Mark’s response (above) comes following a long conversation between us, and I would like to say that I am very sorry if I have given a misleading impression of the Praxis pack.  Mark has helped me to see a few things straighter than I did, and for that I’m grateful.  

As Mark pointed out to me, the slide in question, on “Why change the ASB services”, states what General Synod thought were the weaknesses of the ASB service, rather than Praxis’ or Mark’s view, and my disagreement is really with General Synod’s analysis.  If I were asked to list the weaknesses of the ASB service, my list would include such things as:  

  •           despite note 1 on p241 (and the Canons), the service looks like a stand-alone occasion (and so seems unwelcoming);

•           the decision and the profession of faith are separated (is the child “half a Christian” at the signing of the cross?);

•           God blesses people not water;

•           the “welcome” states unconditional baptismal regeneration.  It would be better to have an exhortation here (as Cranmer did with his words at Communion in the 1552 service);

•           likewise, the prayer thanking God that the children are born again is unwarranted.  

This is a completely different list from the one which the slide says Synod felt, and it was wrong of me to criticise Praxis for accurate reporting!  I didn’t feel the lack of opportunity for testimony to be a problem with the ASB service, mainly because you can always include extras in services anyway.  

My concern about confirmation comes mainly from the Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry statement that something more is necessary for those who didn’t have opportunity to state their own faith at baptism.  And on Thanksgivings I was trying to say that although not part of initiation, these are linked to the question of how one handles enquiries, and therefore need mention for “baptism visitors”.