Question about United Church of Christ...

[vi5]

I know there are a few people on here familiar with them so I'm hopping someone can answer my question. Here's the scenario. I'm an atheist. So is my wife (although less vehemently so than I am). Both our families are catholic and my wife and I were raised catholic. My daughter was born shortly after 9/11 and I guess I was feeling fairly mellow and magnanimous on the subject so my wife and I relented and got our daughter Christened in the catholic church ceremony. We stood up there and did the whole routine. We were both very conflicted about it, but like I said we were in a more conciliatory, family frame of mind back then. However, I've regreted my decision ever since.

Well, we're expecting our second child in July. Our parents want us to get this one christened (or is it baptized? Whatever) but I am vehement at this point that I will not even go through the motions at the catholic church. No offense to any catholics on here or to my family but I've decided that I need to draw the line. The catholic church decided (most notably prior to the '04 election) which side of many issues that are important to me that they are on, and it is most definitely not mine. Especially under Pope Benedict. So no more quiet resignation or going through the motions a few times a year for the sake of the family.

So I'm thinking that a compromise would be to get the ceremony done in a church whose belief system is more palatable with mine, despite my atheism. So I guess my question is does UCC have something like that? I know a lot of non denominational christian churches don't have a lot of the same ceremonies and stuff, but I figured I'd ask the question before pursuing it.

[NNadir]

1. I don't know about UCC. I do know about ICC.

I have a family member in the ICC, which advertises itself as "non-denominational." It is not. It is a cult. It's caused a lot of family problems.

As an atheist, I faced the same sort of problem. I decided to have my first son baptised as an Episcopalian, which was the religion of my birth. They were quite nice, and are very liberal.

For my second son, I just managed to blow the whole thing off. No one said anything.

[vi5]

2. Maybe it's not UCC...

I'm talking about the ones that did the pro-gay commercials that the networks wouldn't air.

Either way, yeah Episcopal is another option. I'm hoping I can just blow it off and everyone will forget about it. But with 4 veeeeeeery catholic grandparents who are very involved in the kids lives, it's going to be hard.

[NNadir]

19. They're definitely different then.

I couldn't imagine my family member's group saying anything pro-gay.

[KitchenWitch]

30. The UCC were the ones who did the open and affirming to gays ads

My husband and I got married in a UCC church.

[LostinVA]

32. Yes, it was the UCC -- they are very liberal

[Rabrrrrrr]

35. First church to ordain a woman, an african, and a gay person

1848 (or so), can't remember the date for the African-American ordination (1850s?), and 1972.

[LostinVA]

47. They rock -- I go with a friend sometimes

[KitchenWitch]

39. Even though I am pagan

My husband is not, and I did not want to offend my fundie nutjob of a dad by having a "handfasting". We did have a private handfasting, and a public wedding in the UCC church.

[LostinVA]

45. I know someone who just had a legal handfasting

Performed by a Druid.

[uppityperson]

84. UCC is an open minded christian church, doing good things.

I was raised one and am still considered a member. They have crosses and Jesus stuff, but there are many of use who go along the "be as Jesus said" rather than worship the person line. They did the gay people are just people and we welcome them like we welcome all people ads. The ones I've been involved with are mostly good people, some more closed than others but overall good people. Contact them directly and find out if they'd work for you (directed to OP)

[underpants]

60. I am going to get our daughter Baptized and Christened in a temple

by an Imam you know just to cover all the bases

[RevCheesehead]

3. Why on earth would you want to do that??

Shame on any pastor who agrees to baptise your child, just to keep peace in the extended family.

Infant baptism is serious. It is, in effect, a promise made to God, on behalf of the child, to raise the child in the Christian faith - until that child can confirm that decision on his/her own.

Neither one of you believe in God - so why would you go through the hypocricy of making promises you have no intention of fulfilling?

I'd recommend looking into alternatives - perhaps some kind of "naming" ceremony, done in your own home. Seriously.

[vi5]

5. It's important to our families and they would bear the responsibility

I still would not participate, nor would my wife. But if our parents are adamant about getting the child baptized and I want to let them bring that part of their lives into our kids lives then it would be a compromise. They are Christians, they believe in Christ, and they are all liberals. They just believe in faith by inertia and are too unmotivated to find another church even though at this point they disagree with the catholic church. Maybe this would be the push they need.

I did it the first time and we didn't believe in it and our parents knew we didn't believe in it, and the priest knew we didn't believe in it. But Christians believe that baptizing a baby is important, so....

[Rabrrrrrr]

22. Not all Christians believe it is important.

Catholics sure do. And probably a majority of the pew sitting Christians feel its important, though they have no idea why, and so even if they never come to church they'll drag their baby in to get it "done" and get some nice pictures taken.

