Re: [liturgy-l] baptisms during Lent
- At 03:24 PM 2/7/2002 -0500, John Dornheim wrote:
> > Yes, we have made exceptions for family logistical problems. To acquiesce
> > because people don't have understanding or commitment is about as much
> > argument as one could mount for the restoration of the catechumenate
> and the
> > return of the whole congregation to the catechumenate during Lent (as
> > reportedly suggested).
> > FCSennWell, this young pastor has been clear and forthright about appropriate
>Again, no arguement but, in this our Lutheran church, I've yet to seen a
>movement towards reform like this or anything else. Clergy who wish to
>this would find little public support. Or so has been my experience.
times for baptism.
Only one family has come asking to change the policy established by the
council that baptisms would be set four times a year, save for the obvious
emergencies. (While the Vigil is ideal for all, I'm not adverse to
Pentecost, All Saints or Baptism of Our Lord as baptismal festivals as
well). I suggested waiting 2 weeks for All Saints, but the family (with
granddad the council member glaring away) pleaded that "Grandmother from
<out of state> is getting up in years and may not be here then." I
acquiesced, and then met grandma on the baptismal day--a woman in perfect
health and, save that unknown time we all face--was not nearly as close to
her final days as was represented. Family hasn't been seen in church since.
Since then, with continued education in the congregation, there is
reasonably good support for this practice. It is also consistent with the
practice of our Korean sisters and brothers, who recently left the PCROK to
become a part of our congregation.
Admittedly, John is correct. It can be a rough process. But, it can be a
rewarding trek to understanding and recovery of that which has been lost in
the modern day.
- I built several fonts in the Miskito Coast. They were all aroungd four
feet high and about thirty six inches across, allowing for dunkng of an
adult without the baptiser having to get in the water. (We did find out
you shouldn't fill them to the brim, as with an adult being dunked, everyone
within about three feet got soaked).
Shalom in Yeshua ha Moshiach
Michael Joe Thannisch
----- Original Message -----
From: "dollpka" <kenneth.doll@...>
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 4:34 PM
Subject: [liturgy-l] Re: baptisms during Lent
> --- In liturgy-l@y..., fcsenn@a... wrote:
> > I've seen, and actually stood in, some ancient Christian baptismal
> pools in
> > the Middle East. You could not have easily "submerged" anyone but a
> baby in
> > them. Standard baptismal pools contained about 2.5 feet (30 inches)
> of water
> > max. Candidates were "immersed" (stood in) the water and it was
> poured over
> > their heads.
> I have seen a number of adults baptized in "horse trough" like
> fonts, all of which were certainly less than 2.5 feet high, and
> they were all "submerged". I don't see why this is a problem
> unless you make it one.
> > Because I don't have a deacon to go into the water and do the job
> for me, as
> > the ancient Syrian church orders specify (or a deaconess for women
> > candidates). Also, I think there's the pastoral issue of not asking
> > to do something that you wouldn't do yourself.
> Why base this decision on some ancient Syrian church orders when
> there is the living tradition that "dunks" without the "dunker"
> getting in the water? This seems like archaism for its own sake.
> In Christ,
> Kenneth Doll
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> To write to the owners/moderators, please send an email to:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/