ooooh ... good question CH. My guess is those there who hadn't been baptized would take it depending on their reasoning - if they weren't baptized because they are non-Christians and simply visiting for whatever reason, well, they'd see it as not applying to them; those who are Christian but simply hadn't been baptized (this eventually will apply to my son) might look at it as a metaphorical baptism? Having been baptized along with Christ eg? I mean, we don't shy away from symbolism/metaphor in the UCC, as we've been made fun of often enough ...

I grew up in a tradition (EUB) that happily baptized, but didn't make a majpr production number out of it.  In my first full-time parish eons ago, I had a retired Salvation Army officer, very devout, who had never been baptized.  I guess I'm saying that I wouldn't have used that particular phraseology; I don't think really that all that much hangs on having your head get wet with all the attendant words.  I would agree that the words used might have been a bit exclusive of anyone there who hadn't, for whatever reason, been baptized.  I would hope that the following of the teaching of Jesus is wide enough to include us all.  Hope all that drivel makes some sort of sense.

Peace, RB

Interesting question. Our minister asked who had been baptised.....I think most raised their hands. And then she asked who remembered being baptised. Fewer people raised their hands. She did this during the children's story where there were no kids, so she addressed it to the congregation. It felt like a very inclusive way to ask the question.

I found today's service very moving. It was nice to be able to connect with the spirit again, and to contemplate this. It made me aware that it has been awhile since we have had good spiritual leadership in this congregation.

So, I didn't answer your question. Does it really matter if someone has been baptised or not? Hopefully those who have not been baptised will find a way to follow that invitation. I cannot remember my baptism. My following the invitation would not be based on a conscious knowledge that I have been baptised, just the "folklore" that my parents told me.

In our worship today - the concern was why Jesus would need to be baptized?  Wasn't he blameless, so why did he need to be born again? And the thought occurred to me that perhaps this shows that baptism isn't just for the one being baptized. It is the whole community that participates - after all, I've never heard of anyone baptizing themselves. It is fundamentally a community experience. So that our community is also "born again".  That statement would probably make my ancestors (at least those dating back 500 years), who were anabaptists (i.e. adult baptism only) roll over in their graves, because it wouldn't really matter whether adult or infant, baptism washes away the community's preconceptions and prejudices and reminds us of our responsibility to care for each other, regardless of "worthiness".

p.s Redbaron - greetings from another one-time EUBer.

I can say that seeing a congregation renew their covenant would not bother me. Using language like "and our own" means that audience.... no harm no foul....

See and yet for me, making distinctions on something like baptism feels icky. When you make people stand out, asking for a show of hands, it is not welcoming.

What of those adults or children who were/are barred from baptism in their own faith and may be attending a UCC but still are whatever their denomination is or are not? Is it welcoming now?  Will it be welcoming in the future? What of unmarried or same sex unions couples who have had their children barred from baptism or offered conditions they cannot live up to? 

Sorry but for me, just the showing of hands feels unwelcoming of you are not in the IN group.