CofE weddings to include baptism

[Benevenio]

This is on the BBC website this morning.

Anyone been asked to do something similar in their parishes? What would be your (pastoral) response?

[Southern Comfort]

I've several times been asked to play for a wedding with no recessional at the end of the marriage because the couple were staying on for the baptism of their children. The whole family walked/were carried out at the end, to the strains of Widor, or whatever. But the two services were not combined ─ just one straight after the other. And no additional liturgy of the word, prebaptismal anointing or anything else ─ just the baptism(s) with a few preliminary questions, if I remember correctly.

[musicus]

(Slightly OT) But, as I know from personal experience in a former religious life, the CofE does do baptism-confirmation-eucharist in the correct order!

[mcb]

(Slightly OT) But, as I know from personal experience in a former religious life, the CofE does do baptism-confirmation-eucharist in the correct order!

(Further OT:) Like in Salford Diocese, you mean?

[SOP]

(Slightly OT) But, as I know from personal experience in a former religious life, the CofE does do baptism-confirmation-eucharist in the correct order!

(Further OT:) Like in Salford Diocese, you mean?

(Still OT:) But I thought the CofE did the confirmation were people were older than 7.

Back on topic - I can sympathise with them in a way. The idea of getting married in a church seems to be sadly old fashioned and the idea that children should not be forced into a religion but make up their own minds later in life seems to the smart way of thinking these days.

[festivaltrumpet]

Were a family to approach the church requesting a regularisation of their matrimonial status, and baptism for their children as a genuine desire to return to, or enter anew, the Church, I would not necessarily take issue with this. If however it is being offered as a 'package deal' such that the the sacraments are 'done' to those unlikely to be seen in the church until they enter feet first, then there is a problem. It conveys a message of condoning the fact of having children before making a public committment of marriage.

[Nick Baty]

It conveys a message of condoning the fact of having children before making a public committment of marriage.

Quite right too.

We should celebrate the birth of every child.

In years gone by, the amount of shame heaped on a young unmarried mum was simply cruel. My own birth mother had no choice but to give me up for adoption when I was six months old – she was just 17. She was taken – forcibly by her PP - to a home for unmarried mothers where she was put to work scrubbing floors and told to atone for her sins? Although, in reality, she was being told to atone for that one sin, that one horrendous thing of having had sex!

These days there is less shame but plenty of pressure to get rid of the child and adoption is less frequently the option on offer.

Full marks for any young couple (or single mum) keeping a child, whether married or not. And full marks to them for wanting to come as a family (married or not) to have their child baptised.

Sorry if I sound angry, but I hope we never return to the days of only condoning the birth of children within wedlock.