Thread: Godparents etc Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027038
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
A rant. Isnt it time that we abolished Godparents altogether? Together with indiscriminate baptismal services.
What provoked this outburst was the report that Simon Cowell has asked an ex flame ( even the "ex" is debateable) to be godmother to the child of a woman whom he may or may not marry.
And during the baptism service parents and godparents are supposed to be making promises in relation to the Christian Faith and upbringing of the child without necessarily having the slightest idea of what being a Christian involves both in terms of belief and behaviour.
Its about time this sham was ended. A wee bit of honesty on the part of the Church and the Parties involved is required.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
My view is that if it is clear that neither the parents nor the godparents have any intention of keeping the promises then baptism should be denied. Where it is unclear, the benefit of the doubt should be given.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
I think baptism should be freely available to those who ask for it for their infants. However this shouldn't prevent the church imposing certain conditions on the persons involved, including that one god-parent should be a fully communicant member of a church that is recognised by the church whose minister has been requested to perform the baptism.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
I had to google Simon Cowell, which just goes to show how little I know of popular culture. As far as godparents go, they can be quite helpful to children-- I very much appreciated my own godmother's support over the years. I see no harm in the church requiring that at least one of the godparents (if not all) be communicant members and am a bit surprised to learn that this might not be the case (another example of my removal from popular culture). After all, I think that it is someplace written that the abuse of a practice does not negate the use of it.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
In my denom. (PCUSA) parents are free to informally choose godparents, but they have little or no role in the baptismal service, because the vows usually undertaken by godparents are taken by the congregation as a whole-- to support and care for this child and to see to his/her instruction and nurture in the faith. While in practice it may be as variable as godparents are, I like that. When parents did choose godparents, I would usually ask the godparents to stand by the parents in the service, and would introduce them to the congregation. I would explain to them (congregation & godparents) that we are ALL taking these vows, committing to THIS child in particular, and that the godparents were simply the "front line" in that commitment. It takes a village-- or a church.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I have some sympathy and have clergy friends who operate a 'baptism policy' which leaves parishioners feeling rejected.
On the other hand, I had misgivings that I was 'not up to the job' as a godfather, despite being a daily communicant.
I am glad that I was baptised as a teenager, though church law still required me to have godparents.
But I also know of people who have come to faith as a result of good pastoral work done with parents and godparents.
Less people present for infant baptism now so there should be more pastoral time to deal with them, especially if there is a team of laypeople to assist the priest in preparation.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
A rant. Isnt it time that we abolished Godparents altogether? Together with indiscriminate baptismal services.
What provoked this outburst was the report that Simon Cowell has asked an ex flame ( even the "ex" is debateable) to be godmother to the child of a woman whom he may or may not marry.
And during the baptism service parents and godparents are supposed to be making promises in relation to the Christian Faith and upbringing of the child without necessarily having the slightest idea of what being a Christian involves both in terms of belief and behaviour.
Its about time this sham was ended. A wee bit of honesty on the part of the Church and the Parties involved is required.
My understanding is that Simon Cowell's ex, Sinitta, is actually a Christian, so perhaps he chose her for this reason. As for Cowell, we don't know him as a man who has any time for religion at all; but looks can be deceiving. And remember that Solomon, born from King David's adultery, was loved by his father and blessed by God.
However, both Cowell and his current girlfriend, Lauren, are apparently from Jewish families, which is the main reason why having their baby baptised would be odd. Googling reveals that the couple are considering having a Jewish wedding, and that Cowell is even thinking of converting. I don't know how a baptism would fit in with all of that!
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
I'm all for pre-baptism talks to parents and God-parents, but I don't think that anyone should be vetted to the extent of making a judgement on the validity of their Christianity.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
On the other hand, certain minimal requirements are sensible, e.g. a godparent ought to be a baptized and identifying Christian before agreeing to a support role specifically designed to help the child become both those things.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Weirdly perhaps, but the activity of baptism of a child might have led a parent or two and a god parent or two to something resembling faith that might be remotely acceptable to some of you?
Posted by Rowen (# 1194) on
:
And then there was that time my suitability to be a godparent was called into question...
Could a Uniting Churcch of Australia clergy woman be a godparent in an Anglican Church? The parents thought so, but it took a while to convince the priest.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I had to google Simon Cowell, which just goes to show how little I know of popular culture. ...
