Bev, Even today, I've heard from women in England, in the High Anglican tradition, who bemoan that the "churching" ceremony, as it's called there, has disappeared. They don't think of it as allowing them back into church after being "unclean" after giving birth, but rather that the time away from church, and indeed most other social activities, is a time for them to be alone with the newborn to bond. For them the time away is special, and so is the celebration of them as new mothers when they return to church.I think also that centuries ago, women who'd just given birth were very prone to infections, etc, so they really needed to be protected from germs, etc, even if the cultures didn't understand germs. They did know that women and their newborns died at a horrendous rate. Therefore, a time of sequestration was a good idea for both. When it was over, they were welcomed and celebrated back into society. Since the center of society was the church, that's where it happened. Not my thing, but I do sort of see where they were coming from. Doris On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Bev Anderson via <norway@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Mange tusen takk, Arild, Gwen, Carol, et alia! > > Okay, the 'entrance' combined with the 'introduction' sounds like the best > explanation. In addition to the infant being baptized, the mother was > introduced at the same time, it seems like, since Ingang is not noted for > every birth. > > [I keep forgetting about that 'Introduction' ceremony, largely because no > matter how often I read about the alleged 'justification' for it in various > histories I've read through half a century, or see the notation in these > records, the custom still makes no sense whatsoever to me.] > > Thanks, again! > Bev > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Arild Kompelien via <norway@rootsweb.com> > To: Gwen Butrum <gwenbutrum@gmail.com>; norway@rootsweb.com > Cc: > Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 6:51 PM > Subject: Re: [NOR] Lars Olsen, birth/baptism record, Forthun kirke, > Luster, S&F, Norway > > Inngang may mean entrance, but in this context it means introduction > where the minister led the "inngangskone" from the entrance into the > church, after her birth. > > Arild Kompelien > Norwaylist Archiveshttp:// > archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index?list=norway > > RESUBSCRIBE UNSUB > http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/intl/NOR/NORWAY.html > > guidelines http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~norway/guidelines.htm > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > NORWAY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

I believe this custom was straight out of the bible. It says somewhere that the mother would be unclean for whatever and specified for a male or a female baby. I could look it up if anyone is interested. It was while Moses was being given the rules for the Hebrews when they escaped from Egypt. Leslie Quist > Bev, > > Even today, I've heard from women in England, in the High Anglican > tradition, who bemoan that the "churching" ceremony, as it's called there, > has disappeared. They don't think of it as allowing them back into church > after being "unclean" after giving birth, but rather that the time away > from church, and indeed most other social activities, is a time for them > to > be alone with the newborn to bond. For them the time away is special, and > so is the celebration of them as new mothers when they return to church.I > think also that centuries ago, women who'd just given birth were very > prone > to infections, etc, so they really needed to be protected from germs, etc, > even if the cultures didn't understand germs. They did know that women > and > their newborns died at a horrendous rate. Therefore, a time of > sequestration was a good idea for both. When it was over, they were > welcomed and celebrated back into society. Since the center of society > was > the church, that's where it happened. Not my thing, but I do sort of see > where they were coming from. > > Doris

Sorry to say that I disagree. The fact is (in Norway in older times) that the child must be baptized within 8 days. There was no concern for the health of the baby. Imagine they had to take babies to church no matter what the weather was like in the coastal area where they had to go by boat, or at cold winters in the inlands. The main concern was to have the baby baptized. And concerning the women, the bible told they were unclean and should wait about 40 days before they were introduced in church. This meant most women couldn't attend the baptism of their own child. But exceptions were made if the family had a long and tiredsome travel to church. Then the women could be introduced the same day as the child was baptized. Arild Kompelien Den 27.03.2015 04:24, skrev Doris Waggoner via: > Bev, > > Even today, I've heard from women in England, in the High Anglican > tradition, who bemoan that the "churching" ceremony, as it's called there, > has disappeared. They don't think of it as allowing them back into church > after being "unclean" after giving birth, but rather that the time away > from church, and indeed most other social activities, is a time for them to > be alone with the newborn to bond. For them the time away is special, and > so is the celebration of them as new mothers when they return to church.I > think also that centuries ago, women who'd just given birth were very prone > to infections, etc, so they really needed to be protected from germs, etc, > even if the cultures didn't understand germs. They did know that women and > their newborns died at a horrendous rate. Therefore, a time of > sequestration was a good idea for both. When it was over, they were > welcomed and celebrated back into society. Since the center of society was > the church, that's where it happened. Not my thing, but I do sort of see > where they were coming from. > > Doris > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Bev Anderson via <norway@rootsweb.com> > wrote: > >> Mange tusen takk, Arild, Gwen, Carol, et alia! >> >> Okay, the 'entrance' combined with the 'introduction' sounds like the best >> explanation. In addition to the infant being baptized, the mother was >> introduced at the same time, it seems like, since Ingang is not noted for >> every birth. >> >> [I keep forgetting about that 'Introduction' ceremony, largely because no >> matter how often I read about the alleged 'justification' for it in various >> histories I've read through half a century, or see the notation in these >> records, the custom still makes no sense whatsoever to me.] >> >> Thanks, again! >> Bev >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Arild Kompelien via <norway@rootsweb.com> >> To: Gwen Butrum <gwenbutrum@gmail.com>; norway@rootsweb.com >> Cc: >> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 6:51 PM >> Subject: Re: [NOR] Lars Olsen, birth/baptism record, Forthun kirke, >> Luster, S&F, Norway >> >> Inngang may mean entrance, but in this context it means introduction >> where the minister led the "inngangskone" from the entrance into the >> church, after her birth. >> >> Arild Kompelien >> Norwaylist Archiveshttp:// >> archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index?list=norway >> >> RESUBSCRIBE UNSUB >> http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/intl/NOR/NORWAY.html >> >> guidelines http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~norway/guidelines.htm >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> NORWAY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > Norwaylist Archiveshttp://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index?list=norway > > RESUBSCRIBE UNSUB > http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/intl/NOR/NORWAY.html > > guidelines http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~norway/guidelines.htm > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NORWAY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >