Today I'm angry about.....

[Hoboh]

Hoboh, i just think that a dedication service (where you thank God for the child but don't baptise it - leaving him/her to make up his/her own mind whether they want to be baptised when older) is a waaaaay better option then christening (where parents profess belief in God for a child that can't say otherwise even when they don't have that belief themself) whether that be for christians or non-christians.

Dedications are far more appropriate for non christians then christening is if they want to be 'done' in a church as you are not pushing beliefs you don't have onto a child but letting the kid make its own mind up later about whether it wants to show belief in God. Though quite why, if the parents have no belief in God they should want to make such promises which include god for their children i don't quite understand. As Bish says, hypocritical, but i see your point about welcoming them all into the church. Its a tricky one and it must be pretty soul destroying for ministers to do dedications/christenings knowing full well the parents don't mean a word they say and are just doing it for the tradition of it, the photos and the piss up afterwards.

Most modern, 'with it' churches push dedications these days rather then christenings anyway.

Pass us the net please

[Gooner Girl]

Hoboh, i just think that a dedication service (where you thank God for the child but don't baptise it - leaving him/her to make up his/her own mind whether they want to be baptised when older) is a waaaaay better option then christening (where parents profess belief in God for a child that can't say otherwise even when they don't have that belief themself) whether that be for christians or non-christians.

Dedications are far more appropriate for non christians then christening is if they want to be 'done' in a church as you are not pushing beliefs you don't have onto a child but letting the kid make its own mind up later about whether it wants to show belief in God. Though quite why, if the parents have no belief in God they should want to make such promises which include god for their children i don't quite understand. As Bish says, hypocritical, but i see your point about welcoming them all into the church. Its a tricky one and it must be pretty soul destroying for ministers to do dedications/christenings knowing full well the parents don't mean a word they say and are just doing it for the tradition of it, the photos and the piss up afterwards.

Most modern, 'with it' churches push dedications these days rather then christenings anyway.

Pass us the net please

As i said, i always get on my high horse over this issue. It winds me up big time. Not quite sure why!

Now, be nice and stop teasing!

[thebish]

Hoboh, i just think that a dedication service (where you thank God for the child but don't baptise it - leaving him/her to make up his/her own mind whether they want to be baptised when older) is a waaaaay better option then christening (where parents profess belief in God for a child that can't say otherwise even when they don't have that belief themself) whether that be for christians or non-christians.

Dedications are far more appropriate for non christians then christening is if they want to be 'done' in a church as you are not pushing beliefs you don't have onto a child but letting the kid make its own mind up later about whether it wants to show belief in God. Though quite why, if the parents have no belief in God they should want to make such promises which include god for their children i don't quite understand. As Bish says, hypocritical, but i see your point about welcoming them all into the church. Its a tricky one and it must be pretty soul destroying for ministers to do dedications/christenings knowing full well the parents don't mean a word they say and are just doing it for the tradition of it, the photos and the piss up afterwards.

Most modern, 'with it' churches push dedications these days rather then christenings anyway.

this is the angry thread - so you are allowed to be angry.... but - all this is (in my opinion) preposterously judgemental and simply (I imagine) a function of your own lack of understanding of something your particular church doesn't happen to do.

and... have you got any statistics for your "most modern and with it" (whatever that means) churches and their attitudes to baptism?

[Prufrock]

Fook that. Ban Christenings. And Church schools. A 3 month old baby, or a six year old kid, is no more a christian, or a muslim, or a scientologist, than I am a piano-themed wedding gift.

[William the White]

I have two American friends that i met in Sudan, who were then both atheist (he still is, she is Unitarian - it seems you barely need to believe in god for this, from our conversations, perhaps the bish could set me right on this). But both came from really committed Protestant backgrounds. Their first child was born in Khartoum and her mum (Episcopalian - ie Anglican) came over to see her first grandchild, absolutely thrilled.

And was devastated to find there was no christening planned (in those days Christian churches still existed in Khartoum - bet there aren't any now, under the current 'Islamic' sweeties). So, one day, she took the new baby out for a walk to give the parents a 'rest'. And took him to the river and baptised him in the Nile that, as she put it, had 'once held Moses...'

Despite this he grew up bright, witty and good company - at least, once he got skateboarding out of his system...

Don't know the relevance of this to this thread - possibly don't trust grandmothers an inch, bitches need a good slappin...

[General Mannerheim]

why would a non christian have a dedication where they thank a god they dont believe in for their child?

its all bullshit this dedications and naming ceremonies palaver, its a Christening or nowt.

we didnt have one ourselves, it was a dilemma im still not sure about - keeps going round in my head. on one hand as a non believer i dont like the hypocrisy, and i always hate other peoples christenings - but then on the other, its a nice day out for grandfolks, knees up for your mates and a load of pressies for the nipper.

at the end of the day i couldnt really give a shite either way so i just left it up to her mother. said if she wanted one i would turn up, she has never bothered and the moment has probably passed now.

