Baptism during Lent

[DaRev]

Why do you assume my post had anything to do with you? Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't automatically make them wrong, bad or less Lutheran.

I never said it did. But it's obvious as to what you were referring.

 

[porterross]

I never said it did. But it's obvious as to what you were referring.

Speaking to my perspective of such a hypotheitical from my point of view is just that. A staunch refusal to baptize a child for 40 odd days wouldn't sit well with me and I would see it as lacking compassion, especially if one considers how the parents would feel if the child died during that time.

I appreciate Filo's approach on this matter. It's as simple as that.

 

[DaRev]

Speaking to my perspective of such a hypotheitical from my point of view is just that. A staunch refusal to baptize a child for 40 odd days wouldn't sit well with me and I would see it as lacking compassion, especially if one considers how the parents would feel if the child died during that time.

I appreciate Filo's approach on this matter. It's as simple as that.

Did I ever say that I would "staunchly refuse"? Again, if you read what I posted you would clearly see that's not what I said at all.

 

[DaSeminarian]

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.

I have never heard this especially the standard you quote.

Perhaps the EO does this but most Lutheran synods that I know of do not.

As far as when a Baptism is held is whenever the parents want to bring the child for baptism. If they want it in the hospital, I see no reason to deny their request. I might discuss the communal aspect of Baptism with them (which is why the pastor should meet with them while the mother is pregnant) and try to persuade them, but if they press the issue. I think a Pastor should honor their request.

 

[DaSeminarian]

My views...

Baptism is two-fold. It is the water combined with the word which is one of the means of grace. It is where God calls us by name and makes us His. It is also a rite of the Church where an individual becomes a member of the body of Christ. It should be done in the context of the Church, during the Divine Service.

We need to remember also that baptism isn't the only means of grace. Paul writes "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing the message of Christ."

If a baptism is to be scheduled, I would not schedule it during Lent because of the nature of the season, unless there were specific circumstances that warranted a sooner baptism rather than a later one. I would never refuse a baptism, but I would strongly encourage that the baptism be done in the context of the Church as described above.

Is this taught at the St. Louis Seminary? I have not come across this at Fort Wayne. I understand why they did it in the ancient church, but I thought that practice had been or become somewhat obsolete?

That being said, if a parent said to me "I'll leave the church if you don't baptize my child when and where I want you to," I would probably hold the door for them. I would seriously have to question what their idea of the Church is.

I think this is a little heavy handed. I need to study this aspect a bit more, so please understand this is just a personal opinion at this moment in time and not an informed one.

 

[porterross]

Did I ever say that I would "staunchly refuse"? Again, if you read what I posted you would clearly see that's not what I said at all.

I didn't address anything you posted. Why do you keep insisting that when I quoted Filo?

 

[DaRev]

It's obvious that I have been grossly misunderstood. I most likely haven't articulated myself well enough.
I'm sorry I brought it up.

 

[DaRev]

I didn't address anything you posted. Why do you keep insisting that when I quoted Filo?

Because you referred directly to what I said in the post of mine he was responding to. As I said, it was obvious.

 

[DaSeminarian]

Perhaps it is a good time to drop this subject altogether if it is going to lead to this kind of discussion. Perhaps you should both go directly to PMs to discuss this further without involving the rest of us in your quarrel. I personally don't care who started it, it is distracting and it needs to stop at this level of public demonstration.

Thank you.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I think the whole issue here is that we have pastors saying that they wouldn't baptize during lent. So I tried to imagine how that conversation would go:

Parent: I'd like my child to be baptized this Sunday, Pastor.

Pastor: Well, we don't generally perform baptisms during lent.

Parent: Oh. Why?

Pastor: Well, it is a tradition that has been practiced by the Early Church. We recommend waiting until Easter.

Parent: But that's 40 days away. (alternate: but that's a long time to wait.)

Pastor: Yes, well, as I said it has been customary that baptisms take place on the Easter Vigil in celebration of Christ's resurrection.

