'Holy Communion - for children or not?' [Luke 22:14-23]

Michael del Rio, Sunday 25 November 2007

Introduction

I’m going this morning to consider the sacrament of Holy Communion. I also hope to address several issues in response to questions/ queries that church members have posed during our debate over the issue of children sharing in this sacrament prior to confirmation. 

I hope therefore this morning to try to resolve some of those questions by addressing four key questions:

1.   What kind of a church does our fellowship around the Lord’s table proclaim?

2.   Would a change in policy here at St Mary’s be a departure from historical Church practice or tradition?

3.   What do we believe Holy Communion is and what does it signify?

4.   On what basis do we determine who shall receive and does it really matter anyway?

1. What kind of a church does our fellowship around the Lord’s table proclaim?

The table fellowship which Christians enjoy at Holy Communion is a bond based on membership of the community of the Church. The first Holy Communion was celebrated at Passover, and the elements of bread and wine which Jesus tells us will be representative of His own body and blood, were already present in the Passover liturgy. Jesus took those elements and changed their meaning.

Christians believe that Scripture is an unfolding revelation of God’s relationship with His people and His plan for their salvation. In the Old Testament there is a people, a place and a promise- the Hebrews, the land of Israel and a covenant between God and His people. In the New Testament there is a people, a place and a promise- all those who accept Christ as Lord, the Kingdom of God and a new covenant forged by Christ’s blood.

In the Old Testament the signs or symbols of the covenant were circumcision and festival worship. Participation in worship was restricted to those who were amongst the covenant people and their household. All the men of Israel were required to participate, but women and children were invited to participate. Deuteronomy 16 explicitly numbers children amongst the participants at Passover along with all the other members of a Jewish household. In the New Testament children are also therefore considered to be included within the worshipping life of the Church as part of the New Covenant. Acts 2:39 implies that baptism is for those who believe, and for their children. In the New Testament we have several instances of household baptism. Whilst it is true that the meaning of the term ‘household’ has been disputed by scholars, the reality is that wherever we do know the meaning of the term in Scripture it always includes children and servants.

Household baptisms in the New Testament actually account for half of all the individual baptisms described. The terms used to describe a household baptism do not state that the individual concerned and all his/ her household believed but that the individual concerned believed and all of his/ her household were baptised. Whilst we cannot prove children/ infants were present at these household baptisms, the text clearly suggests that it was the faith of the head of the household that resulted in the household’s baptism, and not the individual faith of each member of the household. This method of evangelism may seem alien within our own culture, but it is certainly not alien to our world today as a whole. Donovan, a Roman Catholic missionary to East Africa in the 1960s, speaks about the conversion of some of the Masai tribe as being entirely dependent upon the conversion of the tribal chiefs and elders… the heads of household.

This is important because it clearly supports a model of baptism/ covenant that continues from the Old Testament to the New. In the Old Testament the household of a Jew was considered part of the covenant community and the males within that household would be circumcised as a sign of membership. Participation in the worshipping festivals of Israel was then permissible. In the New Testament, baptism is a sign of membership of the New Covenant community which is given both to men and to women (for example Cornelius and Lydia), but also to their households. Holy Communion has replaced the worshipping festivals of the Old Covenant, principally Passover, a meal in which the whole household was invited to participate. Therefore, it is logical to assert that so too should the whole household of a believer who have received the sign of the new covenant (i.e. baptism), be permitted to participate in the Lord’s Supper.

To deny children the right to participate in the Lord’s Supper suggests that our theology is confused. If we believe that the children of believers enjoy all the benefits of membership of the Church then they should be admitted to the Lord’s Table. Holy Communion is a strengthening for the journey and this is nourishment which our children should benefit from as much as ourselves.

2. Would a change in policy here at St Mary’s be a departure from historical Church practice or tradition?

The earliest support for paedocommunion can be found in the unity presupposed between baptism and the Lord's Supper (cf. 1 Cor. 12:13).  After describing baptism as "regeneration," Clement of Alexandria (c. A.D. 150-210) writes,

“As soon as we are regenerated, we are honoured by receiving the good news of the hope of rest… receiving through what is material the pledge of the sacred food.”

[The Instructor, ch. VI]

This of course relies on the assumption that baptism was administered to infants, but there is anecdotal evidence for this from both Polycarp who claims to have served Christ for 86 years when he is being martyred (implying he was baptised in infancy), and Irenaeus who suggests not just adults are born again but “infants, children and youths” too.

The implication of Clement’s writing is that a person having been baptised, is then able to receive Holy Communion. Cyprian, writing about 50 years later, twice alludes to paedocommunion when he speaks about the way in which the Church welcomes those who have backslidden in to the fold. He clearly implies in his text entitled “The Lapsed” that it was normal practice for children to receive Holy Communion since he says the apostasy of their parents has denied them this right.

