Baptism during Lent

[BabyLutheran]

No problem, PW!

It's definitely never a dull moment being Lutheran, is it?

 

[Melethiel]

Watch out for the flying bar stools.

 

[LutheranChick]

No problem, PW!

It's definitely never a dull moment being Lutheran, is it?

LOL- we never miss the opportunity to have a lively discussion!

 

[BabyLutheran]

Watch out for the flying bar stools.

At least that means there's beer around if there are barstools!

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

One more barstool....

Obviously, there's nothing in God's Word (or, to my knowledge, in the Lutheran Confessions) about how many days may pass before we fulfill God's command. In THAT sense, this is adiaphornon where Lutherans may disagree about and where praxis may vary.

If I were a pastor, I would have no grave concerns over the parents who schedule the Baptism on a Sunday that means the child would be a month old by then. Maybe so crazy Aunt Zelda can be there...

But if I were a pastor, I'd have pastoral concern if the baptism isn't getting scheduled or if the parents seem to want to wait until the weather warms up or mom looses her "babyfat" or whatever, and especially if they don't like purple paraments and want to wait until the green ones come up. I'd wonder if they are appreciating God's command, promise and grace? I'd wonder if they are harboring some errant anabaptist ideas?

ONE of the things I find odd (and maybe revealing) is how GREAT parents consider all things physical but how little they too often consider all things spiritual. They make sure junior gets to secular school but not Sunday School, they make sure their preschooler knows animal sounds and their ABC's but not that they know about Jesus. They go to great lengths to make sure their bellys are feed and that it's healthy and right but too often don't show any concern for their soul and if that is healthy and right. As a pastor, I'd be sensitive to helping parents embrace biblcial priorities and understand that their role is not limited to "things that rot" but also the things that are above. I'd come with gospel and grace, but I'd come. With my calendar and an Baptism Application Form. And yes, even if it is Lent.


Just MY bar stool.....
With THAT, I'm outta here!


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[BabyLutheran]

Good post Josiah.

I was that parent, until God finally got through to me.

 

[DaRev]

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.

While there is no Biblical or Confessional mandate concerning Baptisms in Lent, the season of Lent is a somber season to reflect on our sinfulness, to focus on our penitence, and to prepare for the Resurrection of our Lord. During Lent the worship atmosphere is subdued. There is no Hymn of Praise, there are no "Alleluias" sung or spoken.
At the same time, a Baptism is a joyous occasion, to be celebrated by all in the Church. Why would someone insist to have a baptism during a time when the praises and Alleluias that should accompany such an event cannot be sung and proclaimed? Baptisms during Lent should be discouraged unless the situation warrants it sooner rather than later.

As for Baptism being a work of God, it most certainly is. And as such should be celebrated as God's work in us by His garce, mercy, and love. Doing so in the season of Lent makes that a bit difficult.


And, as for someone leaving and going to another church because they want things done "their way", more power to them. I would have to question what they think the Church is; God's house or a social club.

 

[BigNorsk]

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.

Oh, that's simple, I wonder why no one has told you. I'm sorry I've been neglegent.

What we see in the Bible is a pattern, the pattern is really almost two branches. We see for instance the conversion of unbelieving Christians. Christians who for whatever reason are not the head of a house, so they believe, convert and are baptized.

We also see a common pattern where things aren't entirely as an individual. We see in the first baptism in the Bible where the infants who were carried in their parents arms were baptized, and received the promise. Something many of their parents did not. The baptism unto Moses where the entire nation was baptized. We are now commanded to baptize nations, who should we exclude? Should we follow the Biblical pattern or make up one of our own?

We see in Abraham who believed God, that the males of his household over 8 days old all received the mark of the promise, circumcision. They were marked because Abraham believed. To not mark them would have meant there was no belief.

And so we see the same pattern in the New Testament. People like the jailer who came to belief, he brought home the good news, and all his household were baptized. It was a common pattern which we see in various flavors repeatedly performed. Excluding some within the household would not have been acting in faith, it would have been acting in disbelief.

