Baptism during Lent

[RevCowboy]

Well, it's not the very day Christ rose from the dead anyway, it might be the same season or the same date for that matter, but it's not the same day.

Actually indeed it is that Day. The Church tends to have a messy understanding of time. For example, there is only ONE Baptism, ONE Lord's Supper, ONE Easter. The Church believes that whole season of Easter is only day, and that also that day is the very same day that Christ rose from the dead. The reason the Church has this messy understanding is because we believe that we are truly and actually party to Christ's birth, baptism, life, ministry, death and resurrection. These are not things that we simply remember but things that happen TO US.

 

[RevCowboy]

"Negotiating" for a baptism?

I think I'm done with this thread.

Negotciate about a date... not about whether the baptism will happen or not. I apologize if it seemed like I meant something different.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Negotciate about a date... not about whether the baptism will happen or not. I apologize if it seemed like I meant something different.

It still doesn't sit right with me. A parent should be able to come to the pastor and say "I'd like to have my child baptized" and not be told "well, here's the reasons why you shouldn't baptize in lent." They should be told "that is joyous news! What day are you thinking?" whether it's lent, advent, end times, reformation, epiphany, etc. There shouldn't even have to be an "explanation" given as to why a pastor wouldn't baptize during lent. A parent shouldn't have to be vehement or adamant about it, either.

Again, we don't deny communion because of the season - why would we deny baptism?

I'm still interested to hear where this tradition originated. I've heard that it's tradition and man-made, but I haven't seen where it started.

So I guess I'm not done, yet. But the whole making people wait to baptize their child just upsets my stomach a bit. Probably because I've never waited with my children, and probably because of the experience of having a child in the NICU.

 

[DaRev]

I'm still interested to hear where this tradition originated. I've heard that it's tradition and man-made, but I haven't seen where it started.

It has been mentioned in this thread, at least twice that I recall without searching through the whole thing, that it's among the earliest practices of the Christian Church. The period prior to the celebration of the Resurrection has always traditionally been a time of preparation for the celebration of the Death and Resurrection of Christ, to which we are united in baptism. Baptisms in the early Church were ONLY done on the Easter vigil, and usually after three years of catechetical instruction for adults and older children. Newborns and infants would be baptized at the same time, and in the early Church would also receive confirmation and the Lord's Supper at the same time.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I'd just like to see where it started. How early are you talking when you say the "early church"? I don't recall reading in the bible where people waited - I recall several instances where once the gospel was shared to one who hadn't heard it that person was baptized. Is there something in the later NT that I'm missing?

I get that Lent is somber because it leads up to Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. I do not see how offering anyone the forgiveness (attained through Jesus' death on the cross) and rebirth through baptism would somehow be wrong, or cheapen Lent somehow.

Frankly, give me some scriptural backup for this and I'll shut my mouth. Only thing close so far is that in the OT babies waited 8 days to be circumsized. Every other indication of baptism that I know of was given immediately, not 46 days later.

 

[RevCowboy]

It still doesn't sit right with me. A parent should be able to come to the pastor and say "I'd like to have my child baptized" and not be told "well, here's the reasons why you shouldn't baptize in lent." They should be told "that is joyous news! What day are you thinking?" whether it's lent, advent, end times, reformation, epiphany, etc. There shouldn't even have to be an "explanation" given as to why a pastor wouldn't baptize during lent. A parent shouldn't have to be vehement or adamant about it, either.

Again, we don't deny communion because of the season - why would we deny baptism?

I'm still interested to hear where this tradition originated. I've heard that it's tradition and man-made, but I haven't seen where it started.

So I guess I'm not done, yet. But the whole making people wait to baptize their child just upsets my stomach a bit. Probably because I've never waited with my children, and probably because of the experience of having a child in the NICU.

I think you are the exception when it comes to reasons that parents want their child baptized.

The reality that probably many pastors face is that most parents want their child baptized because grandma and grandpa want it to happen. As I have said, the date is only important to them for relatives coming form out of town.

However, the other issue is that every child that gets baptized in the congregation I am at now gets a visit from the pastor and the vicar (me) before the baptism to talk about what will happen. Our schedules are so busy right now that it might take us until easter to fit the visit in.

Now, if I were faced with someone as adamant as you are PW, and who could explain why it was important to them, I would still suggest Easter, but then quickly relent and offer next the Sunday.

 

[LilLamb219]

I tried searching and the only thing I found is that it went back the RC's practice of waiting.

