|
Post by apple on Jan 4, 2012 12:32:45 GMT -5
I was never baptised into the meetings. Baptism is a topic that I have rarely heard discussed by the meetings folk. I find that the events that take place during a baptism are kept secret from the unbaptised, almost as if the unbaptised are not "educated" or "worthy" enough to know the details. A close friend told me a little of her baptism- being baptised in her clothes with a swimsuit underneath for modesty, her mom and two male workers the only people present, the baptism in a pond and the need for a private baptism on account of the serious decision being made. The whole process is a secret rite; private and discreet, which I find all rather odd since the baptism of John's disciples and of Jesus were public. Wasn't one of the aspects of baptism a public sign of a person's decision to follow Jesus? Would anyone like to divulge the details of their baptism into the meetings? Or explain the reasoning why baptism in the meetings is so secretative?
Thanx.
|
|
|
Post by ScholarGal on Jan 4, 2012 13:46:32 GMT -5
I'm afraid I won't be able to help you understand "secretive" baptism.
When I was baptized in a big river full of mountain snow melt, my whole meeting was there. (Practical matters: I wore a long narrow denim skirt with a walking slit so it wouldn't "float up" when I went into the water. I wore a black shirt which wouldn't be "see-through" when I came out of the water. More importantly, the black shirt would absorb heat from the sun after I walked out of the cold river.)
One guy I knew was baptized in a backyard chlorine swimming pool.
The last "meetings" baptism I attended was in a pond on the convention grounds. It looked like about 1/3 of the convention was gathered around the pond, and parents brought their children. With at least 200 people crowded around the pond, I couldn't see much that was happening down by the water. Girls and women went first, then boys and men. The people being baptized were mostly teenagers, with a few older adults. After the baptism was finished, the people were wrapped in towels and bundled into mini-vans for a ride back to the showers. At the meeting before baptism, the workers announced that the showers would be reserved for people being baptized.
The most recent baptism I attended (about a month after the convention baptism) was in normal Sunday service of a Dutch Reformed church, and they held a special ceremony to welcome the mothers of two babies into the church before they sprinkled the babies. I concluded that the church must have a rule that at least one parent must be a member before they will perform baptism on an infant.
The actual words used in my baptism, the convention baptism, and the Dutch Reformed baptism were the same.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2012 15:29:02 GMT -5
I've never heard of any "secret" baptisms. Mine certainly wasn't as the invitation to come to the baptism was issued at gospel meeting. Same for my husband. I attended one a few years ago and there were at least 200 people in attendance. The only ones that are at all restricted out here are the ones where the area being used is too small to accommodate a large crowd (a backyard pool). There was a recent one close by where they asked only family members, close friends and the church to attend as the backyard was too small for all who wanted to attend. .
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jan 4, 2012 16:17:21 GMT -5
I have been to 2 baptisms locally (very rural area) where only one person was baptized. Both were attended by nearly all the people in the 2 local meetings.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Jan 4, 2012 17:18:56 GMT -5
The only baptism I ever heard of in meetings were held at convention and they were mentioned openly. Any one at convention could attend to watch. They stood around singing a hymn before the baptism actually took place. We had to wear old worker clothes, skirt, dress, etc with prickly woolen bathing togs under. They were the worst clothes I had ever worn and quite degrading for a young 15 year old girl. It undervalued the baptism. The dowdy clothes were like an initiation into the 2x2 type of dress - workers style. It was like a dreary ritual rather than a joyous occasion like happens in churches. Even the singing was dead.
I don't remember ever seeing one outsider baptised, they were always children or family of professing families.
This thread should be on the main board.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Jan 4, 2012 17:24:24 GMT -5
I have been to 2 baptisms locally (very rural area) where only one person was baptized. Both were attended by nearly all the people in the 2 local meetings. And were these people new outsider converts or children / family of those already professing?
|
|
|
Post by ScholarGal on Jan 4, 2012 17:39:44 GMT -5
What do you mean by "outsiders"? People who don't regularly go to meeting? Or, people who don't already have professing family members?
