I think it’s good for me to write on a regular basis. Unfortunately, people sometimes read what I write, which means I have to be careful not to say whatever darn-fool thing comes into my head.
Right now the Christian Reformed Church is considering the issue of including young children in communion. I think it’s a fascinating topic, and one that can raise passions, which means that it’s also a dangerous topic. Many bloggers who are opposed to the practice have attacked its proponents in ways that are neither honest nor civil, neither open-minded nor charitable (note: I will not allow any of that kind of attack on my blog). As a Reformation scholar, and someone duly catechized in the Dutch Reformed tradition, I was adamantly opposed to allowing children to the table apart from a profession of faith. I held that position for many reasons: my understanding of I Cor. 11:17-34, the fact that the Reformers were unanimously opposed to it (or so I thought–I didn’t know about Wolfgang Musculus’ view), my veneration for Louis Berkhof and John Calvin, and my emphasis on the importance of learning the faith and professing the faith. Then one of my fellow church historians, who shall remain nameless (Dr. David Rylaarsdam), barged in uninvited and urged me to consider a different exegesis of I Cor. 11, and informed me about the baptism and communion practices of the early church. As a result of this uninvited and unaskedfor nagging, I reluctantly and totally against my will changed my mind. I hate changing my mind. Anyway, we have been studying the issue in our teaching services at Neerlandia Christian Reformed Church, and having very good and fruitful discussions about it. I am proud to be the pastor of a congregation that can agree and disagree and discuss without falling into incivility and nastiness (or very rarely doing so).
The Synod of the Christian Reformed Church invited baptized children to communion in 2006; in 2007 they got chicken and took it back (well, really, they needed to do it more decently and in good order, I suppose; and they probably did need to provide more solid biblical exegesis, etc., which is a good thing). But that also left many members (me included) disappointed and frustrated. For myself, I went through all that trouble of changing my stubborn and intransigent mind on the issue, and then we all had to go back to the drawing board. For our congregation, and maybe for others too, the issue was just dropped.
Now a new report has come out and it’s good, particularly it’s main point, a guiding principle that it proposes. But it’s not fully satisfying to me because (at least as I understand it) it does not open the door to any changes in our practices in the churches, at least not for a period of years at the least. It emphasizes that we have to wait for a revision of the church order (art. 59a) before we change our practices. But that will likely take years. The change has to be proposed, then approved by a following Synod. For some reason, the “welcome to the table” process that appears to be recommended by the report authors is not judged by those same authors to fulfill the spirit of Church Order article 59a, though it may be a far cry from the letter.
Now, anyone who knows me knows that I’m a confessional, law-and-order lover of the church order and of our Reformed polity and practices and processes. But in this case, I’m conflicted, because if what the report says is true about covenant children being part of the body, then the exclusion of children can become a matter of conscience…and that’s a serious thing. In other words, I don’t blame people who aren’t convinced for wanting more time to reflect on it. The problem is, if and when we are convinced, can we in good conscience prevent covenant children who express a desire to partake in communion from coming to the table if, in fact, Jesus invites them? Or do we have to force them into a process that is not age- or developmentally appropriate. I mean, what 7 year old wants to meet with the elders? Unless they have candy. Or maybe a Wii.
I’m still musing on this matter, but I think we can have diversity of practice even on the congregational level without creating serious division. (And of course, unity was Paul’s main point in I Cor. 11). I don’t think it’s a sin for parents who aren’t convinced to prevent their young children from participating apart from a profession of faith. But for those who are convinced, it may be approaching a sin to uninvite those whom Jesus invites. In fact, it may be a variation on the very sin that Paul rebuked the Corinthians for in the first place…failing to discern the littlest members of the Body. It’s a difficult issue for me. Another matter the report didn’t really take up is the role of the parents in discerning their children’s readiness for communing (I think previous Synod reports may have). If we’re thinking covenantally, that should also come into play.
I did a teaching service on this last Sunday, and some people thought I was overly pushy or forceful on the subject. Some thought I might be creating division, or trying to go too fast, or might force people to accept a practice that they are not or not yet convinced of. That was not my intention, and I apologize to any who though my intentions otherwise, or judged my enthusiasm to be over the top, because I agree that I didn’t take adequate account of those who were really struggling with the issue. I struggled with it mightily. On the other hand, I remind my members that we began talking about this as a congregation in November and December, 2006, with two CrossTraining lessons; and the denomination has been dealing with the issue for 25 years. So there is reason to want the church to move on this issue. Moreover, I reserve the right to get passionate about some random topic every even-numbered year. I did intend to challenge people; and I don’t apologize for creating a great discussion among the members of my congregation, and I know and love them enough to know they will forgive me if I get overly passionate on rare occasions, as I have done. I respect the church process; but I am also part of the process, and I reserve the right to speak as a pastor and theologian, and as such I have not only a right but a responsiblity to challenge the church to continue to reform itself according to the Word of God. And finally, it is the elders of the church who will make any final decisions about this matter for our congregation, no matter what the short guy in the dress says; and they certainly won’t be forcing anyone to do anything that they are not at peace with. But the fact is that the Christian Reformed Church is moving to full inclusion of baptized members in the sacrament; and because of this growing consensus many churches are ignoring the church order altogether on this matter; I never advocated that, though I was unclear enough to lead people to think that. What I suggested was that the Report’s “welcome to the table” process fulfills the spirit if not the letter of the Church Order. And finally, there were some comments in the discussion that sounded just a bit dismissive of the feelings of those who really have difficulty with the exclusion of covenant children from the Table, and who feel that they have waited long enough.
In any case, at the Blacketer household we’re starting to discuss what the Lord’s Supper means with our own children, and enquiring about their desire to take their place at the Table.