I believe it is important for Christians; but not ESSENTIAL for anyone. I posted below some more, but I don't believe baptism is the path to Heaven or a good life or anything else; baptism is a ritual entry into the church. But even hindus and Jews get into heaven, as far as I cam concerned, so baptising is NOT important in that sense.

[RevCheesehead]

28. You're exactly right.

Too many people think of baptism as some kind of magical act that gets someone into heaven. It doesn't. Nor is it necessary for salvation - at least, not in the "conventional" sense of the word.

The big Q came when people became worried about infant deaths. What if they died without baptism? Ultimately, it doesn't matter, because it is God's decision, God's GRACE that's at work. Any human effort, whether it be baptism, eucharist, good works, charitable acts, etc... won't earn anyone a spot. That comes through faith alone.

[Rabrrrrrr]

31. Ooh, and when people say "I was born a Christian" I cringe

Rabrrrrrr: "Why are you a Christian?"

Idiot: "Well, I was born a Christian."

Rabrrrrrr: "NO YOU WEREN'T!!!"



:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

[JVS]

36. What if their answer is "I was pre-destined to be a Christian"?

[Rabrrrrrr]

41. Well, I can't argue with that!

I might disagree, but I could certainly never argue it logically.

If they believe it, then it is so. :-)

[JVS]

33. Baptism is not a human work but is rather God's work upon us

From the small catechism:

"What does Baptism give or profit?--Answer.

It works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare.

Which are such words and promises of God? Answer.

Christ, our Lord, says in the last chapter of Mark: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

[vi5]

34. Whoa.....

"Any human effort, whether it be baptism, eucharist, good works, charitable acts, etc... won't earn anyone a spot. That comes through faith alone."

So if someone is a total jerk and does no good works, no charitable acts, or any of it, they can still get to heaven if they just have faith?

If that's the case then I'm glad I'm not going there. Doesn't sound like much company I'd like to keep.

[JVS]

37. Well that's the thing about forgiveness. It gives people better than...

they deserve.

But still the traditional answer is that faith would actually create some kind of works within the person.

[Rabrrrrrr]

40. Yes, it is through grace alone that we get to Heaven.

You say: "if someone is a total jerk and does no good works, no charitable acts, or any of it, they can still get to heaven if they just have faith?"

The answer is: YES.

Because otherwise, none of us would have a chance of getting there, including me, AND including you. If we had to earn heaven, we'd be screwed. We can't earn it, we get it by grace alone. No matter how much good we might do, we could have done more - where do you draw the line?

And I would have nothing to do with a God who dealt differently, or based it on human judgments of goodness.

[JVS]

43. Gratuitous bible quote Psalms 130:3

"If You, LORD, should mark iniquities,
O Lord, who could stand?"

[LostinVA]

48. I so disagree with you, but refuse to argue about this since I'm

no longer Christian.

That's one thing I loved about the Church while I was still in it -- the good works.

[Rabrrrrrr]

53. And I love the good works as well.

But they aren't the path to salvation, they are the response to salvation.

[JVS]

54. What are you, some kind of Lutheran?

:thumbsup:

[Rabrrrrrr]

57. Nope!

:P

[Left Is Write]

67. I'm one o'them there Lutherans.

"Saved by grace through faith."

I agree with those who said that salvation/Heaven cannot be earned.

[LostinVA]

62. Again, when I still had Christian beliefs, I would have

100% disagreed with you. I consider faith a very personal thing, so that's why I try not to argue about it. You are saying the only way to salvation is through grace... I can't agree with that. To me, to say that a quote "savage" unquote who never knows Christ or God, but lives a great life, is going to Hell actually negates the goodness of God.

I've studied huge amounts of theology, etc. in my life, so I'm not just pulling out of my Pagan mind!

[suzbaby]

71. Nevertheless...

One of the fundamentals of the Christian faith is that you cannot earn your way into heaven. Whether you agree with it or not (even when you were a Christian) it is one of the tent poles of the religion.

I also happen to agree with you. I cannot believe in a God that would damn us to hell for an eternity. I don't believe in hell. But I acknowlege that it's one of Christianity's beliefs (I was raised Lutheran), just as grace is and the inability to earn your way into heaven. Thus I don't think I would baptize my child into a religion where I did not believe in their teachings.

[Rabrrrrrr]

72. I never said that anyone, let alone a savage, was going to hell.

I said, in fact, the exact opposite - that everyone gets salvation by grace, regardless of their behaviors or "works". That's what grace is.

I will go so far as to say that a "savage" who never knows Christ or God, and lives a truly evil and sinful and hatefilled life, is still saved.

But I'm a universalist.

[RevCheesehead]

51. I didn't say that.

I said that NOTHING can earn anyone salvation. You can't buy it, or work for it. All you can do is accept it. Any good works would be a natural response to accepting God's grace of forgiveness, and command to love one another.

As to who gets into heaven - that's God's business. I leave that to her.

