Fr o m t h e Ed i t o r

Mi l d l y Op p o s e d t o In f a n t Co m m u n i o n Sarah Hinlicky Wilson

am opposed to the communion of infants, but only mildly, sacrament in Orthodox practice that has no counterpart in I because I don’t think one can say absolutely that the com- Lutheranism. munion of the baptized is to be strongly opposed. That said, it must immediately be admitted that there are cases 2. “You wouldn’t refuse to let your child take part when the baptized are not supposed to commune at all: for in the family meal.” Here is a case where the termi- instance, while living unrepentantly in a state of flagrant nology of liturgical renewal obscures rather than reveals sin or while expressly professing disbelief in the true pres- the sense of the sacrament. If I were to take communion ence of Christ in his holy supper. Baptism is a prerequisite and baptism literally as “bath” and “meal” in such a way but not automatic permission to commune. that I had to practice them identically to the household ver- These two cases obviously don’t apply to infants. My sions, I would also need to baptize (“bathe”) my child more mild opposition to the practice of communing infants, than once in his lifetime, and I’d have to commune (eat though, stems from a strong objection to all the arguments the “meal”) several times a day, not once a week at most. I have heard in favor of doing so. Practice ought to reflect It would probably be nice if our communions resembled and rightly witness to proper teaching—orthopraxy con- a “meal” or better a “feast” in a more meaningful sense. veys and shapes orthodoxy—and at present it seems to Symbolism matters. But our Small Catechism makes it me that the practice of communing infants, in twenty-first exceedingly clear that the chief significance of the two sac- century North America, represents an inadequate under- raments is the Word of God, not the water, wine, bread—or standing of the sacraments (both of them) according to the similarity to baths or meals. The logic therein runs aground Lutheran interpretation of the gospel. pretty fast. In what follows I’ll consider the ten arguments I’ve heard for infant communion, one by one though in no particular 3. “It shouldn’t be a reward for completing con- order. There may be other arguments, and they may be firmation classes.” Fair enough. As far as I can tell better than these; if so, I would like to hear them. (mostly by hearsay), reserving communion till after confir- mation did have the effect of bestowing a graduation pres- 1. “The Orthodox do it.” This is true. It is also ent. It taught the wrong thing, namely that the grace of true that we Lutherans are not Orthodox. We have a communion is a reward for your good work of confirma- considerably different understanding of sin that cannot tion study. But after all, the original point of going through be traded for the Orthodox view without serious rup- confirmation first was to allow the child to claim her bap- ture of the Augustinian-Lutheran tradition that we have tism for herself and to prepare herself, intellectually and claimed and committed to as churches and clergy. It is spiritually, for the great gift of the Lord’s body and blood. ecumenical dilettantism in any case to lift a practice out Reform of the reward-orientation of the practice was nec- of Orthodoxy and set it in Lutheranism without consid- essary, but it was neither necessary nor helpful to dispose of eration of what it means in its original setting. No Ortho- the emphases on preparation and understanding. dox infant is communed without first being chrismated, a

