So, how did your church celebrate the resurrection of Christ?

"The Prince of Preachers" saw it coming a century and a half ago. . .

. . . and on this Easter Sunday past, his prophetic word found its tragic fulfillment.

(If you can't make the correct guess from the multiple choice, you've missed the point of this post.)

This had better be a joke . . .

. . . because if it isn't, it's utterly blasphemous.



Via The Christian Post with H/T to Bishop Quigg Lawrence:

Have you ever missed church to watch a football game? Hail Mary prayers don't usually overlap Hail Mary passes for East Coast worshippers, but those in more westerly time zones, or attenders of evening services, often find communion conflicting with kickoff.

Tim Christensen, pastor of Gold Hill Lutheran Church (Butte, Mont.) and avid San Francisco 49er fan, must have felt this tension in his soul. So he blew through yesterday's 11am service in one minute to watch his team play the Carolina Panthers in an NFL playoff matchup.

Christensen even delivered the benediction with a touchdown celebration that at the same time paid homage to 49er QB Colin Kaepernick and mocked Carolina QB Cam Newton.

I'm wondering if this is just a funny skit to open the service, but I haven't seen any evidence that suggests so. Regardless of backlash that's sure to come, Christensen is happy about one thing right now: the 49ers won 23-10.

The Church of England and the rubric of stupid

The liturgy is one of the church's most valuable pedagogical tools. Disciples are formed and nurtured through the recitation of, and participation in, the grand narrative of God's redemptive work. The baptismal liturgy is of particular significance. It serves not only to introduce the newly baptized to the faith but also to remind the already baptized what it means to live out that faith, especially in accepting the responsibility to nurture the newly baptized.

Any baptismal liturgy which makes short shrift of the sacred vows to be taken by the candidates and/or sponsors and the equally sacred vows repeated by the congregation should not be used by a church which is serious about making and forming disciples for Jesus Christ. In light of the proposed changes to the Church of England's baptismal liturgy, it is reasonable to question the Mother Church's seriousness in this regard.

Parents and godparents no longer have to ‘repent sins’ and ‘reject the devil’ during christenings after the Church of England rewrote the solemn ceremony.

The new wording is designed to be easier to understand – but critics are stunned at such a fundamental change to a cornerstone of their faith, saying the new ‘dumbed-down’ version ‘strikes at the heart’ of what baptism means.

In the original version, the vicar asks: ‘Do you reject the devil and all rebellion against God?’

Prompting the reply: ‘I reject them.’ They then ask: ‘Do you repent of the sins that separate us from God and neighbour?’, with the answer: ‘I repent of them.’

But under the divisive reforms, backed by Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby and already being practised in 1,000 parishes, parents and godparents are asked to ‘reject evil, and all its many forms, and all its empty promises’ – with no mention of the devil or sin.

The new text, to be tested in a trial lasting until Easter, also drops the word ‘submit’ in the phrase ‘Do you submit to Christ as Lord?’ because it is thought to have become ‘problematical’, especially among women who object to the idea of submission.

The rewritten version – which came after reformers said they wanted to use the language of EastEnders rather than Shakespeare in services – is designed as an alternative to the wording in the Common Worship prayer book, rather than a replacement.

But insiders predict this draft will become the norm for the Church’s 150,000 christenings each year if, as expected, it is approved by the General Synod. It may discuss the issue as early as this summer.

But the idea has angered many senior members of the Church, who feel it breaks vital links with baptisms as described in the Bible.

Writing in The Mail on Sunday, former Bishop of Rochester Michael Nazir-Ali said the reform should be scrapped before it further reduced Christianity to ‘easily swallowed soundbites’.

And one senior member of the General Synod, who did not wish to be named, said: ‘This is more like a benediction from the Good Fairy than any church service.

‘The trouble is that large parts of the Church of England don’t believe in hell, sin or repentance. They think you can just hold hands and smile and we will all go to Heaven. That is certainly not what Jesus thought.

