If, as seems likely, the early church sometimes celebrated the Lord's Supper in the context of an ordinary meal (or so called Agape), as 1 Corinthians seems to imply, then it seems especially likely to me that children of believers would have participated both in the meal and in the bread and wine of the Holy Communion.
We know, by the way, that children were included in church assemblies in New Testament times as they are addressed directly in Ephesians, which seems to have been designed to be read out "in church".
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Hi Mark,
Interesting. Thank you for your post. Calvin, however, doesn't agree. Calvin, too harshly, responds to opponents who accused him of inconsistency by administering baptism to babies while denying them communion by saying: "If these men had a particle of sound brain left, would they be blind to a thing so clear and obvious?" (Institutes Book IV.XVI.30 – the whole section repays careful reading).
Thanks for stimulating the debate.
In Chist,
Ro
Hi Ro. Thanks for that.
Yes, I'm aware of Calvin's view. Sad to say, I think he was wrong.
There is a growing movement towards child communion which has always been practiced in the East and was the dominant practice in the West untill about 1200 and the rise of transubstantiation. Of course, kiddies cannot be trusted with the body and blood of Christ. They might drop or spill our Lord!
It seems to me that the only hint of an argument against the communion of the baptised children of believers is the idea that they cannot "examine themselves" as 1 Cor requires. However, I think this command is addressed to adults who are getting drunk and being greedy and factious, mistreating the poor. It does not speak of children who are not committing these crimes.
On the same basis, the mentally handicaped would have to be excluded, of course.
In any case, I think another reading of 1 Cor might be proposed.
I hope to post further on child communion soon.
Best,
Marc
Post a Comment