In a message dated 8/22/2003 1:21:23 PM Central Daylight Time, 
mward@... writes:

<< So, are you saying keep confirmation at the age it's traditionally done
 (12-13)?  Or compact it as is done in the East to combine it with
 Baptism?>>

DKD:  For better or for worse, Confirmation has developed into a "coming of 
age" rite, in which those who have been adequately catechised in the faith are 
confirmed in their Baptismal Covenant by the laying on of hands.  The new REC 
BCP even goes so far as to express this very understanding in the presentation:

"Reverend Father in God, I present unto you these persons who now desire to 
confirm their Baptismal Covenant through the laying on of hands."

Thus, I see no reason to change the "traditional" age or practice of 
Confirmation, viewing these things as providential developments in our 
liturgical/sacramental history, serving pastoral ends, and further augmenting the 
relationship between the confirmand and the Church Catholic through one's re-affirmation 
of one's baptismal vows along with a sacramental laying-on-of-hands by a 
bishop (i.e., the Church's witness and confirmation of those vows).  Incidentally, 
the new REC Confirmation service also contains an interogatory form of the 
Apostles' Creed along with the other interogations - an improvement over the 
1928, IMHO.

A better question, however, would be how we might adapt our baptismal 
practice and theology to better fit a more Patristic pattern.  And here I think we 
need to revive the practice of chrismation, which can be easily done at the 
signing of the Cross by using consecrated oil at the signation. Indeed, most 
modern Anglican rites have already done just that.  Furthermore, a Eucharist 
immediately following the Baptismal Office where consecrated wine is (as I suggested 
before) touched to the lips of newly baptized infants, would all but re-unite 
the ancient pattern.  

Regards,
Daniel