‘There is so much left out that one wonders why do it at all? If you exclude original sin and repentance there is very little substance left.

‘It doesn’t just dumb the service down – it eviscerates it. It destroys the significance of the rite by watering down the concept of sin and repentance.

'A humanist could say “I renounce evil.” If you take out repentance you immediately strike at the heart of the whole idea of needing to be baptised.

‘John the Baptist only baptised those who came and were repentant. This rite is saying to people you don’t need to be particularly repentant. Just come and join the club.’

Alison Ruoff, a lay member of the General Synod from London, said the new version was ‘weak and woolly’ and lacked conviction.

She said: ‘By removing all mention of the devil and rebellion against God, we are left to our own vague understanding of what evil might or might not mean.’

The draft was drawn up by the Church’s Liturgy Commission to redress fears the current version was too off-putting for lay people who only go to church for baptisms, weddings or funerals.

The Bishop of Wakefield Stephen Platten, who chairs the commission, said repentance was implied in phrases urging people to ‘turn away from evil’, and defended the omission of the devil by saying it was ‘theologically problematic’.

He said: ‘We are certainly not dumbing down. Far from it. What we are concerned about is to make sure that people who are coming to baptism understand what is being said.’

Other changes do away with the cleric saying: ‘Do not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified,’ to which the congregation replies: ‘Fight valiantly as a disciple of Christ against sin, the world and the devil, and remain faithful to Christ to the end of your life.’

The new version – which refers to sin once in an optional prayer – replaces this with: ‘Do not be ashamed of Christ. You are his for ever,’ to which the congregation answers; ‘Stand bravely with him.

Oppose the power of evil, and remain his faithful disciple to the end of your life.’

The baptism ceremony had not been altered for more than 400 years until it was changed in 1980. This is the third revision in 30 years.

There really can be no word for this revised rubric other than stupid! It is the bitter fruit of over a generation of weak, ineffectual, and theologically vacuous church leadership. Worse, however, it appears intentionally designed to perpetuate such innocuousness for generations to come.

As usual, the voice of reason crying out in this wilderness of stupidity is Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali.

Since at least the 1970s there has been a fashion in the Church of England to minimise depth and mystery in its worship because of the alleged need to make its services ‘accessible’.

The new alternative service for baptism, which has been sent for trial, continues this trend. Instead of explaining what baptism means and what the various parts of the service signify, its solution is to do away with key elements of the service altogether!

From ancient times, the structure of the service has included the renunciation of sin, the world and the devil and the turning to Christ as Lord and Saviour.

If a child is being baptised, it is on the basis of the faith of the parents and the godparents, as well as the faith of the community.

There is, finally, a commission both to hear and to proclaim the Gospel.

In all of these aspects, the new service falls short of what has usually been required. At a time of high interest in supernatural evil, the traditional renunciation of the devil and all his works has been replaced with an anodyne rejection of evil in its ‘many forms’.

The very first baptisms of the Church took place after St Peter’s call at Pentecost to ‘repent and be baptised .  .  . for the forgiveness of sins’ (Acts 2:38).

The Church has always regarded repentance as necessary for beginning the Christian life and, for children, a cleansing, if not from actual sin, then certainly from the sinfulness of the whole race since the original sin.

Because of its anxiety to make everyone feel welcome and its desire not to offend anyone, the new service, almost entirely, does away with sin and the need to repent from its personal and social manifestations and consequences.

The whole thrust of the service of deliverance from sin, protection from the devil and regeneration by water and the Holy Spirit, based on the teaching of Jesus himself, has been set aside and replaced by a ‘welcome’ which seems to have no basis in the promises of God, the faith of the parents and godparents or of the Church as a whole.

Indeed, there seems to be ambivalence about the Church itself with such circumlocutions as ‘God’s family’ being used. We are not told anything about the Christ in whom we are to put our trust.

