Ship of Fools: How much God in Godparents these days?

Thread: How much God in Godparents these days? 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=027069

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

In All Saints, Yorick, an atheist, asked if it was appropriate for him to become a godparent to his brother's child. His brother knows he is an atheist.
The prevalent opinion, and one Yorick seems to share, is that it was not appropriate.
What defines a god parent is an evolving and varied definition.
I am the god parent of one of my best friends' children. They have no illusion as to my beliefs and no desire to change them. Yet they asked. And I had no compunction accepting. Now I completely respect those who would not accept. And, indeed, I have declined to be a god parent in a different situation as I did not feel the circumstances all aligned properly.
These days, ISTM, the role is ceremonial. So, how important is it that the godparents be Christian?

[ 22. April 2014, 20:04: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

I seem to recall something about a "god-sib", i.e. a gossip, being anyone involved in the birth... and therefore having a continuing interest...

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
These days, ISTM, the role is ceremonial. So, how important is it that the godparents be Christian?

I think it's more of an issue these days than it used to be. Philip Sidney, member of one of the more Protestant families in England, had as godfather Philip II of Spain, leader of the Roman Catholic world. This was entirely because the Sidneys had been rather too close to an attempted plot against Mary Tudor and had to curry favour.

For my parents generation I think it was largely a social thing. I think it's only recently, with a relative decline in social churchgoing, that the role's become more religious.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

These days, ISTM, the role is ceremonial. So, how important is it that the godparents be Christian?

I know there are humanist naming ceremonies, but these seem not to be hugely popular. In a post-Christian society, though, I think there's an urgent need for authentic and widely accepted secular ceremonies that don't bastardise religious rituals and meanings for an essentially non-religious people.

We're in a time of transition, I suppose. Maybe in another 40+ years there'll be popular alternatives to the religious infant baptism, and 'godparents' will evolve into something more suitable.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In a post-Christian society, though, I think there's an urgent need for authentic and widely accepted secular ceremonies that don't bastardise religious rituals and meanings for an essentially non-religious people.

And if people want, they can do exactly that. Plenty of non-religious people have civil marriages - stand up in front of your friends and family, make a few promises, and have a party.

There is absolutely nothing stopping anyone who so chooses from hiring a hall, hotel function room or similar, showing their new baby off to their family and friends, making some public promises to the child, and then having a party.

Civil weddings need a registrar because they have legal consequences. A secular naming ceremony doesn't need anything, so people are free to just get on with it.

And if you send out an invitation to your friends and family to join you at such-and-such a place and time to celebrate the naming of Small Baby, they will get the point, dress up and show up.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

People can do what they wish, certainly. But in the UK, non-religious ceremonies don't seem to be particularly popular, as I said. They might be more popular in the USA, though.

In truth, most people in the UK do without welcoming ceremonies for babies entirely, so the 'urgency' I mentioned in my last post wouldn't be perceived as such by the society in general.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

In truth, most people in the UK do without welcoming ceremonies for babies entirely, so the 'urgency' I mentioned in my last post wouldn't be perceived as such by the society in general.

That's the bit I don't understand. Your previous post posited an "urgent need" for a raft of secular ceremonies. But you and I agree that there is nothing whatsoever to stop people from having such a ceremony, and we agree that, by and large, people don't have them.

There is nothing that needs to happen to have a secular naming ceremony. People can just do it - they don't have to wait for Keith Porteous Wood to issue a draft order of service.

So I'm confused by what you think needs to happen.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

I'm a bit of an outsider on this as Baptists/Anabaptists, practising 'credobaptism' or baptism of those old enough to do their own believing, don't need 'godparents'.

We do have ceremonies of 'dedication' of infants, and in those ceremonies all the Christians present promise to be sort-of-godparents to the infant.

I thought a 'godsibling' or 'gossip' was a person with whom one shared a godparent?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Leorning Cniht

I'm talking about a change in the culture. We need a more authentic culture where people don't feel they have to engage in religious rituals they don't 'believe' in if they simply want to welcome their baby to the world.

Yes, they could certainly go and create their own rituals; but on the whole they don't. Of those who do want a ceremony the great majority expect to engage in religious rituals - but are then affronted if the clergy object to performing such rituals for parents who have little or no engagement with the religion that envelopes them.

Of course, in such a highly secular society many clergy are just grateful that anyone wants to have their baby baptised at all, so they try to make things fairly easy. I understand that the CofE has promoted thanksgiving services as an alternative to baptism, but I don't think these have been especially attractive to the sorts of non-churchgoers who turn to the CofE on these occasions.

[ 23. April 2014, 00:14: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

To me it was very important that the children's Godparents be churchgoing so that, if anything happened to us, the Godparents would be there to continue taking children to church: in fact our Wills named two Godparents and their spouses as potential Guardians if we were not around.