There's no need to beat yourself up. Why should you have heard of him? Why should anyone outside the UK have heard of him? There are doubtless plenty of people on Canadian television that are household names in Canada but are completely unknown over here.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Weirdly perhaps, but the activity of baptism of a child might have led a parent or two and a god parent or two to something resembling faith that might be remotely acceptable to some of you?
If you think I'm going to argue with anything, however unlikely, that leads somebody to faith in Christ, you got another think coming. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I'd go for liturgical lap dancing if that could make it happen.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I'm puzzled over this one. Why is Sinitta a bad choice for godparent? Because she's Cowell's ex? That seems a bit uncharitable, doesn't it? Maybe she's the only Christian that he knows!
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
I must admit to some misgivings about godparents after asking my new brother in law to be godfather to my baby. He readily agreed, but it wasn't until his own children were born that I discovered he was a fervent non believer and point blank refused to have his own children baptised. It was my mistake to invite him, but I had no idea of his views(I should have asked). I feel he should have declined the invitation - more fool me! I think people often choose family members or good friends to be god parents without fully knowing about the person's faith. Maybe the minister should question the godparents to see if they are able to sincerely make the promises.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
I remember reading that Sinitta (Cowell's ex) terminated a pregnancy she had with him in the 1980s and it was a source of major regret. So I think it's actually very kind to ask her to be the godmother.
She also describes herself as a born-again Christian:
Telegraph
So this may be a good thing for the child and even the parents.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
posted by seekingsister quote:
I remember reading that Sinitta (Cowell's ex) terminated a pregnancy she had with him in the 1980s and it was a source of major regret. So I think it's actually very kind to ask her to be the godmother.
She also describes herself as a born-again Christian
Why do you think it kind?
Is it the fact that she's an ex-girlfriend or that she had a termination?
My guess is that she has remained a friend and that, if considered at all, her belief is a bonus.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by seekingsister quote:
I remember reading that Sinitta (Cowell's ex) terminated a pregnancy she had with him in the 1980s and it was a source of major regret. So I think it's actually very kind to ask her to be the godmother.
She also describes herself as a born-again Christian
Why do you think it kind?
Is it the fact that she's an ex-girlfriend or that she had a termination?
Finding out that an ex is expecting a child after years of saying he'd never have one has got to be a shock, especially given the termination that she had. Being asked not only to participate in the child's life but to introduce the child to her faith, I think is a very kind thing for Cowell to do, all things considered.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
SS - you still haven't explained why you think it "kind" of Cowell to ask his ex to be a Godmother - all you've done is given a possible reason why SHE would be kind to take it on.
So - HOW / WHY do you think Cowell is being "kind"?
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
Honestly I haven't given the inner workings of Simon Cowell's mind that much thought, apologies for my lack of clarity.
He is kind in considering her feelings after finding out he is having a child with someone else - she may have felt rejected, potentially excluded from his new life with his new family. Making her godmother is a way of involving her intimately and also recognizing that she was very nearly the mother of his first child.
Many women would outright refuse to allow their husband's ex to be godmother to their child so it's kind on his girlfriend's part as well.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
... and also recognizing that she was very nearly the mother of his first child.
I find this sentiment cringeworthy but can't explain why. Can anyone explain me?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I think Sinitta is one of the pastors at a big gospel church, called Hillsong. I guess she must know a bit about Christianity.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Weirdly perhaps, but the activity of baptism of a child might have led a parent or two and a god parent or two to something resembling faith that might be remotely acceptable to some of you?
If you think I'm going to argue with anything, however unlikely, that leads somebody to faith in Christ, you got another think coming. I'd go for liturgical lap dancing if that could make it happen.
A bishop told such a story, though I'm never sure if these are parables, "based on a true story" or factual.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
In my denom. (PCUSA) parents are free to informally choose godparents, but they have little or no role in the baptismal service, because the vows usually undertaken by godparents are taken by the congregation as a whole-- to support and care for this child and to see to his/her instruction and nurture in the faith. While in practice it may be as variable as godparents are, I like that. When parents did choose godparents, I would usually ask the godparents to stand by the parents in the service, and would introduce them to the congregation. I would explain to them (congregation & godparents) that we are ALL taking these vows, committing to THIS child in particular, and that the godparents were simply the "front line" in that commitment. It takes a village-- or a church.
Ditto. Celebrate God's Presence , the UCCan's service book says that there is no specific role of "godparents" in a UCCan baptism and that that role is taken by the congregation.
