I believe that parents should be teaching their kids early on about communion and the meaning behind it. We would not let our kids partake until they could tell us why they wanted to.
At Amadeo, the older kids (4th – 6th) grade are in the service when we take Communion. It is left up to the parents to decide what to do.
I think what happened at your group is wonderful. We would not have had a problem with it.

Hey Jen, so good to have you drop by here! Thanks for your comments. Your approach to communion with your kids is similar to our (mine and Jenell’s) approach to baptism. I wouldn’t let Judah be baptized until she could demonstrate to me that she had an understanding of what it was meant to proclaim. Thanks for sharing, and I hope you guys are doing well. Looking forward to seeing you all in October.

i would have been thrilled to see my children partake in this spontaneous, organic outpouring of the Holy Spirit. then, on the way home from church i would have asked the kids if they understood what they were part of, and if they didn’t, i would have explained it. my older two do understand, my 4 yr old might not yet, but she probably would have gone along with it, and it would have offended Christ in no way- He gave of His blood for her, too.

Jesus said not to come between the children and Him, and limiting them because of our own ‘adult’ rules is not always wise, but i think if we witness something spontaneous like this happening, we need to make sure they understand what it means.

i miss you guys, say hi Jenell for me, may God continue to bless your ministry. love the posts.

These are great questions, ones I’ve wondered about myself.

Right now our community allows all children to partake in communion, something we “inherited” from the tradition we’ve grown out of. As I’ve thought about the significance of it, I feel conflicted about it, honestly. On the one hand I think we could stand to be more “serious” about it, but on the other hand I think it’s wonderful that children are allowed to partake in something they don’t quite understand fully. (Really, who among us would claim to understand the Supper fully?) There’s a reason we call it a “mystery.” I really believe that it is more than an intellectual remembering, so I have to believe there could be something to children listening to the words “The body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ” and then eating the bread and drinking the juice. I think a grace is imparted in the meal, and performing these kinds of rituals can be a powerful formational practice, even when they partake before they understand what they’re doing.

In a way it’s like infant baptism – prevenient grace coming to people before they are able to “choose” anything… in another way it’s like a spiritual discipline, something we engage in without fully understanding how God is transforming us through it.

Sarah – We were thrilled too, and, for the record, so were the other parents. Thanks for your comments, I think you offer good practical wisdom about helping our kids process things like this afterwords. In fact, those are the best teaching moments, aren’t they?

We miss you guys too! Hope things are well with your whole family.

Ben – I’m glad you brought up infant baptism because my thoughts on the two are (obviously) related. You make a good point about prevenient grace, but I tend toward limiting baptism, yet give freedom in the Eucharist. I’ll have to explore those more on the blog in the future, and, as always, I would love your perspective.

I’m pretty much in unison with what has been said. Kids do what they see and hear. I think it was sweet and amazing what the kids did – although the majority of them didn’t understand the meaning. From what I remember about my former “hard core, conservative, evangelical” church my family attended when I was a child myself – I DO remember taking communion at a very young age (then again, I was also *saved* at a very young age and had a pretty good understanding of it as well). I remember very early on the kids in that church understood that it was something to be taken very seriously. Well, that’s how *I* remember it anyway.

I don’t have a problem with children taking part in communion (although ironically in the past, Jeff and I have neither necessarily encouraged nor discouraged participation for our own). I don’t think taking communion so young and being without understanding of the meaning should be anything to concern a parent. More to the point – I don’t believe God sees it as blasphemy.:-) Quite frankly, it’s out of total innocence really (and ignorance of meaning from the child), but again – kids do what they see. And the great thing about this is that when our young witness the humble and reverent nature of their parents as they take communion, they will realize more and more as they grow that this is something not to be taken lightly.

“Let the children come to me” – is the verse that went through my head even before I read Sarah’s comment – but I like how she put it:

“Jesus said not to come between the children and Him, and limiting them because of our own ‘adult’ rules is not always wise, but i think if we witness something spontaneous like this happening, we need to make sure they understand what it means.”

