Baptism during Lent

PreachersWife2004 · Feb 7, 2008

So as not to derail BabyLutheran's wonderful thread, I'm starting this because I'd really like to discuss why some churches do not perform baptisms during lent (or advent for that matter).

My children are baptized roughly 5-10 minutes after they are born, much like Luther's children were. I have always wanted it that way. My oldest son was baptized by my father and my other three were all baptized by my husband.

I couldn't imagine going 40 days without being able to baptize my child. If I was a member of a church that held to this practice, I would most likely go to another church to have my child baptized.

It's not only for my peace of mind, but it's also because my children are all believers as well and there's no reason why they should wait to be baptized.

I am interested to get others' opinions on this.

Melethiel · Feb 7, 2008

I would rather wait and have my children baptized in the church instead of immediately after birth, unless it's an emergency - we have to remember that the Church is communal as well as individual, and the other members should have the chance to welcome somebody into the Church. As far as the waiting - in some traditions, it is standard to wait 40 days before baptizing an infant, no matter what time of year it is (unless it's an emergency). I know many EO do this.

It's not only for my peace of mind, but it's also because my children are all believers as well and there's no reason why they should wait to be baptized.

But we do have adults wait to be baptized until they have been properly catechized. This was how Lent got started in the first place - baptisms took place on the Vigil of Easter (likely due to the heavy symbolism of Resurrection associated with Baptism), and the catechumens went through a period of instruction, prayer, and fasting beforehand.

BabyLutheran · Feb 7, 2008

Our pastor said at some point in church history, baptisms were only performed on Easter. At least I thought I heard him say that! Don't quote me on it though.

BigNorsk · Feb 7, 2008

It was a common thing at one time. Now, there is a big movement within the Roman Catholic Church to return to that as if it has some importance. They always seem to have this desire to ever be building traditions. I can certainly see if people desire to be baptized the day before Easter, I can see no objection whatsoever to it. But I cannot see the church telling them they need to wait. Jesus said let the little children come to me. Peter told the people the gospel and then commanded all who believed to be baptized, not to study with him for several weeks, months or years and then he would permit it unto them.

I was not aware that the movement was spilling over into other denominations until now.

Marv

BabyLutheran · Feb 7, 2008

Pastor Chris said back before our church grew, and it was just old school Lutherans, they didn't do anything "fun" during Lent.

We are having a Valentine dinner dance, with renewing of vows this year. He laughed and said that never would have happened in the old days.

Melethiel · Feb 7, 2008

Oh, I don't think baptisms should only be on the Vigil - just giving historical background.

CaliforniaJosiah · Feb 7, 2008

All this seems odd to me....

Baptism is GOD'S act and He invites ALL (with no exclusion of children). I don't think we have any business telling God, "But I won't do as God commands because of a manmade season!" The divine LACK of blessings to that child (especially in the case of death) would be the fault of that pastor/congregation for imposing their OWN manmade rubric and rejecting God's call. God did NOT command the liturgical season of Lent, He DID give us the Sacramental Gift of Baptism and the Great Commission.

I was baptized by my father when I was about 4 minutes old, in the operating room. It wasn't Lent (it would have been Epiphany) but if I died (and the doctors said the odds of that were pretty high), I'm glad my father didn't say, "But the liturical season won't permit God's grace to be applied to my child - he'll just need to die with my refusal and without God's grace, the liturgical season is more important."

Sorry to be so blunt, but as one who WAS baptized immediately irregardless of the liturgical season, I DO have strong feelings about this.

ONE of the reasons I left the Catholic Church was because of manmade rules overriding God's Word.

Just MY perspective...

Pax

- Josiah

.

LutheranChick · Feb 7, 2008

Both my kids were born in February- one on the 28th and one on the 21st- different years, of course! - so they were both baptized during Lent. There wasn't even a discussion as to whether we should or shouldn't- didn't even occur to me. We are encouraged to baptize our children asap after birth, so what season of the year it is does not matter.

BabyLutheran · Feb 7, 2008

You know, we are forgetting that God is in control here. He sparked my daughter to want to be baptized, and it will be only a blink of an eye until Easter. So I think the controversy is not so controversial. It will be an Easter my daughter will never forget!