 

[DaRev]

I tried searching and the only thing I found is that it went back the RC's practice of waiting.

The practice actually goes well beyond the schism.

Every other indication of baptism that I know of was given immediately, not 46 days later.

Can you point me to the Scripture reference where infants were baptized immediately after birth?

 

[RevCowboy]

I'd just like to see where it started. How early are you talking when you say the "early church"? I don't recall reading in the bible where people waited - I recall several instances where once the gospel was shared to one who hadn't heard it that person was baptized. Is there something in the later NT that I'm missing?

I get that Lent is somber because it leads up to Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. I do not see how offering anyone the forgiveness (attained through Jesus' death on the cross) and rebirth through baptism would somehow be wrong, or cheapen Lent somehow.

Frankly, give me some scriptural backup for this and I'll shut my mouth. Only thing close so far is that in the OT babies waited 8 days to be circumsized. Every other indication of baptism that I know of was given immediately, not 46 days later.

There is nothing that you are missing in the NT. It is because the NT assume that we understand how the practice of Jewish Mikveh washing took place.

Baptism is not unique to the NT or to Christians. Jews had a similar ritual cleansing practice called the Mikveh. When Adult converts to Judaism wanted to be formal members, they underwent catchesis (a time of study and preparation) and then were washed in a formal ritual and during the washing the candidate was quizzed on his/her understanding of the faith.

I am sure this is where the Christian practice of catechesis began. This ritual washing is mentioned all over the OT and NT, but you would have to go to the Mishna to get the details of the Jewish practice.

Now there are a few reasons why the in the NT baptisms are given right away. First of all, most converts are Jewish. They would have been instructed in the faith, they already would have been catechized. And they would a have understood scripture (OT). The NT wasn't considered scripture until the 4th century, only the OT was scripture.

It really wasn't until Augustine that our theology of Original Sin and therefore Baptism was fleshed out. Yet just as Jewish babies were washed for ritual purity, I imagine that Christian babies were being washed on the Easter Vigil.

As far as when we have first signs of the practice, Hippolytus seems to indicate that baptism on the Easter Vigil was a well established tradition by the middle of the 2nd century. But I would think that probably around 100AD, around the time of Justin Martyr is when Christians began formalizing their liturgical practice and dates. They started doing this then because most of the first witnessed of Christ and the disciples were dying off and so they needed to create ways of remembering and celebrating the events of Christ's life.

Okay... enough history for today, I might get too excited

 

[BabyLutheran]

My only argument would be that Jesus waited to be baptized until it was willed by God to be the appropriate time. I don't have my Bible with me, but didn't Jesus get baptized right after spending 40 days in the desert being tempted by Satan?

Not arguing, just saying it!

I don't think Lent is scriptural either, but not too many of us would argue that it is not good.

apparently Lent developed as a preparatory period for Baptism, not for any other purpose. I found this on a website

"In the early centuries, Lent was a time of preparation for those who would be baptized at the Easter vigil, the main time individuals were baptized in those days, Baltes said. He emphasized that the dying and rising aspect is central in the ritual of baptism because, "In baptism, we die and rise with Jesus."
According to Baltes, the early Lenten season only lasted two or three days, and those who would be baptized fasted in order to purify their bodies of sin. Gradually the time period expanded, depending on the time and place, and by the fourth century the church had established its current 40 day Lenten season.
The number 40 has biblical significance, Baltes added. In the story of Noah's ark, it rained for 40 days and 40 nights. Moses journeyed with the Israelites for a period of 40 days in the desert. Jesus later spent 40 days in the desert where he resisted sin.
Around the fifth century, when the practice of infant baptism became more the norm, "Lent evolved as a period of penance for public sinners and for those who wanted readmittance to the church," Baltes said. The most notorious public sins of the time were murder, adultery and apostasy -- the sin of denying the faith.
Eventually Lent emerged as a season for the whole church to engage in penance in preparation for Easter, said Baltes."


Perhaps the Lenten baptism restriction should be adults only, infants and children cannot "prepare" for baptism...

I am so confused. What else is new!

 

[Melethiel]

My only argument would be that Jesus waited to be baptized until it was willed by God to be the appropriate time. I don't have my Bible with me, but didn't Jesus get baptized right after spending 40 days in the desert being tempted by Satan?

Other way around. Baptism first, wilderness immediately afterward.