2 Wi n t e r 2010 4. “It’s wrong to exclude people 6. “My child really wants com- understands it in all its great depth and from the Lord’s table.” As with munion; how could God refuse mystery; it would hardly be a mystery “meal,” “exclusion” is a magic word, him?” This kind of reasoning if one could. But a minimal under- a shibboleth, that elicits a reaction makes me think Feuerbach was right: standing, and from there a growing without much reflection on the con- God is just a projection of human ide- understanding, is certainly possible tent. Let us be honest here. There is als. But if the God of the Scriptures is and furthermore desirable. It’s not too no community on earth, or in all of true and real, then He is not (among much to ask a person to distinguish human history, that includes every- other things) a postmodern American between the church’s holy commu- body or doesn’t exclude somebody. parent. There is any number of things nion with the present risen Lord Jesus Some exclusions are matters of pro- God refuses us, even good things. One and any other public event—or a fam- tecting the innocent or vulnerable. of the great spiritual struggles of every ily meal, for that matter. Some are simply about clarity of pur- human life is coping with the good pose or faithfulness to a mission: this is things that have been withheld or 9. “If you refuse communion why clubs have membership rules and denied us. It’s a watered-down view of to children who can’t under- schools have admissions requirements. grace that imagines it to be giving us stand what it is, then logically The “All Are Welcome” sign in front everything we want with no regard for you would have to refuse it also of a church is not strictly true. All are our good. Such a God is a weak-willed to the senile, the mentally chal- welcome—as long as you become one sentimental sop, easily manipulated lenged, and so on.” It is strange, of us. We are catholic in our invitation, and lacking in the divine attribute of to say the least, to make an argument but membership implies some change wisdom. about practice for the vast majority on the part of the one entering. West- of the human race in its normal life- erners are entirely too romantic about 7. “This is a witness against long development based on the small the concept of inclusion and have not other kinds of Christianity minority who tragically are deprived given nearly enough thought to its obsessed with human choice of it. It would indeed be cruel to aggressive underside or the plain fact and agency.” I’m no fan of them deprive the mentally challenged of that not everybody wants to be wel- either. But I hardly want to propose, communion; but in such cases there comed into what we have to offer. as a counterpoint, a church practice is a clear awareness of the permanent At any rate, the point is, just because that gives everything the church has limits of understanding available to a person does not commune or is not to offer to its members without the such persons—and even among them automatically offered communion slightest concern as to whether they there is a great variety and develop- does not make it “exclusion” in the want it, understand it, or even care. mental growth much of the time, sense of Apartheid or Jim Crow laws, The prevenient grace of God is not inviting the church’s discernment. and it is dishonest to use the emotional proven by devoiding people from all As a rule, people grow from infancy force of the word to suggest as much. meaningful involvement in their own into childhood into adolescence into religious lives. And it may well hap- adulthood, passing through stages 5. “My child really wants com- pen that recklessly piling up all these that make them more mature physi- munion; how can I refuse gifts of God will cause them to be cally, emotionally, and intellectually. him?” I suspect that this is the devalued and only discovered afresh, Development through time is intrinsic driving force more than any theo- if at all, in an ecclesial context where to being human. Luke’s Gospel even logical consideration, and if that’s choice is central. I suspect this is what makes a point of highlighting Jesus’ the case, then it’s really a question of drives “rebaptism” and disdain for own growth from babyhood to twelve American parenting styles more than the real presence in non-sacramental years of age, gaining in wisdom and anything. There are many things that churches. strength (2:40). A human being is not parents refuse to children: razor-sharp a platonic blob of ontology but a his- blades, cookies for breakfast, the right 8. “Who really understands torical being moving through time and to drive a truck. Blades, cookies, and communion completely any- changing in the very space she takes trucks are all perfectly good and useful way?” This objection is voiced to up, living between memory of the past things. The problem is not in them but the idea that we should require some and hope for the future. It is impor- in the appropriateness of the human notion of what is involved in the Lord’s tant for people to have milestones that user. Further, children often desire Supper—“requirement” being yet they remember to mark this growth. things that they don’t understand or, another of those magic words eliciting First communion and confirmation as if they knew better, would not actually a reaction without much thought. But remembered events are a necessary bal- desire at all. Desire in itself is not an there is certainly a difference between ance to the almost never remembered adequate basis for the granting of the a minimal and a maximal understand- baptism in infant-baptizing traditions. desire. ing of the sacrament. Surely no one Reserving some events for later in