And so when our houses are added to in the gift of a child, they too as a member of our house receive the mark of belief, of baptism. For to not do so would be a mark that we do not believe the promises of God. In some ways our baptism is more of our parents faith than our individual faith, yet there are not many faiths but only one faith. You have the faith of Abraham and are therefore his child his child through his faith which you have now received.

We can look to Noah and his ark. The ark saved his whole family through the water. Were his children all great believers, no the Bible doesn't teach that. It was the faith of Noah that saved them. And he didn't build an ark for himself and tell his children to build their own. There was one ark. One Lord, one faith, one baptism for the remission of sins.

It's a common pattern. One repeated over and over, we might sing "Faith of our Fathers" but do we believe? People create objections. Children cannot believe is a common one. But Jesus said the faith of a paidion was the greatest faith of all a model for us. You might recognize that word the root is the same as paedobaptism, infant baptism. And Jesus called the children members of his kingdom, they were not waiting for membership. And don't forget that Peter specifically told the crowd that the promise is for them and their children, it was not for their children in the future in some way, he spoke in the present, it was for their chidren right there that day. Peter didn't say if you believe line up over there for baptism and drop the children off at the nursery beforehand because we don't want their crying to bother us.

If Peter told the Jews the New Covenant would have excluded their children after the Old had specifically included them they would have picked up the rocks stoned him and that would have been the end of it. Exclude your children? No Jew ever thought that way. Blasphemy.

Marv

 

[BabyLutheran]

Thanks Marv, that is very educational! It is such a broad thing, and I was straining for a tree in the forest....heck, you know what I mean!

 

[LutheranChick]

One more barstool....

Obviously, there's nothing in God's Word (or, to my knowledge, in the Lutheran Confessions) about how many days may pass before we fulfill God's command. In THAT sense, this is adiaphornon where Lutherans may disagree about and where praxis may vary.

If I were a pastor, I would have no grave concerns over the parents who schedule the Baptism on a Sunday that means the child would be a month old by then. Maybe so crazy Aunt Zelda can be there...

But if I were a pastor, I'd have pastoral concern if the baptism isn't getting scheduled or if the parents seem to want to wait until the weather warms up or mom looses her "babyfat" or whatever, and especially if they don't like purple paraments and want to wait until the green ones come up. I'd wonder if they are appreciating God's command, promise and grace? I'd wonder if they are harboring some errant anabaptist ideas?

ONE of the things I find odd (and maybe revealing) is how GREAT parents consider all things physical but how little they too often consider all things spiritual. They make sure junior gets to secular school but not Sunday School, they make sure their preschooler knows animal sounds and their ABC's but not that they know about Jesus. They go to great lengths to make sure their bellys are feed and that it's healthy and right but too often don't show any concern for their soul and if that is healthy and right. As a pastor, I'd be sensitive to helping parents embrace biblcial priorities and understand that their role is not limited to "things that rot" but also the things that are above. I'd come with gospel and grace, but I'd come. With my calendar and an Baptism Application Form. And yes, even if it is Lent.


Just MY bar stool.....
With THAT, I'm outta here!


Pax


- Josiah




.

Great post - I totally agree. What you said is so true.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

See, for me, I think Lent is a perfect time for people to reflect upon the forgiveness of sins and the rebirth that we receive in our baptism, since it was Christ's sacrifice on the cross that allows us that forgiveness and rebirth.

It's a joyous occasion even Allejuias can't be sung. There are a number of baptismal hymns that say just the right thing without impeding on Lent.

And I didn't mean that I would leave the church for good - I should've clarified that I would simply go to another WELS pastor to have my child baptized. Thankfully, that is not anything to worry about. I've never considered my church a social club, and the jab was a little unnecessary, even though I see the point you are trying to make.

While there is no Biblical or Confessional mandate concerning Baptisms in Lent, the season of Lent is a somber season to reflect on our sinfulness, to focus on our penitence, and to prepare for the Resurrection of our Lord. During Lent the worship atmosphere is subdued. There is no Hymn of Praise, there are no "Alleluias" sung or spoken.
At the same time, a Baptism is a joyous occasion, to be celebrated by all in the Church. Why would someone insist to have a baptism during a time when the praises and Alleluias that should accompany such an event cannot be sung and proclaimed? Baptisms during Lent should be discouraged unless the situation warrants it sooner rather than later.