See, I understand the word "salvation" differently than many Christians do. It's not about the after-life... it's about saving your real, physical and spiritual life right here on earth, right now. In John's gospel, Jesus says "I came that you may have life, and have it abundantly." It was the Pharasees who piled rules and regulations on the people. Jesus called BS on that. He pointed out that Scripture wasn't to be interpreted rigidly, or place burdens on people. Instead, he opened up their minds to understanding the beauty contained in the words, and the promise of a full and abundant life.

I think Christians are far too preoccupied with what happens in the next world, and far too disinterested in what's going on in the real world.

[trogdor]

59. Faith is the beginning.

If you have faith, the good works will flow naturally, as evidence of one's faith. I find it hard to believe one could have the kind of faith God requires and still be a jerk.

[LostinVA]

63. Many evangelicals and Pentecostals don't "do" good works

But yet, they would say that THEY have the "right" faith.

This is why I left organized religion. There are many paths to "salvation," and many definitions of "salvation." It irritates me that people think THEY alone are right.

[IA_Seth]

49. Catholics

Even Catholics are beginning to stray from the thought of Limbo and that a child must be baptized, according to recent articles.

I believe the Pope himself has recently stated that it should no longer be a requirement, and that by God's grace a child would be saved.

[LostinVA]

64. Limbo hasn't been around for a while

[IA_Seth]

74. I don't think so.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20041007-0532-pope-limbo.html

(snip)

Pope John Paul showed on Thursday that he still muses about one of the more forgotten elements of Catholic theology commonly associated with medieval thinking.

He asked theologians to think about it harder and come up with "a more coherent and enlightened way" of describing the fate of such innocents.

According to Catholic teaching, baptism removes the original sin which has stained all souls since the fall from grace in the Garden of Eden.

(snip

--------------------------

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/local/content/shared/news/stories/LIMBO_1202_COX.html

The Catholic Church is considering abolishing Limbo, a sort of shadowy fourth state of the afterlife, where the souls of unbaptized and aborted infants go, to keep company with the righteous Hebrew prophets who lived before Jesus Christ was born, the authoritative Italian newspaper, Corriere della Sera, reports.

"In limbo," a phrase that has won universal understanding in English, and which is used by everyone from priests to politicians, may soon signify "nowhere." To be in limbo will be, strictly speaking, to be utterly nonexistent.

The International Theological Commission, an arm of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is about to issue a new catechism of Catholic doctrine that does away with Limbo, the Corriere reported this week. The catechism is likely to be approved by Pope Benedict XVI, formerly Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, because as cardinal, Ratzinger was the gatekeeper of Catholic doctrine under the late Pope John Paul II.

(snip)
---------------------------------------


so there.

[LostinVA]

79. All I know is when I taught CCD in the late 80's

The official stuff I had to teach the kids specifically said to NOT teach about limbo, because it wasn't consider doctrinally sound.

[IA_Seth]

80. Got ya.

Maybe this was still "on the books" but not supposed to be taught. I wouldn't know really, I am not Catholic.

But it was still official Catholic doctrine, per the Pope.

[tjwmason]

88. It was never official Catholic doctrine.

It was only ever widely held theological speculation.

If had been defined as Catholic doctrine it could not be dropped - it was just an attempt to answer the question of those who die with original sin, but not actual sin.

[tjwmason]

6. Strongly agree with you Rev'd.

As a practicing Christian (in both senses of the word practicing :D ), I'd be very happy to attend a saecular event to welcome a child into the world - but I'm very queasy about Baptising infants who are not in Christian families.

[vi5]

8. What's your definition of a Christian family?

We live 1 mile from my parents. My parents are devout Christians. Sp are my brother and sister in law. They all take my daughter to church on a more regular basis than most parents who consider themselves christians do with their kids. How is that not a "christian family". Talk about closed minded.

My daughter isn't an atheist. She's too young to be anything other than an open book on the subject and I believe in showing her all that is out there. She'll know and learn about what I believe and she'll know and learn about what her grandparents believe. She can then make her own decisions. I don't speak ill of my parents beliefs to her and they don't speak ill of my lack of beliefs to her.

[tjwmason]

12. I don't define others.

But clearly you state that you and your wife aren't Christian.

[vi5]

15. No, we're not.....

So does that mean that my parents don't have the option of sharing their faith with my daughter, or that my daughter shouldn't have the option of learning her grandparent's faith?

What if my wife and I weren't around and my parents were raising our kids?

[tjwmason]

18. They can certainly share their faith - that's not what I'm saying at all.

But Baptism involves you making solemn promises.

I don't know exactly what various liturgies call for, but the following is from the Church of England Baptism service (the C.ofE. is the same denomination as the Episcopalians) - these questions are directed to the parents (yourselves), and the Godparents:

In baptism, God calls us out of darkness into his marvellous light.
To follow Christ means dying to sin and rising to new life with him.
Therefore I ask:
Do you reject the devil and all rebellion against God?
I reject them.
Do you renounce the deceit and corruption of evil?
I renounce them.
Do you repent of the sins that separate us from God and neighbour?
I repent of them.
Do you turn to Christ as Saviour?
I turn to Christ.
Do you submit to Christ as Lord?
I submit to Christ.
Do you come to Christ, the way, the truth and the life?
I come to Christ.