Lu t h e r a n Fo r u m 3 life is a recognition of God’s deliber- to be precisely the act of forgiveness, on the other hand, is to be approached ate purposes in making us historical and so this clarifying phrase is usually with already-existing faith, even if the beings. This is certainly the case for spoken with the words of institution faith is only the size of a mustard seed, other divine gifts and responsibilities, in Lutheran liturgies. For the Reform- aware that there is a promise being like sexual activity and holding pub- ers, the forgiveness of sins was the offered and with a desire to accept it. lic office. It is not ungracious to ask central purpose of the Lord’s Supper, There is no “confirmation” of one’s someone to wait for something worth effected by the Lord’s presence, mak- communion: the faith of and in com- having. ing possible the union of believers and munion is supposed to happen in the their eventual feasting in the heavenly moment. So there is nothing contra- 10. “If you have received one kingdom. It may well be that some dictory, in the classical Lutheran view, sacrament, there’s no reason Lutherans today would just as soon about baptizing infants but then wait- not to receive the other.” Behind dispense with the supposedly dark or ing till they have grown some before this statement is a flattened concept depressing focus on the forgiveness of admitting them to the Lord’s Supper. of sacraments as generic containers sins; but then as a matter of honesty Who, then should be admitted to of God’s grace, two visually different they should dispose with the name of the Lord’s Supper and when? Bar- forms of otherwise identical things. Lutheran in describing themselves. ring the aforementioned extraordi- But God’s grace is never generic. Consideration of the distinct nature nary cases, the standard should be The two sacraments, as we call them, and gifts of these two sacraments led the same for children and adults: those occupy the same theological category the Western church to permit the who grasp the promise of Christ’s because they are dominical com- baptism of infants but to restrict com- profferred body and blood for the mands, accompanied by a tangible munion to the “age of accountabil- forgiveness of sins. This requires no element, carrying with them a divine ity,” assuming that some awareness extraordinary intellectual feat, but it promise. However, there are not two of moral agency and rational under- does assume basic familiarity with the sacraments rather than one for vari- standing was an appropriate prerequi- gospel and the meaning of this par- ety’s sake but because they accomplish site to reception of the Lord’s Supper. ticular sacrament, hardly unevangeli- different things. For some, “rational” is yet another cal or crushing burdens to impose. For Baptism is death and resurrection one of those magic words, but to the some children, this will happen earlier with Christ, a rebirth from above, pre-Enlightenment Christian world in life; for some not till later; in any which saves us (i Peter 3:21) from sin, “reason” was the capacity that makes case, the attentive discernment of the death, and the devil. The unique sal- people to be in the image of God, parents should play a central role. A vific gift in baptism is what made the not some mechanical or mathemati- flexible polity seems to me the best Reformers insist on continuing the cal premise for excluding all things approach. Pastors should be sensitive baptism of infants while they still spiritual. Thus delay of communion to the possible conflicts arising from maintained that, in the normal course was an affirmative act of God-given differences among communing and of things, baptism was to be followed human growth in knowledge and non-communing children, but these by a lifetime of faith and repentance understanding. are certainly not insurmountable. as well as being a source of that very But perhaps this whole discussion faith and repentance. In this way bap- o summarize, Lutherans have in some ways misses the point. Is it tism is different from communion, Tevaluated the relationship between really about the age of communion? which is not ever said to be salvific in faith and promise differently in the Or is it about the impossibility of itself in the Scriptures. Communion’s two sacraments. Baptism creates faith, ecclesial discipline in a divided church gifts are different: the real presence and faith is a gift of the Spirit, thus tossed and turned in the death throes of the body and blood of Christ, the it is fitting to baptize infants before of Christendom? Is a pastor really in time-transcending memory of the any humanly-creditable choice can be a position to refuse anyone anything Last Supper, union with the whole made, yet the necessity of accepting that the church has to offer? Can a body of believers, anticipation of the promise of baptism in faith means pastor really ever grant the church’s the feast to come, and—significantly, that confirmation, which is the public gifts faithfully? Don’t both principled if nowadays not most popularly— affirmation in faith of one’s own bap- refusal and acquiescent agreement forgiveness of sins. Matthew 26:28 tism, is a fitting adult response to that convey a false message? LF specifies the meaning of the supper unwilled act in infancy. Communion,

4 Wi n t e r 2010