How To Resign As a Godmother...!

The Godparent makes the promises not the child and being a Godparent is for life, it's not about giving money or having thank you letters. I don't think all Priests prepare parents and Godparents for a Baptism, yet there are parents so set on 'having it done' they will lie. It's also difficult for the Priest, if he/she refuses to baptised a child because of the choice of Godparents the child is being refused a welcome into the church family.

If a Godchild chooses to break away from the Godparents not a lot can be done, a letter explaining that you are there for them is all one can do

You can continue to pray for them

My main problem is that a Godparent makes certain promises during the service. I don't understand why a vicar would condone anyone telling what amounts to lies and why anyone would willingly make them with so many witnesses. It seems very hypocritical to me.

I doubt a Priest would condone lies ginny, it is painful for them to turn away a child because of the adults but it has to be done, the baptism would just be a mockery

* Mishap * Are you saying that your local Vicar is happy to know that people are standing in the church making promises that that have no intention to keep? She is happy for those people to be dishonest as long as it is only a little bit dishonest . Still, I suppose in the end her 'boss' will know the truth.

Her "boss" is probably thinking "Suffer the little children to come unto me" and that He welcomes them into the family of the church when baptised in His name, whoever brings them to Him.

Better to have a doubting godparent who will do their best for the child than a congregation of holier-than-thou tight-arsed unco guids who would keep them out unless their sponsors are squeaky-clean line-toers.

(BTW, I don't believe it matters whether a child is baptised or not - if there is an Almighty God, He will look after the unbaptised just as much as the baptised. If, as I suspect, He is a invention of fallible humans, then the child is dependent on those who have responsibility for it. Making any kind of public promise is a declaration that they will try to guide the child)

Elegran, I agree with you, but doubt that many of today's young godparents have any intention of 'guiding' the child, no matter what they may say at the service.

So agree Ana

I agree with you Elegran.

However , my point still stands. If you read the words of the service and the promises that the Godparents make then I still believe it is hypocritical and dishonest to make them if you are not a believer.

Is it not rather like the chap I spoke to last week about speed limits? He told me that he thinks the 40mph speed on the road out of our town is ridiculous and sees no problem with doing 45 - 50 which he regularly does. He was quite taken aback when I asked which other laws of the land he chooses to ignore because he doesn't like or agree with.

Every person sitting in any church service is interpreting what they hear and do in their own individual way - that is fine as far as I can see. It is the basic underlying principles that matter: care for others being top of the list.

And a christening service is about just that - caring for this new human being.

I am happy that our local vicar is liberal-minded and sees beyond the letter of the law - good for her!

I would have been quite happy to see the GC not christened, but if my DDs wanted a public declaration of intent to bring the child up with sound moral values then that is fine.

It is not that people are standing up "making promises they have no intention to keep" - it is about interpretation, which is always individual and cannot be otherwise. I am sure that the godparents have every intention of caring for these babes and helping them to live decent lives - who could argue with that?

I do not see any hypocrisy - every person regards their god/s in a different way - no problem there.

I'm with elegran.

Should no-one even go to church, then, unless they are perfect? That is what you are saying, ginny Churches would be empty if that much rigidity were enforced. My interpretation of the gospel message is that is/was for the imperfect, the sinner, the weak, the lost. The door is/was open wide, it is/was not closed on anyone, however wicked, so how can it be locked against those who intend good?

If there is any possibility that the parents and godparents will take seriously the words they repeat, then they should have the benefit of the doubt and allowed the chance to carry them out. a caring church and cingregation will continue to send invitations for creches, sunday school, cubs and brownies, and so on to include the child in the congregation. That can rub off, perhaps not immediately, but in time.

If they have no intention whatsoever of keeping up a bond with the child and having some influence o n it, then they will probably not agree to be a godparent anyway.

Neither my children or my grandchildren have been baptised. my children are both atheists, but when they were babies I didn't know anyone who could in all honesty repeat these words in the baptism service, even if we had wanted them to be baptised as infants.

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 can't really see any way of putting a different interpretation on these words. sorry if you see that as being ' tight arsed'. * Elegran*

If you interpret Christ as a representation of goodness and integrity (which many churchgoers do - certainly all of my church-going friends) then there is no problem at all.

Rigidity of thinking is what moves us towards fundamentalism - and we can all do without that.

No Elegran that is not what I am saying, if that was the case all churches would be empty. Sadly, I think most people who are asked to be Godparents accept without much thought as to what they are really signing up for.

Please look at the words of the christening (baptism) service. People making these promises and assertions when they do not mean or intend to adhere to them is what irks me.

I don't think any child should be 'kept out' of the church but parents should think more carefully about who they ask to be a Godparent and why they are asking them.

Mishap, would you have taken on your working role without finding out what it really entailed ?

My thinking has nothing to do with fundamentalism, or rigid thinking.

