The Church of England has removed any requirement that parents reject “sin” in baptizing their children. It’s seriously like they’re trying to become irrelevant.

You’ve got to read this from Juicy Ecumenism:

In the old version, the parents would be asked before the baptism, “Do you reject the devil and all rebellion against God?” and “Do you repent of the sins that separate us from God and neighbor?”

However, in the new version that is being promoted as an “alternative,” the parents are only asked “Do you reject evil…and all its empty promises?”

According to the Daily Mail, a senior member of the General Synod explains, ‘the trouble is that large parts of the Church of England don’t believe in hell, sin or repentance.” Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, who opposed the revisions, argued that “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.” He closed by suggesting “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.”

The revisers, who are supported by the Archbishop of Canterbury, however, only claim that they want to be more relevant and “use the language of EastEnders rather than Shakespeare in services.”

Seriously? They want the Church of England to be more like Eastenders? So in making the choice between being relevant to salvation or a soap opera they chose the soap opera. Kinda’ figures when you remember they started with King Henry VIII’s little soap opera. What? It had everything. Sex. Violence. Intrigue. Total soap opera. So you might argue that it’s getting back to its roots.

It’s kind of a weird thing. The more one attempts to be relevant the more irrelevant they become.