Frankly, I was expecting my daughter to be against being baptized for a long time, certainly a lot longer than 45 days from now! lol

PreachersWife2004 · Feb 7, 2008

Melethiel said:
I would rather wait and have my children baptized in the church instead of immediately after birth, unless it's an emergency - we have to remember that the Church is communal as well as individual, and the other members should have the chance to welcome somebody into the Church. As far as the waiting - in some traditions, it is standard to wait 40 days before baptizing an infant, no matter what time of year it is (unless it's an emergency). I know many EO do this.

But we do have adults wait to be baptized until they have been properly catechized. This was how Lent got started in the first place - baptisms took place on the Vigil of Easter (likely due to the heavy symbolism of Resurrection associated with Baptism), and the catechumens went through a period of instruction, prayer, and fasting beforehand.

That's why we have the affirmations. This way, the focus can still be placed on the importance of baptism, and the congregation still gets to welcome the child into the fold.

We don't make adults wait. If they want to be baptized we do it. The confirmation class doesn't have to be completed. When we baptize an adult, we ask them the following questions:

Do you believe that you were born in sin and therefore eternally lost?
Do you believe in the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?
Do you believe that this Triune God planned and carried out your salvation?
Do you believe that God grants you the forgiveness of sins in Holy Baptism?
Do you desire to be baptized?

If they can answer yes to all of these questions, why make them wait?

With my sons, there was usually good reason to baptize them when they were born. With my oldest, there was the issue of whether his father would allow him to be baptized. With my three youngest, all were born early, especially Isaac. We practically baptized him right out of the womb because we knew he was going to get shipped off to the NICU. I suppose one might look at our circumstances and think that there was nothing urgent about it, but I'm thankful that God doens't look at it that way.

As for the practice of no baptisms during lent, I'm betting there's no scriptural backup for that. But if someone's got it, please share.

PreachersWife2004 · Feb 7, 2008

and and a thousand times over!!

CaliforniaJosiah said:
All this seems odd to me....

Baptism is GOD'S act and He invites ALL (with no exclusion of children). I don't think we have any business telling God, "But I don't participate because of a manmade season!" The LACK of blessings to that child (especially in the case of death) would be the fault of that pastor/congregation for imposing their OWN manmade rubric and rejecting God's call. God did NOT command the liturgical season of Lent, He DID give us the Sacramental Gift of Baptism and the Great Commission.

I was baptized by my father when I was about 4 minutes old, in the operating room. It wasn't Lent (it would have been Epiphany) but if I died (and the doctors said the odds that were pretty high), I'm glad my father didn't say, "But the liturical season won't permit God's grace to be applied to my child - he'll just need to die with my refusal."

Sorry to be so blunt, but as one who WAS baptized immediately irregardless of the liturgical season, I DO have strong feelings about this.

ONE of the reasons I left the Catholic Church was because of manmade rules overriding God's Word.

Just MY perspective...

Pax

- Josiah

.

BabyLutheran · Feb 7, 2008

It's funny too how no matter what you or I belive, it's tradition on either side of the controversy. There is zero scriptural basis for baptizing immediately after birth, or waiting for a "manmade" season. Both methods are "tradition." IMO only since I am not a bible scholar

Edit: it's ironic, I was posting this during the post above, I was not responding to it! lol

BabyLutheran · Feb 7, 2008

I have to admit, it's funny that my ELCA church is being more old-fashioned and tradition bound than your supposedly more conservative LCMS and WELS churches. For some reason I get a big charge out of it, I cannot lie during Lent! lol

j/k people! Please don't get bent over what I just typed!

Melethiel · Feb 7, 2008

CaliforniaJosiah said:
All this seems odd to me....

Baptism is GOD'S act and He invites ALL (with no exclusion of children). I don't think we have any business telling God, "But I won't do as God commands because of a manmade season!" The divine LACK of blessings to that child (especially in the case of death) would be the fault of that pastor/congregation for imposing their OWN manmade rubric and rejecting God's call. God did NOT command the liturgical season of Lent, He DID give us the Sacramental Gift of Baptism and the Great Commission.