We then find a scattering of references from Augustine to the time of Charlemagne in which paedocommunion appears to have been common practice in the ancient Church. It may not have been the exclusive practice but the way in which it is discussed would seem to imply that the writers are speaking of a norm rather than an exception to the norm.

Perhaps most pertinent to our discussion this morning however, is the question of why a practice that was common for a thousand or more years of church history, appears to have been largely abandoned from the thirteenth century onwards?

There are a variety of responses to this question but all of them relate to what we call changes in “church polity” (that is the order or form of church worship and practice) rather than a change in our understanding of Scripture. In 1215 the Catholic Church formally accepted the doctrine of transubstantiation, the belief that the bread and wine actually became the body and blood of Christ. From this belief flowed several new ideas: members of church congregations no longer received the wine at Holy Communion for fear that they might spill it and profane the blood of Christ; children frequently only received a sip of the wine, or the bread dipped in wine, in order to make it easier to swallow. Without the wine they started to be excluded from Holy Communion. The Church then added the doctrine that confession should precede Holy Communion which by default meant only a child old enough to confess sin could then be admitted to Holy Communion. This in turn led to the development of a whole sacramental system based on such a hierarchy.

Objections to children receiving Holy Communion before confirmation are rather poorly founded. In the first instance it is not, nor ever has been the teaching of the Anglican (or prior to the Reformation the Roman Catholic) Church that a person must be confirmed before receiving Holy Communion. Indeed, in the Roman Catholic Church even today confirmation comes some time after Holy Communion. In the Orthodox churches Holy Communion follows confirmation, but baptism, confirmation and Holy Communion are received together in infancy.

There is absolutely no theological/ spiritual connection between confirmation and Holy Communion. In the first instance, confirmation is what we might call ‘a sacrament of the church’, that is to say something which has evolved from the practice of the Early Church in response to a specific need. Over time, as Christianity became more established, it was less of a missionary religion. This gave rise to the idea that a family might be ‘Christian’ simply because of their heritage. Confirmation was a way of demonstrating that an individual had taken on board for themselves the Christian faith even though they had been baptised as a child. Furthermore, as the Church grew bishops no longer baptised everyone as had been their earlier practice, and so the separation of baptism from confirmation allowed bishops to continue to play a role in the ceremonies of the Church without being overburdened with baptism services.

Other ‘sacraments of the Church’ include things such as ordination. No one can open their Bible and say here we find the order of confirmation/ ordination. It simply isn’t there. That is not to say that these ministries are not important in our church structure, but they are human rather than biblical and we must ensure that we do not give to human structures the same weight or authority as we do to Scripture. Therefore one man’s minister may be another’s elder. One man’s overseer may be another’s bishop. There are multiple interpretations of the Scriptures relating to church leadership and depending on your own view you will select the Scriptures which support your argument!

To argue that there are no explicit references to paedocommunion in the New Testament is irrelevant. There are no explicit references to the participation of women in Holy Communion either. Would anyone seriously suggest that only men should receive the sacrament? Paedocommunion was common practice for more than half the recorded history of the Church, and was abandoned not for biblical/ theological reasons, but because of a shift in practice which developed a doctrine that we, as a Protestant and Reformed Church, do not accept, i.e. transubstantiation. Therefore the historical argument, whilst interesting, is far from authoritative in determining our own approach to this issue.

3. What do we believe Holy Communion is and what does it signify?

It is bread and wine, set apart for the purpose of remembering the death and resurrection of Christ. It is a meal which spiritually nourishes us by (a) reminding us of Jesus’ death for us (b) spiritually renewing our commitment to Christ.

No change takes place when Steve or I pray the prayer of consecration. Neither of us has been endowed with ‘magical powers’. The bread and wine remaining at the end of our meal together is simply bread and wine. Much has been made of a verse in I Corinthians 11:29 which says “For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgement against themselves.” In the first instance the term “the body” here refers to the Church, not the bread consumed at Holy Communion (a point borne out by the fact that nowhere in the passage does Paul separate “body and blood” when he speaks of Holy Communion itself); in the second instance if we were to believe this referred to someone having to understand or comprehend that the bread was “the body of Christ” we would then be (a) forced to accept the doctrine of transubstantiation and (b) deny the sacrament to anyone with learning difficulties or in a state of unsettled mind who could not adequately explain what Holy Communion means. Paul’s statement should therefore be considered in context as a warning against adults who don’t wait for the Church to gather together before they start their fellowship meals, and by their actions deny the unity of the fellowship of the Body of Christ, the Church. Furthermore, in the Old Testament the Israelites were warned against hypocritical participation in the worshipping feasts of God’s people, and yet we know that whilst for example a person who was unclean was excluded from participating, children were not (cf. Is. 1:10-17; Jer. 6:20; Amos 5:21-24). In the Old and New Testaments the children of the covenant community are always thought to be “holy” or “set apart” for God (cf. I Corinthians 7).