Which is exactly what happened two weeks ago when my niece was baptized. I got to be Clerk of Session though. (We have three people who alternate and can sign baptismal certificates in that role)
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think Sinitta is one of the pastors at a big gospel church, called Hillsong. I guess she must know a bit about Christianity.
IME Hillsong pastors know a bit about Christianity.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
though less about musical good taste
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Baptismal regeneration happens for the baptised, not the parents or godparents - their lack of faith does not somehow limit baptismal regeneration. I couldn't refuse to baptise an infant. As for godparents, I don't know many people who have a particularly close relationship with theirs (I was baptised as an adult so have none).
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on
:
My godparents were GOLD! Especially during my teen years when as far as i was concerned my parents were dreadful and unable to be reasoned with.
But I agree with what Jade says about who baptism is For.(altho a whole heap of others will disagree)
[ 01. April 2014, 20:57: Message edited by: Ethne Alba ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Baptismal regeneration happens for the baptised, not the parents or godparents - their lack of faith does not somehow limit baptismal regeneration. I couldn't refuse to baptise an infant. As for godparents, I don't know many people who have a particularly close relationship with theirs (I was baptised as an adult so have none).
How come you didn't have them - your profile says you are Anglican? They might have been named 'sponsors'.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Baptismal regeneration happens for the baptised, not the parents or godparents - their lack of faith does not somehow limit baptismal regeneration. I couldn't refuse to baptise an infant. As for godparents, I don't know many people who have a particularly close relationship with theirs (I was baptised as an adult so have none).
How come you didn't have them - your profile says you are Anglican? They might have been named 'sponsors'.
I was never aware that those being baptised as adults got godparents, and assumed they were for infants. I was baptised as an adult by full immersion in an evangelical Anglican church and it was just never mentioned.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I was never aware that those being baptised as adults got godparents, and assumed they were for infants. I was baptised as an adult by full immersion in an evangelical Anglican church and it was just never mentioned.
This may be an evangelical Anglican thing. We baptize everyone by immersion - even babies! - and I haven't heard anything about godparents. All of the family/friends/loved ones of the candidate are involved and at the front. And in two cases (one baby and one adult) there were even relatives saying the promises over Skype!
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I was never aware that those being baptised as adults got godparents, and assumed they were for infants. I was baptised as an adult by full immersion in an evangelical Anglican church and it was just never mentioned.
This may be an evangelical Anglican thing. We baptize everyone by immersion - even babies! - and I haven't heard anything about godparents. All of the family/friends/loved ones of the candidate are involved and at the front. And in two cases (one baby and one adult) there were even relatives saying the promises over Skype!
At this church there were plenty of more traditional infant baptisms complete with godparents (and not by full immersion), it just wasn't done for adult baptism.
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on
:
Do we know that Cowell is having the baby baptized and that Sinitta is to be a "godmother" in the sense of a baptismal sponsor? I know this is the traditional understanding of the term, but some people use the term "godparent" in a more loosey-goosey sense of a friend of the parents who forges a close relationship with the child. The news articles I looked up about this story make no mention of a baptism.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
1. Baptismal regeneration happens for the baptised,
2. the parents or godparents - their lack of faith does not somehow limit baptismal regeneration.
1. There would be some of us on here who disagree with this idea. Sadly it seems enshrined in the Anglican CW liturgy.
2. Parents and Godparents make promises - would you be happy for someone making a promise you know they don't believe? Even here, in a non Anglican setting, we have sponsors from time to time: it's made quite clear that the promises made should be owned by those making them.
Doesn't the CofE allow for a thanksgiving? ISTM the promises there are far more suited for those on the edges of faith so I'm surprised it isn't used more.
3. The idea that being a godparent exposes non believers to faith is an old one. Any evidence that people have come to faith/become part of church as a result?
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
1. Baptismal regeneration happens for the baptised,
2. the parents or godparents - their lack of faith does not somehow limit baptismal regeneration.
1. There would be some of us on here who disagree with this idea. Sadly it seems enshrined in the Anglican CW liturgy.
2. Parents and Godparents make promises - would you be happy for someone making a promise you know they don't believe? Even here, in a non Anglican setting, we have sponsors from time to time: it's made quite clear that the promises made should be owned by those making them.
Doesn't the CofE allow for a thanksgiving? ISTM the promises there are far more suited for those on the edges of faith so I'm surprised it isn't used more.
3. The idea that being a godparent exposes non believers to faith is an old one. Any evidence that people have come to faith/become part of church as a result?
