Communion
Fences
Part 6 of 8-part series
Most churches practice “fencing” in one form or another. To “fence” Communion is to strive to keep individuals who should not take part in Communion from taking part. The motivation for this action is taken from the book of 1 Corinthians, chapter 11: Therefore, 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. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. – 1 Corinthians 11.27-29. (The King James translation uses “damnation” rather than “judgment”, emphasizing the point even more.)
The Church has interpreted this warning as primarily concerned with unbelievers. From this perspective, to fence unbelievers from Communion is to protect them. However, the interpretation, itself, is illogical. It fails to account for the fact that all who do not come to Christ for salvation are already condemned. (All people readily agree that humans die. For most people death is merely “a part of life”. It is Christians who maintain that death is the sentence, that its imminence is horrifying, and that it is a resolvable [resolved] problem.) So it is not possible to shield someone from condemnation if that person is already condemned. Some infer that the point is to protect people from a more severe condemnation, but there is nothing in the passage to support such an interpretation. Further along in the same chapter, v.32 states, “When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.” Here it is made clear that the warning of 1Corinthians 11 is not addressed to unbelievers; it is addressed to people who claim to be followers of Jesus. The idea of fencing unbelievers does not exist in the passage.
One might counter that it is still inappropriate for non-Christians to participate in Communion, since participation is a claim of Christian faith. This is right, certainly. But this does not mean it is the Church’s responsibility to determine participants. The role of the Church is to clearly present the meaning of Communion. Fundamentally, to participate in Communion is to recognize Jesus as Lord of Creation and as the only means of salvation from sin and death. The participation implies submission to him, allegiance to him; and a commitment to be like him. It is also a proclamation of unity with Christ’s Church. To participate in Communion is to publicly proclaim all of this. Those who believe these things ought to participate; those who do not should not. It’s pretty basic really: act in keeping with what you believe. In any case, God knows every heart.
There is danger in false participation, however—the danger of becoming calloused. Inappropriate participation can become habit, which over time may result in a hardening of the heart (where superficiality is normalized and sincerity is suppressed). This danger is great for those who are regular participants in the activities of the church. To become comfortable with hypocrisy is to invite the judgment referred to in 1 Corinthians.
Another sort of Communion “fencing” is to prohibit participation by anyone who does not belong to a particular church denomination (or to an approved set of denominations). This action is like the one discussed above, but it implies that other Christian denominations are apostate (not truly Christian) or, at least, that they cannot be trusted. But this position, too, assumes it is the responsibility of the Church to determine whether participants are truly Christians. There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor? – James 4.12
Most churches make the effort to elicit credible professions of faith but, in the end, such professions can only establish that individuals are theologically educated. There are many with tender consciences, both believers and unbelievers, who consider honesty indispensable. But there are also many who are more interested in fitting in, or who enjoy church pageantry, or who believe heaven is earned through churchly activity, or who are enticed by ecclesiastical power, who will learn the answers church authorities wish to hear. This is not to say the Church should ignore evident hypocrisy. Nor is it to suggest the Church should take no interest in the individual lives of its members. Far from it, Elders or Deacons ought to make familiarity with their congregations one of their highest priorities. Perhaps this would be facilitated if Communion was administered differently…
Another kind of “fencing” is the custom of restricting children from participation until they have completed a catechism/confirmation class and responded with a profession of faith.
Baptists “dedicate” their children to the Lord, and then train them as well as they can, praying for the day their children make that credible profession. Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans and Presbyterians generally believe in the Covenant idea in which children are included in the visible Church because of their parents’ faith. Such children are considered Christian until they specifically say or demonstrate otherwise through unrepentant sins.
There is a hazard in the Baptist perspective in that it establishes a relational barrier between children and their parents. Parents (mother and father together) are to serve as the image-bearers of God for their children. Parents need and ought to be able to say to their children, “Nothing comes between me and you.” This position is profoundly compromised by the message that parents are divided in spirit from their children until those children make their own profession of faith. It is not God’s intention that parents should live in a state of fear for the lives of their children, nor that parents and children should be fearful of each other. The confidence of unhindered love is backed by God’s Covenants.
On the other hand, Baptists have reasonably been skeptical of the practice of baptizing children, fearful that assuming salvation for their children short-circuits the important process of the children actually facing the question. Children must, eventually, face the question (however old that may be). In the final analysis, it appears that the entire Church converges in the view that a genuine faith, one the individual is unashamed to express, is necessary.
But by the Covenants we are allowed to involve our children completely in the Church, even before our children are capable of making a credible profession. The unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. – 1 Corinthians 7.14
It may be against the grain for Baptists to have their children participate in Communion services. Even so, I recommend it. Retain believer baptism, if your conscience demands it, but this should not preclude children from participating in Communion, as this should be seen as integral to “raising a child in the fear and admonition of the Lord”.
As for those who believe in infant baptism, there is no excuse for excluding children from the Lord’s Table. To exclude the children is to toss aside the Covenant privilege of raising children fully in the faith. Are you worried about your children spilling the cup? Do they spill sometimes at home? Do you refuse to give them drink because of that? Are you worried that the little ones will be loud and disruptive, undermining a solemn occasion? Perhaps the occasion is not supposed to be entirely solemn. No doubt they will be a disturbance sometimes—they are children.
Do not forget that Jesus told his disciples not to hinder the children from approaching him. Little doubt the disciples had the same concerns about loud and unruly children (only they were concerned about disrupting the words of the wisest teacher to walk the face of the earth). But the wisest teacher made it clear that teaching is not only about logical propositions—it is more fundamentally about relationships. Our Christian ceremonies are not to worry so much about being sanitary and precise—they are about the conveyance of truth into relationships, messy as they may be.
Perhaps you are worried that the meaning of Communion will be lost on the small child, with the consequence that the ritual will be trivialized for all present, including the child who comes to partake of it by habit rather than as a matter of the heart. Do you wonder in the same way whether your own child will misunderstand or trivialize your meaning when you give him or her an enthusiastic hug? Perhaps you have never stopped to consider your own meaning. But do you not mean, “I want to be close to you in body and spirit; I want to protect and comfort you from all life’s hardships; I am here for you; it is a joy to be near you; you are wonderful to me?” Perhaps you have never said these things out loud (but should). But your lack of eloquence or verbal courage is no reason to avoid hugging your child. There is something inherent to hugging that the child does understand. Physical actions have implications, sometimes very powerful.
When the Israelites celebrated the Passover, it was understood as a reminder for the mature, as well as a learning opportunity for the young. In the future, when your son asks you, “What is the meaning of the stipulations, decrees and laws the Lord our God has commanded you?” Tell him: “We were slaves of Pharaoh in Egypt, but the Lord brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand…” – Deuteronomy 6.20-22. These young ones would have participated in Passover for years before they starting asking questions about it. (Sometimes it is the questions of the young that shake adults, helping them realize they don’t have clear answers to the questions, but should.)
The physical nature of sacraments enables them to teach in ways that complement words, as well as teaching to those who understand few words. This suggests that the sacraments are even more beneficial to the very young than to the mature. Why would we deny our children participation in these corporate lessons? Why would we deny our children this means of grace? Our fear should not be that Communion will be profaned by children of limited understanding. Our fear should be that children will understand something about Communion and will see that they have been excluded. Do we dare proclaim these precious ones to be unholy when God has proclaimed them holy?
end of part six of eight-part series
Recent Comments