Christening Without Christianity

[chev1958]

Christening Without Much Christianity
Anglican church offers 'baptism lite' to attract non-worshippers

By Steve Doughty
London Daily Mail
Jan. 18, 2011

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 Church’s parliament, the General Synod.

Supporters say the baptism service should be ‘expressed in culturally appropriate and accessible language’ that is readily understood by ‘non-theologically versed Britons’. But traditionalist clergy said the idea amounted to ‘dumbing down’.

The new service would be used at 150,000 christenings each year. If the plan is accepted, it will be the third full re-write of the baptism ceremony in around 30 years – the version in the Church’s Book of Common Prayer went virtually unaltered for more than 400 years until 1980.

Complaints centre on three sections of the baptism service from the Church’s latest prayer book, Common Worship, authorised for use in 1997.

In one, parents, godparents or an adult being baptised are asked to ‘reject the devil and all rebellion against God’ and to renounce ‘the deceit and corruption of evil’. They are asked to ‘submit to Christ as Lord’.

The Reverend Dr Tim Stratford, from Liverpool, who is putting the plans before the synod, said in a paper that ‘there remains some unhappiness about the language not being earthed enough’. He added: ‘The concern is one of the language not making strong enough connections to life choices in such a way that it can be heard.’

Dr Stratford and his supporters have also called for a new version of prayers that refer to the symbolic role of water in baptism. He said that among clergy from poor and inner city parishes ‘there was a strong plea for a shorter prayer in direct but poetic language that allows the Gospel to resonate better with people’s experience of life’.

He added: ‘This was not a plea for a prayer in Scouse, but for a prayer that the majority of non-theologically versed Britons would understand.’ A third part of the service was condemned as too long and not ‘direct’.

Stephen Parkinson, of the Anglo-Catholic Forward in Faith organisation, said there were problems with the 1997 service, but added: ‘Simply dumbing it down is not the answer.’

Bishops indicated yesterday that if the Synod accepts the argument a committee will be instructed to begin writing a new baptism service, but they warned that such re-writing would raise arguments over faith and doctrine.

William Fittall, secretary general of the synod, said that bishops are ‘clear that now is not the time to embark on the long and complex process involved in such a revision or replacement’.

[Invicta]

Christening Without Much Christianity
Anglican church offers 'baptism lite' to attract non-worshippers

By Steve Doughty
London Daily Mail
Jan. 18, 2011

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 Church’s parliament, the General Synod.

Supporters say the baptism service should be ‘expressed in culturally appropriate and accessible language’ that is readily understood by ‘non-theologically versed Britons’. But traditionalist clergy said the idea amounted to ‘dumbing down’.

The new service would be used at 150,000 christenings each year. If the plan is accepted, it will be the third full re-write of the baptism ceremony in around 30 years – the version in the Church’s Book of Common Prayer went virtually unaltered for more than 400 years until 1980.

Complaints centre on three sections of the baptism service from the Church’s latest prayer book, Common Worship, authorised for use in 1997.

In one, parents, godparents or an adult being baptised are asked to ‘reject the devil and all rebellion against God’ and to renounce ‘the deceit and corruption of evil’. They are asked to ‘submit to Christ as Lord’.

The Reverend Dr Tim Stratford, from Liverpool, who is putting the plans before the synod, said in a paper that ‘there remains some unhappiness about the language not being earthed enough’. He added: ‘The concern is one of the language not making strong enough connections to life choices in such a way that it can be heard.’

Dr Stratford and his supporters have also called for a new version of prayers that refer to the symbolic role of water in baptism. He said that among clergy from poor and inner city parishes ‘there was a strong plea for a shorter prayer in direct but poetic language that allows the Gospel to resonate better with people’s experience of life’.

He added: ‘This was not a plea for a prayer in Scouse, but for a prayer that the majority of non-theologically versed Britons would understand.’ A third part of the service was condemned as too long and not ‘direct’.

Stephen Parkinson, of the Anglo-Catholic Forward in Faith organisation, said there were problems with the 1997 service, but added: ‘Simply dumbing it down is not the answer.’