As for Baptism being a work of God, it most certainly is. And as such should be celebrated as God's work in us by His garce, mercy, and love. Doing so in the season of Lent makes that a bit difficult.


And, as for someone leaving and going to another church because they want things done "their way", more power to them. I would have to question what they think the Church is; God's house or a social club.

 

[Aibrean]

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

I'm just surprised no one hasn't commented on the word "accepted". Lutherans say "receive" not accept. Mr. Dictionary says accept means to receive willingly. Receive is to come into possession of. If we "receive" salvation, that means there is nothing that has to be "done" (ie. works) to gain it.

Trust me it took a while to get out of thinking the same way I had for 23 years.

 

[Edial]

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.

You can look at it also from another angle that Marv presented.

When an infant is baptized he/she gets get God's grace.
And Lutrherans also teach that the infant gets faith imparted during baptism (or something to that effect).
Real spiritual things are happening to the infant.

Your older daughter could wait because she already (apparently) has faith.

In my view, babies are very helpless physically as well as spiritually.

If we dress them when they are cold and feed them when they are hungry I think we should also baptize them without waiting.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[ThePilgrim]

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




.

No one is saying that people can't be baptized at any time in the case of an emergency.

But if there's not an emergency, why not wait to have them baptized in a Church?

Grace and peace,
John

 

[ThePilgrim]

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.

Why would your husband not want to baptize your son, if he's a pastor?

*confused*

 

[Edial]

I was baptized as a baby in Soviet Union, Ukraine.
It was an atheist State with very few churches around.

My uncle was a priest in Armenia (part of USSR) at the time and later on in life became an Archbisop.
(Christianity was not as supressed in Armenia due to the ancient Christian roots of the Armenians).

My father somehow sensed it is important to baptize me as a baby.
He called my uncle and he came immediately and I was baptized by my uncle secretly at night at some tiny Russian (or Ukranian) Orthodox Church.

We had to keep it secret from the Communists, since my father could have lost his job.

The fact that I was baptized took priority over many things.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[ThePilgrim]

I was baptized as a baby in Soviet Union, Ukraine.
It was an atheist State with very few churches around.

My uncle was a priest in Armenia (part of USSR) at the time and later on in life became an Archbisop.
(Christianity was not as supressed in Armenia due to the ancient Christian roots of the Armenians).

My father somehow sensed it is important to baptize me as a baby.
He called my uncle and he came immediately and I was baptized by my uncle secretly at night at some tiny Russian (or Ukranian) Orthodox Church.

We had to keep it secret from the Communists, since my father could have lost his job.

The fact that I was baptized took priority over many things.

Thanks,
Ed

Yes, that was the case for many. Many people risked a lot to have their children secretly baptized during the time of the Soviet Union.

 

[BabyLutheran]

I'm just surprised no one hasn't commented on the word "accepted". Lutherans say "receive" not accept. Mr. Dictionary says accept means to receive willingly. Receive is to come into possession of. If we "receive" salvation, that means there is nothing that has to be "done" (ie. works) to gain it.

Trust me it took a while to get out of thinking the same way I had for 23 years.

No, I totally understand and agree with the Lutheran view, I just didn't have that view for 45 years!!!

Reading some of edial's posts, I realize how easy a life we lead here in the US

 

[Edial]

Yes, that was the case for many. Many people risked a lot to have their children secretly baptized during the time of the Soviet Union.

The sad part in this was when I became a Baptist I was taught that infant baprism means nothing.
So, I was re-baptized.
My uncle heard that and gently asked me: "So, they re-baptized you?"
I think he was a bit hurt, but did not make a big deal out of it especially when I began presenting the "mantra" which I was taught that infant baptism means nothing.
He was an extremely kind man.

He passed away in 2002 and I never had a chance to tell him that I appreciate (now) what he did.

But I'll tell him later.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Why would your husband not want to baptize your son, if he's a pastor?

*confused*

Oh, my oldest is from my first marriage. LONG story.