Wetting the baby's head

Baptism has been in the news this week, as various parties have called for, or denounced, the revision and updating of the wording of the liturgy so that "it makes more sense to those taking part."

The birth of a baby is such a momentous occasion, we feel compelled to mark it socially, spiritually, formally in some way. After church one evening, I remember talking to a wild-eyed guy, who, on a moment's whim, had just rolled into the building after witnessing the birth of his first child. He was bursting with gratitude and a sense of amazement, and in an unfocussed way, simply wanted to express it somehow, somewhere, to someone.

 

The phrase in the headline refers to the similar, but arguably less noble, practice of new dad getting together with his mates for a night on the lash to celebrate his newfound status as Father.

The Church of England still baptises some 139,000 babies a year , and one suspects that many of these parents are there not because they are committed to the covenant view of inclusive salvation within the family for those who are not yet of age to decide for themselves (or indeed any other theoligcally relevant position for paedobaptism), but because they want to mark the birth in some formal way - and baptism is what you do. You get your kid "done".

Doesn't harm your chances of getting into a superior-performance church school either.


But the debate this week has been about the theological language that is wrapped around the rites for Baptism within the churches liturgy. It is just too complex, and does not connect in any meaningful way. This is undoubtedly true for the many who present for baptism who are "church outsiders", but I suspect that the meaning and relevance are also pretty opaque for the majority of insiders as well.

It's the godparents who suffer most, however.

Often chosen to cement or honour a family connection, rather than their spiritual qualities, the Godparents are a sight to behold. The stand, embarrassed and shell shocked at being at the front of a church, mumbling the responses, or staring wide-eyed in horror at them, as they read them for the first time in front of their friends and family. It's a hilarious and sad sight.
It's just that they are so very definite!

Do you trust in Christ?
Thinks: I don't know what that means, and I haven't thought about Jesus since my last RE lesson when I was 15.

Do you repent of your sins?

Thinks: Not really - "sins" is not a category that I like to think in

Do you renounce the devil and all his works?
Thinks: I remember this bit from The Godfather. He says this and lots of people die. Better keep quiet.

When I spoke about this to an old minister friend, he said that he found this particularly difficult. He is asking questions of people he deeply suspects are giving ingenuous answers. His answer? "I just keep my distance from them as they answer, so that I won't get hit with the lightning strike."

And here is the heart of the problem. People want the rite of passage, and potentially it is the greatest evangelistic opportunity the church has. But it is a largely untakable opportunity.  They want their child "done", but by and large they do not want to prepare or train themselves for it, or to understand what it is they are doing, according to the words of the liturgy. And rarely do the Godparents have the opportunity to attend a meeting, or series of meetings where they will have it explained to them.

Tinkering with the wording may do something to clarify things - but it will not address the real problem, or create any greater opportunity for helping people to genuine faith.