 |
| Communion cracker and small cup of juice. Image source. |
I've been reading R. L. Stollar's book, "The Kingdom of Children." Here's a part of the book that talks about including children in communion. From pages 167-168:
Unfortunately, there are many aspects of the majority of churches that are closed off to children. As the aforementioned story of Kenzie revealed, even something as innocuous as a choir can be declared a child-free zone. Imagine how Jesus would react to that! Imagine how many fig trees he would curse (Mark 11:12-14)! If we are truly committed to the idea that children lead deeply spiritual lives, we need to commit to allowing children to participate in our religious rites and sacraments. Yes, I believe this includes communion. We need to see such rites and sacraments less as confirmations of one's spiritual status and more as ongoing developmental processes-- like children themselves.Methodist pastor Robb McCoy makes an important observation: at God's banquet feast, there is no children's table. There is only God's table, where all people are invited to partake. McCoy asks, "If we consider kids to be a part of the family of God, why would we exclude them from the family meal?" When we start to section off different parts of God's kingdom and God's house and when we restrict access to sacraments or sacred practices, we start chopping up God's table. We rebuild the very barriers that God broke down when they invited everyone to their feast. And we communicate that God's kingdom is not here for children in the right-here and right-now. Rather, children must wait until they are adults to fully experience God. But as McCoy says, "Children are the right now of the church. They are the church just as much as anyone else."
Additionally, when we exclude children from the Lord's table, we are making the implicit argument that children cannot be a part of the kingdom of God until they reach a certain level of rationality or mastery of propositional thinking. Yet the very fact that Jesus became an infant means that even infants-- who are the least skilled among humans when it comes to rationality or propositional thinking-- are full image bearers of God, and thus fully welcome in God's kingdom. If we lift up rationality or propositional thinking as litmus tests for who can or cannot enter that kingdom, not only are we contradicting how God established their kingdom, but we will also exclude many people, not simply children. As comparative theologian Kristin Johnston Largen writes,
Many church bodies do not offer communion to and/or baptize infants and young children, instead waiting until they have a certain level of reason or understanding of the sacrament. Such a conclusion may seem quite sensible and fully benign, until its ramifications are followed through to their logical ends. If rationality and intellect are the mark of what it means to be human, what does that say about the full humanity of children, for example, or the mentally ill, or those with diminished mental capabilities? Surely, then, a theological justification has been laid for seeing them as somehow "less."But even those whom society has deemed as "less" are fully welcome at God's table. This is the point of Jesus's parable about the Great Banquet, where those who are marginalized from society-- "the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame" (Luke 14:21) are given priority by the banquet host.
I'm not sure I agree with this part. Or rather, I have a lot of questions that aren't addressed here. It's possible I could be convinced, since I love this book and I agree with its overall perspective- but I need to get these questions addressed first.
So, there are 2 church sacraments mentioned here: communion and baptism. And the argument is made that there should not be restrictions on children being able to participate in these- even though normally children can't participate because "they aren't old enough to really understand."
---
Communion
Let's talk about communion first, also known as eucharist or the Lord's supper.
In the church where I was growing up, the policy was, you have to be a Christian, in order to eat the little communion wafer and drink the grape juice. Nobody was policing this though- you didn't have to be a member of the church, you didn't have to be a member of a particular denomination- you just decide for yourself to take communion. (There are churches which are more strict- for example, at Catholic churches, you have to be Catholic in order to take communion.) And for children, their parents would decide whether they were "old enough" for it.
I always understood this as, taking communion is when we remember Jesus' death. Jesus died because of our sin, and you need to *get* that in order to take communion. You need to feel bad about how your sin caused Jesus' death. (I no longer view Jesus' death this way, by the way.) This is not snack time. If we allow children to take communion before they're old enough to understand, they won't treat it with the seriousness it deserves. They'll probably complain that the wafer doesn't taste good, can we have cookies instead, and the cup of grape juice is too small.
So from that point of view, the important thing is whether you as an individual are participating in communion "correctly," with the correct feelings and beliefs. And you're disrespecting Jesus if you don't have those correct feelings and beliefs.
But the perspective I see in "The Kingdom of Children" is more like, it's about belonging. Being a part of the community. The church does this ritual as a group, and to exclude children would be like saying they can't truly be part of the family of God, because they're not "old enough to understand." The passage I quoted above uses terms like "part of the kingdom of God" and "what it means to be human", and I think that's taking it too far- just because children don't participate in communion doesn't mean we don't see them as "part of the kingdom of God" and "human." But the point is, Stollar is talking about communion like it's a ritual that we participate in, in order to experience God and to be part of the church family. It's not about "understanding" or "taking it seriously." It's not about having the correct beliefs while doing it.