Bishops indicated yesterday that if the Synod accepts the argument a committee will be instructed to begin writing a new baptism service, but they warned that such re-writing would raise arguments over faith and doctrine.

William Fittall, secretary general of the synod, said that bishops are ‘clear that now is not the time to embark on the long and complex process involved in such a revision or replacement’.

It doesn't surprise me.

Our local Anglican church has a woman Vicar who is soon planning to take maternity leave.

About 9 miles away is an Anglican church that advertises mass and confessions.

One of my nephews who once went to an Anglican church had one of his daughters dedicated there. He insisted it was not a baptism. There was another family who had a child dedicated at the same time. My nephew had a reading from Mark's gospel. The other family brought along a family member who was a budhist dressed in saffron robes. This budhist read from a book by a budhist monk. The vicar spoke on the budhist reading and later referred to Mark as "the other reading."

There was the case, a couple of years ago, where a vicar, on leave, was practising as a hindu priest in India, but was intending to return. The woman vicar who was filling in for him said "We do actually prefer our priests to be Christians."

A few years ago the then Bishop of Durham, caused a stir when he denied the virgin birth and other core doctrines. He was surprised at the rumpus, as he said that their colleges taught that. (I know that not all of them do.)

On 6th Feb 1831, H B Buteel, one of the leading Evangelicals in the Anglican Church and university at Oxford, preached a sermon in which he attacked the unworthy living of the ministers and added a The Orgrievance that godly young men of calvinistic disposition were denied college testimonials which were not withheld from young men notrious for debauchery and various kinds of riotous living. One hearing the sermon was the rector of Exeter College who was reported as saying, 'Well, I must say I quailed, for indeed it is true: you know we have to have young men brought to be qualified for ordination and we have to sign papers declaring that they are called by the Holy Ghost, some of them ungodly young men.' J N Darby who was passsing through Oxford at the time wrote a defence of vigorous defence Buteel and Calvinism. B W Newton who had asked Darby to write the tract regretted the way it was done and remarked "A right and true and soothing statement of Calvinism would have put everything right in Oxford. Most of the Evangelicals in the area left the Anglican church soon after, many to join the Plymouth Brethren others to become Baptists. (from The Origins of the Brethren, by Harold H Rowden.)

[John81]

No surprise to see wayward churches going farther astray. The Anglican, Episcopalian, United Methodist and many other denominations are more intent upon pleasing man than God.

[Soj]

In one, parents, godparents or an adult being baptised are asked to ‘reject the devil and all rebellion against God’ and to renounce ‘the deceit and corruption of evil’. They are asked to ‘submit to Christ as Lord’.

I'm not surprised that complaints centred around this public profession, I love it!

The Reverend Dr Tim Stratford, from Liverpool, who is putting the plans before the synod, said in a paper that ‘there remains some unhappiness about the language not being earthed enough’. He added: ‘The concern is one of the language not making strong enough connections to life choices in such a way that it can be heard.’

Not being earthed enough? Sounds familiar - 1 Corinthians 15:48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

The Church of England fell into apostasy many years ago, all this is just par for the course and we're all at the 18th hole!

[no name joe]

All I can say is that God is doing a tremendous work in my local Anglican church. Anglican is much like Baptist. It varies so much from local church to local church. God is also doing a tremendous work through the Anglican church in Africa and in Asia.

My pastor went to seminary in England, and attended a very spirit filled Anglican church there. There is such a sense of history, and a strong committment to theology. Some of the best contemporary theologians are Anglican. My favorites are John Stott and J.A. Packer.

I can't tell from this article what the proposal is, or even how much support it has among the bishops. I can tell you that what they decide is not binding on Anglican churches.

[John81]

If there were a truly good Anglican church they would unyoke themselves from the wicked Anglican Church at large as Scripture commands.

