Perhaps I should preface this by saying that I count among my friend lots of wonderful Anglicans, and other paedobaptists, whose faith and practice is inspiring, and that I really don't want to 'dis' them or cause offence.

This afternoon, in a private ceremony, Prince George is to be baptised.  Not christened, there is no such rite and it really annoys me that the Church of England colludes with the media in using the wrong term.  I hope (in a theologically proper, Christian kind of a way) that in due course he will come to faith, and that that faith will inspire his living.  And I do hope (in a more general human kind of a way) that he lives a healthy and fulfilled life. 

I have all sorts of issues with private ceremonies (baptism is by definition public*) and I'll avoid commenting on the relationship of church and state.  What really got my goat, though, was the sense that this would inspire other people to have their babies baptised (interesting subtle change of language methinks) which makes it sound like some sort of fashion statement, a thing to 'do' to keep up with the Joneses or the Patels or whoever.  I don't think that is what the Arch Bish will have intended, I am sure he means that he hopes more families will embark on a journey of faith that can begin with the presentation of their child(ren) for baptism.

So, will young Prince George be in creche next Sunday or Sunday School in a few years time?  Will the demanding promises made by the godparents chosen by his parents, or indeed those of anyone who is inspired to do 'likewise', be fulfilled?  And will the churches to which these children are brought play their part in supporting the parents as they endeavour to bring up their children?

Without getting into a paedo vs credo baptism debate, I do think our practice of infant blessing and dedication of parents has a lot to commend it.  It allows parents to have a ceremony in which they can celebrate new life, by birth or adoption.  It allows faith-appropriate promises to be made.  It requires the church to make promises about its on-going commitment to children and young people.  It centres on hope, properly understood, that the child (and parent(s) if appropriate) will one day come to name that faith for themselves.  Such features are not unique, and I am sure some of my infant baptising friends will assure me they do much the same.  It is also fair to say that our rite does not necessarily draw any more people in to church - it just feels less dishonest to me.

Will events today inspire a new generation to seek faith?  That would be brilliant!  Or will it result in a blip in the stats for middle class parishes in middle England... only time will tell.

Whatever my views, I pray that God will bless the royals today, in the same way that God blesses all people in such moments.

* Baptisms of still births and neonates by hopsital chaplains would obviously be a valid exception to my general rule on the public nature of the rite!