I'm guessing that you could not give the answers specified honestly.

Then a little later there is a profession of Faith - made (again) by the parents and Godparents (unless the candidate is old enough to do so form themself):

Do you believe and trust in God the Father?
I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
Do you believe and trust in his Son Jesus Christ?
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.
Do you believe and trust in the Holy Spirit?
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.
Amen.

If your children decide to seek Baptism later in life because they have embraced Christianity - all well and good - that's a very different state of affairs.

[vi5]

20. Exactly. Which is why I regreted doing that with my daughter...

I didn't feel comfortable doing any of that and I did remain silent. Which is why I'm asking questions about what else is out there that might be a compromise. I would much prefer my daughter wait and choose later in life. Which is why I inquired about UCC, not about whether I should do it with the denominations I already know about.

I simply wanted to know if there are denominations out there which are Christian (which would suit what our parents are looking for), but which would not require these rigid oaths and proclamations on my part. Just a generalized Christian ceremony. Something more than just a "naming ceremony" or whatever was suggested above, but something less than a rigid oath of allegiance to any one interpretation like you laid out above.

Even though if we're getting technical I live life in a more "christian" manner than most of the actual christians I know of.

[NNadir]

23. Let me ask you this.

In my religious upbringing, which was for the record, Episcopalian, IIRC, we were taught that baptism gave children a sort of dispensation from sin that a child could hold until he or she came of an age of consent, which for Episcopalians was 12.

As an atheist, I don't believe in sin as a metaphysical concept - although I believe that ethical rules should inform our behavior and that the rule of law is essential to a just society - but I would expect that those who do believe in metaphysical sin would believe that the benefits accrued to the child and involved the parents in no way. Put another way, by baptizing the child, can't an argument be made that by so doing the "sins of the father (and mother)" are not being placed on the head of the child?

My wonderful stepmother, who is devoutly Catholic faced this with some of my stepbrother's and step sisters and she was greatly relieved when the children were baptized, for exactly these reasons. I know that in a few cases, the parents had no religious viewpoints whatsoever on the matter.

When I had my son baptised there was very little talk about my responsibility, although there was some talk about the responsibility of the god parents.

Please understand that I am no way denigrating your position. I am just curious. Assuming that one believes in metaphysical souls, whose soul is involved here, the souls of the parents or the soul of the child?

[vi5]

27. Thank you. You summed it up quite nicely...

That is the position I find myself in. My parents believe in this metaphysicality of my children's sould, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with me or my wife.

[RevCheesehead]

46. I don't believe that souls are in peril.

Quite frankly, I think the whole Augustinian view of "Original Sin" is hooey. I don't believe that people are born good or evil. I do believe that people are given free will, to make choices, and to live with the consequences of those choices.

Baptism is an initiation rite into the life of the congregation, as well as the Christian community. In baptising, you are symbolically marking him/her with the sign of the cross, claiming that this child belongs to all Christians, everywhere. Sponsors, Godparents, parents, family and friends, and the entire congregation make promises to raise the child to the point of where they accept the faith as their own. That's what confirmation/catechism is all about.

Remember, we're talking about infants, children, and others who are unable to answer for themselves (such as the profoundly mentally disabled). Adult baptism is far different. In that case, the person makes their statement of faith (be it Apostles' Creed, vows, or whatever), and they are baptized. In this case, nobody else has to make any promises on behalf of the person.

In many Baptist churches (I know...), they do a "christening" - which is a naming ceremony. I believe this was added because people felt the need for some ritual of initiation. But their faith is dependent upon a personal profession, making your own decision, and fully understanding what you are doing.

In biblical times, baptism was done as a symbolic act which signified a literal metanoia, a "turning around" (or a "180", if you prefer) from your former life, to a new life. The washing was done as a way for people to symbolically let go of their past, and start anew.

As the church grew, people naturally wanted to include their children in the religious symbolism. In the book of Acts, it is mentioned that entire households were baptised - not just the men, but the women, children, and even the servants (slaves).

But once the church became institutionalized (after Constantine), the rules and regulations became more set. During the Middle Ages, people were virtually left out of any kind of theological knowledge and understanding. The Mass was said in Latin (the language of the Church, and the Monastic Schools). People began to associate ritual action with magic.

During the eucharist, at the time when the Priest elevates the host to the congregation, the Latin words are hoc et pocus est - "this is my body". People heard the words, and the bells rang, and they knew something was happening.... but the words they thought they heard were Hocus Pocus.

