Church of England Removes “Sin” from Baptism Rite

on January 6, 2014

The Church of England has once again rewritten the rites of the Church by no longer requiring a rejection of sin before performing a Christening. In the old version, the parents would be asked before the baptism, “Do you reject the devil and all rebellion against God?” and “Do you repent of the sins that separate us from God and neighbor?”

However, in the new version that is being promoted as an “alternative,” the parents are only asked “Do you reject evil…and all its empty promises?”

According to the Daily Mail, a senior member of the General Synod explains, ‘the trouble is that large parts of the Church of England don’t believe in hell, sin or repentance.” Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, who opposed the revisions, argued that “Rather than the constant ‘dumbing down’ of Christian teaching, whether for baptism, marriage or death, we should be spending time preparing people for these great rites of passage.” He closed by suggesting “to call a halt to this perhaps well-meant effort before it further reduces the fullness of the Church’s faith to easily swallowed soundbites.”

The revisers, who are supported by the Archbishop of Canterbury, however, only claim that they want to be more relevant and “use the language of EastEnders rather than Shakespeare in services.”

That last quote referencing Shakespeare is a subtle jab at the conservative Anglican philosopher Roger Scruton, whose most recent book laments the decline of the Church of England and English culture with it. In his book, Scruton mocks the current agenda of the Church by saying that “To describe the new services as ‘alternatives to Cranmer is like describing EastEnders as an alternative to Shakespeare, or Lady Gaga as an alternative to Bach.” It seems the leadership of the Church read his book. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem like they took heed.

All this reminded me of an old speech given by Charles, the Prince of Wales, a man who is not given the credit he deserves by conservatives. In that speech he said,

“The fear of being considered old-fashioned seems to be so all-powerful that the more eternal values and principles which run like a thread through the whole tapestry of human existence are abandoned under the false assumption that they restrict progress. Well, I’m not afraid of being considered old-fashioned, which is why I am standing here at this lectern wearing a double-breasted suit and turn-ups to my trousers, ready to declaim the fact that I believe the Prayer Book is a glorious part of every English-speaker’s heritage and, as such, ought to be a Grade I listed edifice!”

It is somewhat sad to think that the Prince of Wales may be more conservative and correct on such matters than the present leadership of the world’s third largest Christian body. On the other hand, maybe the radical Prince will have the chance to straighten them out one day.

  1. Comment by Kay Glines on January 7, 2014 at 10:16 am

    The C of E seems to be following the Episcopalians, who toned down the sin language in their “Rite II” rituals. Rest assured, they will also follow the familiar pattern: “relevant” churches lose members. When your boat is sinking, you don’t bail water INTO it, and that is what “relevance” does.

  2. Comment by Josh on January 8, 2014 at 4:02 pm

    I’m not sure how the language was toned down in the 1979 Prayer Book of the Episcopal Church, but it does not seem to be like the new Church of England rite. The Episcopal BCP asks the following questions:
    – Do you renounce Satan and all the spiritual forces of wickedness that rebel against God?
    – Do you renounce the evil powers of this world which corrupt and destroy the creatures of God?
    – Do you renounce all sinful desires that draw you from the love of God?
    – Do you turn to Jesus Christ and accept him as your savior?
    – Do you put your whole trust in his grace and love?
    – Do you promise to follow and obey him as your Lord?

  3. Comment by John S on January 9, 2014 at 8:46 am

    Sin, sin, …. I’m sorry I’ve been attending UMC for some time. The word is not really familiar. I think it has to do with how LGBTQ is treated by the church. Is that close?

  4. Comment by John E on January 11, 2014 at 2:24 pm

    With evangelicals like Archbishop Welby, who needs liberals?

  5. Comment by Alan C on February 20, 2014 at 9:19 pm

    I don’t see anything wrong per se with the question “Do you reject evil . . .” (evil is no more passé a concept than sin, IMHO), but I agree there’s no need for the Church to chuck the concepts of “sin” and “the devil.” And the way the Church has at times treated LGBTQ people is indeed sinful!

The work of IRD is made possible by your generous contributions.

Receive expert analysis in your inbox.