Fencing the Table
I have been a member of reformed churches for my entire adult life, and one issue that I was taught early on was that not everyone who is sitting in a church building at the close of a service ought to be taking communion. This was a totally new idea to me. My PCUSA church rarely offered communion, and I don’t remember any instructions or warnings about who should and should not take communion.
I accepted what the Reformed Baptist church, at the time, and later the PCA churches were doing and teaching about communion, but as with many issues, I never gave it a whole lot of thought.
So, now I’m thinking.
Way back when I was a young adult, it bothered me when my parents would happen to visit me on a communion Sunday. The pastor would clearly say that you had to be a member in good standing in an evangelical church. But my parents were in the PCUSA, which most would not define as evangelical. Were they heaping judgment upon themselves? Were they eating and drinking in an unworthy manner?
And then once I became Presbyterian, I was puzzled that we would include our children as members of the visible church by baptizing them, and yet we would not offer them communion. In baptism, we were stating that they were part of our covenant community. Not presuming upon God to save them, and not assuming that they would follow exactly in our footsteps. But offering them a sign of grace nonetheless. And yet not allowing them the second sacrament–that of communion. In my heart, I did not like this, but I could not really articulate why.
I have a friend who was in a bad marriage. An abusive one, although I guess since she didn’t have bruises and scars, some would not consider it abusive. She left the marriage, and as a result, she was denied communion. And that made me stop and say, “WHOA!” This woman went against the counsel of her elders, and as a result she was intentionally living in sin. And was discouraged from taking communion.
So what are the rules for taking communion? Is it for everyone? For believers? For adults? For evangelicals? For Pharisees, who appear to be holy on the outside, but on the inside are whitewashed tombs? For needy sinners who are open and vulnerable and obviously not living godly lives? And who decides which person is deserving of the Lord’s supper and which person is not?
1 Corinthians 11 has a lot to say about communion. In verse 28 it says, “Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.” That section goes on about the person judging himself. Determining whether he is worthy to take communion. But I don’t see where it says that someone else is to make that determination.
The first Lord’s Supper ever recorded, in Luke 22:14ff, has Jesus reclining at a table with his beloved twelve disciples. Men he had spent the last three years with, pouring himself into them. Men whom he knew better than they knew themselves. He broke bread and drank wine with them, and explained that it was his body and blood, and that this tradition was to be done in his remembrance. He served the first communion to a man who would go out and deny ever knowing him–Peter. And with a man who would betray him for thirty pieces of silver–Judas. Two out of the twelve–one sixth of the group.
And so I puzzle over how and why it has become a tradition, within my own denomination and others, for the elders to determine who is worthy to participate in this remembrance of our Lord. And my denomination is “liberal” compared to some who will not allow anyone who is not a member of their particular church to commune. How is it that Jesus, who fully knew and understood the hearts of his disciples–who could see the distrust and greed and complete lack of faith that was there–would allow his unworthy disciples to participate in the very institution of the Lord’s Supper? And how is it that churches today believe they are right in denying the supper to those who profess faith, whose hearts they cannot truly know?
And is this tradition of fencing the table merely that? A tradition? Is it something we just do because people before us did it? Or is it mandated in scripture?
Thoughts?
Posted in Biblical Thinking
April 10th, 2008 at 10:58 am
H’mmm … we (PCA in this instance) are confessional. Which means (in our case) that we have agreed to ascribe to the Westminster Confession (WCF), its catechisms, and in addition, the PCA Book of Church order. That sounds like we have left out the most important one - the Bible! But, the WCF settles that pretty quickly for us in Chapter 1. So… since we are confessional, we look to the WCF to clarify things like this & it is the WCF in section XXVII - XXIX. Check it out here:
http://www.pcanet.org/general/cof_contents.htm
http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/
The second link has the scriptural “proofs” for why the Westminster “divines” came to their conclusions.
Chapter XXX (don’t you LOVE Roman numerals!) is where we get barring someone from communion. And “fencing the table” is derived from 1 Corinthians 11:27 and articulated in Chapter XXIX, paragraph VII.
April 10th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Oh, do I have thoughts!
First of all, nobody is “worthy” of taking communion. That’s the whole point. If anyone thinks he is worthy, he is the one who needs to refrain from partaking, not the one who recognizes his sin and his need for a Savior. It is the sick who need a physician, not the well, Jesus said. It is the hungry who need to come and eat, not the full and self-satisfied. Elders who presume to ‘fence the table’ based on who is “unworthy” are way off the mark. Church discipline (including suspension from the Table) is for thos who are UNREPENTANT, which is a far cry from those at whom we raise our eyebrows and do our superior dance.
As far as the “evangelical church” but, I always paraphrase that, because of confusion over the word “evangelical.” The BCO is speaking of evangelical in the dictionary meaning of the term (churches that believe and proclaim the Gospel), not Evangelical as a brand name (people who listen to Sandi Patty and voted for Huckabee). So I say something like, “If you are a member of a church in which the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is faithfully read and proclaimed . . .” To me, that actually DISQUALIFIES a lot of the Evangelical (as a “brand name”) churches, which don’t actually read or proclaim the Gospel very often, but rather give self-help talks.
And we put all this table-fencing information in writing anyway, rather than my saying it aloud during the service. People can read it for themselves before or during the service, so this information is assumed once we get to the actual celebration. Thus, the Offertory leads straight into the Communion Hymn, which goes straight into the opening versicle of the Eucharistic Prayer (”The Lord be with you,” etc.).
April 10th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
You know, Glenn, I read that chapter XXX (there’s an irony there, I’m sure…). I also read the passages about the keys to the kingdom of heaven. I’ll admit, it doesn’t “feel” right to me. I won’t go changing my theology based on how I feel, but it does prompt me to look deeper. I think this idea that elders hold the keys to the kingdom is very likely the reason some get on a power-kick.
RevJATB, I guess one point that I am hung up on is that different churches define some things as sin than others. I have seen over and over that, for example, some churches view situations of divorce as justifiable, and others see it as unrepentant sin. It seems like an awful lot comes down to the opinion of certain elders. And so we see people who are rejected as “unrepentant” in one church jump over to another one where they are accepted for what they see in themselves–a struggling sinner who desperately needs grace and does not need to be cut off from the table, from ministry, from the body. And maybe it all comes back to who is really holding the keys to the kingdom?
April 10th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Wow. I would ask anyone in favor of withholding communion from another believer to truly examine Jesus’ words. In particular his command to ‘Feed my sheep.’ Repeated not once, but three times in the same conversation. The focus on eating and drinking judgment on the ’self’ is also incredibly important.
RevJATB, the focus on UNREPENTANT is amusing to me. The actual definition states that to be repentant is to FEEL OR show regret about having done something wrong. When we as sinful, fallen, and finite individuals can truly learn to discern the hearts of others, let me know. In the case of a divorced wife, how EXACTLY would you like the person to SHOW repentance enough to satisfy your requirements? Have you given any thought that if they FEEL sorry, why would they want to come and express that to a group of men that may have been rather judgmental to begin with? Without a real relationship with the person, you appear more as a judge than someone reaching out in love.
You know what I would love to see? Just that - Love. We beat the hell out of people while trying to do just that in a literal sense. Yet we serve an all-powerful, all-loving God who is also just. He is more than capable of handling any discipline that need be administered.
Let go of the reins. Allow the Holy Spirit to do His work in the people. We are called to love, not to fix what we see as wrong or sin in others. People are not like cats that need their face rubbed in the poop on the floor. Even cats know after the first time that if they get caught that face is going to be shoved in it again. Yet we wonder why people leave a ‘church’ and go elsewhere?
We need be more like the ‘amazed’ temple attendees in Acts chapter 3 upon seeing the lame beggar that they all knew come romping and leaping down the aisles loudly praising God. Would we be shocked? Most assuredly. But why can’t we be as equally astonished when the spirit moves in the hearts of people and heals the brokenness within? We must rejoice in those moments, loving the person whether God chooses to move their heart or not. It’s not up to us.
Chewymom, you’re absolutely right. It comes down to who is holding the keys. It better not be me or you. Only God can heal the brokenness.
April 10th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
I am especially curious about the kids thing. We hemmed and hawed over baptizing her, since when we became Christians it was in the context of believer-baptism. Talking with our pastor and reading led us to go with the PCA thing and do it. But I have no intention of allowing her to participate in Communion as long as she thinks it’s just juice and a cracker like her Sunday School snack. Doesn’t the PCA (and other confessional groups) make a distinction between baptized and communicant members?
April 10th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
xD.C.
Whoa! Why the attacking language against me? I was not defending those elders in the least. I was supporting Chewymom’s viewpoint, not taking issue with it.
My point was that church discipline is supposed to be used in such cases as the wife beater or adulterer who is confronted with his wife-beating or adultery and says, “I’m not going to give it up.” That’s what I mean by being unrepentant. A he-said she-said situation should not issue forth in church discipline. Only God sees the heart; people shouldn’t pretend that they can see one’s heart in such a situation. I was not defending such misuse of authority in the least, and I cannot fathom how my words could have been misconstrued to say such.
You wrote:
“In the case of a divorced wife, how EXACTLY would you like the person to SHOW repentance enough to satisfy your requirements?”
Who said anything about MY requirements? I was simply trying to explain the Rules of Discipline as contained in the BCO as I understand them. I was not pontificating on whatever personal requirements you suppose I may or may not have. And I clearly said that the divorced wife situation should not have been an occasion for barring someone from the table.
And no, by unrepentant I did not mean anything about “feeling” or “showing” something. The Hebrew word for “repent” means “to turn.” It has nothing to do with how one feels. It means, “I was turned in this direction, but now I’m going to turn in a different direction.” The adulterer who refuses to give up the mistress is, therefore, unrepentant. The thief who refuses to stop stealing is unrepentant. They won’t turn away from what they’re doing. That’s all I meant.
I don’t know where you got this “actual definition” of repentance, but that’s not what the word denotes. And since this discussion is in the context of Presbyterian churches, that’s also not the definition given in the WSC, which defines it as a turning away from sin and turning toward God, “with full purpose of, and endeavor after, new obedience.” (Q. 87.)
Sheesh. I try to support what someone writes and I’m jumped on as if I were attacking what she wrote. I don’t get it.
Furthermore, I noted that I do not “fence the table” in the course of our Communion service. The Bible says God is the searcher of hearts. I leave it up to him.
Please spare the accusatory language from someone who has actually expressed a contrary point of view.
April 10th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
That should read, “Please spare the accusatory language FOR someone who has actually expressed a contrary point of view.”
April 10th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
As far as the issue of the keys go, it may sound nice to say, regarding who holds those keys, “It better not be me or you. Only God can heal the brokenness,” but like it or not, Jesus said to Peter, “I give you the keys of the kingdom,” and to all the Apostles he said, “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven. Whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” However one interprets these words is an open question. But interpret them we must. No matter what interpretation you accept, one thing is not debatable: Jesus said it. We shouldn’t say we wish he hadn’t.
April 10th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Marcy, you said:
.
I want to post a few questions for you. Not to argue, but to give some points for thinking. Because I am the wife of a PCA pastor and a member of a PCA church. I will state clearly that I submit to the rules of our elders and the book of church order. I want that clear before I make my following comments.
I do not whole-heartedly agree with the paedo-communion crowd, but I do whole-heartedly believe that anyone, even a child, who has made a profession of faith be allowed to participate in and partake of the Lord’s Supper. Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for such is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:14). More study into what a convenant is and covenant theology could explain a lot here.
What is so wrong with her thinking that it is just juice and crackers? I know that the Lord’s Supper is different and special. But can you not teach her that?
Do you make her learn what food is and how to say it before you give her any? Do you make her behave perfectly before admitting her to your supper table? Must she learn how to hold the fork before she can use it or is she allowed to use the fork so that she can learn to use it? Must she know and understand the science of nutrition before she is allowed to eat?
I am well aware of original sin. I am Presbyterian, too. LOL, I know how bad I am. But as a believer in covenant theology I also believe that I and my children are giving the blessings of being in the covenant until such time as we prove ourselves unworthy (unrepentant sin).
Just a few nights ago one of our children decided to use bad manners at the table. She knows that she is not supposed to do what she did. She was corrected and she decided not to comply. She was sent away from the table and to her room until she decided that she was willing to join the rest of us at the table with proper manners. She had barely made it to her room before she turned around and headed back saying how sorry she was and that she wanted to eat with us and use good manners. She was welcomed back to the table and that was the end of that.
This same child is six years old; she has many special needs one of which she can not easily express herself with verbal skills and can not hold a pencil to write. She speaks very simply, but very clearly when she has something to say. she is very deliberate. she made a public profession to one of our session members when she was four and they admitted her to the Lord’s table. They did not approach her and she did not approach them. She was talking about how much she loved God and that Jesus died on the cross for her sins and that he rose again so she could go live with him in heaven one day.
What else should be required of her? She may never be able to memorize the Lord’s Prayer or the Catechism or the creeds or any of those things we traditionally tell our covenant children they must master before they are allowed to partake of Communion.
I think that as adults we forget how truly simple the Gospel is. We theologize (yeah, I made that up) and study and make such a big deal about the BCO and the rules and regulations that we forget the very simple fact that God died and rose from the dead for OUR sins.
Matthew 18:3
“Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”
Mark 10:15
“Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”
Luke 18:17
“Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”
I believe that fencing the table in the way it is done in many churches and the fact that so many churches have requirements beyond a profession of faith for our children (but NOT for our adults) is not only a double standard, but is very akin to the Pharisees putting a hedge around the law.
I know there is so much more I can say and should explain, but this is Chewymom’s blog not mine. Sorry, Chewymom, for using so much space.
p.s. xD.C. RevJATB was agreeing with Chewymom not attacking her. I know because we have discussed this thoroughly - he is my husband. I think reading his comment more closely would clear up his intentions for you. He is outraged with sessions who treat women the way Chewymom’s friend was treated - and it has happened more than once.
April 10th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
I come from a Southern Baptist background and now attend a non-denominational church. At most (but not all) of the churches I’ve attended where Communion was offered, everyone who professed to be a believer in Jesus Christ was invited to partake regardless of denomination or church membership. It was not up to anyone else to judge and ask, “Are you really a believer?” It was between each individual and God. I’ve also been at Communion services at several different churches where pastors reminded those in the congregation to examine their hearts before taking Communion and offered a time of silent prayer for people to do just that. As with any aspect of our faith (be it Communion, baptism or any other sacrament or tradition), only God truly knows our hearts and our thoughts and motives as we partake or observe.
As for children taking Communion, I would have to know the child wanting to participate. If I knew the child did have faith in God, had an understanding (even a childlike understanding) of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, and had asked Jesus to live in his or her heart, then I can definitely see explaining Communion to them in simple terms (e.g., this is something we do to show God we love Him and thank Him for sending Jesus to us) and allowing the child to participate. On the other hand, I know some children who just want to eat and drink because “everyone” else is. In those cases, I think it is a great opportunity to explain why we take communion and talk to them more about faith and Jesus before allowing them to partake. Of course, children aren’t going to understand a lot of the deeply spiritual and symbolic meanings of Communion. To be honest, I know I don’t understand a lot about many aspects of faith, and I don’t expect to until I am actually in God’s presence. But, I do think they need to be asking questions about God and faith and Jesus and coming to some answers (again, childlike faith answers) before observing some traditions.
As for baptism, I guess I’m still pretty Southern Baptist on this. I believe it is a symbolic act that should follow one’s profession of faith (i.e., one’s belief in and acceptance of Christ as one’s personal Lord and Savior–I know that sounds churchy, but I can’t think of another way to say it). I’ve always been a “dunker” not a “sprinkler.” As I said before (so no one yells at me), I think you need to search your heart, pray and read the Scripture to find God’s will and direction on ANY SUBJECT.
God didn’t say that the greatest commandment was to sit in judgment of each other. He said it was to love the Lord our God will all our heart, soul & mind and then to love our neighbors as ourselves.
April 10th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
I’m glad that all I did originally was post “why we believe what we believe”! And as RevJATB notes, when speaking about scriptural warrant for these beliefs, “However one interprets these words is an open question. But interpret them we must.”
So… what I want to mention is the likelihood that in any given divorce situation that occurs within any church body, no one but God will ever know the whole story. Even those within the marriage will not even know their own hearts unless God greatly convicts him of sin. So, when a church session “judges” after MUCH prayer that asking someone to abstain from communion because of what appears to them to be unrepentant sin, it is always with a hope of repentance & in the case of a broken marriage; reconciliation & healing of the marriage is the hope. And sometimes, the person(s) who is faced with just such a challenge to change, decides to move on to a church which is less “judgmental” and not repent, and… what? Lives happily ever after?
I have to heartedly recommend that every married couple (which includes our elders - who are “…the husband of one wife” - read “When sinners say ‘I do’” by Dave Harvey.
April 10th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Glenn, Chewymom was referencing an abused wife from whom the table was withheld. Certainly she has a Biblical right to divorce and still be allowed Communion. This is an all too common situation in churches: if there is abuse, or a problem then it is the wife’s fault and she is told by the session to go back and do whatever it takes to make it work. And then when it does not work then it is labelled her fault. This is NOT right.
April 10th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
@Smocklady - I think that “Chewymom” knows me well enough to know that I wouldn’t send an abused wife back to an abusive & equally unrepentant husband. But… if both husband and wife are believers, then God can certainly convict the husband of his sin, restore a true love for his wife, and, again, with the Holy Spirit’s healing and convicting presence, restore the wife’s heart for her husband. “Chewymom” didn’t indicate whether this marriage had children nor the nature of the abuse. Given the description of the circumstance, the only thing we can all be sure of is this - neither the sins of the husband, the wife, or those of the elders are beyond the Grace of God to redeem for His Glory.