The table is open to all. All who want to come and experience it- Jesus welcomes you. Regardless of whether you have Officially Decided to be a Christian, or can even understand what that means.
This reminds me of what Emmy Kegler said in her book "One Coin Found," which I quoted here:
I have been finding new and complicated layers to the communion experience since that day. Years later, when I was serving communion in a Lutheran church off-campus, a parent pulled me aside before church to explain that her children would be receiving communion today, thank you very much. I blinked at her. "I know the teaching of the church is that you have to understand before you can receive," she went on, "but do any of us really understand what's happening at communion?"
This mother's proclamation baffled me. None of this was about understanding, I thought. Who could understand what was happening here? Who has said we need to try? The promise isn't of understanding but of presence, not ours but God's. That was the entire launch-point of Luther-- that it was the work of Jesus, and nothing of our own righteousness, that saved us.
The conclusion was singular and obvious. "Of course they'll receive," I answered.
Is this, like, legit? I was always taught that to take communion, you have to be a Christian. And people have all sorts of opinions about at what age children's assertions that they are Christians are valid. Yeah sure, little kids "pray the prayer" to "ask Jesus into their heart" like adults tell them to, and they truly do have feelings of loving God, and being afraid of hell, but do they really *get* the immense gravity of Jesus' death, and their own sin? You need to *get* that in order to take communion correctly, I was taught.
And one might say "well we can't *change* the requirements for communion, change it into this touchy-feely 'being part of the community' thing- communion is a sacrament, a Christian tradition going all the way back to Jesus- we can't just make up totally new rules about it. This is supposed to be something that connects us to Christians across the world and throughout history."
But, if you look in the bible, does it actually institute these rules for receiving communion: that it's only for people who are Christians, and who *really get* the meaning of Jesus' crucifixion? Perhaps these rules that I learned as an evangelical are the "new rules we just made up." (Perhaps it's okay that different Christians understand communion in different ways.)
At the Last Supper, where Jesus took bread and said "This is my body," and took wine and said "This is my blood," the disciples didn't *get* it. This was just before Jesus was arrested and crucified- none of them knew what was going to happen, or the meaning of it when it did happen. Also, Judas was there at the Last Supper- he was the one who would betray Jesus, but Jesus did not put restrictions on him being allowed to eat it.
And in 1 Corinthians 11, where the apostle Paul is giving instructions about communion, it doesn't sound like quite the same thing as what I've experienced in churches. He says, "So then, when you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, for when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers. As a result, one person remains hungry and another gets drunk." I am boggled by the idea that one could "get drunk" by taking communion- in the churches now that use real wine, it's such a tiny little amount. And also the mention of some members "remain[ing] hungry"- like there's an expectation that the food should be enough that people won't be hungry after, and Paul is unhappy with the Corinthians for not sharing the food equally. He seems to be talking about a completely different thing than the little tasteless wafer and tiniest cup of grape juice, which is how I've always experienced communion. He seems to be talking about an actual meal.
And he asks, "Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God by humiliating those who have nothing?" and later says, "So then, my brothers and sisters, when you gather to eat, you should all eat together. Anyone who is hungry should eat something at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment." What I'm gathering from this is, some people who had food at home were coming and eating an oversized amount of the food at church, and then there wasn't enough left for the church members who were truly dependent on that meal because they were poor and didn't have enough food at home. It sounds like he's talking about something that's not exactly a full meal- he says you should eat at home before you come- but also is a big enough amount that it would make a real difference for someone who was poor and food-insecure.
Paul warns that "whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord." And I always thought this verse meant that you're not allowed to take communion if you don't *get* it (ie, you have to be a Christian, and you have to have very serious sad feelings about Jesus' death). But looking at the whole passage, Paul's anger wasn't about that- it wasn't about people not having the right thoughts and feelings in their heads when they ate their tiny wafer. It was because the church was not doing a good job of making sure the food was shared fairly- some people in their church were poor and hungry, and really needed that meal.
It didn't have anything to do with you as an individual having the "correct" feelings and beliefs. It was about the church's responsibility to welcome and provide for people in need. And so I don't think it's possible that Paul was envisioning a communion table that was only open to Christians, and only those old enough to "understand." It seems to be open to anyone who wants to come to their church, and with a special emphasis on providing food to the poor.
So yeah, in the bible we don't see communion being portrayed as having these rules, that you have to be a Christian and you have to "understand" it. I think it's fine that churches in different times and places in history have their own take on it. I'm just warning against the idea that "*my* church's take on communion is the correct view that Christians have always believed and we can't possibly change anything," because no, your church's take is not just simply "what Christians have always believed."
