web analytics
hand in water

Amending the Baptism Rite – Now What?

hand in water

This blog post

One thing wrong with the baptism rite?

It would be churlish to oppose Statute 712 (“Bill 5”) of New Zealand Anglicanism’s General Synod Te Hinota Whanui (GSTHW) without providing for some thinking through of an alternative solution to the problem that it is trying to address.

The presenting problem was that one person once (as far as I know) at a Eucharist inserted the baptism rite between the Epistle and the Gospel reading, taking literally the rubric on page 383 of A New Zealand Prayer Book He Karakia Mihinare o Aotearoa (ANZHKMA) that

It follows the New Testament Lesson or The Gospel or The Sermon.

The intention of this rubric appears to have been that at “another service of worship” (other than a Eucharist) the baptism rite would come after the readings (“the New Testament Lesson” presumably being the last reading).

The solution of Statute 712 to this was to introduce greater confusion by having a church rule referring to “proclamation of the Word” where no such “proclamation of the Word” has been defined anywhere. Stranger still that this statute was introduced straight after a statute (711) that had just pointed out the mess the church is in because it had not defined a term!

The response to this possible new confusion was: “clergy should be trained to baptise appropriately”. And there you have it!

The best solution to this one-off occurrence is better clergy training.

Six of the seven (Tikanga Pakeha) diocesan synods have met and not assented to Statute 712 to amend the baptism rite. The seventh diocese assented with a letter that more work needs to be done.

More work needs to be done

The ANZHKMA baptism rite is a bit of a mess.

  • It is formatted as liturgical snakes-and-ladders. Its layout is Baptism – Confirmation – Baptism – Confirmation – Baptism! I have regularly seen clergy, intending to follow what is agreed, get lost. I have seen them get so flustered that they even get the words of the actual baptism moment confused.
  • The rite itself is erroneous more than the error Statute 712 is attempting to fix: page 396 section A omits The Presentation for Baptism! Page 397 Section D (You will need the latest revised Prayer Book edition – earlier ones omit Section D) omits The Presentation for Baptism and the questions to parents and godparents, and includes confirmation’s Commitment to Christian Service.
  • It is overly verbose. We do not need the constant didactic pieces (or at least make them optional), the repeated creeds and mini-creeds and mini-mini creeds, and doing everything twice. Half to two-thirds of the material can be trimmed with no loss and much gain. Less is more. The sacrament is being drowned in words.
  • The words in the rite are organised in such a way that they distract from the actions. When the water is (poured into the font and) blessed, people need to keep their eyes on the text because the responses are different to any others, and have no memorable cues (“whose promise endures… Amen. Come Holy Spirit… Amen! Praise and glory…”) Even at the very point of baptism, the rite has the people NOT watching the baptism, but the text, as they must come in immediately with, “Amen. God receives you…”
  • The concept that we do not make promises on behalf of children is so dated. That concept was a big “breakthrough” in this rite, but no one now notices it, or even knows about it. People regularly talk about “renewing our baptism promises” when, in this rite, such great care is taken not to make promises on behalf of a child.
  • The presenting theology is back-to-front: “let’s pour water on them and then see if they believe anything” (Section D page 397, the result of a motion of mine to GSTHW, allows the traditional order, but it is little known).

It is not surprising to me that this baptism rite is so little used. Parishes design their own rites, regularly sending me a copy for my suggestions.

A Revision?

The Roman Catholic rite of baptism at the Eucharist has the presentation as part of the Gathering, and the baptism rite following the homily. It is flexible, providing opportunity for people to give personal reason for asking for baptism. The same rite has a version used apart from the Eucharist. Again, it regularly indicates “these or similar words”. It follows a similar structure of Presentation – Readings – Homily – Intercessions (Prayer of the Faithful) – Baptism.

Other Anglican rites are similarly clear and simple.

So, my simple solution to the problem of someone placing the baptism rite before the Gospel reading at a Eucharist is not passing Statute 712 which generates more problems than it solves, but better clergy training, that baptism is in response to God’s Word. This, as I indicate, hardly rates in the problems with the NZ Anglican baptism rite.

If you really want to start thinking about revising our baptism rite, click on this link for my first draft to get discussion going.

Furthermore, here is the agreed NZ Anglican formulary with baptism coming after creed and promises rather than as printed where it comes before them. This traditional order has been allowed since 2002.

This is the second post in a series presenting positive solutions to the decisions by diocesan synods not to assent to statutes from GSTHW. The first is on amending the church’s constitution.

Similar Posts:

8 thoughts on “Amending the Baptism Rite – Now What?”

  1. This is good and reflective. We have had a bit of a time of here too over baptism. See here: http://hrht-revisingreform.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/the-devil-doesnt-exist.html

    I am now in a Parish where baptism occurs in Main Sunday Eucharist. I would love to upload my brochure which seems to be in line with some of your suggestions. I could send a copy on and you could tell me if you think my theology and liturgy choices work.
    Thanks and blessings

    1. Thanks, Rachel. Yes, I’ve followed (at a distance) some of the discussions in CofE, and so thanks for putting your link here. Do send me a copy of your brochure, and let us know in a comment here when you have uploaded it to your site. Blessings.

  2. A few quick thoughts in general agreement with where you are heading:
    1. At risk of expanding the pages of the prayer book, I would like to see the present rite (tidied up as per above) remain for use on those occasions when one actually has a baptism and confirmation and …; BUT also a clear and distinct, stand alone, baptism rite, ditto confirmation. I think that, overall, would be less confusing.
    2. At risk of harming my growing reputation as a liturgist of international standing, I would like consideration be given to the way I was trained re baptisms of infants “have it early in the service to de stress the mother of a potentially crying infant.” Thus I am quite happy with the thought that the ‘proclamation of the word’ be after the whole rite of baptism and might look back to the baptism itself and forward to the life of the baptised one. Whatever the liturgical de-merits of this suggestion I suspect many clerics and not a few mums and dads would support me!

    1. Thanks, Peter.

      I am fascinated by the training you had about placing it early in the service, and notice it was the mothers that were stressed 🙂

      In my conversations around Statute 712 there have been people who want the possibility of placing baptism early on, before The Proclamation. May I point out that this has strong liturgical antecedents. I would regard the early church approach, with a catechumenate, and the Easter Vigil as a very helpful model. In that approach, of course, baptism is what begins the Easter Vigil.

      I think that renewing aspects of that catechumenal process could be very helpful. A lot of aspects of the catechumenate have been conflated into our rite. That is part of the reason it is so bloated. Imagine stretching some of this out over time. Someone who is going to be baptised could give testimony at a preceding service giving the reasons for this choice, etc. These possibilities and flexibilities are allowed for in the Roman rite.

      Our current rite gives the impression that there has been no preparation and no previous hearing of the Word.


  3. I’m a big promoter of processions, especially during celebratory services of special occasions, like admission to the Body of Christ. And since Baptism is the entrance rite to the BoC, why not also the entrance rite to the service? A procession, around the block, around the church building, around the parking lot, around all of the above, or, if necessary, just around the inside of the church building and ending gathered around the font. Have the baptismal rite and then process to the pews/chairs for the rest of the service.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.