Comment by Travis Prinzi

August 8, 2007 @ 7:46 pm

Short, oversimplified answer, for lack of time:

Because of the meaning of each sacrament. Communion isn’t just another element of worship, nor is baptism. Baptism signifies entrance into the church, communion continuing fellowship. Both communicate grace deliberately to accomplish those things.

Comment by Brian

August 9, 2007 @ 2:19 pm

Travis - Thanks for the response, short and simplified though it may be. Not coming from a sacramental background I’m sure that I don’t get the entire depth of what you’re trying to say.

Yes, baptism signifies entrance into the church. And I think that would hold true both from the credo and paedo positions. But does it signify the beginning of the child’s relationship with God? Strictly from a credo perspective, I see baptism(at least today) as a point on the continuum of salvation and being brought into the kingdom of God. Does that make sense? I’m still working this through.

And while I agree that communion signifies continuing fellowship, it is also more than that(as I’m sure you agree). If my child has started along that continuum should “official” church membership stop them from coming to the Lord’s table? I know that “membership” and it’s significance differers from church to church so I realize there could be a gap there.

Thanks for making me think about this some more!

Comment by Milly

August 10, 2007 @ 1:40 am

I have no idea of why we don’t allow children who aren’t baptized to join in communion. I would think that when they are old enough to understand what it means then it’s ok to join in.

As for communion it self my church, a CoC, is looking at it as a celebration time. We have stopped being so dreary about His death and focus on His life with us.

Comment by Jen

August 11, 2007 @ 2:36 pm

Hi, Brian! It’s been a while since I’ve been here.

I was wondering if you were asking about saved children taking communion before they were baptized or simply all children being allowed to take communion.

Since we are commanded to examine ourselves for sin before we partake, I would think that limits communion to the saved who are capable of examining their own hearts for sin.

While the Bible does not explicitly say that one must be baptized before participating in communion, we are told time and time again to repent and be baptized, as if baptism is the first step, the first commandment, after salvation. The natural extension of that, for many churches, is that new believers should be baptized before partaking of communion. Baptist churches are often ready to baptize new converts immediately. Others wait until there are more people in order to have a large ceremony. For those churches, I see no reason for new believers to have to wait to take communion, unless that church so chooses to do so.

Comment by Brian

August 13, 2007 @ 11:16 am

Milly - I’m glad that your church sees the Lord’s supper as more of a celebratory time. In the CofC I grew up in, the right words were [mostly] said but the attitude was that of fulfilling a requirement so that we could check something off a list. Glad that’s changing in some places.

Jen - Thanks for stopping by! I don’t really hold to the standard interpretation of that “examine yourself” passage so that’s not really a hang up for me. In fact, I just did a post on that if you feel like looking at it. In general, the scriptures seem pretty sparse on how children participated in the gathered service. A lot of the baptism examples in scripture are people hearing the gospel for the first time and then being baptized so the context is a little different.

Comment by Travis Prinzi

August 15, 2007 @ 8:11 pm

Brian, it hit me yesterday that I posted that comment and never came back to check your response!

There is going to be some difficulty in the communication here, since I’m a sacramentalist and you’re a memorialist.

My belief, as a paedobaptist and paedocommunionist, is that baptism places one into the church entirely, not conditionally or provisionally upon a later conversion experience (though conditional upon issues of church discipline, just as any other church member would be). Any baptized person is a full member of a church (at least that’s how I believe it should be…my own PCA doesn’t practice this!). So, in at least my own little personal world of belief, the dilemma would never really present itself. An infant is baptized, becomes a full member of her or his church, and takes communion as soon as able (which means, as soon as she/he can gum a piece of soft bread that’s been dipped in the wine!).

So, yeah, I guess we’d have to talk about sacramental vs. memorial before I was able to attempt a more meaningful answer to your initial question.

Comment by terri

August 17, 2007 @ 7:26 am

Hey I surfed over here from Imonk…which I surfed overto from another place. I am doing the whole “six degrees of blog seperation” thing.

Anyway….this being my first visit, I don’t really know what your beliefs are, so forgive me if I address something that you have already posted on before.

I became a christian at 16 and spent my first years at an SBC church and even went to an SBC University. Of course, in the SBC and much of evangelicalism, baptism and communion really have no meaning. They are just symbols…memorials. In evangelical circles, there are many children who do take communion. It’s really left up to the parents.

WE have chosen not to let our children take communion until we know that they have chosen the faith and been baptised. After many years of reading the Bible and practicing faith I can’t help but feel that we have done a disservice to the rites of communion and baptism. I don’t know that I really believe that they are “just” symbols. It doesn’t seem that that’s how they are presented in Scripture.

Also, I think that reserving communion until a profession of faith has been made is a great way to illustrate to children that there is a difference between the spiritual states of people. They can realize that there is a choice that they will have to make to follow Christ. That choice has implications.

what do you think?

Comment by Glenn F.

August 18, 2007 @ 2:46 pm

I like that… “Unionized Church” name. It does kind of fit better than “institutional church”.

Sad as it is, it does seem to often fit!

Glenn F.
http://www.itsnotaplace.com