April 10th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Good word, Chewymom. Like the previous commenter, I was raised Southern Baptist and go to a non-denominational church now, so the thought of leadership literally refusing to serve communion to someone kinda baffles me since I’ve never seen it. It was always taught that it was between you and the Lord, and parents decide with their children when they’re ready based-on making a profession of faith. I don’t remember my first communion, but somewhere along the way I picked it up, and I think Jesus is ok with that. =) I’ve never taken communion in a Presbyterian church, but I have in Methodist and Episcopal churches, and unless I was completely ignorant of what was going-on, any believer was welcome. Maybe it’s a PCA thing?
April 10th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
RevJATB - you need not feel attacked. I was venting frustration from years of witnessing ‘table-fencing’ and it may have sounded more attacking towards you. I’m sorry if I gave that impression.
My words remain the same, however. If we worried less about who gets to do what in what capacity and to what extent in the ‘institutional’ church, we could focus on love and relationships a whole lot more. Don’t you think?
April 10th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Whoa! THOSE ELDERS sure have taken a beating here! I actually know EXACTLY what you’re talking about - and things are not what they seem. As the wife of someone who at one time was active on the same board of elders, I must say this: people in church leadership have to protect the reputation of those in the congregation - EVEN when it makes them look like they’ve made arbitrary decisions - and EVEN when the truth coming out would satisfy the doubts of those looking on. That “other church” has some VERY stringent requirements of their members that divorce. They can’t serve in any type of teaching position for a certain period of time and have to agree to not date and marry for two years. I guess that’s why those that leave don’t actually join that church - because then they would just have that church government to deal with. I think we’re at odds here - cause I really do trust this session. I believe that they are men of prayer and don’t do anything arbitrarily. I have been on mission trips with several of them and know them to be men of humility. And - if Glenn or I ever freak out with our marriage, I’m counting on them to chase either of us down and remind us that we are called to sacrifice on this side of heaven for the sake of the kingdom - and some days it looks like they may be chasing down one of us sooner instead of later.
April 11th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Jan, I don’t think I gave our elders a beating. I asked some questions about fencing the table in general. I gave several examples of fencing that I have seen. One particular example I gave actually encompasses a few different women. And what I know of those situations comes from various people–the wives, a husband, and a handful of elders.
I’m not even sure what you mean by “the other church” in your comment. I had no particular church in mind. It just seems to me that the effort to uphold church discipline in our day and age falls short because a person under discipline can just leave and find a more accepting church. And that makes me wonder if it wouldn’t be more effective to walk alongside someone (who is not in BLATANT SIN and completely unrepentant), let them examine their own heart, and just weep with them when they weep and walk with them through the trenches!
I think you have taken a lot of what I have said very personally. Remember this is an anonymous blog, and it has never been my intention to malign someone personally, which is why I don’t name where I live, and I only recently started using my childrens’ first names. As I thought was clear in my post, this is not about our particular church–I am questioning our denomination and others who practice like we do. I am trying to get to the heart of understanding fencing the table and why some do it and some don’t. I was hoping to draw comments from a variety of backgrounds, and it looks like I have a few who come from other denominations who have weighed in. I am trying to get to the heart of what is really biblical in our practices and what is merely tradition.
April 11th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Smocklady… I think you misinterpreted my comment and questions. Like Rutatita put so well, I believe a child (or adult) needs some understanding of what Communion is about before partaking.
My little girl is only 16 months old. She can say “amen” at the end of a prayer (or at the beginning, at dinnertime when she’s hungry, lol), but that’s the extent of her theology. That’s all I meant by “just juice and crackers” — until she understands that communion is more than an ordinary snack, and until she has expressed faith, she will not partake.
I would still like to hear from Chewymom (to whom I addressed my comment) about how she approaches or has approached or would approach the issue of Communion and children.
April 12th, 2008 at 8:59 am
Hi Marcy, Sorry that took me a bit to get back to you. My laptop was dead yesterday, so I was using a different computer that I don’t like. Now I’m back on my regular machine–ahhhh.
We were reformed baptists, even in a PCA church, until my oldest was three and my second was 18 months. At the point that we were convinced of paedobaptism, we had them both baptised, and the rest of ours have been baptised as infants.
