To disagree with small children recieving communion or being confirmed

[Reallytired]

I go to a church of England church and recently it has started allowing children as young as five to take communion. The children in question have attended a set of classes for a term before doing so. They then had a special service (within the main family service), which wasn't actually a confirmation service, but very similar.

The priest asked a five year old boy what made him decide he was ready for communion. The little boy was speechless desperately shy. I doult he had any clue whatsoever what the sacrement of communion is. Yes, Jesus may have welcomed little children, but were there any small boys at the last supper?

What annoyed me was that my son was asked whether he wanted to prepare for communion by the priest when the priest damm well knows my views on the subject. I feel like changing church.

I think its better to wait until people have some maturity and life experience before taking the sacrement of holy communion. I have told my son that he will have to wait until he is sixteen years old to get confirmed. (Ie. when he is an age that he can actually make a decision independently.)

My parents church had a care home for people with learning difficulties nearby and many of them went to church and took communion. However it was their choice to go to church.

It doesn't bother me someone with a low IQ taking communion. Its not about being clever. Many people with severe learning difficulites are capable of independent thought and making decisions even if they have very poor memories.

another point - what about ministers doing home visit communions for those suffering dementia, at the request of their spouses? people who were stalwarts of their church for decades, can still sing all the hymns from memory, but don't know who or where they are any more? No doubt they would want communion if they COULD choose, do they need to be quizzed on the apostle creed and if they have forgotten it, tough?
Does it matter?

yanbu
sound like a desperate church to me.
I was 13 when I was confirmed, seemed about the right age.

loobeylou, your daughter sounds really sweet, but she is still really young. I expect like most children (including my son) she lives a fairly sheltered existance.

Christians do not have a monopoly on being kind, considerate and not wanting to share.

Although it may seem unlikely its not unconcievable that she could turn really wild as a teenager do.

Or alternatively she might grow up into a kind and generous adult, but decide to join the local Hari Kristnas. (Which she doesn't have the opportunity at the age of seven.)

Really tired, if any of our children wanted to adopt a different faith or none, then of course we would support them in their adult choices. Of course other religions have strong morals and teach compassion etc.
And yes, to some extent, she leads a sheltered life, though having a sister stillborn is something that she has been through,something most will never experience, and hopefully she has learnt from that family tragedy that our faith in God helped us through, and saw how the church family loved us through it.

hedgewitch, what i meant in the dementia case was that if people/children had to show understanding, then where is the line drawn. Just becasue someone had been confirmed donkeys years ago, does not mean they had not since stopped believing or joined some other religion - so if their spouse can choose for them, why can a parent not choose for a child, they know the child better than anyone.

BTW, our children 9,7 and 3 DO NOT take communion, because we want it to be something they CHOOSE to do, rather than something they do just because they can't remember a time when they were not doing it - a habit rather than a life choice

they will do it when they choose to, or not at all, and we are not setting an age at which they may start, or by which we will "push" them to

"loobey.. once you've gone through confirmation no-one questions your right to take Communion. what an odd question" Hedgewitch - they bloody well do in the Catholic church, if you step out of line.

As AMuminScotland says, some churches in the Church of England permit communion before confirmation because "The point of admitting them to communion before confirmation is so that confirmation takes its proper place as an adult statement of faith when the person reaches an age at which they can understand what they are saying. Late teens upwards."

I was always against communion before confirmation. Then I saw a presentation about it. We were asked to split into groups to think about what the criteria was for being a Christian. As we huffed and fuffed and thought up all sorts of dreary things the lady doing the presentation guided us and eventually we arrived at the succinct "To love Jesus." She went on to say that young children love Jesus in a much purer, more trusting way than many adults. You had to be there of course , but I came away feeling it was positively unfair to deprive children of communion just because they were not confirmed and that has been my opinion ever since.

aaargh.

criteria were

communion is not a "right" any way, it is a sacrament, a GIFT of Gods grace. We do not "earn" it by conforming to x,y or z rules

it is a gift to us, to remind us of jesus' sacrifice and living presence with us

why deprive our children of the chance to share in that?

to whoever said "there were no small children at the last supper", that is plain mad, there were no women either, diffferent place and time - does not mean it was only ever intended for adult men!

There is biblical support for both views, loobey.

One of the views of sharing the Lord's Supper is that you approach the table having confessed and repented, and generally well-prepared. This is something that may be hard for children.

There is also the practices of the ECFs, which shapes the liturgy.

Either way, I don't think it is right to tell any major branch of the church that they are wrong.

These kinds of things are known as 'petty differences' and should not be used for disunity.

Err, hardly dare say this, but both my kids take communion and have done for a while. They are.....just six and three. DH and I describe ourselves as braodly evangelical Christan Methodists and we attend a church which reflects our views. The children believe in God at their own level (as do DH and I), know that Jesus died on a cross for them, again, at thier own level and again, same as DH and I. They know that Jesus loves them again, at their level and again, same as DH and I and know that communion reminds us that Jesus died because he loves us. They are not forced to take communion, they go to the rail at the front with us because they want to and put their hands out to recieve communion because they want to. Sometimes there is a grape for the children but to be honest, this doesn't give the same feeling of awe and wonder as the bread and wine. Obviously, being a Methodist church, there is no alcohol involved!

Fascinating debate on this thread.

FWIW re. the learning disability issue, my great-uncle had a severe LD, never learnt to read or write, lived in an institution (I don't think anyone tried to teach him, wasn't on the agenda in those days). But he was a member of the Roman Catholic church, took communion, and and could recite the Hail Mary (memory is failing, I'm sure there's a better term for it). It brought him great comfort.