It was during the Reformation that priests began to rebel against the practice of keeping the people in ignorance. That's why Luther demanded that the mass be done in the language of the people. That's why he used Guttenberg's printing press - to get the Bible into the hands of ALL people - not just paternalistic priests who said "you don't need to know - all you have to do is listen to me and follow the doctrine handed down to you."

American Christianity took things in a radically different direction. Rather than a magesterium, churches elevated the power of the individual to think for themselves... a rugged frontier individualism. That's why, in part, Baptists insisted on a "Believer's Baptism" - and if you happened to be baptized as an infant, you had to be re-baptized, because you didn't make that claim for yourself.

Geez - I could go on and on, but I won't. :)
I can look for some resources, if you're interested. But I think what I wrote above will give you a better understanding of current theological thought regarding the sacrament of Baptism.

[NNadir]

55. Then the short answer is that you don't believe in original sin.

I do, however, believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, that this question is debatable from the perspective of different Christian sects. You reject Augustine, but not everybody rejects Augustine.

I assume that with your kind words about the Reformation that you are not Catholic. I am not either, but my stepmother is and my father-in-law is. They believe in original sin. Therefore we can be sure that they might have a different view point than yours.

My mother, who has been dead for some thirty years, was a very religious woman, and though I disagreed with her on this point, and though I was unable to assuage her grief about my atheism as she lay dying, I found her religion to be one of the most beautiful things about her, because it was about faith and principle and integrity and love and living all those things. One of the last serious interactions with the world that I remember, was when, already partially paralyzed, her mind ebbing away, she received communion in her hospital room from our family priest. I participated in that little mini-service and to be honest, I wept. Though I did not believe a single bit about the substantiation of Christ, I don't think I was engaged in any kind of lie. I was telling my mother that I loved who she was.

When my son was being baptized my mother's sister - my aunt - then her 80's, came to the ceremony and wept because I was doing this. I know how my mother would have felt about it too. We have come full cycle.

I think the father here is engaged in a noble effort, to do unto others. This is clearly not something he is doing for himself. It is something he is doing for someone else. Surely that is worth something.

[RevCheesehead]

56. Not if he stands up in the church and lies.

There's nothing noble in that. It's hypocritical and insulting to the community. It's also the liturgical equivalent of perjury.

I suggested downthread that if baptism is that important, then perhaps the grandparents should be the ones who answer the vows. After all, they're the ones who intend on doing the teaching.

[NNadir]

68. Well, that's a fair solution, I guess.

The matter of family and religion is not an easy one. I've seen it destroy families in fact. I know that it has does tremendous damage in my wife's family and caused hurts that will never heal.

I don't say a word about religion in family settings any more, although certainly some of what I hear outrages me. I like to think I'm turning the other cheek.

I still think that his intentions here are quite noble, but then again, canon law has no force for me. I do believe that many churches contain a substantial portion of people who are lying about their intentions in being there and it all doesn't involve baptism.

I cannot speak for the father in question, but I'm sure his intention is not to insult anyone. But if, he unintentionally offends or insults, I hope that the church in question will be in the forgiveness business.

Returning to my own family, one of the names my mother gave me was Thomas. When I was growing up, she loved to tell the story of how Christ forgave Thomas for his insult.

[vi5]

70. Thank you for understanding...

And you are right in your assesement of my intentions.

However, clearly dogma and doctrine outweighs all else (including the most noble of intentionsand love for ones family) in most sects of Christianity. I knew this before, but based off of the results of this thread, it just solidified that belief for me.

The fact is at no point did I say that I was going to stand up and profess something I didn't believe in. In fact I stated pretty clearly that I did that once with my first child and would not do it again. But as I learned over the years with religion, and as this thread proved to me people see and hear only what fits their compartmentalized views on all things regarding that religion and can't possibly fathom less than black and white situations relating to it.

[rug]

85. If you have free will but cannot earn salvation

then you can only lose salvation.

[Book Lover]

76. This hard atheist supports the Rev's POV

As a former cradle-to-grave Roman Catholic, I strongly urge you to not do this. Even if you manage to convince someone to baptize your child, then the family will not stop - it'll be Communion, then Reconciliation, then Confirmation, not to mention ICC classes if you don't send him/her to Catholic school... Stop the madness now.

[kwassa]

4. Episcopal is a liberal alternative to Catholicism in many regards

and the liturgy is close to the Catholic liturgy, which will keep the grandparents happy.

I differ from Rev. Cheesehead, realizing that baptism, weddings, and funerals are the last connection that many have with churches, and you and your wife seem to be in that category. Your parents are concerned with the future of your child, and that includes baptism in their eyes, in their view of your child's immortal soul. Unless it really fries your belief system, I personally would go along with it.

I've sat through many a baptism for people who show up in church only for that, and it doesn't bother me at all. It is a cool ceremony.

