|Rites of Passage
Church of England clergy are
unusual in that their congregations extend beyond the few who worship in
church to include everyone within the boundaries of each parish. They are
therefore obliged to baptise, marry and bury anyone who lives in the parish.
Many churches in Britain are today almost empty. Only when one of the "hatch, match and dispatch"
ceremonies takes place do any numbers of parishioners pass through their
hallowed doors. Those who attend usually have no idea of the deep roots
the rites have in the past. They are merely the right thing to do as in
"My father and grandfather before me ..."
Everywhere else these rites of passage are usually
confined to "the faithful" - that is, to those who belong to a
particular congregation. In Africa and some other parts of the world
there is intense competition between Christian churches to dominate the
rites of passage marketplace.
But the truth is that ever-increasing numbers
everywhere in the West are establishing their own versions of the rites of passage.
Traditional Church ceremonies are becoming irrelevant except to those
If the Church is to once more mediate the deep meaning
conveyed by rites of passage, it may be that it has to revise
drastically its traditional teachings.
Only a few decades ago a Church presence at the rites
of passage was regarded as part and parcel of "the way things
are". What, if anything, has changed since the days when the
Church's rites were central to the Western way of life? It is not that
long since the refusal of an official burial service was
a sign of eternal damnation.
Baptism is the only one of the three Christian rites of passage which
has its origin specifically in the New Testament. It is not uniquely
washing with water to signify purity was a common part of life
throughout the Roman Empire of the time.
The gospels portray "John
the Baptiser" as having baptised Jesus. Baptism
signified "repentance", a turning away from sin towards God. Presumably Jesus thought
he needed to repent just like anyone else when he was baptised. At any rate,
by the time of Paul the practice was already firmly established in
For example, Paul likens baptism to Hebrew
circumcision in his Letter to the Colossians (2.12-13). He takes baptism
for granted. For it is appears to mean
- a union with the risen Jesus and a new way of life (Romans 6.4);
- a cleansing from the effects of sin (1 Corinthians 6.11); and
- the abolition of man-made differences (1Corinthians 12.13).
Paul's teaching may have been idiosyncratic. For within three decades
the focus of baptism appears to switch from renewal and acceptance to
initiation and admission. The author of Matthew's Gospel puts into Jesus' mouth the call to
Go, then, to all peoples everywhere and make them my
disciples: baptise them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit. (28.19)
It is almost universally recognised that these are the
author's words, probably reflecting a community norm of his time and
place. They are certainly not the words of Jesus.
Few notice a subtle but substantial shift of orientation from the way
Paul addresses baptism to its presentation in the gospels and the Acts
of the Apostles.
For Paul, baptism is (like circumcision before it) essentially a sign
of radical change in the individual. In the gospels and Acts it becomes
a sign of both repentance and of admission to the Christian
It was, however, this latter emphasis which became the norm -
although the theology of personal commitment to Jesus remains in theory.
It leads inexorably to the practice of infant baptism.
The latter was
originally justified by Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage in 248, as a way of
getting rid of original sin in a child. But it very soon became a way of
admitting the children of Christian parents into the company of those
saved from damnation. It preempted the possibility of a child not being
acceptable to God.
It was not long before the Church developed a theology of baptism
which held that the baptism ritual not only admits a person into the
Christian fellowship but also does something to him or her. This
teaching was challenged in the European Reformation of the 16th century.
As A E McGrath writes,
A long-standing debate within the Christian tradition centres on
whether sacraments are causative or declarative ... In
other words does baptism cause forgiveness of sin? 
But neither the traditional (Catholic) nor the Reformed position
challenges the underlying teaching that baptism has for many centuries
signified primarily admission to the Church.
Another important reason why baptism is today severely devalued in
the eyes of ordinary people rests in the traditional theology which
underpins it. Basically, it is justified by a belief in the inherent
corruption of each and every one of us. Bishop John Spong writes:
This sense of universal evil into which presumably all are born
still underlies the sacrament of baptism ... The language of being
made clean in the waters of baptism ... and the implied threat that
apart from baptism there is no salvation ... are still present in most
Whether or not Christians are correct about original sin inevitably
inherited from our predecessors, increasingly few non-Christians can accept
this kind of thinking. For them, if sin can be defined at all it is
personal and social. It cannot derive from some sort of genetic or
Marriage has become similarly distorted over the two millennia of
Church's history. There is, of course, nothing specifically Christian
about marriage. It is as old as humanity and is found in as many forms
as there are cultures.