It's amazing how the Anglican Church, Episcopal Church, United Methodist Church, various other churches are clearly far outside of being biblical and yet some professing Christians decide it's okay for them to reject the commands of Scriptue to separate from such by declaring that their particular local church is "good" and they don't agree with or follow their denominational leaders/Church. If those individual churches were truly "good" and they truly reject the unbiblical and wicked ways of their denominational Church/leaders, they would abide by the Word of God and separate from them. The fact they don't is proof they are not as "good" as some proclaim, and is proof they don't abide by the Word of God with regards to unequal yoking and commands for separation. Typically, when one checks into the actual "good" churches within these denominations it quickly becomes clear they in fact are in far more agreement with their denominational leadership than is claimed and they are unbiblical in several areas along with their denomination.

Christ says if we love Him, we will obey His commandments.

[1Timothy115]

No surprise to see wayward churches going farther astray. The Anglican, Episcopalian, United Methodist and many other denominations are more intent upon pleasing man than God.

I wonder when they'll all fall under the Pope?
Ezekiel 34:710
7 Therefore, ye shepherds, hear the word of the LORD;
8 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, surely because my flock became a prey, and my flock became meat to every beast of the field, because there was no shepherd, neither did my shepherds search for my flock, but the shepherds fed themselves, and fed not my flock;
9 Therefore, O ye shepherds, hear the word of the LORD;
10 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against the shepherds; and I will require my flock at their hand, and cause them to cease from feeding the flock; neither shall the shepherds feed themselves any more; for I will deliver my flock from their mouth, that they may not be meat for them.

[1Timothy115]

All I can say is that God is doing a tremendous work in my local Anglican church. Anglican is much like Baptist. It varies so much from local church to local church. God is also doing a tremendous work through the Anglican church in Africa and in Asia.

My pastor went to seminary in England, and attended a very spirit filled Anglican church there. There is such a sense of history, and a strong committment to theology. Some of the best contemporary theologians are Anglican. My favorites are John Stott and J.A. Packer.

I can't tell from this article what the proposal is, or even how much support it has among the bishops. I can tell you that what they decide is not binding on Anglican churches.

I would love to see your web site for this rogue Anglican church.

[no name joe]

I would love to see your web site for this rogue Anglican church.

A newspaper reporter called it the same thing when the split occured.. lol Edited January 21, 2011 by kindofblue1977

[John81]

A newspaper reporter called it the same thing when the split occured.. lol

http://www.saintandrews-lr.org/index.php

Here is a brief history of the church: http://www.saintandrews-lr.org/OurStory.php
they are part of this network

www.theamia.org

I didn't see anything to recommend this church or any statements separating themselves from the Anglican Church.

From the website:

Worship at St. Andrew’s provides a weekly encounter with God through Scripture, Spirit, and Sacrament—blending the best of the evangelical, charismatic, and traditional aspects of the Christian faith.

When you come to St. Andrew’s, dress as comfortably and casually as you like.


The sermons page would show up.

[no name joe]

I didn't see anything to recommend this church or any statements separating themselves from the Anglican Church.

From the website:

Worship at St. Andrew’s provides a weekly encounter with God through Scripture, Spirit, and Sacrament—blending the best of the evangelical, charismatic, and traditional aspects of the Christian faith.

When you come to St. Andrew’s, dress as comfortably and casually as you like.


The sermons page would show up.

They separated from the Episcopal church, and the Anglican chruch of Rwanda took them in. The church is an incredible place to worship, learn and share in the love of Christ. And who wouldn't want an "encounter with God through Scripture, Spirit and Sacrament?" We have people who dress in suits, and homeless people who come in fatigues since that is the only clothes they own. It is fantastic. Edited January 20, 2011 by kindofblue1977

[John81]

They separated from the Episcopal church, and the Anglican chruch of Rwanda took them in. The church is an incredible place to worship, learn and share in the love of Christ. And who wouldn't want an "encounter with God through Scripture, Spirit and Sacrament?" We have people who dress in suits, and homeless people who come in fatigues since that is the only clothes they own. It is fantastic.

Where's their doctrinal statement? Why still associated with anything Anglican? You do realize the Anglican Church was formed to be basically RCC-lite don't you? What are their views regarding Sacrament? Why the mix of evangelical, charismatic and traditional? Why is their website so vague?

[no name joe]

Where's their doctrinal statement? Why still associated with anything Anglican? You do realize the Anglican Church was formed to be basically RCC-lite don't you? What are their views regarding Sacrament? Why the mix of evangelical, charismatic and traditional? Why is their website so vague?

I don't see anything vague about their website. We take communion every week. We believe that as often as we do so, we proclaim the death, burrial and ressurection of Christ. We value historical tradition of the church, and respect our forefathers in faith, and maintain a sense of connection through liturgy and participatory worship. We value being led by the Holy Spirit and following his direction for our lives and for our church, so that is where the charismatic comes in. We are unashamedly evangelical because it is our mission to carry the love and message of Christ into the world. We are traditional because we value great hisotrial tradition such as hymns of the faith, greath theologians, etc. our philosophy on communion is that if you are a believer and follower of Christ and have been baptized, you may take communion and share in the proclamation of his death, burial and ressurection.

Why still anglican? Because the founders of the church were anglican and valued the Anglican tradition, and were sad to see the direction fo the Episcopal church. They want to reform the chruch as a whole where needed, while maintaining what is good about their faith tradition.

I don't want to get into an extensive debate over the church I attend. I posted the link because someone was interested in viewing it. I attend this church because it is where God has led me to attend and serve in this season of my life. I attend because I find deep, authentic meaningul ways to serve and worship God, and for the deep sense of community that I have with my brothers and sisters in Christ. I have no problems with it being Anglican or having some liturgical worship. I find it very meaningul. Edited January 20, 2011 by kindofblue1977

[John81]

I don't see anything vague about their website. We take communion every week. We believe that as often as we do so, we proclaim the death, burrial and ressurection of Christ. We value historical tradition of the church, and respect our forefathers in faith, and maintain a sense of connection through liturgy and participatory worship. We value being led by the Holy Spirit and following his direction for our lives and for our church, so that is where the charismatic comes in. We are unashamedly evangelical because it is our mission to carry the love and message of Christ into the world. We are traditional because we value great hisotrial tradition such as hymns of the faith, greath theologians, etc. our philosophy on communion is that if you are a believer and follower of Christ and have been baptized, you may take communion and share in the proclamation of his death, burial and ressurection.

Why still anglican? Because the founders of the church were anglican and valued the Anglican tradition, and were sad to see the direction fo the Episcopal church. They want to reform the chruch as a whole where needed, while maintaining what is good about their faith tradition.

I don't want to get into an extensive debate over the church I attend. I posted the link because someone was interested in viewing it. I attend this church because it is where God has led me to attend and serve in this season of my life. I attend because I find deep, authentic meaningul ways to serve and worship God, and for the deep sense of community that I have with my brothers and sisters in Christ. I have no problems with it being Anglican or having some liturgical worship. I find it very meaningul.

All very vague and very much full of "I". None of what you have said makes this a biblical church and it's continued association with Anglicanism is proof of it's unwillingness to obey Scripture.

No disrespect intended, but your assertions that this church is wonderful and you personally get something from it, carries no more weight than those who say the same thing about their snake handling church, the name-it-and-claim-it churches, the Mormons or others attempting to justify their wayward or false churches. The folks in the "wonderful" social club church in this town say the same things you say.

A church should have a solid, biblical Statement of Faith.

[no name joe]

All very vague and very much full of "I". None of what you have said makes this a biblical church and it's continued association with Anglicanism is proof of it's unwillingness to obey Scripture.

No disrespect intended, but your assertions that this church is wonderful and you personally get something from it, carries no more weight than those who say the same thing about their snake handling church, the name-it-and-claim-it churches, the Mormons or others attempting to justify their wayward or false churches. The folks in the "wonderful" social club church in this town say the same things you say.

A church should have a solid, biblical Statement of Faith.

A church founded on the belief of Jesus Christ and on the Bible, who seek to follow the Holy Spirit as he leads them is indeed a very biblical church. We seek to love God with all of our hearts, soul and mind, and love our neighbor as ourselves. We proclaim Christ weekly. You have pointed absolutely nothing unbiblical. I don't know how you can judge a church without even stepping foot in the doors.