Given the Anglican church's standing in the traditions of the historic Church, it shouldn't be surprising that belief in baptismal regeneration is part of that.
Also yes, the CoE allows thanksgivings, but they don't have the same cultural appeal as christenings for those on the fringes of church. It tends to be evangelicals active in the church that have thanksgivings for their babies.
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on
:
There are plenty of people who have approached a local anglican church, requested baptism for their baby, been encouraged to to continue meeting with memmbers of the church and in the fullness of time have found their own way to a very real faith.
Was it the baptism request that led to their faith?
Well yes...and no.
IME, parents requesting baptism is but one small part of a journey into faith.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
There are plenty of people who have approached a local anglican church, requested baptism for their baby, been encouraged to to continue meeting with memmbers of the church and in the fullness of time have found their own way to a very real faith.
"Some" rather than"plenty". If it was "plenty" the churches would be a lot fuller.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
This may be an evangelical Anglican thing. We baptize everyone by immersion - even babies!
Interesting. I've been in Lutheran and Reformed circles where baptising babies by full immersion was technically available. Though in practice, the parents usually opted for for a sprinkling rather than a dunking.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I was baptised as an adult by full immersion in an evangelical Anglican church and it was just never mentioned.
Then it wasn't a C. of E. baptismal rite. See para 6 p. 21.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I was baptised as an adult by full immersion in an evangelical Anglican church and it was just never mentioned.
Then it wasn't a C. of E. baptismal rite. See para 6 p. 21.
There is no page 21 in that document.
I see the following:
"The candidates may be presented to the congregation. Where appropriate, they may be presented by their godparents or sponsors."
"The president or another minister dips each candidate in water, or pours water on them"
What about Jade's baptism is invalid, in your view?
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I was baptised as an adult by full immersion in an evangelical Anglican church and it was just never mentioned.
Then it wasn't a C. of E. baptismal rite. See para 6 p. 21.
Sponsors and godparents are optional, they are not essential for baptism. It was a totally valid CoE baptism and followed the CW rite.
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on
:
I don't see anything in the rubric which requires candidates who are old enough to answer for themselves to have sponsors (or parents and godparents).
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
I don't see anything in the rubric which requires candidates who are old enough to answer for themselves to have sponsors (or parents and godparents).
The BCP is still default and canon law has not rescinded the requirement in the rubrics on the first page
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
The BCP also states that "So many as intend to be partakers of the holy Communion shall signify their names to the Curate, at least some time the day before." See here
Have I been receiving communion illegally all these years?
[ 03. April 2014, 17:36: Message edited by: Spike ]
Posted by 3rdFooter (# 9751) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
I don't see anything in the rubric which requires candidates who are old enough to answer for themselves to have sponsors (or parents and godparents).
The BCP is still default and canon law has not rescinded the requirement in the rubrics on the first page
I read that rubric as saying that someone is expected to stand up, present the candidate for baptism and affirm that, to the best of their knowledge, the candidate has not previously been baptised. Substantially different from a god parent who takes the baptismal promises on behalf of someone too young to make those promises for themselves.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
The rubric also says that sponsors should put the candidate 'in mind' of his duties.
I had 3 sponsors, chosen by myself, when I was baptised, using that 1662 rite.
The adults baptised at last year's Easter Vigil here had sponsors.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
Christ is The Way, not the BCP.
It's never a good idea to change law and custom on the basis of hard and extreme cases, and anything featuring Simon Cowell is extreme on the basis of celebrity status alone.
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
I was baptised at the age of 13, a very long time ago in the days of the BCP, I had neither Godparents or sponsors. I was told that I didn’t need them, as I was old enough to take the promise for myself. After all I was getting confirmed the next week and about to make those promises for myself anyway.
We had two candidates for baptism and confirmation at the same service last year – neither had godparents or sponsors.
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on
:
I was also baptised as an adult in an Anglican Church with no Godparents or sponsors.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I had 3 sponsors, chosen by myself, when I was baptised, using that 1662 rite.
Suitably qualified theologically I hope?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
IMHO whether one has sponsors/godparents at a baptism of an adult, is a matter of discretion. Also, I think CW is supposed to be complete in itself. Although the BCP is still normative, and long may it remain so, I don't think anyone is supposed to imagine they have to read CW with a BCP in the other hand to check against. More important, and I think everybody agrees on this, an adult, teenager or any person who has reached an age of discretion is baptised on their own faith rather than that of somebody else.