Perhaps a unique aspect of Christian marriage is the strongly
negative spin put on it by the Church. Matthew's Gospel portrays Jesus
as approving celibacy, and the Church has always assumed that he was
unmarried. Paul is specific: marriage is second best (1 Corinthians
It is not surprising, therefore, that until very recent times
monastic celibacy has been widely thought of by Christians as winner in the holiness
stakes. Nor should we wonder that Jerome (345-420) is reputed to have
said that the only good thing about marriage is that it produces
Much more subtle is the Church's long-standing hijacking of authority
over marriage. The institution has always been regarded as a contract
between two people. Almost all societies today perceive it that way and
legislate accordingly. In other words, and man and a woman marry
themselves. All the Church does is bless the marriage. By no stretch of
the imagination can that blessing be seen as intrinsic to the marriage.
And yet the Church takes upon itself to condemn and ostracise those
who end a marriage contract - authorised, many would say
uncharacteristically, by Jesus in Mark 10.9. As in baptism, an
essentially all-embracing rite becomes an occasion to exclude rather
than include. An expressive sign becomes a banishing order. Witness
Helen Oppenheimer's statement:
Marriage ... is not a simple contract to be ended by the mere
decision of the parties themselves, but a "contract conferring
status" ... the Christian doctrine of marriage is that this
"pairbond", found in various forms in all human societies,
belongs to God's creation ... its character as a relationship
is part of its proper nature ... 
In other words, "What God has put together, let no man break
Just as baptism has become either a knee-jerk response to tradition
or an nice-to-have add-on, so also is marriage as a Christian rite being
rapidly abandoned and forgotten by Western societies at large.
Marriage itself, however, is very much alive and kicking. A majority
of couples still wish to commit for the long-term, particularly if
children are involved. Only the Church's traditions prevent those who
are committed to "living together" being accepted as married.
Even the lack of a civil contract is often provided for by legislation
which protects the partners in such relationships.
Just as marriage has always been there, so also has burial always
been a universal rite of passage. It's interesting that there is no
Church penalty for an irregular burial service. Perhaps that is because
traditional burial rites are really for the living rather than the dead.
At any rate, there is very little Christian theology or teaching about
this, the final rite of passage.
Most Church burial rites emphasise strongly Paul's teaching about
life after death. Put simply, it is that just as Jesus rose physically
from the dead and ascended into "heaven", so also will those
who toe the divine line proceed there after death: Paul specifically
links baptism with the death and resurrection of Jesus:
By our baptism, then, we were buried with him and
shared his death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from death
by the glorious power of the Father, so also we might live a new life.
Distress of the bereaved at a funeral no doubt
encourages some sort of affirmation about a vaguely-defined "life
after death". But it is difficult for anyone to state conclusively
that death is followed by some sort of personal existence. More
importantly, however, the idea of a physical resurrection so dear to
Christian ideologues is deeply incongruent with the way most people live
out their lives in the West today.
They may be mistaken, and the Church may be correct.
But whatever the case, this particularly important rite of passage has
nevertheless been robbed of its once-deep relevance to the living who
participate in it.
All three Christian rites of passage will probably endure. But they
are likely, given the continuation of present trends, to be confined to
the minority who remain within the official Church in its many forms.
It is equally likely that non-Christians will carry on with their own
ways of celebrating the important points of life. If so, the rites of
passage will be congruent with the cultures from which they derive. In
other words, they will be ever-further removed in form and content from
past norms of the Church. Current popular songs will replace Rock of
Ages at Christian funerals.
The challenge for the Church, then, is to find ways of moving into
the lives of ordinary people so that their most significant life
experiences can be celebrated in the light of Jesus of Nazareth.
Given the more or less absolute rigidity of the Church about matters
of ritual, this is unlikely to happen. Only those who are at the very fringes
of the Church or outside it altogether are likely to be able to bring
new life to Christian celebration of the rites of passage.
Only time will tell if that can happen and in what community context
it will take place.
 Christian Theology, Blackwell, 1994
 A New Christianity For A New World, HarperSanFrancisco, 2001
 A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, SCM Press Ltd, 1983