Baptism during Lent

[CaliforniaJosiah]

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

I wasn't addressing the issue of emergency or doing so in church, I was addressing the issue of not doing so because of a liturgical season.

 

[KimLCMS]

My girls were baptized together on Easter. My son was baptized on Palm Sunday.

 

[RevCowboy]

I will ask parents to wait to have their "Lenten" babies baptized afterwards, unless there is an emergency regarding the child's health. If an adult were to be Baptized I would really encourage them to be baptized on the Vigil, just as was done in the early church.

But my question is, if there is no emergency, what is the harm in waiting at most 46 days. I was born in Advent (Dec 17) and not baptized until Dec 26 (Christmas), although I don't think my mother and I were out of the hospital by the 19th...

 

[BabyLutheran]

I think it's called the "just in case" reason.

 

[ThePilgrim]

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

Oh, I'm sorry! That makes more sense. Haha... I was really confused, thinking that your husband was a pastor, and wondering why you had to baptize him quickly in case your husband was against it.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I will ask parents to wait to have their "Lenten" babies baptized afterwards, unless there is an emergency regarding the child's health. If an adult were to be Baptized I would really encourage them to be baptized on the Vigil, just as was done in the early church.

But my question is, if there is no emergency, what is the harm in waiting at most 46 days. I was born in Advent (Dec 17) and not baptized until Dec 26 (Christmas), although I don't think my mother and I were out of the hospital by the 19th...

I think we're discussing adiaphoron, and I don't think anyone is acusing anyone of wrong...

In MY own personal fallable opinion, there's no reason to postpone God's grace and the Baptismal blessings because of a manmade liturgical season. And while the issue here isn't an emergency (of course you'd "wave" this in that case), who knows if the child might die during the season of Lent?

We don't ask people to "hold off" on the Eucharistic blessings during the season, I don't think there's just cause to ask anyone to "hold off" on the eternal blessings of Baptism. We don't ask people to "hold off" on the blessings of the Absolution or any other blessing.

I don't want to be misunderstood; I'm NOT challenging anyone's practice here. You and your congregation should respond to this matter of adiaphoron as you conclude is best. I see no "wrong" here. I just feel very passionately in the blessings of Baptism and I am thankful that I was (even though - obviously - I lived). Emergency aside, I'm PERSONALLY a tad uncomfortable withholding ENORMOUS etneral divine blessings from one simply because of a manmade season and time. God said nothing about "Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing and teaching, except during Lent." That's just MY perspective, and that's ALL I intended to share.

I already shared all I have to share on this.


Thank you for this thoughtful and respectful discussion. And with that, I think I've concluded my trial "return" to CF. May God richly bless you and your ministry for Him in Christ His suffering Servant.



Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[LilLamb219]

We don't ask people to "hold off" on the Eucharistic blessings during the season, I don't think there's just cause to ask anyone to "hold off" on the eternal blessings of Baptism. We don't ask people to "hold off" on the blessings of the Absolution or any other blessing.

You make a very valid point!

 

[PreachersWife2004]

You make a very valid point!

Indeed he does!

 

[cerette]

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.

You wrote: 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.

Your children were most likely not believers before they were baptized! That is why it is really important to have them baptized, and it's a good thing you didn't wait.

 

[BabyLutheran]

I only recall reading responses from Da Rev, Rev Cowboy, and me that indicated it was ok to wait until Easter. I don't count, since I am a newbie. I am just really interested why the pastorate seems so out of touch with the congregants in this matter. Especially when it appears to be an issue which is Adiaphora in nature.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

You wrote: 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.

Your children were most likely not believers before they were baptized! That is why it is really important to have them baptized, and it's a good thing you didn't wait.

Since we don't know for sure, I tend to lean on the side of saying they were. After all, they heard the word even in my womb. Who knows how early the Holy Spirit can work in someone? In the bible, Jeremiah speaks of his calling:

Jeremiah 1:5
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."


All that aside, I agree wholeheartedly with you that no one should wait to be baptized. Imagine if John had said to Jesus "I can't baptize you right now - it's passover." (yes, I know, it wasn't actually passover) I doubt that would've gone over well!

 

[cerette]

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.

Well, in the OT they waited 8 days before they circumsized.
The sacraments were given to the church, the congregation...from this point of view I can see why some people would want baptisms to take place during an open service anyone could attend. Paul also says the congregation needs to have orderly manners. This too could be used as a reason why they would want baptisms to take place in the presence of the congregation rather than the parents deciding for themselves when and where it is to take place.
As far as my opinion, I don't blame anyone who wants to have their babies baptised within minutes. I also do not blame those who wait a week or two and have it done during a service. (Would there be an emergency though, and the parents chose not to baptize, I would question their choise very much.)

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I only recall reading responses from Da Rev, Rev Cowboy, and me that indicated it was ok to wait until Easter. I don't count, since I am a newbie. I am just really interested why the pastorate seems so out of touch with the congregants in this matter. Especially when it appears to be an issue which is Adiaphora in nature.