In our current (and previous) church, baptism is something you do if you feel like it. It is taken as read that children are part of the church family, if parents wish to make a public declaration of how they plan to bring them up, that's fine. Some do, some don't, it really doesn't matter. The dc aren't baptised, but they are still part of the church family.
Anyone can take communion who shares our (CoE) faith, they don't need to be formally confirmed. But the dc (1 and 4) don't take communion, they do not understand enough yet and I imagine it will be a long time before they do. I love the pontius pilate story -ds1 would think exactly the same thing - ds2 is obsessed with aeroplanes - no way do they understand yet.

Oh, I've skipped loads of this thread. There are some great points being made (outside of children and hc).

In the Church of England, paedo-baptism (of believing parents) and credo-baptism are both fine. No judgement is passed at all. It is really a personal choice, and a parish church will support you in whatever you decided to do.

At Confirmation, there is an opportunity to renew baptismal vows. We've even had parents renew their own batismal vows when they've brought their own children to baptism.

No one will get in the way of anyone making a public declaration of faith.

I haven't read the whole thread but have read a few interesting points and opinions in what I've read.

A couple of things - I don't think its inappropriate for children to be confirmed/baptised (ie, to make a public declaration of faith), because I do believe that children are spiritual beings and can have faith. I DO think 5 is too young, probably 7 as well...but I guess it depends on the child. They certainly should not be pushed into it. Any declaration (by adult or child) which is not really understood by the person making it - so I can't see why anyone would want to push anyone into a baptism/confirmation against their will.

I agree with scienceteacher that the evangelical arm of the church certainly doesn't push people into rituals they don't understand or want, and certainly doesn't turn people away for not wanting to take part in a ritual.

FWIW, I go to an evangelical Anglican church, and have had a service of Dedication and Thanksgiving for both my children, as I think Baptism is a more appropriate expression of adult (or older child anyway!) faith, which I pray my children will one day come to.

The idea behind the baptism of infants is different to the idea of confirmation. Confirmation is asking the individual to declare their own commitment to faith, whereas an infant baptism is the parents declaring faith on behalf of the child, in faith - because the Bible makes it clear that the children of Believers are saved (until they are of an age to take on or reject the faith on their own). So the difference is really whether the individual Christian thinks Baptism is a more appropriate expression of the Self Confessed faith (which I do), or of the Covenant God has with His people regarding babies (which many others do). As Scienceteacher says, its personal choice really, and the church should accept and support either view and should agree to conduct either type of service. Hope that makes sense - not very sucinct sorry!

sorry - I meant " Any declaration (by adult or child) which is not really understood by the person making it is meaningless in terms of the individuals faith - so I can't see why anyone would want to push anyone into a baptism/confirmation against their will.

In the early church, episkopos (priests with a wide geographic responsibilities) would baptise entire households, and we can assume that this includes all the children too.

As their parishes grew, they were not able to get around everywhere on a regular basis, so the responsibility for baptism fell to the presbyters. The bishop would confirm these baptisms when he was able to visit these churches.

As things have evolved, the traditional expectation is for babies to be baptised in their own church family by their own clergy, with the bishop doing confirmations at an annual or biennial visit to the parish. The main difference is that we now wait for confirmation until the child is willing to make their own declaration.

I do find the confirmation liturgy a bit weird, as if you only become a Christian for the first time when the bishop lays on hands.

Baptism is one of the two sacraments - an outward sign of an inward grace. Aren't children in need of grace too?

I am a Christian and I think of baptism as something for the parents and confirmation as something a child makes a decision about themselves. I would think that for a child to make a decision about their future, they need to be at least 12/13?

I am glad that OP raised it because it is something that I have always had difficulty with. Going up for a blessing is fine but I don't agree with taking part or getting confirmed. I was confirmed at the traditional age of 14 yrs which I think is far too young.
My mother was of the view that godparents are promising that you will be confirmed at the baptism but I don't think they should be making that promise, all they can do is promise to bring you up in the church but you may have different ideas!
My father was confirmed when he was 50yrs old, it was a definite decision on his part. I don't think that it is a thing that should be done lightly and not before you are an adult.
My DSs are all christened but none are confirmed, I doubt they ever will be (they don't attend church)-it is their choice.

I received my first communion at 7 and was confirmed at 11. I'm really glad I did. I don't believe I was too young, and it allowed me to make a commitment to God before other ishoos (such as hormones) started creeping in .

I DID stop going to church, but in my 20s. But I believe that early grounding and sense of belonging is what eventually drew me back.

DD made her first communion 2 years ago. I'm glad she did. She and the friends who did it with her demonstrate such a sense of belonging and commitment.

Incidently, we recently had a lady received into the church (she was originally a Baptist and had had a believer's baptism herself) and all 3 children were baptised, youngest was 8. All 3 ASKED to make that commitment.

Was your question to me Scienceteacher? My answer would be yes, absolutely children need grace and can recieve it through faith -which is why I'm not opposed to children of, say, 8 or 10 being baptised/confirmed, if they understand what they are doing. Personally, I remember having faith at about age 6 - maybe I did have before too. I was confirmed though at 14 (baptised as a infant) and that was a good time for me - I had a fuller uderstanding of faith. I think its silly to say (ot that you did) that you must completely understand the Bible/the 'religion' to be commited to it. I am 28 now and still don't fully understand it - I expect I never will! But thats where faith comes in.

Scienceteacher - I hope I haven't been misunderstood. I am not at all opposed to infant Baptism, and I have the same theology as many of my freinds who have had their children baptised (and am Godmother to one Baptised child - and two 'Dedicated' ones). I just think the actual 'ritual' of Baptism is more appropriate for those who can 'self confess' the faith, so thats what we chose for our kids