I was baptized by my father when I was about 4 minutes old, in the operating room. It wasn't Lent (it would have been Epiphany) but if I died (and the doctors said the odds of that were pretty high), I'm glad my father didn't say, "But the liturical season won't permit God's grace to be applied to my child - he'll just need to die with my refusal and without God's grace, the liturgical season is more important."

Sorry to be so blunt, but as one who WAS baptized immediately irregardless of the liturgical season, I DO have strong feelings about this.

ONE of the reasons I left the Catholic Church was because of manmade rules overriding God's Word.

Just MY perspective...

Pax

- Josiah

.

You know, just about everyone here has stated that they would baptize infants immediately if it was an emergency....I would consider anything involving NICU an emergency.

PreachersWife2004 · Feb 7, 2008

BabyLutheran said:
It's funny too how no matter what you or I belive, it's tradition on either side of the controversy. There is zero scriptural basis for baptizing immediately after birth, or waiting for a "manmade" season. Both methods are "tradition." IMO only since I am not a bible scholar

Edit: it's ironic, I was posting this during the post above, I was not responding to it! lol

There's no controversy unless someone is saying that the other practice is wrong. I've got nothing against people who wait to have babies baptized. I'm just not sure why anyone would wait, but that's just me.

I've had people tell me that I am just wrong for not doing the baptism in the church for all to see.

Melethiel · Feb 7, 2008

My birthday falls in the middle of Lent, but I've really no clue how long afterward I was baptized...I think I was at least a few months old.

BabyLutheran · Feb 7, 2008

Sorry for using the word controversy, I should have used difference of opinion. Again, I am not really taking sides. I can see why both points of view are ok.

But no one has told me how immediately baptizing someone within minutes of birth is scriptural and not a "tradition" that the church started centuries ago. If we are supposedly scripturally driven, there should be scripture supporting it.

Remember my background, I didn't believe in baptizing people until they accepted Christ, so I have some baggage.

CaliforniaJosiah · Feb 7, 2008

PreachersWife2004 said:
There's no controversy unless someone is saying that the other practice is wrong. I've got nothing against people who wait to have babies baptized. I'm just not sure why anyone would wait, but that's just me.

I've had people tell me that I am just wrong for not doing the baptism in the church for all to see.

I agree...

And while there MIGHT be some valid reason to postpone God's grace and command, I can't think of any. And the worse reason I can think of is because of the liturgical season. Even "Aunt Zelda can't cancel her bingo outings until next month" seems more valid - it might be important to the parents for Aunt Zelda to be there.

And a clarification to my post above: While MY situation was a known emergency, that's entirely irrelevant to my point.

Just MY perspective...

.

LutheranChick · Feb 7, 2008

PreachersWife2004 said:
I've had people tell me that I am just wrong for not doing the baptism in the church for all to see.

Well that's not right at all. People should mind their own business. But- I know, when you are in a congregation there are always the people who INSIST they are right no matter what and have no problem judging people who don't go along with their opinion.

And the poor Pastor's wife- generally gets judged more than anyone. It's not very Christian, is it. But here I am, judging the judgers. Not my place either. Just need to remember to pray for them...

PreachersWife2004 · Feb 7, 2008

BabyLutheran said:
Sorry for using the word controversy, I should have used difference of opinion. Again, I am not really taking sides. I can see why both points of view are ok.

Oh, Gosh, don't apologize! I didn't mean to single you out or anything!! PROMISE! But many do think there's a controversy when there really isn't. I mean, we are all still baptizing, and we're not denying those who want to be baptized. Some just follow different guidelines.

Baptism during Lent

by his wounds we are healed

Miserere mei, Domine

God Chose Me

Contributor

God Chose Me

Miserere mei, Domine

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

God Chose Me

by his wounds we are healed

by his wounds we are healed

God Chose Me

God Chose Me

Miserere mei, Domine

by his wounds we are healed

Miserere mei, Domine

God Chose Me

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

by his wounds we are healed

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency