Wednesday, October 15, 2008
My Musings about the age of first communion
Me Too!
A few weeks ago an occurrence reminded me of something which has been concerning me for some time. While I was distributing communion on a Sunday morning a mom and a young girl came forward in line. I blessed the young girl with the sign of the cross and then said to her mother "The body of Christ given for you", placing the bread in the mother's hands. As mom turned to receive the wine the little girl broke away from her and scurried back toward me. She cupped her hands together, looked up and said, "Me too!" Her mom quickly redirected her and I was spared trying to explain to her the "rule".
There was a time when the "rule" stated that you received communion only after you were confirmed. We kept our rented confirmation gowns for two weeks and used them again on the Sunday after confirmation for celebrating our first communion. That "rule" changed about thirty years ago because we were in real danger of confusing the Lord's Supper with something we could earn. Since God's grace and forgiveness is a gift, the gift is given independent of any earning it on our part. What can we do to earn what Christ has done for us on the cross? Because of this, the "rule" was changed allowing young people as young as the 5th grade to receive the sacrament. This was an arbitrary age based on the belief that at this age the child could "understand" what Holy Communion entailed. The thing that has concerned me for some time is this. Since Christ's death for us in unearned and undeserved and it comes to us as a gift, what degree of understanding is necessary for the gift to still be a gift? How many of us older Christians really understand what the sacrament is all about? Can any of us say that we understand a love that unselfish or a gift that great?
Many congregations have offered Holy Communion to much younger children. Providing instruction involving whole families becomes an opportunity for parents, pastors and the congregation to explore what it means to join Jesus at His meal. Maybe that little girl had as good an understanding as her pastor of deeply yearning for what Christ offers through his meal. She had watched often the reverence of her mother's need to be fed and on this day decided that she too needed to be fed with more than a reminder. What would it be like to make the "rule" that the church shares Christ with anyone who says, "Me too!"
I am very interested in your response and reactions to my musings. Please respond to this blog, call or email me at pastorjohn@gswausau.org and share your thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Offering Communion to younger children could be a really positive learning experience for all concerned: Instruction for the whole family would involve folks talking about their faith with their children, which can never be a bad thing. Another good outcome might be reminding parents and youngsters why they're at worship in the first place and why it's a good thing for everyone to gather there as regularly as possible.
Some churches that commune really young ones have the parents decide on the timing for their children, so it might not be at a uniform age or grade in school that this would happen.
The only disadvantage I can see is that communion assistants would need to ask more often, "Does s/he take Communion?"
Thank you Judie for your thoughtful response.
We could inform parents and children during the instruction time and in the weekly bulliten that those receiving communion should "cup" and extend their hands as an indication of their intent to recieve the sacrament.
This response was sent to me and is reprinted here with the author's permission:
Pastor John,
This is in response to your "musings" in the October Good News regarding the rules/practices regarding first communion.
We are in favor of lowering it at G.S. A grandaughter from an ELCA church in Illinois received it in 2nd grade. Years ago her family attended church with us here and Andrea was behind Grandma. When she held out her hand, Pastor Brian hesitated and then questioned her. He apologized to her after church.
Another grandaughter in Minnesota received First Communion as a Catholic at 1st or 2nd grade.
Let's change the "rule" to a younger age.
P and L
This is an email comment sent to me by Pam B who responded to my initial request for commnents about my newsletter article:
I am responding to your newsletter note:
Being the supportive, loyal, admiring, cheerleading, understanding (the way you think-most of the time), parishioner that I am, I would be inclined to agree with you regarding the age for receiving First Communion. I do, however, anticipate a "Holy hullabaloo on the subject. It does not mean, as you well know, that the topic should not be addressed within the congregation. Therefore, I am supportive and understanding of your philosophy and expertise and would actively help with transition if there is that need at some point. Keep in mind that this support is coming from a mom who baptized her own and foster children in the bath tub (just in case) and is still harassed unmercifully for it! Have a great day! We will see you tonight at the potluck.
A friend of mine recently called my attention to an interesting point regarding this issue. He noted that although there certainly could not be any requisite level of understanding necessary to partake of the supper, that he did still like the idea that those who partake have an interest in living within the forgiveness received and therefore going forth to forgive others who have wronged them. This, of course, causes as much trouble for adults as it does for the little ones.
There's also the Scriptures to consider: "Let a man thus examine himself and only then partake" (1 Cor. 11). It's not something that we earn, but it is something that we receive, and we don't receive it in a more or less static state with someone ladling it down the gullet. There is a real participation. So it makes sense to look for some cognitive signs of understanding in relation to this sacrament . . . And saying adults don't understand either is no warrant for lowering the age, but only for more teaching. Luther's comment is key: "He is truly prepared who believes these words, 'given and shed for you,'" with the words "given and shed" implying the Body and Blood.
Thank you French for your comments. I do understand Luther's admonition for self examination but it is by no means the only thing he said concerning the sacrament. In his commentary on the church's misuse of the sacraments in "The Babylonian Captivity of the Church" Luther was equally suspicious of the church that would withhold the sacrament at the peril of the those desiring it. My concern if we place our receiving the sacrament on the basis of our ability to "properly" examine oneself would eliminate from receiving the sacrament those suffering from dementia or those whom we commune at this time who are developmentally disabled. Being "truly prepared" places the the efficiacy of the sacrament on us and our ability to confess "given and shed for me" and not on the One who give in the first place. For those unable to fully comprehend it is not simply passing food down the gullet but the confession of the community of faith which surrounds the one receiving.
Fence here. Are you sure you understand Luther's comment? I never understood it to be one of self-examination. Rather, his comment is a move away from the medieval emphasis on the person to the promise: "given and shed for you." Faith in these words accompany the communicant to communion. As one who has worked with developmentally disabled persons, I think that they are able to believe both that it is Christ's body and blood, and that it is for them. As for those who have ceased knowing/ confessing the Supper due to dementia, etc., the question must be raised if the Supper is appropriate for them or beneficial. Jesus is for them, surely. But the Supper? Perhaps not, and there is no judgment there unless we are, in fact, turning the giving and receiving of the Supper into a new law ("it must be given"). Or perhaps your own words on the Babylonian Captivity say it best: Luther wanted to be sure that the Supper was given to those who desire it. He did not want it to be given to those who do not desire it, nor to those who desire something besides it. A child might reach out for a cracker, but is not necessarily desiring the Supper thereby. Two final thoughts: being truly prepared by faith is not placing the efficacy on us unless you understand faith to be our work. Looking for the promise "given and shed for you" to do ITS work is entirely appropriate and, indeed, an act of faith. Also, turning to the community of faith surrounding the communicant for the faith lacking in the communicant strikes me as a Reformed and Roman thing. We don't rely on that communal faith in Baptism: we believe in infant faith, perhaps the only church to do so. The beleiver's faith is the community's faith in content, and vice versa; but I see no Scriptural warrant for some kind of transaction of faith in this situation. Forgive the lenghty thought here; I'm coming at it from a different background than you anyway, I guess. (Also--interesting that Luther didn't even like the idea of home or private communion).
I believe that some children who are raised within families who practice Christ in their lives everyday can be more mature in their spiritual journey than other children their same or advanced age. They should not be hindered from participating if, upon an interview and further instruction on the Sacrement with one of the pastors, the child is deemed ready to receive the body and blood of Christ.
Post a Comment