[Gooner Girl]

this is the angry thread - so you are allowed to be angry.... but - all this is (in my opinion) preposterously judgemental and simply (I imagine) a function of your own lack of understanding of something your particular church doesn't happen to do.

and... have you got any statistics for your "most modern and with it" (whatever that means) churches and their attitudes to baptism?

No, I have no stats, I am speaking from my own experience.

I understand the issue perfectly well, I have read about it and formed my own, educated opinion on it. People are allowed to think differently from you Phil. It's not a crime.

[Gooner Girl]

General, I quite agree that if you don't believe in god having a dedication to thank him for your child is hypocritical but if you don't believe in god then surely a christening is hypocritical too?! You still have to make promises to bring your child up in a Christian environment which you presumably wouldn't do, PLUS you are having him baptised! Surely if anything, that's worse?! At least with a dedication you are letting them make the decision on whether they want to be baptised when they are older and believe and understand for themselves. you can have the knees up after and all the presents and your mates round whichever you have! I'm bemused as to why you think thanking god for your child is somehow worse then deciding for your child they should be baptised. Willing to bet you wouldn't want anyone making that decision on your behalf.

[William the White]

General, I quite agree that if you don't believe in god having a dedication to thank him for your child is hypocritical but if you don't believe in god then surely a christening is hypocritical too?! You still have to make promises to bring your child up in a Christian environment which you presumably wouldn't do, PLUS you are having him baptised! Surely if anything, that's worse?! At least with a dedication you are letting them make the decision on whether they want to be baptised when they are older and believe and understand for themselves. you can have the knees up after and all the presents and your mates round whichever you have! I'm bemused as to why you think thanking god for your child is somehow worse then deciding for your child they should be baptised. Willing to bet you wouldn't want anyone making that decision on your behalf.

So, do i gather your church doesn't do 'christenings'?

I'm curious - which is it?

Oh - I think the general is (wrongly) sceptical about ceremonies that aren't conventional, that's all... We had this argument a good while ago... Having a ceremony? do it in church! that's the place ceremonies should be held, they were built for that. All the rest is just airy-fairy garbage. For the general the ceremony is important, not the belief. A good many churches, I suspect, have a number in their congregation motivated by the same view.

[Dujon]

I'm a member of the Church of True Agnostics. I was bred into a family of Methodists. My father was a lay preacher within that sect and did his tours in a professional and entertaining manner. For myself it was church twice on Sundays, Sunday school as a sprog and, later in life, a few years singing in the church choir.

By the time I'd married and sired my first child (I hope) I had switched allegiance to my present confused belief. Then came the decision as to christening. My wife is not overtly religious and, apart from our marriage and a few funerals, haven't attended a church since we pronounced those fateful words 'I do'. As a brave constituent of CoTA I left the decision of christening to my dearly beloved. She opted for the full kit and caboodle at our local Anglican church. Whilst I have never discussed her decision with the good woman, I believe she made that choice because 'it was expected'. I also suspect that should I have imposed my agnosticism on the proceedings I would have thus have annoyed my own parents and those of my in-laws. So I didn't and allowed myself to be dragged along to a couple of meetings with the local vicar in order to be assessed as a parent. Fortunately he was an understanding chap and overlooked my sin of being brought up a Methodist and having abandoned ship with the other rats.

So, both my children have been christened and, presumably, been shown the light of righteousness in the eyes of The Lord. Was I angry about that? Hardly. Should I have been? Perhaps. Maybe now CoTA should now stand for Cowards of Terra Australis, for it appears that I am also a member of that elite group. Tradition dies hard I find. They are not things that many people believe in, just things that they think are the 'right thing to do'. Hypocrisy, GG? Probably, ma'am. The christening of a child does not change the name of that person as chosen by its parents and, if it makes family and friends happy, why not?

I love happy families.

[Gooner Girl]

William, I go to a plant of a baptist church that meets in a school hall and is probably a bit more modern and informal in it's style of worship then the church Bish runs, hence our difference in opinions over things like this. It's not a hymns, dog collars and organ type of church as most non Christians seem to think all churches are.

I agree that it's nice to have ceremonies in posh churches and I don't have so much of a problem with non Christians getting married in church (though I still think it's a bit weird they would want to) but can see its a good way to get non Christians involved in church and talk about their beliefs, but christenings (aside from whether infant baptism is actually biblical which I don't think it is) just do seem even more hypocritical when everyone, including the minister, knows the parents are lying through their teeth about bringing the children up in a Christian environment...