The service in the church of Scotland is different description from a typical church but similar. It is the parents who are making the promises, and the congregation promises to help. There is no official role for godparents, but they are welcomed as supporters for the parents.

Like much of "the church" child baptism was a later addition to the original teachings. There was no infant baptism in the bible, adults were baptised when they chose voluntarily to accept the faith. It was the later belief that the unbaptised babe would not be admitted to heaven that triggered the practise of child baptism.

All these liturgies are the form of the acceptance of the child into the church. The substance is more diffuse and personal and may follow the formality if the links between church and child are repeatedly re-expressed.

"where there is no connection to the church and no desire for such a connection the Kirk Session and minister have the right to decline to baptise a child. This is something we would rarely do, because we want to build a connection to you andyour family, but we need you to work to build such a connection too."

Well - I do think it is rigid to be honest - to insist that every church member has the same concept of what the idea of Christ means to them. And whose concept would be taken as the yardstick?

There is no relation to taking on a job, which has a clear job description - but even that might be open to interpretation in some instance.

Genuine and serious caring intent is what is needed and is very precious.

Mishap I am sure most churchgoers equate Christ with goodness and integrity, but they probably also recognise his divinity and his existence a s a person.
I wonder how many humanists or atheists would say the words that I quoted from the baptismal service , (turning to Christ as Saviour etc. ) and promise to bring the child up in the CHRISTIAN faith.
The humanist society recognises the need to welcome new life and have a naming ceremony ( as someone else said) suggesting parents
choose ‘Special Friends’, ‘Guide-Parents’ or even ‘Odd Parents’ to act as supporting adults with a special interest in their child.
No we don't want Fundementalists in the modern sense of the word, where war and strife is justified by religious belief, but I see nothing wrong with people holding to the tenets of the Christian faith if that is how they want to live, and discourage people who are non believers from promising something they can't keep to. That does not mean, as Another poster said, that non believers are not welcome in church.

Perhaps I should have said how many know they have to say that stuff before they agree to be godparents, as obviously many do say it in the service.

I would guess that probably the majority of churchgoers go just for the social interaction. Not a bad thing if the church has a strong commitment to the local community.

You should choose your church carefully.

I think Godparenting these days is seen in a similar light.

Not too sure I fully understand this comment but if it says what I think it does then I am not happy:

'Better to have a doubting godparent who will do their best for the child than a congregation of holier-than-thou tight-arsed unco guids who would keep them out unless their sponsors are squeaky-clean line-toers.'. There is nothing tight about my arse...sadly.

When I became Godparent to my neice's 3 children her vicar asked me to send him a letter confirming I was a Christian and say something about my faith; this I was pleased to do. He was happy for the other Godparents to be 'doubting Godparents'.

Reading through the Christening Service for my Godchildren's services, I have to strongly agree with ginny as I said before; I don't know how anyone can make those promises without having a belief. There is, of course, a lovely Welcoming Service, which allows for the child to make up its own mind at a future time.

Mishap, I think you are misunderstanding me. I am not bothered in general what anyones interpretation of Christianity is. I certainly have not said that everyone should have the same concept. How boring would that be !

I happen not to believe in 'God ' but I have some very good friends who are strong believers and I fully respect their point of view as they do mine.

I simply think that one should not be making promises that one has not bothered to find out about or be sure they will adhere to.

It is surely not too much to ask that they find out what it is they are actually being asked to do.

Personally as I do not believe in God, I've always refused to be a Godparent, although I've been asked many times. And the answer is always the same- oh it does not matter if you believe or not! But for me, it does matter- no way will I ever make promises to do something I clearly do NOT have any intention of doing, with my fingers crossed being my back.

The promises a god-parent has to make are very clear- and I could never uphold them. How could I ensure to bring up a child in a faith I do not understand or believe in. Same for our wedding- just could not have spent the day lying through my teeth, it was too important a day for us to do so. Each to their own- but all the Vicars I've met and talked to agree that truth and sincerity are truly valued by them who have to officiate, often knowing that it is just a show and means nothing.

So what happens if you truly believe everything you pledge as a God-parent, then have a crisis of faith later in life?

I don't think you can 'resign', but you can be there for the child's moral, if not spiritual welfare. Knowing that you are their God-parent and that you would be available if they ever needed you, even if you live far away, is far more important than remembering birthdays.

My God-daughter refused to be confirmed when I mentioned it to her, so I just left it as she was so adamantly against it. As she is also a relative I hope that I will be there for her if she needs me. In fact, she has married someone of the RC faith and now attends RC services far more than I go to church!

You could always write to the young man, glad35, explaining that you will be there for him if he ever feels he needs someone to talk to, but that you feel that God-parenting doesn't necessarily mean remembering to send money for birthday! It's his spiritual welfare that you promised to care for, not his finances!