Can you clarify this question for me?

I don't know of any WELS pastors that tell people they have to wait until Lent is over to baptize. I don't know of too many laypeople that would want to wait, either. So our pastors are not out of touch with the congregations.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Well, in the OT they waited 8 days before they circumsized.
The sacraments were given to the church, the congregation...from this point of view I can see why some people would want baptisms to take place during an open service anyone could attend. Paul also says the congregation needs to have orderly manners. This too could be used as a reason why they would want baptisms to take place in the presence of the congregation rather than the parents deciding for themselves when and where it is to take place.
As far as my opinion, I don't blame anyone who wants to have their babies baptised within minutes. I also do not blame those who wait a week or two and have it done during a service. (Would there be an emergency though, and the parents chose not to baptize, I would question their choise very much.)

This is all very true, that's why we have the affirmations, so that the congregation is still a part of the baptism, if not the sprinkling of the water.

I agree - I don't fault anyone for waiting or for baptizing right away.

Now, here's another moral question regarding baptism. My aunt recently went ahead and had her two grandsons baptized because her son and DIL would not have them baptized. She did this behind their backs and they do not know about it and she doesn't intend to tell them she did it.

What say you guys on that?

 

[cerette]

Since we don't know for sure, I tend to lean on the side of saying they were. After all, they heard the word even in my womb. Who knows how early the Holy Spirit can work in someone? In the bible, Jeremiah speaks of his calling:

Jeremiah 1:5
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."


All that aside, I agree wholeheartedly with you that no one should wait to be baptized. Imagine if John had said to Jesus "I can't baptize you right now - it's passover." (yes, I know, it wasn't actually passover) I doubt that would've gone over well!

The Lord has always known his own, long before they were born. However, we are all born sinful and need to be born again. Psalm 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
Baptism is the new birth. What a wonderful gift from our Lord!

If you believe your children were born believers, why did they need to be baptized so soon?

 

[cerette]

This is all very true, that's why we have the affirmations, so that the congregation is still a part of the baptism, if not the sprinkling of the water.

I agree - I don't fault anyone for waiting or for baptizing right away.

Now, here's another moral question regarding baptism. My aunt recently went ahead and had her two grandsons baptized because her son and DIL would not have them baptized. She did this behind their backs and they do not know about it and she doesn't intend to tell them she did it.

What say you guys on that?

I don't think she should keep it a secret. And she is not the parent. As Lutherans, when we baptize someone, it is included that the child be brought up in the Christian faith. (Matt 28:20)
I can see why she did it, boy have I wanted to do the same thing a hundred times!!! But I don't think that's the right thing to do.

Let us not forget that baptism is not the only way to come to faith. If we know children who are not baptized, and whose parents won't have them baptized, there are other things we can do: Share the living Word with them in various ways. Tell them about Jesus, buy them a childrens' Bible, give them Christian story books and so on.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

The Lord has always known his own, long before they were born. However, we are all born sinful and need to be born again. Psalm 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
Baptism is the new birth. What a wonderful gift from our Lord!

If you believe your children were born believers, why did they need to be baptized so soon?

So that I would have the absolute knowledge of it. I recently miscarried a baby - Isaac's twin. While I have faith in God's grace, I cannot say for sure that the twin is saved, because there wasn't a baptism.

That's why I don't wait.

 

[cerette]

So that I would have the absolute knowledge of it. I recently miscarried a baby - Isaac's twin. While I have faith in God's grace, I cannot say for sure that the twin is saved, because there wasn't a baptism.

That's why I don't wait.

Sorry to hear about your loss!

God's amazing grace sure is a good comforter, isn't it.

 

[BigNorsk]

I only recall reading responses from Da Rev, Rev Cowboy, and me that indicated it was ok to wait until Easter. I don't count, since I am a newbie. I am just really interested why the pastorate seems so out of touch with the congregants in this matter. Especially when it appears to be an issue which is Adiaphora in nature.

Maybe you misunderstood. It's fine to wait if that's what you want to do. But I wouldn't consider it fine if some parents brought their baby and requested it be baptized and they are told no. It can be pointed out that the church has a baptism time planned and if they want to join then that would be great. But if they desire to have the child baptized then it should be done.

Maybe I'm just sensitive but my SIL was babysitting a perfectly healthy baby asleep in it's crib and when she went to check on it, the child was gone. I would not want to be in the situation where the parents of that child had wanted it baptized but were told to wait because there was no emergency. There's plenty of feelings of guilt and questioning without adding to them.

An adult or older child who makes their beliefs known is really a bit different situation as far as I am concerned, because they have already received the gospel in one of its forms.

 

[DaRev]

Your children were most likely not believers before they were baptized!

And you know this because...

Actually, the benefits of baptism are received by faith which means that the faith is present prior to baptism. We don't limit God by saying that infants or anyone else who have yet to be baptized are not believers or do not have faith.