To sum up, in my experience with evangelicalism, to take communion you had to be a Christian, and you had to be serious about it, really serious and guilty about Jesus' death. But "The Kingdom of Children" seems to have a different view on what communion is- and it doesn't spell this out clearly; that's why I'm attempting to explain it in this blog post. It seems to view communion as a way of being accepted and included in the religious life of the community. We are all doing this ritual together. Anyone who wants to come is welcome, regardless of their reasons for wanting to come.
Is this legit? I don't know if it's legit or not, but when I imagine the hypothetical universe where this is legit, where anyone can come and have communion just because they want to experience it, even if they feel like "I don't know if I'm a Christian or not," that's a really beautiful picture. Jesus welcomes you.
And inevitably, if you view communion in that way, you will get kids complaining "this cracker is not very good." But maybe that's okay? (I mean, they're not wrong.)
Readers- if you were taught a different view of what communion is and what the requirements are to take it, leave a comment~
(Personally, my view of communion is, it's meaningful to me because it's something you're physically experiencing with your body. It's an action you can do, and you experience God by doing it, regardless of whether you can contort your thoughts and feelings into whatever the "correct" thoughts and feelings are supposed to be.)
---
Baptism
The except I quoted above from "The Kingdom of Children" quotes an excerpt from Kristin Johnston Largen, which says it's not right that churches don't allow children to participate in baptism and communion. Stollar doesn't discuss what Largen said about baptism, so I don't know if he agrees with that or not. (But on page 169, Stollar discusses consent as it relates to religious practices like infant baptism, infant dedication, and infant circumcision- he says consent is important, and maybe we shouldn't do these practices on children who aren't able to consent.)
So, let's talk about baptism and children.
First of all, there's infant baptism. Some churches do this, and some do not. For the churches who don't do infant baptism, it's because they believe baptism means publicly proclaiming one's decision to be a Christian- and babies can't do that. Babies have no idea what's going on. For churches that do it, they view infant baptism as a statement by the baby's parents, saying they intend to raise the baby in a Christian environment- so it's different from regular baptism.
And I've also heard other interpretations that churches may have- I think I've heard that Catholics believe that if a baby is close to dying, you better baptize the baby real quick, or else the baby will go to hell. This seems to view baptism as an arbitrary requirement that God puts on us. Apparently Catholics believe that if you're not baptized, you literally cannot go to heaven (though God might make an exception if you really really wanted to be baptized but weren't able to). In my experience in evangelicalism, we didn't view baptism as being connected to going to heaven- I mean, of course if you *really* are a Christian, then you will get baptized because God says you should, but it's not like God's gonna hold it against you if you just didn't get around to it.
Anyway, I think infant baptism is more clear-cut, and baptism of children who say they want to get baptized, but maybe don't "really" "understand" is more murky. Infant baptism, it's obvious the baby has no idea what's going on- so either you don't do it, or you do it and everyone knows it doesn't mean the baby is choosing to be a Christian (and they will get re-baptized later if/when they actually choose it). And of course there has been a lot of debate about this throughout Christian history, but I say it's clear cut because it feels obvious to me what the 2 sides are, and each side has a consistent, logical view.
The quote from Largen, though, seems to suggest that there are cases where a child decides they want to be baptized, but their church doesn't allow it because the child is seen as too young to make that decision. I wonder what age we're talking about here... The church where I grew up had a program for teenagers where we could get baptized and become junior members of the church, and I did that. It felt reasonable to me that there should be something like that for teenagers, where they *can* get baptized but it's seen as not quite the same thing as adult baptism- I know a lot of Christians (ah, including me) who got baptized again as adults, because we felt that our faith was completely different than the faith we had as children- that back then, we had a limited understanding of what it meant to be a Christian, but now as adults we *get* it in a whole different way.
And I also have heard of Christians who were already extremely religious at 3 years old, "praying the prayer" to "ask Jesus into their heart" every night- should a church baptize that child? Maybe? But it's not the same thing as adult baptism, I feel. Stollar would probably disagree with me on that.
Sure, we can say that churches should simply believe a child who says they are a Christian and they want to get baptized, and the church will baptize them- but then when that child grows up, what if they feel like "wow back then I didn't have a clue / I was just telling my parents what they wanted to hear so they would say I was a good kid / I was terrified of hell in a really unhealthy way", etc... and they look back on their early childhood "decision" to become a Christian and see that they had a totally wrong idea of what it means to be a Christian... I mean, maybe this is not actually a problem? In general we should just believe people when they tell us about their feelings and their identity, and at the same time, people are allowed to change their minds and reinterpret their thoughts and experiences, and that is just fine and normal, it's not a *problem*. (I learned this from the queer community.)
