Go to the index of other articles to do with Baptismal Integrity.
Go to John's Brinkster Home Page.

This article is an abbreviation of one which you can find on the web site at www.baptism.org.uk/social.htm

Update 45 pages 2-3.

In Update 45:
Still an issue,
Godparents,
S.E. London,
Perry,
1662 Confirmation,
Funerals,
Liturgy,
Hooker,
Andrews.

Who should be a godparent?

An article in The Times (18 May 2002) sparked off correspondence.

Philip Howard writes a column “Modern Times” dealing with social and etiquette matters, in The Times. “C.J.N., Dulwich” said s/he had been asked to be a godparent to his/her best friend’s daughter, but was unsure whether to accept as s/he was not a regular churchgoer. Philip replied (Weekend section page 15) “yes, accept”, saying it depended on the conviction of non-attendance at church, but it was a privilege and pleasure to be asked, and the duties of godparents are more social and bountiful than Christian these days.

This provoked several letters. First, from Michael Saward (former Canon of St Paul’s Cathedral):

“Sir, Philip Howard tells us, concerning godparenting, that “the duties are more social and bountiful than Christian these days.” That may be a fashionable view in his circles, but would-be godparents are required in the Church of England’s baptismal liturgy to “draw them (i.e. the child) by your example into the community of faith and walk with them in the way of Christ”, helping them “to take their place within the life and worship of Christ’s Church”. Specific promises of Christian belief follow, which every godparent is required to make.

Not long ago, a young atheist told me that no-one believes “that stuff” so he had recently become a godfather and had remained silent when the other godparents had taken the promises. However disreputable his decision, he had at least refused to make the promises which he did not believe and would not keep.

Social and bountiful or blatant hypocrisy? I’ve seen more of the latter at fonts than in any other aspect of nearly half-a-century’s ministry, and Philip Howard merely encourages such disgraceful behaviour. Better to decline a role that one has no intention of fulfilling than to please one’s friends by smugly telling lies before God and others. In a court of law such conduct would be called ‘perjury’, and so it is. No man or woman of integrity should stoop to such dishonesty.”

Second, from Tim Sykes:

“Sir, Canon Saward accuses atheist godparents who recite Christian phraseology at fonts of “hypocrisy”, a form of “perjury”, and “smugly telling lies before God and others”. About a quarter of the Church of England’s bishops as surveyed (report, April 13, 2001) and, I understand, a significant proportion of its other clergy and lay members, do not believe in the actual and physical, bodily, Resurrection of Jesus after death. But they regularly and publicly recite words arffirming exactly that.

Who are the greater hypocrites, perjurers and smug liars?”

And third, from David Hunter:

“Sir, I was an atheist when my brother invited me to be a godparent to his son. It was the highest compliment he could have paid me, and I would not have dreamt of declining.

I have since become a confirmed Anglican, and I view my nephew Joshua’s baptism as one of several possible seeds which may have led to my conversion...”

A further three letters followed. Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain wrote that there are no baptismal godparents in Judaism, but there are plenty of atheists. There is a saying: “To be a good Jew, you don’t have to believe in God — you just have to do what He says”. On that basis those who don’t believe but do behave ethically are equally welcome. (“On the Way” wrestles with this, and points out that baptism preparation (catechetical instruction) in the early church was much less about ideas than about practising faith. Ought there to be a point at which people say “I do” rather than just “I believe”?)

The Rev’d Nick Aiken wrote to say that there is a world of a difference between those who say (as godparents) they believe but know perfectly well they don’t, and those (bishops and others within the church) who believe and practice the Christian faith, but who intellectually interpret doctrines differently from the way the traditional creeds interpret them.

And Mr Brian Wilson put in a plea for a reformulation of the language of faith in order to avoid putting believers in this difficult situation. (The CW baptism service insists on the Apostles’ Creed instead of the ASB’s Trinitarian questions - is this an argument for going back to the more direct simple questions?)

The view of Baptismal Integrity’s members would be that those who cannot honestly make the statements of faith in the baptism service should not be asked to do so. Ways should be found of leading such people into genuine Christian commitment so that they can honestly make the statements required of them. And where they are genuinely not wishing to explore a real Christian commitment, they should be provided with alternatives to baptism which do not put them in the position of making false statements.

But it is not BI’s policy to insist on one particular interpretation of the creeds of the Christian church, and I think we have to recognize that Nick Aiken and Brian Wilson have good points in allowing for a diversity of doctrinal views within the Christian church. St Paul himself allowed for diversity of views on a variety of matters, and we should seek to follow his example.

Go to the index of other articles to do with Baptismal Integrity.
Go to John's Brinkster Home Page.

This web page was last updated on 26th November 2002.