Parent: Yes, but I'd like to have my child baptized before that.

Pastor: Again, it's a liturgical practice that Lutherans follow. I suppose we can make an exception if you really think you want your child baptized, but we would prefer that you wait until Easter.

Now, I'm sure that's probably not exactly how the conversation would go, but I'd be willing to bet that that's how it's gonna get played back in the parent's mind. And I wouldn't blame them one bit for saying "well, then, I'd like to go find a pastor that will baptize my child."

When I said that someone would go find another church, I didn't mean that they would end their membership in a particular church or synod. What I meant is that they would simply go find another pastor who would baptize their child. And again, who could really blame them?

No parent really wants to argue with the pastor. I would have strong convictions of just saying "okay, pastor, thanks for your time." and then going and getting my child baptized at another Lutheran church.

 

[porterross]

Thank you, Beckie!!!!

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Perhaps it is a good time to drop this subject altogether if it is going to lead to this kind of discussion. Perhaps you should both go directly to PMs to discuss this further without involving the rest of us in your quarrel. I personally don't care who started it, it is distracting and it needs to stop at this level of public demonstration.

Thank you.

I'm willing to close the thread, however, I am still not really satisfied with any of the answers I have received. Which might be indicative that I won't receive the answers I'd like because there is no scriptural backing to warrant waiting to baptize.

There IS, however, much scripture commanding us to baptize. That's enough for me I suppose.

And by the way, no one is saying that lent shouldn't be followed. But when lent is interfering with a biblical command, then we really need to rethink our "traditions".

I'm also getting the feeling from responses that this isn't exactly widely followed in many Lutheran synods.

 

[DaRev]

I think the whole issue here is that we have pastors saying that they wouldn't baptize during lent. So I tried to imagine how that conversation would go:

Parent: I'd like my child to be baptized this Sunday, Pastor.

Pastor: Well, we don't generally perform baptisms during lent.

Parent: Oh. Why?

Pastor: Well, it is a tradition that has been practiced by the Early Church. We recommend waiting until Easter.

Parent: But that's 40 days away. (alternate: but that's a long time to wait.)

Pastor: Yes, well, as I said it has been customary that baptisms take place on the Easter Vigil in celebration of Christ's resurrection.

Parent: Yes, but I'd like to have my child baptized before that.

Pastor: Again, it's a liturgical practice that Lutherans follow. I suppose we can make an exception if you really think you want your child baptized, but we would prefer that you wait until Easter.

Now, I'm sure that's probably not exactly how the conversation would go, but I'd be willing to bet that that's how it's gonna get played back in the parent's mind. And I wouldn't blame them one bit for saying "well, then, I'd like to go find a pastor that will baptize my child."

When I said that someone would go find another church, I didn't mean that they would end their membership in a particular church or synod. What I meant is that they would simply go find another pastor who would baptize their child. And again, who could really blame them?

No parent really wants to argue with the pastor. I would have strong convictions of just saying "okay, pastor, thanks for your time." and then going and getting my child baptized at another Lutheran church.

It's not at all how a conversation with me would go. It's obvious no one has read (or at least understands) what I've posted on the matter. To avoid any further confusion, I will not comment further on the subject. I sincerely apologize to all whom I have confused on this matter.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Rev, you've stated that you wouldn't want a baptism during lent. How do you convey to a parent without them feeling as though you are refusing the baptism?

For one second, you gotta put yourself in the shoes of the layperson. It's very easy when you are clergy (or married to clergy) to think that everyone will understand the theological basis behind that type of decision.

 

[DaRev]

Rev, you've stated that you wouldn't want a baptism during lent. How do you convey to a parent without them feeling as though you are refusing the baptism?

For one second, you gotta put yourself in the shoes of the layperson. It's very easy when you are clergy (or married to clergy) to think that everyone will understand the theological basis behind that type of decision.

Don't assume I don't.