There is no acknowledgement of him as Lord and Saviour. In general, there is a reluctance to declare that the Bible sees the world as having gone wrong and needing to be put right.

This is done by the coming of Christ. Baptism is nothing less than taking part in this story of salvation, no part of which can be sold short.

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.

When it comes to the service itself, the need is not to eliminate crucial areas of teaching but to explain them.

It is best 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.

Unfortunately, the Mother Church as too many Justin Welby's and not nearly enough Michael Nazir-Ali's.

Kyrie eleison.

This . . . is . . . just . . . plain . . . stupid

There . . . is . . . simply . . . no . . . other . . . word . . . to . . .  describe . . . it.

Never mind the cassocks – vicars could soon be conducting services in shell-suits, shorts or even football shirts under radical plans to overturn centuries of Church tradition.

Rules requiring the clergy to don traditional vestments are set to be swept aside as part of a ‘makeover’ designed to make services more relevant to modern congregations.

If the Church of England Synod approves the reforms, vicars could wear whatever they deem appropriate for all their services – including weddings, baptisms and funerals.

Although most are likely to favour smart jackets, some have indicated they would adopt a ‘dress-down Sunday’ approach.

The proposals, drawn up by a London vicar, the Rev Christopher Hobbs, have already garnered the support of about a quarter of the Synod, who will debate the issue in February.

But conservatives warn that changes would dilute the identity and authority of the Church.

The Rev Andrew Atherstone, a senior theologian, welcomed the move, saying that garments such as cassocks and surplices were a relic from a ‘bygone age’ and a form of ‘power dressing’ that was a barrier to getting the Church’s message across.

And the Rev Peter Owen-Jones, a TV clergyman and self-confessed ‘old, long-haired hippy’, said he would be prepared to wear his normal garb of jeans, shirt, waistcoat, beads and battered hat for baptisms and weddings if that’s what his parishioners in East Sussex wanted.

He added: ‘The time has come to end the blanket requirement for everyone to wear robes, but I would be very sad to see that tradition go entirely.

'We must be sensitive to the fact that the majority of people still enjoy the fact that priests dress up in this Roman clothing, which is what it is.’

He said clergy had ‘very poor dress sense’ and the idea of them turning up in ‘smart casual’ clothes sent a shiver down his spine.

Bishop Graham Cray, who is in charge of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s efforts to lure people back to the pews, said he would be prepared to don jeans and T-shirts at certain services ‘when it was appropriate’.

He added: ‘There are people for whom vestments are profoundly helpful and those for whom they are a real obstacle. If we are putting on a service for those who find such things an obstacle, robing is crazy.’

But traditionalists are enraged by the proposals, with one senior Synod member saying it could lead to clergy conducting services in tracksuits.

He said: ‘Some clergy already won’t wear a clerical collar. Soon they will be wearing shell-suits in the sacristy. We need to keep a sense of identity as Anglicans, and the robes are a way of providing that.’

Even leading liberal and Thought For The Day contributor the Rev Giles Fraser, whose normal attire is jeans and a T-shirt, said: ‘It’s outrageous. Is nothing sacred?

What will they do next? Maybe we will have Jaffa Cakes and Coca-Cola instead of bread and wine at Holy Communion.

‘What I really hate is the trendy vicar. They are like trendy teachers. No one really believes in them.

‘Vestments are a very ancient part of the Church’s tradition and they bring dignity to worship.

‘What we have here is an attempt to make worship all terribly chummy and I would choose dignity over chumminess every time.’

Image consultant Veronique Henderson, of Colour Me Beautiful, said the Church should keep a uniform but it ought to be modernised, suggesting scarves decorated with crosses..

‘They need to show their authority, but the full robes can be very intimidating,’ she said.

Ecclesiastical robes, which have their origins in the Roman Empire, have been enshrined in laws since 1604. The current rules date from the 1960s and say clergy conducting communion must wear a surplice – a white outer garment – or a longer version called an alb, with a scarf or stole around the neck.