[vi5]

7. Exactly....

I'm not against going along with it for my family who believe the ceremony and ritual are important and want to keep that connection with their grandkids. And if my kids choose to believe and belong I will support them. My parents do take my daughter to church so it's not as though she doesn't have it in her life. It's just not through me or my wife.

I just refuse to even pretend with the catholic church any more and will not set foot in a catholic church for any reason.

[kwassa]

9. You yourself might like the Episcopal Church

I think it answers many of the complaints you have about the political direction of the Catholic Church, and yet seem fairly familiar, more so than other Protestant denominations.

"All the pomp, and none of the guilt!"

Right now the Episcopals are standing up for their selection of the first openly gay bishop, something other Protestant denominations won't do for themselves.

[vi5]

10. Thanks...

I'm pretty set in my lack of beliefs, although among religions I do respect the Episcopal church. And I've no problem with my parents teaching my children about Christianity and taking them to church and having them go through the ceremonies that are important to them and if they want to call it that "raising them christian". Belief and faith doesn't need to be a continuous line through families nor should it be. Apparently based on the other rigid, narrow minded responses I got to this query, I guess not everyone feels that way.

[LostinVA]

14. Uniatrian, I'm telling you!

[RevCheesehead]

52. Here's an alternate solution for you...

Why don't you have the grandparents take the child to be baptized? Go along to assure them that they have your permission to do so. But when it comes time for the vows - let the grandparents answer.

You say you do not object to them teaching your child. Great... then let them make that promise.

I just have a problem with people going through the motions, who have absolutely no intention of doing what they solemnly promise they will do. In the courts they call that perjury. I call it lying.

[vi5]

66. Well, that's what I was talking about...

I thought I made that clear, but I guess not. I have no intention of participating beyond going along as support for my parents for whom this is an important rite/ritual/sacrament.

[Rabrrrrrr]

73. No, you didn't make it clear at at all in your OP

You clarified later, but your OP doesn't read that way. I think that's why people have had responded the way they did, including myself, at first.

[RevCheesehead]

78. If that's what you intended to say, then I apologize.

I read your OP as saying that your parents wanted YOU to get your daughter baptized... meaning that YOU would be saying the vows. That's how baptisms are usually handled. Godparents are adult Christian sponsors who agree to help guide the child with faith issues.

If you can find someone who is willing to let your parents be the presenters, there should be no problem. However, you will need to let the clergyperson know your intentions. Be very clear that YOU aren't going to promise anything, other than to step back and let your parents guide your daughter. In fact, a creative pastor should be able to add something to the liturgy that asks you, as parents, if you are willing to support your family in their efforts to teach your daughter about the faith.

I don't know what area you live in, but if you're in the northern regions, you could probably find a United Methodist pastor who would be willing to work with you on finding a solution.

Best wishes to you, and thank you for being open-minded about the whole subject. People like you are rare, and I heartily applaud your efforts.

[Gormy Cuss]

11. Please don't baptize the child in a faith where you have no connection.

At some point you'll need to explain this to your child. If you feel it's that important to the grandparents, what is the harm in letting them sponsor this child in the Catholic faith? You already have one little certified Roman Catholic and you said the grandparents bring her to church. They are the ones who made the commitment to raise her in the faith.

Later on when your daughter notices that this is a grandparent thing but not a parent thing, explaining that she was baptized because it was important to her grandparents seems easier to justify than trying to explain to the second child that you picked a faith for the day rather than saying no or going along with a second Catholic baptism. Just my opinion.

[vi5]

16. Fair enough points...

Although this thread and it's responses are going a long way towards reminding me why I'm an atheist, that's for sure.

[LostinVA]

65. Hahaha! And me why I could no longer believe in Christianity

[LostinVA]

13. Unitarians -- UCC is still Christian, although they are sooo liberal

[SaveElmer]

17. Unitarian Universalist...

Many Atheists are members...and they would probably be happy to peform an appropriate ceremony for you. I did attend a UCC service once, and though they are Christian, are very open minded...you might find a welcome reception there as well!!!

[Rabrrrrrr]

21. Let me ask you this - if you are an atheist, why even bother?

To be baptized is to enter in church membership, to make vows of being a Christian, and to make a vow that you will be part of the community of believers.

Baptizing is not something that one has "done" to a baby, to get them into heaven or even into purgatory; baptizing is not essential for entry into heaven.

Though as an atheist, I would think that you wouldn't care about that, anyway.

I am a lifelong UCC member, by the way.

If you are truly interested in joining a Christian community, and raising your children as Christians, then that's great, and the UCC is often a great place for people with open minds and lots of questions who don't want doctrine or dogma, but a chance to encounter the divine in their own way with the help of a fellowship community. That's what I love about the UCC, and we are a large tent with everything from the Biblical Witness Fellowship (a soncervative subgroup that takes the Bible literally and as inerrant) all the way to the barely Christian people; and we have a large number of gay and lesbian clergy, and also a fair amount of members who think that's wrong. It's an exciting church!

