Who is invited to the Table? (Jesus, ritual, Messiah, gospel)

[sojourner]

Since taking communion symbolizes recognition of Christ's sacrifice, our opinion is that children should only take communion when they make the confession of faith on their own and are baptized, so the symbolism is meaningful.

Symbolizes? In his book, People of the Chalice -- Disciples of Christ in Faith and Practice, Bert Cartwright says that communion more than symbolizes Christ's sacrifice. he says that, in anamnesis, Christ's sacrifice is brought forward into our time in effective power. (Paraphrased, see pg. 81) In that way, we are united with Christ in his sacrifice. So if, in communion, we do not symbolize recognition, but truly do recognize Christ's sacrifice (because we are participants in it) what about that really needs to be outwardly understood and meaningful? It is what it is. It's not the meaning of the "symbol" that is effective, but the presence of Christ in the sharing of the meal, which happens whether we intellectually "recognize" it, or not.

Secondly, what about infants and young children who come to our church from other denominations, who have been baptized. Surely, even they do not understand what communion is, yet they are baptized Christians. Should we turn them away?

I'll be interested to hear your thoughts here. Our elders recently had just such a discussion here. It was great!

[lunamoth]

I like the Episcopalian take on this as you pointed out Sojourner. It's an amazing example of 'radical grace,' unconditional love. I like and agree with your other posts on this topic as well (so what else is new ).

I like AE's addition about anyone approaching the table who 'would not give offense.' This kind of covers both ideas, radical grace but also respect for the sacrament. A baby is spiritually nurtured by participating in communion. Only a youth who has come into her own understanding can decide whether she wishes to confess Christ and take communion or not. What that exactly means to her is between her and God. The baptismal vows are there: we understand them as we can. I imagine anyone who decides to partake in the Eucharist is doing so because they consider it a sacrament or otherwise significant communion with God.

As to the baptismal requirement...hmmm, not sure. In infant baptism the community has accepted a role in bringing the child up in Christ. I personally do not see harm in having an unbaptized person take communion if it is being done 'in the Spirit.'

luna

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

I like AE's addition about anyone approaching the table who 'would not give offense.'

[CaptainXeroid]

Originally Posted by sojourner

Symbolizes?

Yes, as opposed to actually becoming the blood and body as some faiths. We're not talking about different concepts, so forgive me for not phrasing it as well as you did.

Originally Posted by sojourner

Secondly, what about infants and young children who come to our church from other denominations, who have been baptized. Surely, even they do not understand what communion is, yet they are baptized Christians. Should we turn them away?

I've already answered this in previous posts:
"Our church's philosophy, is that He would not have turned anyone away, and neither should we. "
" We're not going to stop a child from taking communion, but I don't see a problem with talking to the parents and finding out if the child is ready for the special Disciple's class our pastor holds for people interested in being baptized."

When we pass the communion trays down each aisle, each person chooses to partake or not, and parents have the opportunity to serve their children communion. On the Sundays when people come forward and partake by intinction, we invite everyone forward, and deacons offer communion to those who remain in their seats either by infrimity or choice.

My belief is that most Disciples of Christ Churches have a similar policy related to communion.

[sojourner]

I find it interesting that Jesus invited to his Table those who had no earthly idea what he was going to do with the meal, and had no developed concept of "what it was going to mean" -- and didn't have a developed concept for "what it meant" for quite some time...indeed, we're still attempting to figure it out!

I think it's a little presumptuous for us (who do not fully have a handle on its "meaning") to deny it to some, just because they don't "grasp its meaning."
At what point can we equitably say that one has an "adequate understanding?" What constitutes an "adequate understanding," anyway? How do we evaluate that meaning? Don't we all approach Christ "Just as I am?" Or am I just "writing the words to a sermon that noone will hear? (from another poll/thread)