I sort of gave the historical background on the rite of confirmation and where we stand now as a denomination in our understanding (or misunderstanding as the case may be) about confirmation. Those from the more protestant side of the church just want to get rid of it. I assume their logic (though I have yet to read a clear annunciation of this assumption) that if one believes that there is only 2 sacraments instituted by Christ (Eucharist and Baptism), then confirmation can be dispensed with. This is a very protestant notion, that I do not agree with. To quote a buzzword from a liturgical guru, the "ethos of the current prayer book" is that everything we do as Christians flows out of baptism.
Most people I was around in seminary (who largely came into or grew up in the church with the 1979 BCP) bought this (theo)logic hook, line, and sinker. I know that people who knew me in seminary will no faint with shock when I say that I disagreed with that. (Here's a kleenex to help wipe off that sarcasm.) People familiar with my blog know that I dance to the beat of a different theological drummer than that to which people in mainstream liberalism dance. In fact, I usually abhor groupthink, and the three years in the Seabury Pen instilled in me a healthy gag reflex to whatever liturgical nonsense was wafting out of the Seabury
I could conveniently blame my reticence on completely agreeing with the
Let me get back to the issue at hand, for I fear I might have inadvertently chased a white (albeit a confirmed Anglo-catholic) rabbit down a hole. From those of us who have always had a more catholic understanding of the sacraments, I get really twitchy with the ecclesiology that says we small band of
Okay, I will end here and get back to work. I have some leaves that need tending...