But I say to anyone who isn't interested in being part of a church, there is no sense in being baptized or having a child baptized, because it's not a magic thing, it's a faith thing.

[vi5]

25. It is a faith thing for my parents...

I don't quite get why all the christians on this thread have such an issue with this.

My parents are Christians. I am an atheist. My parents believe strongly in the sacrament of baptism as a tenet of their Christian faith and want that for their grandchildren.

I won't allow them to perform that sacrament in the catholic church because I feel that the Catholic church has either abandoned or chosen to selectively utilize the tenets of Christianity that my parents embody. However, I would allow them to perform it in a church which I felt had aa broader sense of Christian ideals as I know them (even as an atheist). From what I know of the UCC (especially based off of your description of your church) it seems like an open minded and open armed christian church.

I don't plan on standing up there and vowing anything that I don't believe in. But if my parents as Christians choose to, and choose to vow before god that they will teach and raise my daughter in that fashion then where exactly is the problem?

The fact is that a child can't vow or proclaim themselves a part of anything. The adults in their lives do that for them at that age. If they have someone who is a close and regular part of their lives willing to do that who happens to not be their parents, then why is that an issue? A set of parents could stand up there and vow everything in the world and they may even mean it. But then as soon as they get home never attend church and show their kids a whole host of un-christian behavior. Yet according to the responses on here that would seem to be preferable to a set of grandparents choosing to partake in something which they truly believe in and which they will truly teach to their grandchild.

I'm totally flummoxed by this.

[Rabrrrrrr]

61. I think the reaction against the idea is because

your OP reads as though you are taking something that is meaningful and important to a lot of people, and would be turning into a mechanical "something to get done" in order to appease your parents and create family harmony, and would not be taking it seriously as a religious rite - or in the words of RevCheesehead, you would be committing liturgical perjury. I don't think you were clear in the OP that you wouldn't be taking any vows, though you have clarified that later, and I think people's initial reaction was to the original unclarity in communicating your intent to this discussion.

But, since you say that you would not be saying the words, then I don't have a problem. Other than my own solution of waiting for your daughter to decide on her own behalf, I also like RevCheesehead's idea that you and your wife remain in the pews while your parents take the vows with your daughter.

If I were a minister, I would ask you to sit in the pews - or, might even have you come up and join the group and have you two take vows of permitting your child to be raised as a Christian by her grandparents and offering your support and love in that teaching/guidance, and then perform the baptism with the Christians taking the baptismal vows. That way you are all involved, all part of it, and everyone stays honest to their beliefs.

In fact, now that I think about it, i think I'm a fricking genius for coming up with that.

And I would think you would stand a good bet of finding a UCC minister that would do that (though I don't know of many ministers who will baptise people who aren't members of their own church); hard to say if a catholic Priest would do it.

[RevCheesehead]

75. Hell, I'd be willing to do that!

And you're right, Rabrrrrrr - you ARE a fricking genius. :)

[Rabrrrrrr]

24. I've now read the whole thread - I say, let the girls decide.

What I'm hearing is that you and your wife are both atheists, but the rest of your family is Christian - specifically Catholic, though perhaps nominally so, and that they would probably be willing to go elsewhere. You have an open mind, and so are allowing your daughters to attend church with your parents, and learn about the faith that they practice (I think that's great, by the way).

So I suggest this: since you are willing to let the girls learn and choose what they want in life, whether to be Christian, atheist, or perhaps even something else, then DO NOT baptize your daughter. Let her decide later in life if she wants to be baptized. There is no essential reason for baptizing a baby (even though the Catholic Church will say otherwise).

I say, especially you have such an open mind are willing to let your daughters explore, give them that freedom to explore and then, if some day they wish to be baptized, they can choose that themselves.

The Baptists and some other traditions, in fact, refuse to baptise babies and children. They believe ONLY in "Believer's Baptism", usually requiring an age of maybe 12 or so, sometimes older, to make the conscious decision to live as a Christian and join the church.

Personally, I think that's the only ethical way to approach baptsm, but I'm certainly in the minority in that belief. :-)

But I say, let the girls choose.

[vi5]

26. And ultimately that is what I say...

..but as I mentioned, all 4 grandparents feel otherwise. They respect my opinions on the church, but for whatever reason they feel that a ceremony aknowledging that my children come from a heritage of Christianity and welcoming them into that heritage is important.

I fully believe in letting kids decide when they are old enough. So my options are either give in fully and let them do it in the catholic church, stand my ground hardcore and upset my parents who despite our theological differences are very devout and sincere in their beliefs, or what I'm trying to do here which is pursue some sort of compromise.

