eat now. understand later.
Kathryn has put up a post-script to a recent conversation on children and communion.
Her original post here
My post here
Mark's comments here
Kathryn's follow up here, and her post script here.
She mentions that her marvellous Bishop does great theology, in the awareness of Church rules, but not under the weight of them. One of the bits of paper that we currently have from the House of Bishops indicates that there should be some "preparation" for children before they take communion. I think this is crazy. We don't teach them nutrition before we teach them to eat. They learn first that they have to eat their dinner - just because Mum says so. And gradually, along the line, they learn WHY you need to eat vegetables as well as chocolate. If you waited till kids understood nutrition before you gave them food they'd starve.
What's different in communion? Give them spiritual nourishment as soon as they can take it. Pray before they are born. Pray, talk, sing and live in the presence of God from day one. Organised religion will take its place as and when, but whenever they are there, they should feel as central and included in that as they do at the dinner table at home.
What's more, I think we should take the same approach with adults. We don't ask strangers at dinner whether they've ever eaten this or that thing before, we just invite them in. Hospitality starts with invitation, not examination. You get to know your guests, and they work out whether they like your food and belong in your house in the process. Sure, sometimes people don't come back. But better to have a few people spit out your food than shut out the shy ones who can't get through the barrage of suspicion to get to the table in the first place.
This was my reply to Kathryn's musings on "preparation":
I reckon my darling son was "prepared" well enough. I prayed even to
have him for a long time; I prayed for him for the 9 months before he
was born; he was baptised at 5 weeks. I know Bishops have their
bits of paper, but I reckon if you can eat at all, and you want to meet
God, you're in. Eat first. Understand later.
I agree that these rules are absurd. If the sacraments are "the outward and visible signs of inward and spiritual grace," then why in the world would we want to deny them to any Christian, no matter how young they are? We baptize infants all the time without a moment's hesitation even though it seems pretty clear that they don't have a clue as to what's going on. Besides, who really "understands" how the sacraments function, anyway? It's not like children will somehow "get it" when they turn 16.
Unfortunately, much of our theology around the sacraments continues to rely on historical circumstances. We baptize infants because we've been doing it for a thousand years, but we don't communicate children because we still have a lot of medieval baggage in our Eucharistic theology. We can dress it up in theological language, but the history of our differing relationship with baptism and eucharist always seems to shine through.
Posted by: Karen | 23/10/2005 at 15:33
and surely the point of the sacraments is to make real the things that are beyond any rational understanding...
maybe children are the only ones who should automatically get the sacraments... the rest of us should have to have a test to see whether we can loosen our hold on theological constructs enough to let the spirit surprise us in the moment... :)
i agree education is important, very important. but it's certainly not the beginning point.
Posted by: cheryl | 23/10/2005 at 23:06
Karen - I think your comment highlights why, for me, this is tricky. I hadn't explicitly thought about it, but of course my feelings on the subject are (understandably, I hope) bound up in my ideas about Baptism as well. I think maybe I'm coming to a point where offering communion to all, however old or young but always willing, and leaving Baptism to later. Probably not in line with orthodox Baptist thinking, but hey ...
Anybody have any ideas?
Posted by: Serena | 24/10/2005 at 10:52
well, serena, from where I'm looking baptism and communion are the only two things in the Anglican church that we consider (officially) to be sacraments. If sacraments are the making real of truth in mystery, then why withold them from anyone? My view is - if it moves, baptise it.
But as a Baptist, you must have reasons why you think that Baptism is a thing you have to opt into individually? Does that make it a personal decision, not a scarament?
Posted by: maggi | 24/10/2005 at 10:59
oops, I meant SACRAment. What's a scarament???
Posted by: maggi | 24/10/2005 at 11:04
(Sorry for the double post - I think I pressed less wrong buttons than I thought I had!)
Baptism and Communion are sacraments, yes I agree with that. But I think choosing to be baptised doesn't make it any less of a sacrament. It's still something we're commanded to do - but unless you WANT to follow that command, my feeling (and upbringing, I suppose!) is that you shouldn't - basically bringing it back to issues of understanding and consent.
Not that I think I have it all worked out or anything. Ho hum.
Posted by: Serena | 24/10/2005 at 11:04
This is a crucial debate, although perhaps like your earlier post maggi not something to get divisive over. My problem as a baptist is where do children and young people stand in the church prior to baptism - anglicans don't have this problem. However I also see baptism as a response to the gospel - repent and be baptized. Baptism then is God confirmation of our being in Christ and our promise to follow Christ. Theologically baptism should come prior to eucharist. The ironic thing (well in my church anyway) for baptists who put such much value on baptism, is there are those who follow Christ but are not baptised, because they can't see a reason to get baptised. Baptism has no place in their spiritual journey. I can't think if we did them all as infants it would make life a lot easier! But then I do believe anglicans have different problems because of infant baptism. i find clarity hard on the whole baptism thing.
