The Church of England’s liturgical committee (what a way to kill the opening of a blog!) has recently devised a new service which will enable clergy to offer couples who wish to get married in church the chance to get their children baptised at the same time - all for the modest fee of £272.
This service is an attempt to ‘meet people where they are’ and recognises that many people getting married in church now have children. In some parts of the UK the majority of children are born ‘out of wedlock’ though the national average currently stands are 44%.
A few people responded to the report in the Times Online with some witty observations. The Bishop of Fulham, the Right Rev John Broadhurst, said: “It is a pity they have not put in a funeral for grandma as well.” Given the cost of these events, there clearly has to be a market for entrepreneurial clergy to liaise with local businesses and offer “The Best Hatching, Matching, and Dispatching Deal in the area. All 3 for under £999″ I feel confident that the people at Tescos will be contacting Lambeth Palace after reading this. After all, every little helps, and adding air miles to births, marriages, and deaths has to be a certain winner.
One commentator, Les Riley, made the point that it would make as much sense to offer a divorce and re-marriage service as it would to offer a christening and marriage option because the divorce rates are as real as the number ‘illegitimate’ children. And of course, that would open up new possibilities - Hatching, Divorcing, Matching (with a Dispatching option thrown in at half price). Churches could offer pix ‘n mix deals where participants could choose the modules they want and pay the relevant price.
I suppose that there is nothing wrong with clergy having a liturgy that appears to meet a need. If I were being churlish - god forbid - I might want to point out that accepting divorce and extra-marital sex (not that I personally have a problem with either) seems to go against teaching that the church has held and tried to maintain for over 2,000 years, and the new ceremonies could be interpreted as an own goal.
For me the really annoying thing is the pretence - the pretence that by changing liturgies the church is somehow doing something religiously important, and somehow building the kingdom of god. There are, of course, a fervent minority for whom it is important to have a Christian hatching, matching, and dispatching. (Even here you could argue that forcing religion on a victim incapable of making an informed consent is a form of child abuse.) However, for the vast majority it is about sociology rather than theology. It might be about show, about family, about the booze afterwards, about photographic opportunities, even about sincere intent - but it is rarely, if ever, about religion or god.
Society has moved on and is growing comfortable with its new norms free from historical constraints. In developing new liturgies in the name of evangelism the church is both challenging its traditional teaching (not necessarily a bad thing) and deceiving itself about its own importance and about the reality of what is taking place within its buildings.
You may also be aware that while you can join the C of E (e.g. by being “christened” at an age when you have no idea what is being done to you), you cannot resign from it. The National Secular Society’s “debaptism” forms are not recognized by the Archdruid of Cant and his crew. The Church therefore appears to possess far more adherents than it actually does: quite useful when it comes to seeking funding and claiming support for its policies.
Not being able to read other people’s minds I am loath to accuse them of being disingenuous but “marriage+baptism” does seem a good way of getting more (unwilling) people onto the Church’s register, whereon they will be stuck for the rest of their lives, unable to resign even if they wish to.
To my mind this smacks of the way the Mormons go about baptising everyone right, left and centre without so much as a by-your-leave.
Is this not just another clutching at straws by an organization so obviously on the way out that even some of its own members are prophesying its demise by 2050?
SilverTiger
I was aware of the “debaptism” forms, but I hadn’t really taken on board the implications of numbers for funding. It does seem dishonest - a bit like fixing numbers at an election in order to gain an advantage. And I agree with you that the gap between the institution and reality does seem to be growing, though the death does seem slow. I still object to my taxes going to fund the training of its priests. (See The Gift.)
Hey, totally agree with killing the intro
You just about lost me there.
I read recently that the C of E is basically bound to disappear, so it’s hardly surprising they’re coming up with such survival schemes, but it sure makes them look desperate.
Not that anyone is going to hear my counsel, but if I were the C of E, I would organize secular events to make money. Dance evenings, potlucks, festivals. They may raise more money that way, and that’s probably the future of the church, anyway.
Is this not just another clutching at straws by an organization so obviously on the way out that even some of its own members are prophesying its demise by 2050?
It looks that way to me.