Agreed.:-)

came to your post via it was shared by a friend.
my heart was stirred by your recounting of that moment, a beautiful one where you were able to see your children take on the traditions of the community and make them their own.
in our church (wits end church in seattle) we have the practice of an open table with the belief that we taste salvation first- taste and see that the Lord is good. when we break bread and drink wine together, we find ourselves in communion (eucharista!)- in this, there is no prerequisite to encounter- no cognitive affirmation that grants access. in this way, my children’s identity is formed with the assumption of inclusion, not with the assumption of exclusion. this is profoundly important for them in their formation as well as for me in my theological understanding of the hospitality of Christ- he didn’t invent a new ritual, he sanctified an existing one- a habit he had of eating and drinking with sinners. there is room enough for us all at that table!
thanks for letting me comment
peace to you and your family!

Very well said Phil. It sounds like your church community practices explicitly what ours has practiced implicitly. Because we’re a very informal group just getting started, we’ve intentionally abstained from defining our positions on some liturgical matters up front for the sake of letting them form contextually; but I think it would be safe for me to say that most, if not all, of us would resonate with your statements about communion reflecting the radical hospitality of the Kingdom. I really appreciate your comments.

I also appreciate your artwork very much! Consider me a fan.

Let’s not overanalyze it:
The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 1 Corinthians 11:23-25

When you do this (taking a meal together) remember Jesus. Certainly the majority of the kids understand enough to remember Jesus. Good for them.

Good for them indeed. Thanks for the comments Angie.

This discussion makes me sad. It reduces communion to something that we have to understand, like what temperature water freezes. The Lutheran view, and the reason babies are baptized, is to emphasize that God’s grace is extended to us before we can even understand it. God’s actions towards us always come first, including even faith in God (this is a gift God gives and sustains in us).

This article makes me sad, and reminds me of why there is still a need for the Lutheran church (the reformation) because this works righteousness is still rampant in many denominations. This is apparent in the line “who certainly had no conceptual framework for what they were doing, and I was genuinely concerned that all these parents might be upset about the stolen communion that day.” I pray for a day when Christians understand the reformation goals, and see what Titus 3 is all about; further when protestants (who are essentially scholastic catholics) stop using rational categories to talk about something deeply mysterious.

http://www.elca.org/What-We-Believe/New-or-Returning-to-Church/Dig-Deeper/Communion.aspx

Thanks for your comments Brad. I think there’s some misunderstanding represented in your comment, but there are also some clear differences of opinion between us.

I never said communion had to be understood, but that is a very common position in various churches, so as a pastor in our current day and age I do have to take it into consideration because often times it’s more important to preserve someone’s conscience than to confront their beliefs – even if their beliefs are wrong (1 Cor 8). It was in this spirit of pastoral concern that I made the statement, “I was genuinely concerned that all these parents might be upset about the stolen communion that day.” We have a variety of doctrinal beliefs and backgrounds in our little church.

I understand the reasoning behind infant baptism, but as someone who is largely an Anabaptist theologically I don’t agree with the use of baptism as means of representing, much less conferring God’s saving grace prior to repentance. Historically, baptism in the early church was an initiation rite, symbolizing and dramatizing the believers identification with Christ and entrance into the Kingdom (Rom 6). We are not citizens of the Kingdom prior to our repentance. Given that understanding, to me, baptizing someone prior to making a decision for Christ defeats the whole purpose of the practice. My view of communion would be closer, though certainly not identical, in practice to the Reformed view of baptism. Essentially, I see communion as a table of gracious hospitality that we practice regularly. I’ve always included my children in that practice.

As far as “works-based righteousness” is concerned, it sounds like you’re saying that by adhering to the idea that someone can’t or shouldn’t participate in a ritual until they understand that ritual is synonymous with the idea that our mental capacity in some way contributes to our salvation. If that’s what you meant, suffice it to say that I don’t agree with your interpretation of my words, or your extension of the doctrine of Irresistible Grace.

I’ll make it easy for you: I’m not Reformed.

What concerns me more than anything Brad is that, like many Reformed believers, you made these statements as though they are obviously and irrefutably true. It’s almost as if you don’t know that Reformed doctrines only represent one small slice of the rather large pie of of Christian beliefs across the centuries, or that they’re based entirely on Enlightenment perspectives which are largely irrelevant in most of the world, or that they were essentially crafted to fight battles that are no longer being waged in the West (i.e. indulgences) and were never being waged in scripture. The Jews were never trying to earn their salvation, and frankly, in my experience hardly anyone today is either.