Last Pentecost weekend a friend and I attended a Baptism service in a Lutheran parish in London.
Afterwards my friend, of RCC background, whispered: "There was a lot of devil and evil in that."
Now, our baptismal liturgies do mention the devil several times, and it does make a lot of people, not just guests, uncomfortable. In fact, quite a number of denominations have revised their order of service or are planning to, to leave out any mention of the devil and evil in general. One of the main arguments for doing so is that it makes for a more positive liturgy, a more modern one, a more palatable and happy one.
These kinds of debates are of course a matter for the individual denominations themselves, but I just wanted to share a few of my own thoughts on the matter.
First of all, in my opinion church should be joyous, not fun, that's not the same.
It's ok for church to be uncomfortable while simultaneously being inviting. The Gospel itself -forgiveness and restoration without quid pro quo- is an uncomfortable message to many. This of course isn't limited to Baptisms only, but to all services, services that should be inspiring, not just feel-good moments. This includes talking about topics that are challenging in a vocabulary that does make a lot of us frown or shift in our pews.
Secondly, what's wrong with using a religious word in a religious context?
Very often it's because churches no longer use the vocabulary, the jargon, that people have no clue what's actually meant by these words and phrases.
The Church, instituted by God, of course has many similarities with other companies/organisations, and yet by its very nature it's something special, a place entitled to its own language. Words like 'sin', 'redemption', 'Gospel' and 'devil' or 'evil' are part of that. Nothing wrong with naming, and shaming, the devil. Fear of the name creates fear of the thing itself (and yes, I know that's from Harry Potter). We can't avoid this discussion.
And here lies part of the crux.
What image do people, inside the Church as well as on the outside looking in, get when they hear the word 'devil'?
Hopefully not one of a creature with hooves and a pitchfork, smelling of sulphur. That would be rightly dismissed as medieval and fantastical. And it wouldn't make much sense either; if the devil is a fallen angel, Lucifer, who entices and tempts people, a hideous repulsive demon isn't going to do much of a job, now is it.
The very personal devil which Luther battled in his Anfechtungen or temptations, just as personal and real as God and Christ, these days is more representative of evil in general. If mentioned at all, because what use is there for a devil, a satan? After all, if we are the battleground for good versus evil then where is our individual choice, our individual responsibility? And yet people do experience this evil in their lives and observe it in the world.
So how do we offer a definition that makes sense to shifted language and mental paradigms? (Within a paradigm of faith of course)
Well, how about defining it within the concept of Creation?
When God spoke and Creation came into being (Genesis 1) the void was filled with purpose, with love and value. Each creature has an allotted place, a special place where the Creator wills it to thrive. We should actually say placeS because we are called to more than just one vocatio, one calling -literally- in life. Beings aren't just BE but also -ING, not just existence but also activity.
Order out of chaos. Not some Hercules Poirot OCD type order down to the millimetre, mind. No, very often it's a messy order; it's an ordering where every being is appreciated and cared for down to its molecular level.
The devil opposes this, the devil is anti Creation.
The word 'satan' means 'heckler, accuser, opposer'. The word 'diabolos' derives from the Greek verb 'to throw in the middle' and by extension 'to upset, to confuse, to divide, to slander, to accuse falsely'.
When Lucifer rebelled and intended to raise his allotted vocatio above God, he distorted Creation because he no longer recognised and acknowledged his role in the grander scheme, even if that role was filled with great purpose. The place the devil offers creatures, us, is an opposite, a false state without real deeply ingrained value and love. This relentless, restless opposition isn't constructive, not life-giving and not life-filling. Not only does this opposer not contribute to Creation, to purposeful life (a non-creator), (s)he also tries to actively distort it, misconstruct it, undo it (an un-creator).
Not that I believe the devil can actually undo Creation but that would be part of the false representation, that (s)he might.
To link the two, our definitions of Creation and the devil, together in Baptism: in Baptism we, creatures and beings, are buried and raised up with Christ, we become a new creation.
So, in a ritual celebrating Creation, we warn against, stand up to and renounce any anti-creational attempt. We oppose that which opposes life to the fullest, that which lets people be holy and wholly people, that which confuses us and lures us away from life and our vocatio in it.
Not that I don't see any value in using synonymous (chaos, evil, falseness...) to make our texts clearer and more varied. We need to explain, and there is after all a 'manual' to the service, it's called a sermon.
But if we choose to abolish any mention of the devil, with that very word, we loose in my opinion not only a connection with the wider Church in time and space where these words and phrases were and are being spoken, but it also under-emphasises a basically optimistic message and promise: that full and blessed life, new creation (daily regeneration, as the Small Catechism calls it), that valued place filled by God with purpose and love will always win no matter what the opposition or the opposer.
And that's why the devil is mentioned in the liturgy.
And that's why for me the devil is in the Sacrament.