I've seen three or four new adult converts (no professing family) baptized in the last two years at different conventions. At least two of them had no prior Christian background of any kind.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Jan 4, 2012 17:41:19 GMT -5
What do you mean by "outsiders"? People who don't regularly go to meeting? Or, people who don't already have professing family members? I've seen three or four new adult converts (no professing family) baptized in the last two years at different conventions. At least two of them had no prior Christian background of any kind. Outsiders - people who come in from the outside. No professing family in meetings.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jan 4, 2012 17:57:18 GMT -5
I have been to 2 baptisms locally (very rural area) where only one person was baptized. Both were attended by nearly all the people in the 2 local meetings. And were these people new outsider converts or children / family of those already professing? One B&R; one with no professing relatives
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Jan 5, 2012 2:36:09 GMT -5
In 1904 Edward Cooney was performing baptisms in public, 'the scene witnessed by a number of interested spectators', in the Ballinamallard river, Co Fermanagh and in Strangford Lough near Newtownards.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2012 5:32:37 GMT -5
I was baptised at convention way back in the early 80s. It was quite an event with 27 converts being baptised. Many who were at that convention were in attendance. That number of baptisms was way OTT for normality and nothing like it has happened here since. However, I am not aware of any of those then baptised still in meetings, though I could be wrong.
In the early days over here people were usually baptised in the sea. However these developed into public spectacles with some controversy appearing in local papers. Maybe it was this which drove baptisms underground (as well as under the water!)?
Nowadays they take place at convention, though some people are kept waiting years before they get baptised.
One has to remember that one is not only baptised into Christ in this way but also baptised into the system. This is the only realistic explanation that I can find to justify the delays etc.
|
|
|
Post by apple on Jan 12, 2012 17:59:12 GMT -5
I'm afraid I won't be able to help you understand "secretive" baptism. When I was baptized in a big river full of mountain snow melt, my whole meeting was there. (Practical matters: I wore a long narrow denim skirt with a walking slit so it wouldn't "float up" when I went into the water. I wore a black shirt which wouldn't be "see-through" when I came out of the water. More importantly, the black shirt would absorb heat from the sun after I walked out of the cold river.) One guy I knew was baptized in a backyard chlorine swimming pool. The last "meetings" baptism I attended was in a pond on the convention grounds. It looked like about 1/3 of the convention was gathered around the pond, and parents brought their children. With at least 200 people crowded around the pond, I couldn't see much that was happening down by the water. Girls and women went first, then boys and men. The people being baptized were mostly teenagers, with a few older adults. After the baptism was finished, the people were wrapped in towels and bundled into mini-vans for a ride back to the showers. At the meeting before baptism, the workers announced that the showers would be reserved for people being baptized. The most recent baptism I attended (about a month after the convention baptism) was in normal Sunday service of a Dutch Reformed church, and they held a special ceremony to welcome the mothers of two babies into the church before they sprinkled the babies. I concluded that the church must have a rule that at least one parent must be a member before they will perform baptism on an infant. The actual words used in my baptism, the convention baptism, and the Dutch Reformed baptism were the same. I find the details of your baptism fascinating. I am sure the river must have been freezing! I am also amazed that the workers baptised you in a skirt with a slit- considering the amount of preaching from the older male workers against the immorality of skirts with slits. What is the most interesting is that despite the workers' attempts to keep aloof from the "worldly" churches, your baptism consisted of the same words as a "worldly" church!!
|
|
|
Post by apple on Jan 12, 2012 18:11:37 GMT -5
In the early days over here people were usually baptised in the sea. However these developed into public spectacles with some controversy appearing in local papers. Maybe it was this which drove baptisms underground (as well as under the water!)? A good point. The Impartial Observer was hardly impartial at the time when covering the activities of the early 2x2s (although it does sound as though the group was troublesome and slanderous in it's behaviour during those early days). some people are kept waiting years before they get baptised. Anybody here left waiting years for their baptism?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2012 0:00:51 GMT -5
What is the most interesting is that despite the workers' attempts to keep aloof from the "worldly" churches, your baptism consisted of the same words as a "worldly" church!! You expected them to change the words "I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost" to something else?
