I would go into the meeting with an open mind.

Coming from Australia, they may not be aware if the church does infant baptisms.  Maybe they are looking for a type of religious ceremony, but didn't know what to label it as.  If they are looking for a completely non-religious ceremony, I think it would be fair to say it's not your role.

There is a Service of Thanksgiving for the Birth of a Child in "Celebrate God's Presence". I'm traditional enough that I would want to explore the concept of "naming" with the couple before I would commit to anything. It would not be non-religious.

Hi Matt81,

Not that obviously.  They tend to think baptism but use the word christening.  Typically I react in a horrified fashion and say I will not hit their child with a bottle of champagne.  Then I explain the difference between Christening and Baptism.

Naming ceremony seems more christening than baptism.

Some of our brother and sister Christians who do not practice infant baptism do have a liturgy for dedicating children.  I think that would be a little different than a naming ceremony.

They want a secular celebration in the middle of a Church performed by clergy because why?

I think why is where the discussion needs to go before you decide.  Why this particular ceremony?  Why this particular location?  Why this particular celebrant?  Knowing why they want things the way that they do and what they think about all of the elements would be a bit more helpful for decision making.

Couples who approach me to preside over their wedding hear upfront that I am a Christian Minister and I preside over a worship service in which they get married.  I am interchangeable with a justice of the peace as far as signing documents go.  I am not interchangeable with a justice of the peace as far as style goes.

You might find that this couple is faithful but thinks that baptism is something that their child should consent to and that the naming ceremony is sort of a place holder.  Or you might find that they really don't care much for Church or religion at all and if that is the case then why is their a request to begin with.

I'd need more information from the parents before I would take it to the Session for their approval.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I've never officiated at one, but I had one for my son. It was performed by a UU lay chaplain from the fellowship I later joined. Since we UUs aren't Christian per se (though some of us do identify as such), we generally having naming or child dedication services instead of baptism, though water can still enter into it. In our case, it was a private celebration in our apartment with family and friends rather than in church, but members can and do have naming ceremonies in church services much as UCCan members have their children baptized in services.

We wrote our own service with input from the chaplain and used some recorded music that we selected. I did a reading that was relevant to our choice of name.

Realistically, as you suggest, the officiant doesn't need any official status but someone with training as a minister or lay chaplain can bring some needed gravitas to the ceremony.

Where are you located, Matt? Maybe if there's a UU church/fellowship/congregation in the area, they might provide an officiant if you really feel it's not something you should be doing.

Mendalla

We had a family in our church with Baptist roots, who couldn't accept the idea of infant baptism.  They requested, and were granted, a dedication ceremony for their baby.  Apparently this is quite common in the Baptist churches (in the Atlantic area).

The service for this baby was actually quite similar in many ways to an infant baptism service.  The minister took the baby in her arms, ask for his name.  The parents and congregation made vows.  The minister blessed the child and then introduced him to the congregation "This is Samuel David Joshua MacGillicuty."  The Sunday School gave him a welcoming gift.  And after the regular worship service we had a big cake, decorated in blue and white, with the child's name. 

It was actually quite nice.   We had had our granddaughter baptised a few weeks earlier.  I have no problem with infant baptism.

Thanks for the comments:  I meet with the family sometime next week. As it pans out, I'll post the results.  Could be interesting.

One interesting ritual common in UU dedications is dipping a rose (with thorns trimmed to prevent damage to little fingers) in water and then lightly anointing the child using the rose. The rose is then given to the parents. I think we used it and it's certainly done much of the time when we have a dedication in church. Otherwise, like the one seeler describes, it can be quite similar to a UCCan baptism.

Personally, I came down on the side of adult baptism a long time ago (like, when I was still UCCan) which is partially why we chose the route we did. If Little M becomes Christian and wants to be baptized as an adult, that'll be his call.

Mendalla

A Catholic mother and a United Church father went to our church. There was a naming ceremony similar to what seeler described. In the last couple of years the two children were confirmed in the United Church. I dont know how common this is.

CH - a question.  Were the kids baptized at the confirmation?  This is the rite of membership  Naming is a baptist and other churches that do not do infant baptism.  The kids get baptized later.

The parents decided that they would let them make up their own minds about confirmation. They did all the Catholic rituals ( in the Catholic Church- catechism etc) and then did confirmation classes in the United Church when they were about 14.or 15.I think they were baptised in the Catholic church. They now attend a United Church.  

It would be unusual for children with a catholic parent (and grandparents, I presum) not to have been baptized as very young infants.

I hate it when parents say "We'll let them make up their own minds". as if. The norm is that the kids are exposed to zero faith experience and end up confused or even worse, ignorant.

DKS - sometimes 'we'll let them make up their own minds' can mean 'we won't give them any religious education or expose them to any spirituality in their lives'.  

In this case it didn't.  Apparently these children were exposed to both the RC and the UCC faith.  They were (most likely) baptised Catholic.  They did all the Catholic rituals, but they also were exposed to the UCC and attended UCC confirmation classes.  I woul suspect that parents who were that diligent about getting their children to church also participated and observed their faith in their home.  When in their teens the kids did decide for themselves, and were confirmed in the UCC.  Because it was their choice, I have a feeling it meant more to them than simply joining because it was expected of them.

I had a family of three boys in my Sunday School.  Their mother was UCC.  Their father Hindu.  They were baptised as infants in the UCC (father attended; mother took the parental vows).   The family alternated annually.  One year attending the Hindu temple; the next attending our church.  They also attended special ceremonies in both places of worship.  (ie  Christmas eve in the UCC).   Those boys at eight and ten (or so) knew more about both the Christian religion and the Hindu religion than any of the other kids in the class.  They also knew something about Islam and other faiths.  (unfortunately they moved across the country about that time and I lost touch with them)   They would be about 17, 15, and 12 now.  

It is possible to 'let them make up their own minds' if the parents don't use it as an excuse for neglecting to expose them to anything spiritual.

There is a difference in letting or encouraging teens re confirmation make up their own mind.  It sounds as if these kids were raised in a christian community.  In my confirmaton classes I begin with reminding them that this is for them not the parents or grandparents and they make up their mind at the end of the course.  About 90% of them get confirmed.

True. But which one is worst? Kids not baptized and never exposed to church "until they are old enough to make up their own mind", or kids who are baptized as a safety precaution "just in case" but never exposed to church anyways?