Sunday, 5 January 2014

Welby casts out 'sin' from christenings: Centuries-old rite rewritten in 'language of EastEnders' for modern congregation


  • Parents and godparents no longer have to ‘repent sins’ and ‘reject devil’
  • New wording is designed to be easier to understand – but critics stunned
  • Redesigned to attract people who only attend for weddings and christenings
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?’ 
Parents and godparents no longer have to 'repent sins' and 'reject the devil' during christenings after the Church of England rewrote the solemn ceremony in a move backed by Justin Welby
Parents and godparents no longer have to 'repent sins' and 'reject the devil' during christenings after the Church of England rewrote the solemn ceremony in a move backed by Justin Welby
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’.  
Former Bishop of Rochester Michael Nazir-Ali said the reform should be scrapped before it further reduced Christianity to 'easily swallowed soundbites'
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.’
The Old The New.jpg
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.

Why CofE must abandon this dumbed-down christening, writes 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. 
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
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
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.

  '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' 

Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali
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.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2533874/Welby-casts-sin-christenings-Centuries-old-rite-rewritten-language-EastEnders-modern-congregation.html#ixzz2pVTCv77A
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Friday, 3 January 2014

Break Out of Mediocrity

Break Out of Mediocrity

Shirley Arnold

Scottish independence would be economic disaster, finance experts warn just as the SNP say the economy is key battleground , Daily Mail


  • Businesses and academics warn country would be plunged into turmoil
  • Scotland would join the list of impoverished European countries
  • Another says there would be 'utter panic' if voters back independence 

Finance experts, academics and business leaders have raised fears that independence would destroy the economy, hit investment and force companies to migrate to England.
In an unprecedented survey that will prove devastating for the SNP, analysts believe a Yes vote in the referendum could lead to the loss of thousands of jobs and plunge the country into turmoil.
One finance insider suggested Scotland would be added to the list of impoverished European countries left on their knees. Another said there would be 'utter panic' among finance firms and several warned of a 'disaster' for Scotland.
Setback: The vision of independence set out by Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon risks the Scottish economy and would see businesses flee to England, experts warn
Setback: The vision of independence set out by Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon risks the Scottish economy and would see businesses flee to England, experts warn
Alex Salmond's separatist vision was dismissed as 'economically incoherent'; there were warnings that 'skilled labour' would leave; and creating a new border would cut gross domestic product (GDP) by as much as 3 per cent. 
The findings are particularly humiliating for Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, who yesterday predicted the economy would be the key battleground in the referendum campaign.
The Financial Times asked a number of high-profile economists and eminent university professors to examine the impact of a Nationalist victory in September. 
 
In a daunting verdict, 27 respondents said it would hurt the Scottish economy and the rest of the UK.
Only four people who took part in the survey said a Yes vote could have a positive impact.
Former Chancellor Alistair Darling, who is leading the pro-Union Better Together campaign, said the findings prove that the 'risks involved in leaving the UK are massive'.
But a spokesman for the Yes Scotland campaign insisted separation would 'encourage growth and increase employment'.
Referendum: Voters in Scotland will have their saying on leaving the UK this autumn
Referendum: Voters in Scotland will have their saying on leaving the UK this autumn

FARMERS WANT TO STAY IN UK

Farmers in Scotland are set to reject independence, a survey suggests
Farmers are overwhelmingly set to reject independence, according to a survey. 
Scots Lib Dem MEP George Lyon received 2,000 replies to a study he conducted, with 72 per cent of respondents supporting the Union.
Three-quarters of farmers expressed concern about the impact separation could have on EU agricultural subsidies.
Four-fifths said uncertainty over currency would harm their businesses, while 72 per cent feared separation would make it difficult to sell produce in the rest of the UK.
Mr Lyon said: 'Everyone wants to see a thriving Scottish rural economy, but if you look at the real positives we get from the UK market, from our place in Europe and our trade links overseas, our farmers can achieve more as part of the UK family.
'Scotland's place in the EU is not only vital for farmers, but also for jobs and growth.' But Rural Affairs Secretary Richard Lochhead has claimed farmers would have been handed an extra £1billion in European subsidies if Scotland were separate.
Philip Rush of Japanese finance giant Nomura launched a stinging attack on the SNP vision. 'Higher taxes on income would push many wealthy individuals and some companies they work for south of the Border, harming Scotland's economy,' he said. 'A fate similar to the secular stagnation in productivity seen in parts of Europe's socialist south may await.' 
Ruth Porter of the Policy Exchange think-tank was similarly dismissive, saying: 'The raft of economically incoherent policies being proposed by Alex Salmond would be disastrous for Scotland.' Gavyn Davies of Fulcrum Asset Management described a Yes vote as an 'unmitigated disaster for Scotland' as did Stephen King, chief economist at HSBC bank.
One of the main results of an SNP victory in the referendum would be the loss of companies - and jobs - to England, several experts said.
Keith Wade, chief economist of asset management firm Schroders, commented: 'When combined with the considerable uncertainty over whether Scotland can remain in the EU, Scottish business would start to head south.' 
David Owen, chief European financial economist with investment firm Jeffries, said: 'Scotland is likely to see an ongoing loss of business as it migrates south of the Border.' 
Andrew Hilton of the Centre for the Study of Financial Innovation warned: 'If there were a Yes vote there would be utter panic - with the Scottish fund managers heading for the Border in droves.' 
Neville Hill of Credit Suisse bank said: 'The flow of direct and portfolio investment, as well as some bank deposits, south of the Border would provide Scotland with a nasty negative monetary shock.' 
Many of those taking part in the survey said uncertainty would devastate the economy.
James Knightley of banking giant ING said: 'I think the uncertainty will be damaging for everyone ... it is going to make a lot of foreign companies think twice about investing in the UK.' 
Melanie Baker of Morgan Stanley warned of 'increased uncertainty for businesses and markets'.
Brian Hilliard of French banker Société Générale said: 'It would create major uncertainty about the viability of the country as an economic unit. Growth would be hurt.' 
Ray Barrell of Brunel University in London warned that independence 'is the introduction of a new border. That is likely to reduce Scottish GDP by 3 per cent, and English GDP by 1 per cent'.
Alistair Darling, leading the Better Together campaign against independence, said the findings prove that the 'risks involved in leaving the UK are massive'
Alistair Darling, leading the Better Together campaign against independence, said the findings prove that the 'risks involved in leaving the UK are massive'
An independent Scotland's reliance on oil was also highlighted, with Philip Shaw of financier Investec predicting 'overall it will be on a slow growth path'.
But despite the strong warnings Miss Sturgeon said yesterday: ‘I firmly believe who wins the economic argument will win the referendum.
‘Scotland can more than afford to be independent, something that even the No campaign agrees with. We need the powers over the economy to get faster and more sustainable growth into the economy for the long term.’
A spokesman for Yes Scotland added: ‘The greatest uncertainty for business as well as the country as a whole stems from a ‘No’ vote. With ‘Yes’, we can tailor policies to suit our own needs and priorities, thereby encouraging growth and increasing employment.’


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2533222/Scottish-independence-economic-disaster-finance-experts-warn-just-SNP-say-economy-key-battleground.html#ixzz2pMyug9zO
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Today's post

Jesus Christ, The Same Yesterday, Today and Forever

I had the privilege to be raised in a Christian Home and had the input of my parents and grandparents into my life, they were ...