Baptismal Integrity

During the last 70 years there has been an enormous erosion of Christian background in every walk of life. Our society is now multi-faith, multicultural and one might say multi-everything. Anglican infant baptisms declined from over 400,000 a year in 1962 to around 90,000 in 2010. Only one in four weddings is held in an Anglican church. In 1950 it was one in two. It is no surprise clergy frequently find themselves conducting baptisms for families who have little contact with the Church. That has been the case increasingly for years.

Though less common, baptism has continued to be experienced overwhelmingly as something to do with babies and toddlers and family celebrations. Regardless of the decline in infant baptisms, the attitudes of those who continue to come forward seeking baptism for their babies have not changed very much. The move in the last 30 years to include baptism within a main service has been implemented only patchily. Stand-alone christenings continue, that of William and Kate’s Prince George being a recent high-profile example.

Forty years ago many clergy agonised as to whether in many infant baptisms they were colluding with perjury at the font. Since then such scruples have been smothered in the name of pastoral opportunity. The mindset that anything is better than nothing is perfectly revealed in the C of E website’s sentence about marriage. “You’re welcome to marry in church whatever your beliefs, whether or not you are baptised and whether or not you go to church.”

This is the climate in which CW: Initiation has to survive and, we hope, thrive. But it is essential that we understand what it offers. The Introductory Note to the ‘accessible language proposals’ said that the Common Worship provision started from the assumption that the rite for adult baptism should be regarded as normative and the rite for the baptism of children as derived from that.” In other words, in the beginning baptism was not about babies and toddlers and family celebrations but about preceding baptism with an effective catechumenate in which the faith was given and received and which produced candidates for baptism who were ready, willing and able to give a firm “yes” on their own account when asked if they wished to be baptised.

Why did the Liturgical Commission make this their starting point?

It did so in the light of what happened over the Eucharist. The 20th century saw a great growth in historical and liturgical research into the Church of the first four centuries. In the 1960s and 1970s in an increasingly favourable ecumenical climate, there was a remarkable ecumenical flowering of Eucharistic liturgies all in the same pattern. There was a feeling that what was ancient and original to the Church was being brought to life again. The restored Eucharist could be regarded as normative and the BCP communion seen as historically derivative. One might say “Before BCP was, the restored Eucharist is.”.

Could baptism be restored in a similar way? Might the normative catechumenate baptism be reestablished if babies were to have a service of Thanksgiving soon after birth and proceed via a catechumenate programme to Baptism-ConfirmationCommunion when they had grown up to years of discretion?

The CW revision of initiation rites made it a practical possibility. We do well to examine CW: Christian Initiation and appreciate what it contains. The first 51 pages contain a) a comprehensive introduction; b) service of Thanksgiving for the Gift of a Child, which is highly accessible; c) Rites on the Way, which provides a framework of significant moments and rites to guide people on their way to baptism-confirmation-Eucharist. One might call it pointers towards a catechumenate programme. I have a sneaking suspicion that very few lay people have any idea that Rites on the Way even exists and that hardly any clergy will have tried making use of them. What we need now is courage to explore and use to the full what CW: Christian Initiation provides.

DW Perry