|
|
|
Post by apple on Jan 13, 2012 12:36:09 GMT -5
What is the most interesting is that despite the workers' attempts to keep aloof from the "worldly" churches, your baptism consisted of the same words as a "worldly" church!! You expected them to change the words "I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost" to something else? Nope! It's just the irony of it all: the workers trying to be different to the Christian churches and making a big deal about their differences to these churches- and yet, they haven't managed to achieve that. On a more thoughtful note, I guess the workers exploit the few similarities they do share with Christian churches to maintain the facade of the meetings being a Christian group. Outsiders who get sucked into the meetings are not going to notice their Gnostic teachings because they hear some of the typical Christian sayings repeated in every church and they see the women with their hair in buns and their long skirts and assume the meetings are a nice group of sincere, devout people.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2012 21:55:50 GMT -5
You expected them to change the words "I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost" to something else? Nope! It's just the irony of it all: the workers trying to be different to the Christian churches and making a big deal about their differences to these churches- and yet, they haven't managed to achieve that. On a more thoughtful note, I guess the workers exploit the few similarities they do share with Christian churches to maintain the facade of the meetings being a Christian group. Outsiders who get sucked into the meetings are not going to notice their Gnostic teachings because they hear some of the typical Christian sayings repeated in every church and they see the women with their hair in buns and their long skirts and assume the meetings are a nice group of sincere, devout people. Well, I go to meetings and I believe I am a sincere, devout person and most folks who meet me think I'm nice. However, I don't have a bun and my theology is Christian, so maybe I'm not really one of the friends
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jan 13, 2012 22:27:34 GMT -5
Nope! It's just the irony of it all: the workers trying to be different to the Christian churches and making a big deal about their differences to these churches- and yet, they haven't managed to achieve that. ... I don't think the point was to make themselves different from other churches, but to make themselves like what they read in the Bible. Since baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is in the Bible, no doubt that is why they use those words.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jan 13, 2012 23:23:55 GMT -5
Hberry wrote: NO BUN!! What's this F&W world coming to! Curious as to how do you wear your hair to meeting? I'm hoping you will write that you wear it down!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2012 11:45:04 GMT -5
Hberry wrote: NO BUN!! What's this F&W world coming to! Curious as to how do you wear your hair to meeting? I'm hoping you will write that you wear it down! LOL. I quite often wear it down because my hair isn't very long (it just doesn't grow). If I wear it up, I do the "messy" look or a French twist. Actually the only buns around here are on the very old ladies; the younger ones eschew the bun.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2012 11:47:53 GMT -5
Nope! It's just the irony of it all: the workers trying to be different to the Christian churches and making a big deal about their differences to these churches- and yet, they haven't managed to achieve that. ... I don't think the point was to make themselves different from other churches, but to make themselves like what they read in the Bible. Since baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is in the Bible, no doubt that is why they use those words. I agree. We are not different JUST to be different.
|
|
|
Post by apple on Jan 14, 2012 16:54:32 GMT -5
I don't think the point was to make themselves different from other churches, but to make themselves like what they read in the Bible. Since baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is in the Bible, no doubt that is why they use those words. I agree. We are not different JUST to be different. Oh, I'm not sure on that the reason being that to my questions on why I had to be dressed so oddly the response was often "because we are different". My peers at school were not kept to ankle length denim skirts and blouses and when I requested to look a little more normal, to look like my peers I would be told that my peers were of Church X and Church Y and while the people of those churches were "nice, decent people" we were not them, they were not in the "truth" and therefore did not know any better. I got the impression that our attire was different for the sake of being different, to distinguish us as different for everyone else (the minority saved in the face of the worldly majority), and to declare us as seperate from the worldly, TV-loving outsiders.
|
|
|
Post by ScholarGal on Jan 14, 2012 18:09:33 GMT -5
I agree. We are not different JUST to be different. Oh, I'm not sure on that the reason being that to my questions on why I had to be dressed so oddly the response was often "because we are different". My peers at school were not kept to ankle length denim skirts and blouses and when I requested to look a little more normal, to look like my peers I would be told that my peers were of Church X and Church Y and while the people of those churches were "nice, decent people" we were not them, they were not in the "truth" and therefore did not know any better. I got the impression that our attire was different for the sake of being different, to distinguish us as different for everyone else (the minority saved in the face of the worldly majority), and to declare us as seperate from the worldly, TV-loving outsiders. Told by the workers how to dress? Or by your parents? I never wore ankle length denim skirts when I was school age. If my denim skirts were that long, I got out the scissors and sewing machine and hemmed them up to knee length or calf length. I had one peasant skirt that was ankle-length and one long black pleated skirt, but I didn't wear them to school. I had one dress that was floor length--but that was my band & choir uniform, so all the girls were wearing it! The other band uniform was a printed tuxedo shirt, blue cummerbund, and my own pair of black dress pants. I always had pants, but I usually only wore them for work (required), attending sports events, and when doing projects at home (fixing the car, painting, etc.). There was only one time in high school when my parents refused to let me leave the house until I had changed clothes. It was about -40 degrees (C or F) outside and I came to the breakfast table wearing a skirt. My parents made me change into pants. The workers would come and stay at our place for a week at a time, so I'm sure they saw my pants but they never said anything to me about wearing pants. I know the sister workers definitely saw me wearing pants when they came to help us with a paint and wallpaper project!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2012 18:13:10 GMT -5
