Dåb
I flere artikler i Kristeligt Dagblad har der været skrevet om dåb ved overøsning i forhold til dåb ved neddykning. Det har hver gang været formen, der har været skrevet om, mens indholdet – hvorfor døber vi, og hvad er dåbens trosmæssige og teologiske indhold – ikke har været berørt. I en artikel hvor Kurt E. Nielsen udtaler sig om de to forskellige dåbsformer og i en artikel http://www.kristendom.dk/daab/daab-ved-neddykning-forekommer-ogsaa-i-sverige-tyskland-og-norge, hvor Mogens Mogensen skriver om neddykningsdåb i Norden og Nordtyskland, ser det ud som om teologien er uberørt, dvs. at det handler om barnedåben.
Men det er ikke en selvfølgelighed, at det er barnedåben, det handler om. Allerede på Luthers tid var der en kirkeretning, der hed Anabaptisterne (de er kendt ved dette polemiske tilnavn, som betyder gendøbere – selv kaldte de sig døbere eller brødre), som forkastede barnedåben og døbte ved neddykning. De blev i vidt omfang forfulgt både af den lutherske kirke og den katolske. Deres dåb var en bekendelsesdåb, som er det samme de første kristne blev døbt med i århundrederne efter Kristus. Først efter at kirken omkring 450 blev statskirke, kom barnedåben med overøsning til som den rette katolske dåbsform.
http://www.religion.dk/spørg-om-kristendom/kirken-har-fra-ældste-tid-anerkendt-barnedåb.
De danske biskopper har besluttet, at de ikke vil tillade dåb i det fri. Det vil udelukke dåb ved fuld neddykning i stort omfang. Når nu dåben i dag bliver fremstillet som én dåb, hvad enten der er tale om neddykning eller overøsning, kan man så forestille sig, at en person, som får afslag på dåb i det fri, vil få følgende besked af præst eller biskop: ”Du kan ikke blive døbt i det fri ved fuld neddykning, men jeg har en god ven i Valgmenigheden rundt om hjørnet, som sikkert gerne vil døbe dig”? – eller måske ”jeg har en god ven i den lokale Pinsekirke, som gerne vil døbe dig ved fuld neddykning”?
Hvis dåben er ens, bortset fra om det er dåb ved overøsning eller neddykning, hvorfor så i det hele taget døbe børn?
Og hvis det er den samme dåb, så bør frikirker (baptistiske, apostolske, pinsekirker m.v.) vel også være statsfinansierede?
Eller omvendt – hvorfor skal vi overhovedet have en statskirke og en statsreligion?
Vi vil stille spørgsmålet til Dansk Oase. I, som er en fornyelsesbevægelse i folkekirken, hvilken fornyelse bidrager I med, med hensyn til dåben?
En central motivation for barnedåb har været frygt. Frygt for at barnet skulle dø før det var blevet døbt, og ville det så komme i himlen? Så er det barnet bliver døbt for en sikkerheds skyld.
Hermed kommer man til dåben som frelsende handling. Jesus siger i Markus 16,16 ”Den, der tror og bliver døbt, skal frelses; men den, der ikke tror, skal dømmes”. Hvor er sammenhængen mellem tro og dåb i barnedåben?
Den etiopiske hofmand i Apostlenes Gerninger kom til tro, da Filip forklarede evangeliet for ham, og det fik ham til at spørge om at blive døbt. Tro – bekendelse – dåb. Et barn kan ikke bekende sin tro. Det gør forældrene eller gudmoderen til gengæld. Men hvorfor tror vi, at den bekendelse overhovedet er gyldig? Det er ikke nævnt i Bibelen, hvor man heller ikke ser barnedåb.
Hvorfor døber vi?
Dåben er ikke til af hensyn til navngivning, selv om den ofte bliver brugt til det (Præsten siger ”Hvad er barnets navn?”), og selv om man i lægejournaler kan se formuleringen ”udøbt barn”.
