Being a few years younger than my colleague, Giles Fraser, it is not surprising that the films which form my cultural landscape are a little different. When he thinks of the devil, his first thoughts return to The Godfather. I, on the other hand, turn first to the dark and classic film he mentions at the end: The Usual Suspects. The same line Giles quotes has stayed with me from that movie: it has none of the opulent drama of the inital Godfather scene Giles describes, but is memorable instead for its chilling simplicity as the lead character says: "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist".
Giles' brilliant column this week discusses what he feels we as a church lose when we do not explicitly name the devil in our baptism liturgy. By nature, a more conservative (with a small c) character, I share his sense of loss at this change. And he does challenge me to reconsider all aspects of how I conduct infant baptism - how much do I collude with those who regard baptism as "a nice middle-class naming ceremony" and how much do I use the opportunity to speak eternal truths and preach the gospel? Tough and timely questions for all who conduct infant baptisms on a regular basis.
However, I do think it is helpful to remove this language from our liturgy for two main reasons. The first is because most members of our society simply do not believe in a personal devil any more. When I prepare a baptism family using the current rite, I sometimes joke that the liturgy was written by someone who had been reading a bit too much Lord of the Rings, and there is often a relieved giggle around the room. The dramatic language may be beautiful and poetic and contain great truths, but it is describes something which is unrecognizable - without hefty translating - to your average new parent. You could argue that this should not be the case and should be resisted, but I don't think the best place to begin a discussion on how to follow Jesus is a theological debate on the reality of Satan. However, these families do understand evil because they have seen it. They have seen it in their families, in their workplaces, in their communities and on their television screens. To return for a moment to The Usual Suspects, perhaps they may have been tricked into thinking the devil doesn't exist, but they can still recognize his works. What's more, they desperately don't want their child either to contribute to that evil or be harmed by it. If that is your hope for your child, bringing them to Jesus is a brilliant place to start.
The second reason is that this dramatic language helps disguise the reality of evil in our lives. Dramatic words and the dramatic film scene Giles describes make evil seem obvious and huge and other. But evil is mundane and life sapping and all too ordinary in all our experience. Evil is apathy about suffering and selfishness and conflict and abuse of others and a hundred other things I have encountered this week, if not in the past 24 hours. Perhaps we should stop hiding behind flowery liturgy and ask people plainly how willing they are to renounce evil with their shopping lists and energy consumption and by who they talk to at the school gate. THAT would be truly challenging and I hereby throw down the gauntlet to the liturgical commission!
In a church near where I live they recently uncovered a Doom painting, with Christ seated in glory and the righteous led to one side to be with him in glory. The unrighteous are led to the other side to eternal torment, vividly depicted with flames and demons. It is a remarkable example of basic catechesis from a pre-literate age. But cultural changes mean that this painting, despite its value in many different ways, is not used commonly to teach people the faith today. And cultural changes mean that removing the devil from our baptism liturgy, whilst sad in many ways, is when all is considered, helpful as we try to proclaim faith in Jesus.