All of the Godparents were, and are still, communicant members of the CofE who are still involved in the children's lives.

As a Godparent, I don't mark birthdays: I send a present at Christmas and mark the anniversary of baptism, and I do my best to see them regularly, taking them to church if the opportunity arises.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

These days, ISTM, the role is ceremonial. So, how important is it that the godparents be Christian?

What do you mean by ceremonial?

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

In the UK you can (whilst you don't need to), engage the local registrar and register office for your civil naming ceremony. Personally, I wonder why on earth you would need to, but I suppose it makes a nice sideline for the registry...

Anyway, a family member did exactly that last year for their newborn and I was invited to be the "naming partner" or something (I honest can't remember the word after naming) which was Godparent in all but name.

Therefore, I came to it in the reverse way to the Atheist at the font, in that I was making religious promises, in my head, at a secular event.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

We seem to have several categories of people under discussion.

We have parents who are practicising Christians wanting their children baptised in church, but who might consider someone who isn't themselves a practicing Christian a suitable Godparent.
We have parents who are not practising Christians wanting their children baptised in church through social expectation, with Godparents who may or maynot be practising Christians.
We have parents who want a naming ceremony, but don't consider Christian baptism appropriate, and who may choose people as 'Godparents' (is there a recognised term for those who will support the upbringing of children other than 'Godparent'?) who could be practicing Christians.

For category 1, I think the main question is whether someone can genuinely support parents in "the Christian upbringing of this child" even though they don't share the faith of the parents. I would say that I don't think that it's obvious that they can't. Even when the Godparents are practicing Christians, their faith may well be different from the parents (indeed, the parents may each have a different set of beliefs) - would a Baptist be suitable as a Godparent, even though they don't consider infant baptism as fully valid? If the parents are liberal, would someoe with a much more conservative understanding of the faith be suitable? What happens if someone who is a Godparent later stops practicing their faith, or entirely rejects the faith they had when they became a Godparent? People can still support parents in the upbringing of their children in their faith, even when they don't share that faith. It may not be ideal, but what is?

Category 2 is probably upto individual churches to decide their policy on whether to baptise infants where the parents aren't regular attendees. Personally, I would go with offering the welcome of the church to all and let God sort out whether the baptism means anything in terms of salvation. But, others will have different views. If the decision to offer baptism is extended then there probably isn't that great a difference to category 1.

Category 3 comes down to the opinions of the parents (who, presumably, have good reasons for choosing someone to support them) and the person asked as to whether they would consider the vows taken to be religious in nature.

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

The Godparents for our first set of children are my sister and brother-in-law. She sings in the choir and is the choir mother for the junior choir. He is the sexton and outreach worker at our church and undertaking spiritual formation studies with Threshhold Ministries. Contrast this with the Godparents of our second son, my sister-in-law and her husband. They spend Sunday morning worshipping at the Church of the Holy Flea Market.

Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :

I find it hard to see how an atheist in good conscience could take part in the Church of England Common Worship Baptism service as a godparent. In particular, if the candidate is not of an age to answer for him or herself, the godparents, along with the parents have to take part in The Decision (see here for the service order).

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
For category 1, I think the main question is whether someone can genuinely support parents in "the Christian upbringing of this child" even though they don't share the faith of the parents. I would say that I don't think that it's obvious that they can't.

I speak to my God child, and her siblings, as frankly and honestly as I can. When religious questions arise, I speak in the voice of their faith, not mine. I do so without hiding mine.

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

These days, ISTM, the role is ceremonial. So, how important is it that the godparents be Christian?
What do you mean by ceremonial?

I mean godparents are generally not required or expected to do anything save lavish a little more attention on the God child than on their siblings.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I mean godparents are generally not required or expected to do anything save lavish a little more attention on the God child than on their siblings.

True enough, but atheists would have to say stuff they simply don't believe.

The person you quoted in the OP simply could not do that - and I think that's not just understandable, it's commendable too. Saying what we mean and meaning what we say are real virtues imo.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I mean godparents are generally not required or expected to do anything save lavish a little more attention on the God child than on their siblings.
True enough, but atheists would have to say stuff they simply don't believe.

This would eliminate many Christians from being Godparents as well.

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

The person you quoted in the OP simply could not do that - and I think that's not just understandable, it's commendable too. Saying what we mean and meaning what we say are real virtues imo.

I completely respect Yorick's decision.

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
For category 1, I think the main question is whether someone can genuinely support parents in "the Christian upbringing of this child" even though they don't share the faith of the parents. I would say that I don't think that it's obvious that they can't.
I speak to my God child, and her siblings, as frankly and honestly as I can. When religious questions arise, I speak in the voice of their faith, not mine. I do so without hiding mine.