I Wikipedia-artiklen om Anabaptister står følgende: ”Det siges, at hvis en mand i det 16. århundrede hverken drak, bandede og svovlede, mishandlede sine ansatte og familie, så risikerede han at blive mistænkt for at være anabaptist.” Det siger noget om Anabaptisterne, men det siger desværre endnu mere om andre kristnes sindelag. Kan vi sige os fri fra at være af den art, selv om vi kalder os kristne?
Der findes kristne retninger, som tolker bibelen sådan, at Paulus forbød kvinder at blive præster. Her i landet er præster i disse kirkelige retninger kendt for ikke at ville give hånd til kvindelige præster, når de bliver ordineret. Hvordan kan der stå Gud på bundlinjen hvor man kan være så afstumpet og uhøflig mod kvinder – er Gud så ubehagelig, ond og afstumpet, som disse mænd giver udtryk for? Der er en direkte linje til islam, hvor mænd ikke må give hånd til kvinder.
Kaare Rübner Jørgensen argumenterer enkelt og forståeligt for kvindelige præsters ligeværdighed, fordi Paulus og de andre apostle anså dem for ligeværdige:
http://www.kristeligt-dagblad.dk/debat/katolicisme.-hvad-skal-vi-med-kvinder-......
Bogstavelig bibellæsning skulle være baggrunden for dette dogme imod kvindelige præster. Som Rübner Jørgensen viser, er der imidlertid flere måder at læse bibelen på, hvis man også inddrager Paulus’ ”godkendte partnere i arbejdet” som en del af læsningen. Men hvis man virkelig læser bibelen bogstaveligt, skulle heller ingen af de mandlige præster kunne ordineres, for så ”skulle alle præster være omskårne, have uklippet hår og skæg, spise kosher og tale aramæisk”. Kan vi sige os fri fra at have ovenstående voldelige, kvindefjendske holdninger fra Anabaptisternes tid?
Vi har før skrevet om denne video, som kaldes ”Årets konfirmationsvideo”. At sådan en video blev lavet skulle ikke kunne finde sted. Mange børn er meget sensitive, og ville ikke kunne tåle sådan en optræden fra en præst. Han leger med konfirmanderne, som om de er hans ligeværdige. Men de er børn, han er en autoritet og præst.
Det faldt mig virkelig for brystet, at det hævdes, at det hele ender godt – ved at præsten får sin vilje og får de uvorne konfirmander til at love at komme i kirke hver uge!
Videoen har alene despotisk indhold.
Kan kirkeministeren mon godkende det, vi her peger på som virkeligheden i kirken – undertrykkelse af kvinder og råhed mod børn?
Daniela Skov fik PTSD fordi pastor Jonas Serner-Pedersen brugte politiet mod hende. Det var despotisk magt. Chokerende, groft.
Med venlig hilsen Daniela Skov og Lars Skov Krøgholt.
Baptism
In several articles in Kristeligt Dagblad, it has been written about baptism by sprinkling in relation to baptism by immersion. It has each time been the form of which there has been written, while the contents – why we baptize, and what are the religious and theological content--has not been touched. In an article in which Kurt E. Nielsen speaks out about the two different forms of baptism and in an article http://www.kristendom.dk/daab/daab-ved-neddykning-forekommer-ogsaa-i-sverige-tyskland-og-norge where Mogens Mogensen writes about baptism by immersion in Scandinavia and Northern Germany, it seems as though theology is pristine, IE. It is about child baptism.
But it is not self-evident that it is child baptism, it is all about. Already on Luther's time there was a church direction, called Anabaptists (they're known by this polemical epithet, which means re-baptizers – even called themselves baptizers or brothers), which rejected the child baptism and baptized by immersion. They were widely persecuted both by the Lutheran Church and the Catholic. Their baptism was a believers ' baptism, which is the same the first Christians were baptized with in the centuries after Christ. Only after that the Church around 450 became a State Church, came the christening with sprinkling as the proper Catholic baptismal form.
http://www.religion.dk/ask-about-Christianity/Church-have-from-oldest-time-recognized-christening.