[thebish]

this is the angry thread - so you are allowed to be angry.... but - all this is (in my opinion) preposterously judgemental and simply (I imagine) a function of your own lack of understanding of something your particular church doesn't happen to do.

and... have you got any statistics for your "most modern and with it" (whatever that means) churches and their attitudes to baptism?

No, I have no stats, I am speaking from my own experience.

and - this experience - how widespread would it be?

and - it isn't me but you who is condemning the practice of other churches - I haven't told you that your particular church is doing anything wrong at all... so I'm at a loss to know where the "people are allowed to believe different things from you" thing comes from. can you explain?

[thebish]

William, I go to a plant of a baptist church that meets in a school hall and is probably a bit more modern and informal in it's style of worship then the church Bish runs, hence our difference in opinions over things like this.

so - having never in your life been to any of my churches - you use this as some kind of reason for a difference of opinion? you've lost me...

[Lord Kangana]

This is how wars start.

[Gooner Girl]

Nope bish, am not gonna rise, I know you love an argument but poor Tango is probably around for that

[thebish]

Nope bish, am not gonna rise, I know you love an argument but poor Tango is probably around for that

that's very grown-up of you (until you look back and see who it was who started throwing about accusations in the first place...)

[Gooner Girl]

Nope bish, am not gonna rise, I know you love an argument but poor Tango is probably around for that

that's very grown-up of you (until you look back and see who it was who started throwing about accusations in the first place...)

I believe that was you accusing LL

[thebish]

Nope bish, am not gonna rise, I know you love an argument but poor Tango is probably around for that

that's very grown-up of you (until you look back and see who it was who started throwing about accusations in the first place...)

I believe that was you accusing LL

I didn't mention LL at all - again, it is only you who has done that.

I wouldn't condemn or criticise your church's approach to baptism - and never have. You are the the one who is condemning what other churches do.

your anger seems to be about summat different to mine - and i'm really not sure what it is you are angry about.

I was angry about people who call the church a diabolical organisation and then make a big fuss about baptising their child into it.

i can't help but think it is like saying ManU are the the very scumspawn of Satan and then buying your daughter a season ticket. why would you link your child to something you have declared to be diabolical? Those who actively declare the church to be diabolical do (to me) appear to be engaging in massively bizarre behaviour. I have three kids (incidentally, none of whom were baptised as infants) - and I doubt I would have got them involved with anything I believed to be diabolical.

personally i have no problem at all with anyone who has a vague faith or no-faith coming forward for baptism or dedication for their children. It isn't me making the promises and they are making the promises for themselves (not on behalf of their children) - that's their choice - who am I to stand in the way of people who wish to make promises about their own lives?

you - of course - are entirely within your rights to prejudge them - and to be angry about churches and parents making that happen - enjoy your righteous anger.

[Lofthouse Lower]

Hypocritical wankpots who describe the Church as a diabolical organisation and then proceed to have their child christened.

i can guess to whom this is referring to!

here fishy fishy fishy!!!

[Gooner Girl]

Nope bish, am not gonna rise, I know you love an argument but poor Tango is probably around for that

that's very grown-up of you (until you look back and see who it was who started throwing about accusations in the first place...)

I believe that was you accusing LL

I didn't mention LL at all - again, it is only you who has done that.

I wouldn't condemn or criticise your church's approach to baptism - and never have. You are the the one who is condemning what other churches do.

your anger seems to be about summat different to mine - and i'm really not sure what it is you are angry about.

I was angry about people who call the church a diabolical organisation and then make a big fuss about baptising their child into it.

i can't help but think it is like saying ManU are the the very scumspawn of Satan and then buying your daughter a season ticket. why would you link your child to something you have declared to be diabolical? Those who actively declare the church to be diabolical do (to me) appear to be engaging in massively bizarre behaviour. I have three kids (incidentally, none of whom were baptised as infants) - and I doubt I would have got them involved with anything I believed to be diabolical.

personally i have no problem at all with anyone who has a vague faith or no-faith coming forward for baptism or dedication for their children. It isn't me making the promises and they are making the promises for themselves (not on behalf of their children) - that's their choice - who am I to stand in the way of people who wish to make promises about their own lives?

you - of course - are entirely within your rights to prejudge them - and to be angry about churches and parents making that happen - enjoy your righteous anger.

I think i was agreeing with you about the hypocrisy of people who call the church all kinds of things and then get their child 'baptised' but then you are saying that you are happy to baptise children who's parents think that and who you know are making promises they don't mean. Fair enough, i agree that its good to welcome non christians into the church for different events but i also think you must feel frustrated when you know people aren't actually meaning anything they are promising but just doing it for the sake of occasion - so its a bit rich for you to be angry about people being hypocritical when you are facilitaing that very thing you think is hypocritical, to happen.

The other issue is about whether christenings are actually biblical or not and i don't believe they are but i think its best to not pull at that string