Baptism -> Confirmation -> Holy Communion
I bring many apologies to the faithful readership. I used this past week to catch up with the family and sleep time. I have limited my posts as a consequence. Thankfully, I feel rested and rejuvenated for the final 5 weeks of the school year.
One of the “hot” topics of the semester has been a discussion of infant and adult baptism practice in the Lutheran denomination. One of the “Theologia I: Baptism” instructors suggests our lengthy catechesis of adults as challenging; another sees no dilemma with a three year catechesis “as was the practice in the early church.” The professors put us students to the task of reconciling our practice with our theology.
(Theology always should have jurisdiction over practice. If not, your perspective of scripture changes relative to your practice. For example, if you chose to accept homosexuality as not sinful your “hermeneutic” or lens for scripture becomes one which is capitulating of this behavior. Consequently, your theology becomes one of acceptance instead of tolerance of sin.)
Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are intimately connected. In for youth in the LC-MS this connection is at the hip of the rite of confirmation. For adults, there is no such hip of connectedness but rather Baptism is entrance into the church and acceptance to the table. Because of this, lack of transition between the sacraments typical practice is to delay adult baptism until they are ready for the table.
Where there is lack of uniformity of practice there may be inconsistency in theology. This inconsistency of practice (regarding baptism and holy communion of children and adults) presents a difficult barrier for those of other Christian denominations or of non-Christian belief sets. Such a barrier is unnecessary and potentially problematic to missions and dialogue with other Christians.
(Perhaps the “lower” or symbolic view of these institutions by other denominations are resulting from difficulty reconciling with reason God’s action in the sacraments, i.e., Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist and the rebirth of the individual that come in Baptism. Such spiritual actions are difficult or impossible to reconcile with the physical reality of this world.)
It appears that the primary undercurrent behind our practice is the Enlightenment philosophy of the age of accountability. Children certainly can accept baptism in God-given faith because they are still under the protective wings of their parents and they haven’t succumbed to the semi-Pelagian influence of the world. The civilized world corrupted adults which now require lengthy time to exorcise such corruption, and can easily apostatize as they are not under the protection of parents. Therefore the power to remain in one’s baptism is the individual (or parents) and the not the Spirit. I think, this represents a dangerous diversion from the Reformation accord of faith being God’s Work and not our action.
As well with the Eucharist, Adults having passed the rigorous examination of adult catechesis are now prepared to receive the sacrament. Common practice is to set a fixed bar or criteria which must be accomplished before entrance to the table. Such criteria may include 6 weeks to 6 months of “Adult Information Class” and some form of public statement of faith, perhaps the baptismal rite itself. Concern for the individual not understanding the weight or depth of the Christian transformation as well the conflict it brings drives this time. We desire to emphasize the importance of the event and give a true understanding of its effects both in time and in eternity. Yet we seem to suggest that the corruption of society has made them incapable of the same “childlike faith” of infants, received through the hearing of the Word.
Youth require no such examination. With infants, they obviously cannot speak and no such confession is possible. Yet, their “childlike faith” given by God through the speaking of His Word readies them for this acceptance of faith. As you can see, this practice emphasizes our theology in both the infant’s need for Baptism as well their lack of co-action in the event.
Being sensible, rational individuals (Lutherans) it would be remiss to leave this conflict of practice without pondering resolution. I offer a potential set of resolutions to this challenge. First is to offer the same waiting period for adults just as it is confirmation with children, accelerating the time before baptism and leaving time to work out the kinks of understanding before acceptance to the altar. This would emphasize the usefulness of confirmation, “protect” potential communicants from receiving the Sacrament of the Altar unworthily and to their condemnation, and show a consistency in practice to those who are unfamiliar with Lutheran theology. The question is whether such a practice would alter or in the least not reflect our theology.
As second solution of reconciliation is to accelerate the time before children communes at a distance from some determinate age of 7th/8th grade to when they can make a simple proclamation of faith. Catechesis would begin early (for example my children hear and learn to recite the creeds, Lord’s Prayer, and Ten Commandments from the time they can kneel by the bed.) Now, we aren’t left with confusion whether Lutherans acknowledge an “age of accountability” and we limit human participation in the reception to a minimum. Christian concern is still present, and parents still might withhold their children from the altar if they are concerned for their spiritual well-being.
In tandem to this acceleration would be a similar acceleration with adult baptism. Again, we emphasize a fundamental and basic understanding at baptism as with the youth and infants followed by a catechesis. This is more consistent with Cyril of Jerusalem in his “Mystagogical Catechesis II” where he spent days preaching on what had happened during the baptism of the newly baptized. They certainly came with a basic understanding but immediately for days after Easter learned more of the fullness of God’s action and the liturgical symbolism.
This discussion should not end here. Treating the sacraments with reverence and respect is essential. Yet, we should not deny their faith-imparting work to those who would benefit and yet haven’t met their time window. We will not and should not throw the rational deterministic approach of the Rite of Confirmation out the window, but we should evaluate the standards we use to reconcile our practice with children and adults.
To help me consider this topic, I came up with a matrix to demonstrate the difference in practice as I see it. The following is it:
