I am usually skeptical
about liturgical revision. And
I’ve long derided mainline churches’ propensity to confess the sins of others
rather than their own. So it will
not surprise that I look with a jaundiced eye upon proposed changes in the
Church of England’s baptism rite.
David Koyzis succinctly
points out the chief problem with the proposed language – it does indeed enable
those who’d rather confess other people’s
evil.
I can reject the evil found in oppressive systems out there or in the pettiness of my
neighbour next door. But I needn’t look into my own heart. I can, if I like,
but the altered rite itself seems not to require it. By contrast, if I am
asked, “Do you repent of the sins that separate us from God and neighbour?”, I
am compelled to look within, to weigh my own heart in the balance and actively
to renounce certain destructive tendencies within myself.
But the one who has opened
my eyes to the sheer awfulness of the proposed rite is one with which I have
had my disagreements, one who is certainly not a mossback uberorthodox reactionary
such as yours truly. Yet Bishop
Pete Broadbent has cut the proposed rite down to size, calling it “baptism lite”. A few highlights:
3. Where is the truth that we are rebels against God
expressed?
4. Where is repentance from sin?
5. Where is renunciation of the devil and evil?
("reject" is a much weaker word - I can reject your ideas, but I need
to reject and renounce the devil and evil)
6. Where is the sense that Christ is Saviour - and
that we need saving?
His whole post is quite
short; he cuts apart the proposed rite very well with only a few thrusts of his
virtual sword. So go read for
yourself.
FWIW, it would not surprise
me to see the proposed language go down in flames. That is certainly where it belongs.
No comments:
Post a Comment