Monday, January 06, 2014
Is the Church of England ashamed to preach Christ crucified?
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/is-church-of-england-ashamed-to-preach.html
The Church of England is experimenting with a new baptism liturgy (Common Worship on the left; alternative 'experimental' texts on the right). The 'Liverpool Motion' gives the background to the innovation. Essentially, clergy were worried that many of those requesting or participating in services of baptism had little or no understanding of some of theological and historical points of reference. They asked for alternatives to be developed in "culturally appropriate and accessible language".
His Grace was initially relatively chilled about this: after all, the moment you translate Scripture you concede the need to adapt; the moment you modernise you concede the need to trend. Millennia of scriptural evolution have seen shifts from Classical to Mishnaic Hebrew; from Hebrew to Koine Greek; from Greek to Latin; and from Latin to Middle English, Elizabethan English, and thence to a plethora of modern English versions (New Revised Standard, Modern Literal, New American Standard, New International, New Living, Good News etc., etc., etc.)
If Scripture may mutate into the vernacular in order to facilitate the comprehension of sound doctrine and the plan of salvation, it stands to reason the liturgy might also reasonably adapt: those who prefer the Book of Common Prayer 1662 are (sadly) a dwindling minority. This was supplanted by the Alternative Service Book (1980), which was itself supplanted by Common Worship (2000). And let us not pretend that BCP 1662 was the first draft: the version of 1549 was adapted in 1552 and again in 1604 in order to make it more 'common'. If you create a 'Liturgy Commission', cram it with the prosaic, and then ask a democratic Synod to approve it, you can't complain if the result is banal and wishy-washy.
But Bishop Pete Broadbent of Willesden was horrified that His Grace should be so blasé. Perhaps blasé isn't quite the word: Bishop Pete tweeted "I'd have thought you'd be a bit more robust about this piece of liturgical nonsense. It's baptism lite. Not Christian initiation." He went on to say that "without penitence, faith and discipleship, there's no initiation into Christ".
Which is true, of course. But His Grace is of the view that penitence, faith and discipleship are no longer generally demanded of godparents by the Church of England; indeed, they no longer have to be believers at all. A few bishops might expect their clergy to undertake proper preparation with parents and make enquiries about sponsors, but very few do. Contra Canon B23, godparents are not 'vetted' by vicars or assessed for suitability: they are not asked if they have been baptised or confirmed: most are simply an extra 'aunt' or 'uncle' who might be good for a few quid on birthdays and at Christmas.
His Grace does not condone this: it is simply the reality. It is highly unlikely that the Archbishop of Canterbury made these enquiries of Oliver Baker, Emilia Jardine-Paterson, Earl Grosvenor, Jamie Lowther-Pinkerton, Julia Samuel, William van Cutsem and Zara Tindall prior to the baptism of Prince George of Cambridge. One simply trusts the choices of the parents: god-parenting long ago ceased to have much to do with raising the child in the Christian Faith.
There are those who are of the view that the Church of England's baptismal liturgy is not broken and doesn't need fixing. Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali is one such, but so is Bishop Pete. It's easy to focus on the Daily Mail right-wing conservative objections and ignore the Guardian-reading left-liberal enlightened criticisms: liturgy reform is not a left-right issue.
For the rest, see:
No comments:
Post a Comment