[LostinVA]

38. Unitarian....

[no name no slogan]

42. Godless heathens. Get thee to a snakehandling church

[LostinVA]

44. hehehehhehe... my BIL's hillbilly (literally) Dad runs one of those

[Gormy Cuss]

50. Would it be a good compromise?

If the reason is to appease the grandparents, will they be appeased by a ceremony in a different faith knowing that you and your wife do not hold to the tenets of that faith? Most devout Roman Catholics that I know would have a hard time with that (although not quite as hard a time as they would have with accepting that the grandchildren aren't part of any Christian faith.) Please consider that some of the more direct posters here are speaking as theists. Would the devout grandparents be any less upset?

You know that your children will reach their own conclusions. They aren't required to stay in the Roman Catholic faith any more than you were. They will be raised by two solid atheists and cherished by four Roman Catholics. They'll have more tools than most to form their own views on theology.

[JVS]

29. Why not do it yourself?

Most Churches (except IIRC the Eastern Orthodox and numerous baptist and pentecostal fundamentalist churches) accept any baptism that is done in the trinitarian format. So really all you have to do is pour water on the forhead or dunk and say the words. "<insert child's name here>, I baptise you in the name of the Father <pour>, and of the Son <pour>, and of the Holy Spirit <pour>" Since the Catholic Church considers that adequate for lay people to administer to infants born nearly dead, you should be able to satisfy both your family and your desire for independence.

[hedgehog]

58. Baptism is about joining a community, so

if the four grandparents are going to be around, and if there is a fair certainty that your daughters will be raised in the community, it would be proper to get them Baptized. But if it's a matter of sprinkling some water on their heads for a photo-op (to put it in the most blunt terms), don't do it. Unless you are willing to honor the commitment to have your children raised in the community, it is outrageously disrespectful regardless of your feelings about the Church. You would never insult Buddhist or Moslem beliefs that way, so why would you insult Christian beliefs? As to letting your daughters make their own choices when the time comes, LOL, how do you plan to stop them?

[vi5]

69. The 4 grandparents are around....

They will make my daughter part of that community. It's not for a photo op it's because they really do believe in Christianity and in the importance of baptism. I'm not insulting anyone's beliefs. If anything I think I'm respecting my parents beliefs by letting them do this in the first place.

[u4ic]

77. I would recommend Unitarian, too

Perhaps everyone involved and the minister could come up with a compromise that would suit everyone; develop and write your own service for the baby.

If your parents wouldn't go for that, then I have no answers. I'm pretty vehement about not stepping into a Catholic church except for a special occasion (ie someone else's wedding, or a funeral); then again, I don't have your concerns. :hi:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

81. I don't think Unitarians baptize

Regular Christians, everyone from Catholics to fundamentalists, baptize "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit," while Unitarians don't believe in the Trinity.

Catholics and mainstream Protestants accept baptisms done by other denominations in the name of the Trinity. (Baptists and Pentecostals and the varieties thereof accept only baptism by immersion of someone who is old enough to make a decision.)

From the point of view of the grandparents, a Unitarian ceremony would not constitute a baptism.

However, I like the idea of having the grandparents present your daughter for baptism if they indeed intend to give her a religious education.

[JVS]

82. Some christian churches don't do trinitarian baptism..

Instead they only baptise in the name of the Holy Spirit.

[u4ic]

87. I should have been more clear

I meant trying to see if a compromise could be made for some type of ceremony, but not a baptism per se. :hi:

[Nikia]

83. I was baptized UCC. 3 of my cousins were sponsored by my grandmother

1.As far as I know, UCC is still baptizing infants.
2. Three of my cousins, from the same uncle, were baptized in the Methodist Church. Their parents attended but my grandmother sponsored them in her church. The oldest one was considered old enough to answer for herself, while my grandmother answered for the other two. I don't know if all churches allow for this, but usually children are baptized in the sponsors church.
3. If your parents are the sponsors and Catholic, they probably would be appalled at the thought of participating in a non Catholic baptism. Even if they were cooperative, churches usually don't baptize infants whose sponsors are not connected with the church. Your parents might also face some kind of sanctions by their church for participating (The Catholic Church still officially believes that it is the Church) even if you took care of those other two problems.
4. If your children are going to be taken to Catholic Church regularly, it might be advantageous for them to be baptized Catholic if they decide to adopt that religion. If your expected child is free to decide for herself, you might want to let her decide if or when she will be baptized. I think that most Christian Churches do baptize teens and adults and sometimes older preteens who choose to present themselves for baptism.

[revkat]

86. Dedication option

As a pastor I "dedicated" infants rather than baptizing them (the big difference is no water, the questions are similar) with the understanding that dedication means the family wants the child to grow to know God and the child can decide to make the commitment of baptism when they are older. For several families the grandparents were the ones involved in the church and they answered the questions. They also intended to (and did) bring the child to church with them frequently so the child would know the community.

But since neither you nor the grandparents are involved in a congregation you feel comfortable having the child associated with you would need to find a pretty flexible clergyperson. I don't know what I'd decide if you called me, but I certainly would have been willing to talk with you about it.