4. On what basis do we determine who shall receive and does it really matter anyway?

Holy Communion is at root an act of fellowship. We do not invite anyone to participate simply because fellowship in the Church requires membership of the Body, something which is contingent upon a person receiving the outward and visible sign of membership, i.e. baptism. However, baptism itself is a symbol of full membership in the Church community and as such entitles a person to participate in the fellowship of the new covenant meal of God’s people, namely Holy Communion. 

Any baptised child of a believer is considered to be a full member of the Church. When that child comes of age and is able to make a public profession of their faith it is expected that they will do so through receiving Confirmation. This is not the second stage of entry into the Church, but rather an acknowledgement that a process of accepting faith for themselves has taken place and an opportunity to take on board the vocation to which God has called him/ her. As a consequence Confirmation should follow from a child’s own desire to proclaim their faith. It is a necessary process in a community which baptises infants, whose promises have been made on their behalf at baptism by parents and godparents.

We believe that any baptised child of a believing parent enjoys all the benefits of being a member of the Christian community and trust in faith that parents and godparents who raise their children in accordance with their own Christian beliefs, will see them come to personal faith. There will be children who will reject the message of the gospel in later years, either temporarily or perhaps for the remainder of their lives. Nonetheless this no more excludes them from receiving Holy Communion as a child/ infant, than it excluded those in ancient Israel who, having received the sign of circumcision, later rebelled against God. Therefore, until such time as a baptised child is seen to be in rebellion against God they should be considered to be, and treated as, full members of the Church.

In ancient Israel receiving the sign of the covenant entitled a person to all the benefits of membership of the covenant community and full participation in the worshipping life of the people of God. A child who had not reached the age of majority was never condemned for the actions of those who had. Similarly, in the new covenant a child who has received the sign of baptism is entitled to fully participate in the worshipping life of the Church. They are held to be full members of the Church community until such time as they reach an age where they may decide for themselves. When my 5 year old niece, who no more knows the theological basis for Holy Communion than she does the periodic table, proclaims to me in reference to her family “We are Christians and we believe in Jesus,” who am I to deny that she is a member of the Church entitled to full participation in its worshipping life? 

If we exclude children from Holy Communion we run the risk of creating a two-tier form of Christianity that is alien to our beliefs. Indeed, to baptise a baby implies we should also permit infants to receive Holy Communion. Both are sacraments: one signifies full membership of the Church; the other signifies the ongoing participation in the fellowship of the Church. Why on earth should we want to baptise a baby into the Christian community, asking God to help us to raise that child in the faith, only to then exclude them from the central worshipping act of a Christian fellowship of which they have just become a member by baptism? It’s rather like saying to your child on their 18^th birthday “Son, I’ve bought you a Ferrari” but then adding “But you’re not getting the keys until you’re 25!”

Conclusion

As we gather together in an act of congregational worship we remember and give thanks for the sacrificial and atoning death of our Lord Jesus Christ upon the cross at Calvary. He invites all those who have received the sign of membership into His Church to participate in the covenant meal of Holy Communion. Jesus welcomes the children in the gospel and the idea that He somehow rejects them from participating in the very meal which serves as a constant reminder of His love for us, seems to me to be utterly absurd. We must never lose sight of the fact that it is not the signs themselves which are greatest, but that which the signs signify. As baptism proclaims a welcome into the fellowship of the visible Church/ covenant community, so participation in the Lord’s Supper serves as a constant reminder of Jesus’ death for us and a spiritual strengthening for our journey of faith.

There can be no superstition attached to these visible signs. Pouring water over a baby’s head no more guarantees them a place in heaven than consuming a piece of bread that has been set aside for Holy Communion. However, God is faithful and if we seek to raise our children in the truth of the gospel, prayerfully committing them to the way of Christ, then we may have confidence that the promise of Jesus is not simply for ourselves, but for our children and our children’s children. When a person receives the signs of the covenant they are marked as Christ’s. If they walk in His ways that mark is a seal of all that is promised as an inheritance to God’s people. If they reject the way of God then that mark is a sign against them, a curse if you will. But the mark itself is a help to understand who we are, our purpose in existing, and our place in this world and the next.  If we fail to receive the signs, then how shall we be reminded of what they signify?