who were previously "unchurched" because using more simplified words doesn't necessarily change its meaning and may make the church more accessible to people. Flowery language isn't important, it's the meaning in the words. If you aren't able to understand the flowery words and are meaninglessly nodding and mumbling agreements, are you really getting anything out of it?

 

[DaRev]

Why wouldn't they be? I'd think it would be better, especially for people who were previously "unchurched" because using more simplified words doesn't necessarily change its meaning and may make the church more accessible to people. Flowery language isn't important, it's the meaning in the words. If you aren't able to understand the flowery words and are meaninglessly nodding and mumbling agreements, are you really getting anything out of it?

But a "baptism" that is not done in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is not a valid baptism.

 

[lux et lex]

But a "baptism" that is not done in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is not a valid baptism.

I skimmed the article and I didn't see where it said that wasn't being done. But I could be wrong, I'm a bit on the tired side.

 

[TomUK]

But a "baptism" that is not done in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is not a valid baptism.

Who said anything about a non-Trinitarian baptism?!