Posted by: andy goodliff | 24/10/2005 at 11:38
Well, Andy, Serena - here's something else to throw into the pot (which still is a bit of a complicated mush to me sometimes). In churches where baptism is regarded as a sacrament, the baptism is performed usually by a priest (but in extremis, by anyone, even a heathen, as long as the forms of the Church are used). Now a long complicated argument about whether we should or shouldn't have priests at all is by-the-by here, because the point is not about priests, but about the fact that the sacrament is delivered, not by the decision of the individual unto themselves, but by the church TO the individual. Of course a conversation about consent is immediately thrown up, but this point does highlight the more communal feature of the sacrament - that we don't do sacraments each individually, but together as church for one another.
Posted by: maggi | 24/10/2005 at 12:41
totally not an individualistic thing - which can be the suggestion by baptists. two quotes from gunton which are some of my favourite:
1) 'the Spirit, then, liberates by calling us into relation with Christ through the medium of the community of his body. He liberates us, that is to say, by bringing us into community: by enabling us to be with and for the brothers and sisters whom we do not ourselves choose' - its God who saves, we don't save ourselves, we're saved into a community and a community not of our choosing - cuts against any church shopping.
2) 'Daniel Hardy has remarked that every baptism is a reconstitution of the church. That is a profound truth. When another becomes incorporate in Christ through the Spirit, there is a new creation ...' - baptism is a church thing and not a individual thing; its not about my salvation, but God's establishing of the church as a sign of new creation!
Posted by: andy goodliff | 24/10/2005 at 14:28
so why not infant baptism then?
Posted by: maggi | 24/10/2005 at 14:31
Never posted before - always been a lurker. I really enjoy your Blog though, Maggi.
My sister is also a baptist, and I think they are goingto have to do some re-thinking on their theology of sacraments. As we all are very very soon. I'm a Presbyterian Minister and as mainline churches, I think we are still taking it for granted that anyone in our church must have been baptized as an infant. This is increasingly not the case. When I volunteered in youth ministry I had two friends who were baptized at about age 20. They had been taking communion for years at that point. Communion had been an integral part of their walk with God and their spiritual growth. I'm not sure how they would have responded if we told them not to take communion until they were baptized. I think it would have been fairly disruptive to their spiritual growth.
In baptism the Church is making a statement about who we belong to. Does this statement have to be made before we can experience the grace of God poured out in Communion? Would this be assuming that God cannot use communion as a way of bringing someone to faith, and allowing them to choose to participate in baptism?
These seem like tricky questions to me, that we will all need to face sooner or later. I know my sister's church has struggled with how old someone has to be to be baptized (18? 13? 5?). She had a friend who's six year old daughter asked for baptism and told her mom that it was because she believed that Jesus was her Lord and Saviour. The Deacons had to wrestle with "Is she really ready for baptism?"
Doesn't this seem like the same question that mainline churches ask when it comes to children at communion.
I think for myself, if the sacraments are signs of God's grace, I can't see how age or which one comes first can really be a limiting factor.
Posted by: Matthew | 24/10/2005 at 14:41
I think this really is an example of something where we have to be looser than bits of paper. Consent is an issue - but if a child wants communion, I really think they should have it - I don't think I was arguing against that before. Baptism - well, I don't think there's any age of consent there either. I've never seen anybody as young as 6 be baptised, but I also remember my Granny getting baptised in her 70s - everybody's different, everybody's journey is different.
When I was growing up, I think there was a feeling that you should be careful of children taking communion because of this false idea of purity - and maybe that kept me back a little bit. No church is perfect. But what I've noticed at my home church of late is the "come one, come all" feel of it - and I think that's probably a step in the right direction. Am I an heretic Baptist? Maybe, but like the INFJ I am, I plead that it "feels right"!
Posted by: Serena | 24/10/2005 at 17:56
Confession time: I often half the little piece of bread I'm given and give a bit to our little 'un. He's only 18 months. But it feels really right somehow. And he loves it! More tricky with the chalice... any ideas? ;-)
Posted by: Kester | 25/10/2005 at 07:41
easy Kester - dip your finger in it and wet his tongue with a tiny drop - or alternatively dip the wafer in the wine.
Posted by: maggi | 25/10/2005 at 10:35
Here endeth my Anglican membership: I've done the finger dip once or twice! From my mouth, I might add, not the cup itself... yewww.
Posted by: Kester | 25/10/2005 at 18:09
well, you could always mix up an nice big cup of Vimto... ;)
Posted by: maggi | 25/10/2005 at 18:16