Actually, the question I'm circling around is this: Is baptism supposed to be something that each Christian does exactly 1 time in their life? You decide to be a Christian, and then you go get baptized, as a way to show publicly that you have decided to be a Christian. So yeah, should be just the 1 time.
But.
But, what if you got baptized a long time ago, and you've been a Christian for a long time, but then you have some kind of significant experience or some big change, that makes you feel like your faith has totally changed- sure, you were a Christian before, and you're still a Christian now, but it feels totally different, it feels like you didn't really *get* it at all before. (Some people would even go so far as to say they *weren't* a Christian before- they claimed to be a Christian, and they thought they were a Christian, but their understanding of their beliefs was wrong, and so they weren't really a Christian- but now, NOW there's been a big change and now they REALLY get it, so now they really are a Christian.) It's common for people to choose to get baptized again, for this reason.
Which is kind of what I did, when I was a college student- a big change in my beliefs, combined with the fact that I hadn't yet been baptized as an adult- so, I decided to get baptized again. Yes, my decision *was* based on the idea that getting baptized as a teenager wasn't really the same thing as adult baptism- that the adult baptism is the real one, and getting baptized as a child/teenager is not as good because you're too young to "really" "understand."
There are some Christians who get baptized again and again, whenever they feel their faith has gone through a significant change, and then there are other Christians who clutch their pearls about that, saying that's not what baptism is supposed to be, it's not supposed to be about expressing your feelings about your own personal faith journey, it's supposed to be 1 time, you do it, you're a Christian, that's it, don't do it again. If your faith undergoes some kind of big change, good for you, but baptism is not the right venue to express that.
And personally I'm on the more traditional side of that, I would say. I always kind of viewed it like:
- You get baptized as an infant, which doesn't actually have anything to do with you choosing to be a Christian. It's really about your parents.
- And then you get baptized as a teenager, because you are old enough to think for yourself and make decisions, so it is significant and meaningful to decide to be a Christian and to proclaim that publicly. But still, you're not an adult yet so you don't *really* get it.
- And then you get baptized as an adult, because now your choice to be a Christian is seen as "real" in a way it wasn't when you were a child/teenager.
I'm wondering what the alternative would be. Would it be:
- You get baptized 1 time in your life; it's when you decide for yourself that you want to be a Christian. If that's when you're a child, when you're 3 years old or whatever, that's valid, then you get baptized at 3 years old and that's the 1 time. Of course your faith will change as you grow up, but that doesn't mean you should get re-baptized.
- Or would it be like this: At any point throughout your life, when you decide that your faith has changed and is completely different from the faith you had the previous time you were baptized, you can get re-baptized. Under this perspective, you don't need to treat children and adults differently- it would be seen as normal that everyone's faith changes throughout their life, and if they feel it's changed very drastically, they can get re-baptized. Not as a way to announce publicly their decision to be a Christian, but as a way to announce a change in the level of their faith/commitment.
(Or maybe I'm off-base here by trying to define an absolute set of rules. Maybe we should just say baptism can be whatever you want it to be. Is the point to do it The Correct Way, or is the point to proclaim and celebrate your faith together with your church community?)
As I said, "The Kingdom of Children" quotes Kristin Johnston Largen saying it's bad that "Many church bodies do not offer communion to and/or baptize infants and young children, instead waiting until they have a certain level of reason or understanding of the sacrament," but then doesn't discuss the baptism aspect of this quote at all. So everything I've written about baptism in this blog post is my own speculation- the book doesn't go into this at all.
Before we can decide if children should be allowed to participate in communion or baptism, we need to ask questions about what communion is and what baptism is. The big reason that people always say children aren't old enough is that they don't "really" understand what it means- and that this requirement for "understanding" is a core part of what these sacraments are. But, maybe we should question that? Does every Christian have to have the same understanding of what baptism means, what communion mean, what being a Christian means? Evangelicalism is all about having the "correct" beliefs on every topic, having "the Christian view" of every culture-war issue, but I don't believe in that any more. What if we see it as about desire and choice instead? You *want* to be a Christian, and whatever that means to you, it's valid.
---
Posts about "The Kingdom of Children":
"The Kingdom of Children" (a book about child liberation theology)
The Kingdom of Children: Comparing Religions
The Kingdom of Children: Eschatology
The Kingdom of Children: Theology and Play
The Kingdom of Children: Communion and Baptism
Related:
No comments:
Post a Comment