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

These days, ISTM, the role is ceremonial. So, how important is it that the godparents be Christian?
What do you mean by ceremonial?
I mean godparents are generally not required or expected to do anything save lavish a little more attention on the God child than on their siblings.

Some years back, I was asked to be a godparent to my secretary's son. I am Catholic, she Lutheran. I did, delicately, ask whether she might be more comfortable with another Lutheran as godfather. Her response: the role of a godparent is to ensure the Christian upbringing of the child, and she said that I was the only person she knew that she could actually trust to do that if something were to happen to her and her husband.

I have come to think that that is the deciding issue: whether the chosen godparent can actually carry out that fundamental duty, if needed. I agree, in the large majority of cases, the godparent will not be called on to do that and will just be expected to give a little extra attention to the child. But an honorable godparent should not take up the task unless they are prepared to step in in an emergency.

Posted by sophs (# 2296) on :

I'm planning to have a baptism with Christian god parents, and the agnostic dad not making promises and then (possibly in the same place, I've not looked into logistics though) have a secular ceremony where Quaker parents, godless parents and agnostic parents make promises.

The potential child will have many positive role models from all walks of life, and that includes Christianity.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
But an honorable godparent should not take up the task unless they are prepared to step in in an emergency.

If that is the parents' intention. The godparent in Christian tradition arose from a time where Christianity was rare and persecuted. Infants could not speak for themselves so someone needed to. This was originally the parents and they promised for the child and promised to raise the child in the manner the rite dictated. Cue two thousand years of change, and Christianity is no longer rare nor persecuted. And we have cars and mobiles and computers in which to stay in contact with family and religious figures.
So, there is no fundamental duty. There are questions as to appropriate choices, but this is between the parents and their church.

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

Yes, the need for the role of a godparent has lessened over the centuries as persecution of Christians has decreased and general mortality rates have declined.

I suppose that is why some today seem to consider it just a ceremonial role with no "fundamental duty" attached. But it is not that the duty isn't there (if one takes the godparent vow seriously)--just that the need to act on it is far more unlikely to arise these days than it was a thousand years ago. In my case, my godson managed to get to the age of majority with both parents alive and instructing him all along the way. There was never any need for me to exercise my responsibilities in regard to his religious instruction.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

Can anyone explain why Harry Potter asks Sirius to be his godfather, when there is no suggestion that he is ever baptised?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

He didn't; that was Harry's parents' choice, a t the time when Harrry was an infant.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

And lord knows Harry was in much more need than most of us of someone to take him by the hand and guide him in the ways and beliefs of his parents!

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
godparents are generally not required or expected to do anything save lavish a little more attention on the God child than on their siblings.

I am NOT going to treat one nephew as more special than his brother just because one is my godchild.

My uncle did that to me - focused on the other and ignored me at family gatherings, I never knew why and was puzzled and hurt. Two years ago I learned the favoritism is because the other is his godchild. Mystery solved after a life of being neglected. Today I'm just sad that his strong focus on the other prevented him and me from developing what should have been a natural warm friendship, our personalities and values are similar (and despised by the other).

Don't ever neglect one child in a family just because the other is your godchild.

Maybe if each of us had an attentive godparent it would work out OK but most of us don't; and shouldn't a relative or friend of the family enjoy all the kids? I can't imagine visiting a friend and bringing a gift for only one of the kids, or asking only one of them what they like best about school, or reading a Bible story to one and shooing the others away for a special time without giving the others special time too.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Belle, it seems to me that the problem with your uncle's behavior is that he was your uncle, so you had a right to expect non-favoritism from him. But if a stranger you didn't know particularly well came and visited sometimes with your sibling, I imagine it would have been different. You would have known why teh stranger came over, adn you might have been jealous that you didn't have an active godparent, but you wouldn't have thought that person owed you any attention.

[ 24. April 2014, 15:18: Message edited by: Gwai ]

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

Surely it depends on what one means by "Godparent" if the parents just mean some kind of special friend that takes an interest in their child and is a supporter of the family, then surely the parents can choose whoever they want.

If by Godparent, you mean they stand up in a Christian service of Baptism & take baptismal vows on behalf of the child then it is blatantly lying to do so unless you are a Christian, surely? Would anyone really make public vows in such bad faith?

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
He didn't; that was Harry's parents' choice, a t the time when Harrry was an infant.

Ok, that makes a bit more sense than my faulty memory. It just struck me as odd, in a world with hardly any other overt reference to religion, that Sirius' godfatherhood has such a prominent role.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Belle Ringer,

I am sorry my post triggered pain for you. I did say a little more and that is what I meant. And that is typically more often done with teasing than anything else. My Godchild has 5 siblings and I make effort I interact with them all and attempt to be fairly equal.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0