Nor does compliance or not with the small print of the rubrics affect the validity of the baptism. After all, even in the bad old days, a person could be validly baptised in emergency by somebody without a penis. As I understand it, the critical bit is whether the person is baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit or not.
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on
:
In deciding which precise wording to use, i thought about "some" , but decided on the word "plenty" as it applies in my context. Plenty of the adults who bring their children to baptism at the church i currently attend Do go on to discover a living faith.
And the church is considerably fuller and noisier as a result. However not all members of the church agree with this state of affairs and it has caused some interesting discussions at the PCC meetings.
[ 05. April 2014, 10:28: Message edited by: Ethne Alba ]
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on
:
In baptism The Whole Church promises some fairly serious stuff as well.
Q1 Do church members take seriously enough the promises that we make when children (or adults for that matter) come to baptism?
Q2 How do churches take this seriously?
Do we as church members have any training on our commitment? Apart from the sermon at the baptism itself, is this commitment ever included in a preaching or a teaching course? Is there any information available?
Usually not.
Then the complaints come thick and fast: "They" only want to "use" our church for "their" baptism and "to have a party".
Us and them.
i don't really care Why people come to church, tbh
The Church takes a part as well, it's Ours as well!
And partying?.....
....like havin a party was a bad thing?
Sheesh we follow someone who was bad mouthed for attending parties. The least we can do is to follow his example, who knows, it could lead to some fascinating discussions and friendships.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I had 3 sponsors, chosen by myself, when I was baptised, using that 1662 rite.
Suitably qualified theologically I hope?
Qualified as human beings and as Christians, since my parents were atheists and disappointing on baptism. (As a teenager, the law would probably have taken their side and stopped the baptism!?)
One was my former Sunday School teacher, one a youth leader, one a relative who attended Communion regularly.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I had 3 sponsors, chosen by myself, when I was baptised, using that 1662 rite.
Suitably qualified theologically I hope?
Qualified as human beings and as Christians, since my parents were atheists and disappointing on baptism. (As a teenager, the law would probably have taken their side and stopped the baptism!?)
One was my former Sunday School teacher, one a youth leader, one a relative who attended Communion regularly.
Any PhD's among them?
Posted by Fool on Hill (# 12183) on
:
In the Church of England Canon B23 says
quote:
3. When one who is of riper years is to be baptized he shall choose three, or at least two, to be his sponsors, who shall be ready to present him at the font and afterwards put him in mind of his Christian profession and duties.
4. No person shall be admitted to be a sponsor or godparent who has not been baptized and confirmed. Nevertheless the minister shall have power to dispense with the requirement of confirmation in any case in which in his judgement need so requires.
Emergency baptism can take place without most of the formalities.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I had 3 sponsors, chosen by myself, when I was baptised, using that 1662 rite.
Suitably qualified theologically I hope?
Qualified as human beings and as Christians, since my parents were atheists and disappointing on baptism. (As a teenager, the law would probably have taken their side and stopped the baptism!?)
One was my former Sunday School teacher, one a youth leader, one a relative who attended Communion regularly.
Any PhD's among them?
I don't think any of them had been to uni. It was rare in those days.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
1. Baptismal regeneration happens for the baptised.
1. There would be some of us on here who disagree with this idea. Sadly it seems enshrined in the Anglican CW liturgy.
Yes. it's a Dead Horse. But I agree with EM. Well, you'd expect me to!
We don't have Godparents in Believers' Baptism but can have Sponsors/Accompaniers, although I don't think they are that common. Usually the whole congregation would take that role.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Any PhD's among them?
I don't understand the joke. Why would baptismal sponsors need PhDs? (And do the PhDs have to be in Theology, or would anything else do just as well?)
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Any PhD's among them?
I don't understand the joke. Why would baptismal sponsors need PhDs? (And do the PhDs have to be in Theology, or would anything else do just as well?)
Sorry - it's just a veiled reference to some historical posts from leo where he kept reminding us about the number of PhD's at his church.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
Maybe he's worried that some of the ministers might not have academic hoods.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Any PhD's among them?
I don't understand the joke. Why would baptismal sponsors need PhDs? (And do the PhDs have to be in Theology, or would anything else do just as well?)
Sorry - it's just a veiled reference to some historical posts from leo where he kept reminding us about the number of PhD's at his church.
My current church is a university chaplaincy church.
The church in which i was baptised was an ordinary parish church,.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0