The Danish bishops have decided that they will not allow baptism in the open air. It will exclude the baptism by full immersion in a large scale. When now the baptism today will be presented as one baptism, whether it is a matter of submersion or sprinkling, can you imagine that a person who is refused baptism in the open, will get the following message by Pastor or Bishop: "you cannot be baptized by full immersion in the outdoors, but I have a good friend in the protestant free church around the corner , which surely would like to baptize you "? – or perhaps "I have a good friend in the local Pentecostal Church, which would like to baptize you by full immersion"?
If baptism is identical, apart from whether it is baptism by sprinkling or submersion, then why, in General, baptize children?
And if it is the same baptism, so should free churches (Baptist, Apostolic, Pentecostal churches, etc.) well also be State-funded?
Or vice versa – why do we even have a State Church and a State religion?
We will ask the question to “Dansk Oase”. You, who are a renewal movement in the Danish State Church, which renewal do you contribute with, with regards to baptism?
A key motivation for christening has been fear. Fear that the child would die before it had been baptized, and would it then go to heaven? So is it the child is baptized for safety's sake.
This brings us to the baptism as a redemptive Act. Jesus says in Mark 16.16 "he who believes and is baptized, shall be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned ". Where is the correlation between faith and baptism in the christening?
The Ethiopian eunuch in Acts of the Apostles came to belief, since The Gospel explained to him by Philip, and it got him to ask to be baptized. Faith – confession – baptism. A child cannot confess his faith. This does the parents or the sponsor in return. But why do we believe that the confession is at all valid? It is not mentioned in the Bible, where you cannot see infant baptism.
Why do we baptize?
Baptism is not for the sake of naming, although it often gets used to it (the pastor says "what's the baby's name?"), and although one in the medical records may view the wording "unbaptized child".
In the Wikipedia article about the Anabaptists are the following: "it is said that if a man in the 16th century neither drank, cursed or was swearing, nor abused his employees and family, so he risked to be suspected of being an anabaptist. " This says something about the Anabaptists, but it says even more about other Christian spirit, unfortunately. Can we say us free from being of this species, although we call ourselves Christians?
There are Christians who interpret the Bible in such a direction that Paul forbade women to become priests. In this country there are pastors in these pastoral directions known for not wanting to give hand to female pastors when they are ordained. How can God be on the bottom line where one can be so callous and rude toward women – is God so unpleasant, vicious and callous, as these men express? There is a direct line to Islam, where men should not shake hands with women.
Kaare Rübner Jørgensen argues in a simple and understandable way for female pastors’ equality, because Paul and the other Apostles considered them equals:
http://www.kristeligt-dagblad.dk/debat/katolicisme.-hvad-skal-vi-med-kvinder-..
Literal Bible reading was supposed to be the background for the dogma against female pastors. As Rübner Jørgensen, however shows there are several ways to read the Bible literally, if we also include Paul's "approved partners in the work" as part of the reading. But if you really read the Bible literally, nor should any of the male priests possibly be ordained, as "all priests had to be circumcised, have uncut hair and beard, eat kosher and speak Aramaic". Can we say us free from having the above violent, misogynistic attitudes from Anabaptist time?
We have previously written about this video, which is called "the year's confirmation video". That such a video was created should could not take place. Many children are very sensitive, and would not be able to withstand such an appearance from a priest. He plays with his pupils, as if they are his equals. But they are children, he is an authority and pastor.
It really made a big impression on me that it is argued that it all ends well — by way of the pastor has his way and gets the nasty pupils to promise to come to church every week!
The video has only despotic content.
Can the Church Minister approve of what we here point to as the reality of the Church — the oppression of women and brutality against children?
Daniela Skov got PTSD because pastor Jonas Serner-Pedersen used police against her. It was despotic power. Shocking crudely.
With kind regards Daniela Forest and Lars Skov Krøgholt.