Primarily our theology changed to covenant theology. Add to that the fact that we have a son with special needs, and it made us wonder exactly what to do with communion. What if our son never did understand what it was? What if he never could articulate his faith? He actually can do both, but we have friends who have a son who has CP. He will never walk and never talk. He sits in a wheelchair and grins–that’s literally about it. Do they deny him communion because he can’t go before elders and profess his faith? How do they determine at what age he can understand?
Even in the PCA, we were at a church where the elders gave us a wink and a nod and said, “Oh, some VERY young children have come before our session.” We knew of a two-year-old who was taking communion. And then our church encourages it in middle school, which is ironically similar to the communicants class I went through in my PCUSA church.
I honestly don’t know what is the “right” way to handle communion. But I guess the thing I would be the most comfortable with is if you have parents coming forward saying, “My child has faith–it may be a very childlike faith, but I believe it is genuine,” then you allow that child to take communion. And I am more comfortable with less rules. Because if your rule is that they have to share a testimony in front of the whole church (one church I was in did this), or that they have to go before the entire session or whatever, you might frighten someone who is timid or rule out a person who cannot speak, and then you have to figure out how to make exceptions to the rules, and it all gets complicated.
And I guess this all gets back to my fencing the table question. Whose job is it to determine whether someone is worthy of communion? Is it each individual’s job (some with the help of their parents)? Or is it the job of a group of elders?
Ohhh, and here’s an interesting question. What does a session do with a child who from infancy has been allowed to take communion, but then they move to a church who prefers that children be teenagers before they participate?
Anyway Marcy, that’s a long way of saying I’m just not sure! We have gone along with what our own church prefers, and two of ours take communion. One is going through the materials our church believes they should be lead through (a kind of workbook) and will hopefully finish that soon. The other two don’t take it. Which greatly offended Sally the first time she sat through the whole service and saw us drinking child-size juice and tiny crackers. She said, not too quietly, “HEY! WHY DO Y’ALL GET LITTLE SNACKS BUT THE KIDS DON’T?????”
April 12th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Marcy,
I got off on a tangent and forgot to make a main point. I know that’s shocking. Me? On a tangent??
Here’s the thing–both baptism and communion are sacraments reserved for the visible church. They don’t confer salvation, because ultimately we don’t know WHO is part of the invisible church, so we will never truly know whose name is written on the book of life, know what I mean? So we, in a sense, make a presumption about our covenant children when we baptize them. I mean, YES I believe they are part of the covenant family, and there are blessings and there is grace as a result. They are growing up hearing the word and being shepherded, and I also believe there is a special grace we don’t fully understand that is, in general, extended to children of believers.
So if we offer one sacrament to those who have not yet professed faith, why do we not offer the other? In my mind, that would be more consistent. It’s not something I’m necessarily sure I would DO, given the opportunity. But I might. I’ve never been presented with that option, so it hasn’t been a true issue for me.
April 12th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
This is good, this is SO good. I am right in there with you, Chewymom! I grew up taking communion from the time I can remember. It has made a big impression on me even though I strayed from the church for years. I can always come back to the memory of walking to the alter, kneeling down and taking the bread and wine. I knew exactly what it was for. I never thought of it as a snack even at four years old. If you don’t get the local paper, you need to get one today. The Religion section is paramount.
April 12th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Right on, Chewymom!
We had a little discussion about this on my blog a while back. It started specifically with talking about Communion issues with parents of a special needs child. I was reading a book at the time called “Expressing Faith in Jesus: Church Membership for People With Cognitive Impairments.” There was a story in that book that shook me to the core:
“Thirty-year-old Paul has Down Syndrome. When Paul decided that he wanted to profess his faith in Christ, his parents met with one of the leaders of the faith community to ask that Paul be permitted to make profession of faith and to participate in the Lord’s Supper. The elder told them that their son did not know enough to do either.”
So I kind of went off on that. You can read the whole post here:
http://www.knowtea.com/?p=255
April 12th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Thank you — it is so helpful to hear how other folks have thought through these things( and continue to do so).
I agree that I would prefer a simple rule if any, and leaving it up to the individual and / or their parents to decide when that rule is met.
The question is interesting, as to whether the difference between the sacraments merits one being offered to all and the other offered to those who profess faith.
This whole business of trying to figure out what to do (and when and how) with this little one is interesting, too.
June 28th, 2008 at 12:02 am
[...] baptism orientation, referred to allowing his/her children to receive covenant baptism as “going with the PCA thing.” No, infant baptism isn’t just “the PCA thing.” Neither is it just [...]