 

[BabyLutheran]

Other way around. Baptism first, wilderness immediately afterward.

ooopsy, my dyslexia/ignorance comes through again

You have to admit that would have supported having 40 days of Lent. lol

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Can you point me to the Scripture reference where infants were baptized immediately after birth?

I wasn't referring to just infants. There are at least two instances that I can think of off hand, where the gospel was shared and then the person(s) receiving the gospel were baptized. One was a family, and we could assume there were babies, I suppose. But they didn't have to wait at all.

I'm not arguing for babies to baptized immediately after birth. I realize that my cases are exceptions, since I am married to a pastor. I see nothing wrong with the family waiting to baptize in church. (On the flip side, I DO see a problem with people waiting because Aunt Millie cannot attend.)

I am just befuddled that anyone would be refused a baptism because it was lent. There's no justification for it, other than "this is the way the early church did it".

It just saddens me to know that someone who wanted to be baptized, whether infant or adult, could be put off because of the lenten season.

 

[Qoheleth]

I am just befuddled that anyone would be refused a baptism because it was lent. It just saddens me to know that someone who wanted to be baptized, whether infant or adult, could be put off because of the lenten season.

To my knowledge, there is not one church (Lutheran, Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican) that the Pastor or Priest can refuse baptism because of the Lenten season, none.


Q

 

[PreachersWife2004]

To my knowledge, there is not one church (Lutheran, Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican) that the Pastor or Priest can refuse baptism because of the Lenten season, none.


Q

I'm sure there are a lot of people out there who, if told "you really shouldn't be baptized during lent and here's why" would probably go elsewhere to get baptized.

I see what you're saying, but it seems to me that to even bring up the fact that someone shouldn't get baptized in lent to someone who is clearly wanting to be baptized or have their children baptized seems somehow like a pastor is refusing to baptize. The pastor may not see it that way, but think of the layperson.

I guess I'm just a person that doesn't like to see Tradition overshadow something beautiful and wonderful like baptism. It's sad.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I will say this:

This thread has helped me realize why there are so many posts out there that say something to the effect of "I shouldn't be having this much fun in lent". Most of them have been EO or OOC.

I happen to rejoice during lent. Of course, I am somber when I contemplate Christ's crucifixion and death...but I also keep in mind what this means for my soul and salvation. That may sound selfish, I'm sure, but my faith has always been believing in Jesus and that he died for my sins so that I would become a redeemed child of God. So I do rejoice during lent that Jesus was so willing to go forward and die for little sinful me. I get tears of joy thinking about it.

The one day of lent that I really do emotional and sad is Good Friday. Man, that service really gets to me. I go to two services. A normal one in the afternoon at our church, and then a tinabrae service at my home church in lansing. The end of that service, holy cow, when they make the noise of the slamming of the stone...the tears are usually flowing at that point in time. We always sing Stricken Smitten and Afflicted during that service, and of course that song always gets me.

Anyhoo...I just derailed my own thread...

 

[Edial]

It is faith that receives baptism.

According to LCMS site which I just quoted, faith in infants is created during baptism.

Do you disagree?

 

[Edial]

...

I can see, and even agree with the argument of not withholding baptism in almost every case. In fact, the only reason I would refuse to baptize would be is one was requested to occur at home apart from the Body of Christ because a family didn't want to make the effort to come to church and would deny the Body of Christ the opportunity to make is promises in Baptism.

I hope you realize that some people after reading the position of some pastors or seminary students here that resist performing baptism for all children during Lent might be led to have the baby baptized at home.
(Some people do not like arguing with pastors).

To say that they should not have the baby baptized at home will leave them with little choice.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Edial]

...
I agree with Da Rev and Rev Cowboy on this one. Eternity is a long time, 45 days of somber reflection is the blink of an eye. What can be more joyous than being reborn by water on the day Christ rose from the dead?!
...

I think we should desist the temptation of associating the real act of baptism with a symbolic observance of lent, otherwise the baptism might also evolve into a symbolic act.
Do you know that Christ rose from the dead on the specific day after the lent?
Of course not.

 

[Edial]

Actually indeed it is that Day. The Church tends to have a messy understanding of time. For example, there is only ONE Baptism, ONE Lord's Supper, ONE Easter. The Church believes that whole season of Easter is only day, and that also that day is the very same day that Christ rose from the dead. The reason the Church has this messy understanding is because we believe that we are truly and actually party to Christ's birth, baptism, life, ministry, death and resurrection. These are not things that we simply remember but things that happen TO US.

Do they teach all this at the seminary?