I agree. We are not different JUST to be different. Oh, I'm not sure on that the reason being that to my questions on why I had to be dressed so oddly the response was often "because we are different". My peers at school were not kept to ankle length denim skirts and blouses and when I requested to look a little more normal, to look like my peers I would be told that my peers were of Church X and Church Y and while the people of those churches were "nice, decent people" we were not them, they were not in the "truth" and therefore did not know any better. I got the impression that our attire was different for the sake of being different, to distinguish us as different for everyone else (the minority saved in the face of the worldly majority), and to declare us as seperate from the worldly, TV-loving outsiders. You heard that; I never did. Those I knew tried to live seamlessly with the world unless they felt they could not do so in good conscience and then they were different. Neither I nor my friends seek to be "differnt," but we don't reject it to follow our convictions. Obviously your folks had a different take on it.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jan 14, 2012 18:40:29 GMT -5
Oh, I'm not sure on that the reason being that to my questions on why I had to be dressed so oddly the response was often "because we are different". My peers at school were not kept to ankle length denim skirts and blouses and when I requested to look a little more normal, to look like my peers I would be told that my peers were of Church X and Church Y and while the people of those churches were "nice, decent people" we were not them, they were not in the "truth" and therefore did not know any better. I got the impression that our attire was different for the sake of being different, to distinguish us as different for everyone else (the minority saved in the face of the worldly majority), and to declare us as seperate from the worldly, TV-loving outsiders. You heard that; I never did. Those I knew tried to live seamlessly with the world unless they felt they could not do so in good conscience and then they were different. Neither I nor my friends seek to be "differnt," but we don't reject it to follow our convictions. Obviously your folks had a different take on it. Ditto to the other two, but one difference was when I was in school no girls wore pants - or did only EXTREMELY rarely. Back then, girls wore skirts and dresses. When I was in college, pants were more common, but not universal. My professing cousin and I did go out in public in pants and even cut-off jeans, but not to class. So we were hypocrites! No, wait - we dressed as we thought was appropriate for the situation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2012 21:18:34 GMT -5
You heard that; I never did. Those I knew tried to live seamlessly with the world unless they felt they could not do so in good conscience and then they were different. Neither I nor my friends seek to be "differnt," but we don't reject it to follow our convictions. Obviously your folks had a different take on it. Ditto to the other two, but one difference was when I was in school no girls wore pants - or did only EXTREMELY rarely. Back then, girls wore skirts and dresses. When I was in college, pants were more common, but not universal. My professing cousin and I did go out in public in pants and even cut-off jeans, but not to class. So we were hypocrites! No, wait - we dressed as we thought was appropriate for the situation. Good point, Emy. When I was in grade school, girls did not wear pants to school, nor did they in HS. I think in college some did (it's been a long time!) but I didn't wear pants in public (other than when riding horses, skating, etc) until it was very common for women to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Jan 16, 2012 13:28:48 GMT -5
I don't think the point was to make themselves different from other churches, but to make themselves like what they read in the Bible. Since baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is in the Bible, no doubt that is why they use those words. I agree. We are not different JUST to be different. I disagree with this. I believe they try to be different just to be different. If churches do it, we don't do it, kind of thing. I asked a worker if they could pray with us. My husband and I as we were going though a tough time. They say we are not Pentecostal. I used to have the expression with regard to workers not doing things because churches do it - it was they throw out the baby with the bath water. If other churches do it then they don't. Not all things, but that was their excuse for not doing certain things.
|
|
|
Post by apple on Jan 16, 2012 19:57:27 GMT -5
You heard that; I never did. Those I knew tried to live seamlessly with the world unless they felt they could not do so in good conscience and then they were different. Neither I nor my friends seek to be "differnt," but we don't reject it to follow our convictions. Obviously your folks had a different take on it It wasn't my folks who had a different take on things- it was the majority of meetings people. My folks were very liberal compared to other families.
|
|
|
Post by apple on Jan 16, 2012 20:03:26 GMT -5
I agree. We are not different JUST to be different. I disagree with this. I believe they try to be different just to be different. If churches do it, we don't do it, kind of thing. I asked a worker if they could pray with us. My husband and I as we were going though a tough time. They say we are not Pentecostal. I used to have the expression with regard to workers not doing things because churches do it - it was they throw out the baby with the bath water. If other churches do it then they don't. Not all things, but that was their excuse for not doing certain things. That's how it was! When I'd complain to a certain worker about the unscriptural rules regarding womens' dress, she'd say "Well, we are different. We are seperate. Others can do these things but they aren't right with God. We are and that's why we are different".
|
|