 

[DaSeminarian]

I think the whole issue here is that we have pastors saying that they wouldn't baptize during lent. So I tried to imagine how that conversation would go:

Parent: I'd like my child to be baptized this Sunday, Pastor.

Pastor: Well, we don't generally perform baptisms during lent.

Parent: Oh. Why?

Pastor: Well, it is a tradition that has been practiced by the Early Church. We recommend waiting until Easter.

Parent: But that's 40 days away. (alternate: but that's a long time to wait.)

Pastor: Yes, well, as I said it has been customary that baptisms take place on the Easter Vigil in celebration of Christ's resurrection.

Parent: Yes, but I'd like to have my child baptized before that.

Pastor: Again, it's a liturgical practice that Lutherans follow. I suppose we can make an exception if you really think you want your child baptized, but we would prefer that you wait until Easter.

Now, I'm sure that's probably not exactly how the conversation would go, but I'd be willing to bet that that's how it's gonna get played back in the parent's mind. And I wouldn't blame them one bit for saying "well, then, I'd like to go find a pastor that will baptize my child."

When I said that someone would go find another church, I didn't mean that they would end their membership in a particular church or synod. What I meant is that they would simply go find another pastor who would baptize their child. And again, who could really blame them?

No parent really wants to argue with the pastor. I would have strong convictions of just saying "okay, pastor, thanks for your time." and then going and getting my child baptized at another Lutheran church.

First of all, I find it difficult to believe that any pastor would be so cold as the one you portray in this post. I would hope that the Pastor would in love for his flock give a more caring answer than that.

Easter Vigil was primarily for catechumens (adults who were both baptized and confirmed in the same rite) I had not heard of infants being denied this sacrament. I will be doing some investigating of this subject this next week and will post next Saturday night what i find out.

Even if it is true, I think that delaying baptism until Easter would not hold. Besides Sundays are not counted as part of Lent, but are called Sundays in Lent. They are to be considered as "little Easter Sundays" If one has been fasting during the week for lent, they can break the fast on Sunday.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Eh, nevermind. I don't want this thread to turn into an "All about DaRev thread". That wouldn't be fair to him.

 

[DaSeminarian]

I'm willing to close the thread, however, I am still not really satisfied with any of the answers I have received. Which might be indicative that I won't receive the answers I'd like because there is no scriptural backing to warrant waiting to baptize.

There IS, however, much scripture commanding us to baptize. That's enough for me I suppose.

And by the way, no one is saying that lent shouldn't be followed. But when lent is interfering with a biblical command, then we really need to rethink our "traditions".

I'm also getting the feeling from responses that this isn't exactly widely followed in many Lutheran synods.

The arguments are valid arguments to be discussed, but so far I only have a personal opinion and not one that is well informed. Don't close it.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

You're right, a pastor probably wouldn't be so cold. However, I'm thinking in terms of how a parent might feel after they've been told they should wait to baptize their child. I could totally see them seeing the conversation as being close to what I posted.

And I agree with the little Easters. We had a fantastic article in the Forward in Christ magazine some time ago about it.

I'll be interested in what you find out, Scott. I've been talking to Matt about this a lot (it's really weighing on my mind) and he says no church in the WELS that he is aware of practices this, even with an adult.

First of all, I find it difficult to believe that any pastor would be so cold as the one you portray in this post. I would hope that the Pastor would in love for his flock give a more caring answer than that.

Easter Vigil was primarily for catechumens (adults who were both baptized and confirmed in the same rite) I had not heard of infants being denied this sacrament. I will be doing some investigating of this subject this next week and will post next Saturday night what i find out.

Even if it is true, I think that delaying baptism until Easter would not hold. Besides Sundays are not counted as part of Lent, but are called Sundays in Lent. They are to be considered as "little Easter Sundays" If one has been fasting during the week for lent, they can break the fast on Sunday.

 

[DaRev]

I only though that you and PR might take your own personal argument to a more private place.

They don't have to. I'm done with the matter.