Other garments such as copes (long cloaks) may also be worn. Formal robes are required for occasional services such as marriages and funerals.

The new motion says that clergy will be able to dispense with all vestments if they have the agreement of their parochial church councils and bishop.

There is already no Church law that requires clergy to wear a dog collar, but they tend to do so because they are urged to dress appropriately as a mark of their office.

Memo to the Archbishop of Canterbury and all others trying "to lure people back to the pews": You might try dusting off those old Bibles and Prayer Books which you obviously aren't making much use of these days. If all you have to offer the people is the same kind of worldly pleasures they can find in the tavern down the street, they're going to stay in the tavern.

Mother Church beclowns itself (again!)

The Mother Church, as we have already seen, is a veritable storehouse for innovative ideas for turning the tide of sagging attendance.

Here is yet another brilliant proposal.

A new style of service – staged in churches decked out with balloons while guests sit at tables laid out for a baptism banquet – is among options being looked at by officials as part of a drive to make people feel more welcome.

The idea is one of the early results of a major “market research” project, backed by the Archbishop of Canterbury and York, examining how the Church could redesign its christening services for the 21st Century.

Official figures show that the number of baptisms conducted in the Church of England is on the rise even though weekly congregations have been falling.

Rev Dr Sandra Millar, who runs the Church’s ongoing “Christenings Project”, said it was striking how many young parents still want to have their children baptised despite having little or no connection to the church themselves.

Vicars have also noticed that some unmarried couples appeared to view the christening almost as their answer to having a wedding, an opportunity to invite family and friends for a public ceremony followed by a party.

As a result some congregations have begun to adapt services to accommodate them, dressing up the doorways with balloons and offering church halls for christening parties.

But a handful have gone further, holding separate christening services combined with family parties.

At one church visited by Dr Millar the entire church had been laid out like a wedding reception with the baptism performed in the centre of the room in front the guests at tables.

Afterwards they were served champagne and a meal while the family cut a christening cake and received presents. The model is expected to form a centrepiece of new christening handbooks for vicars when the projected is completed.

Hey, here's a novel suggestion: Try preaching the Gospel! You know, that stuff about eternal life in the kingdom of God for everyone who repents of their sins and trusts in Jesus Christ for salvation. It's a very appealing message, actually, and you can still make use of bread and wine.

Stupid clergy tricks: Watering down the baptismal liturgy

H/T to Stand Firm.

Call it 'Baptism Lite.'

A group of clergymen have submitted documents to the General Synod, the governing body of the Anglican Church, calling on it to prepare alternatives for the Common Worship baptismal services, which are used at the majority of Anglican christenings. It's their hope that doing so will make them more accessible and interesting to non-churchgoers—including the many "unchurched" parents and godparents who participate in the 139,000 Anglican baptisms conducted in the country every year.

Speaking to the Liverpool Echo, Reverend Tim Stratford explained that he and fellow men of the cloth from the city's poorest areas have long had misgivings about rites that the masses find incomprehensible. Their proposal for reform centers around passages like the Prayer Over Water. Recited during the baptism, it discusses the children of Israel and their passage from slavery in Egypt to freedom in the Promised Land. That should be replaced, he says, with simple and direct language that actually resonates with people's experiences.

“This was not a plea for a prayer in Scouse, but for a prayer that the majority of non- theologically-versed Britons would understand," he wrote in the proposal. “It was a common experience of clergy to feel they were losing touch with congregations at important moments in the service unnecessarily.”

The Church of England General Synod convenes in London next month.

Ah, yes! That baptismal liturgy is such a complicated thing! In this day and age, it is way too much to expect the priest to remember that Jesus was baptized by John in the Jordan, and not the other way around.

The next thing you know, they'll be eliminating words that refer to God in personal terms. Oh, wait! They already did that!