We, at St Mary the Virgin in Godmanchester, are remarkably well blessed. We meet in a beautiful building where Christians have worshipped for 800 years; and on a site where they have worshipped for longer still before that.
We have an active congregation and we manage financially a lot better than some other churches. We have an active youth group, thanks to the hard work of those who run it. And we have an active Children’s Church – which also takes a lot of hard work by some of our members. It’s good to see the children coming in at the administration, and, just before the last hymn, telling us – and showing us – what they have been doing.
Last week, a fairly large number of us stayed after the service to talk about what might be the best way to attract more adults to join us in church. If they included young families of course, that would automatically bring in more children.
In a few weeks’ time, David intends to ask us to stay for another meeting. On that occasion we shall be asked to think about an issue which has concerned the C of E for some time and which, I gather the Bishop has asked us to think about. The question is: should we be giving communion to children before they are confirmed? It’s an appropriate question to ask today, when the liturgy includes the sentence Blessed are those who are called to the supper of the Lamb. So: who are those who are called?
This is not some Anglican eccentricity. The Eastern Orthodox churches give communion to children – babies even – as soon as they are baptized. If we asked them to justify it, I imagine they would refer us to St Matthew [19:13] who records an occasion when the disciples were shooing children away. Jesus’ response was to say Let the little children come to me, and do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of heaven belongs.
Informal conversations among friends in the congregation have, I understand, produced two kinds of objection to our letting children receive communion.
One is that children can be a bit rumbustious. I’ll let you into a secret. That’s because they are children. On the other hand, you may want to know, those who administer communion here at Godmanchester are almost never faced with a difficult child; but we are faced with children who are disappointed not to receive. There is a church near hear – held in the school on the Stukely estate – where all the children receive automatically. I have celebrated there on only one occasion, but all the children behaved impeccably. I doubt if that was just to impress me.
The other problem folk have raised is that children do not understand enough. Maybe they don’t. But there is a problem: what level of understanding is necessary? Here’s a simple question: we often refer to the communion wafer as a host. Why do we do that? We might suppose because Jesus is the host, the party giver, at the Last Supper. But that is not the reason. The word Host comes from the Latin Hostia – which means a sacrificial victim.
Did you know that? Do we need to know that before we come to the communion rail? We can’t be expected to know ancient languages as a condition for sharing in the meal of the kingdom of God. But what about the Bible? So here’s another question.
The Gospels make it clear that the Crucifixion took place at about the time of the Jewish Feast of Passover – the celebration of their deliverance from slavery in Egypt in the time of Moses. Mark says quite clearly that the Last Supper was a Passover meal, and that – because the Jewish day ran from dusk to dusk, unlike our midnight to midnight – Jesus died on Passover day on the following afternoon at about 3.00 o’clock. He both ate the Passover meal and died on Passover day.
But John says it was all over twenty four hours before. John’s Gospel says that the Last Supper was a whole day before the Passover began, and Jesus was therefore dead some hours before the Passover festival started.
Assuming that Mark has given us the historical facts, we need to ask why John has changed them: presumably to make a theological point. So the question is: what is John’s theological point? We don’t have time for a discussion now; but, if we had, who would like to offer an explanation? Feel free to raise a hand … I see no hands.
Let’s forget about the Bible for a moment and think about the Prayer Book. You’ll know, I’m sure, that the 1662 Book of Common Prayer was the last of a series of three attempts to get it right. They had liturgical revision in those days too. Two versions were published, the first in 1549, in the days of the young King Edward, who followed his late father, Henry VIII. Edward came to the throne as a child and died when he was 16.
He was followed by his sister Mary – who ignored the reforms instituted by her father, and re-established the authority of the Pope. The architect of the Prayer Book, Archbishop Cranmer, was burned at the stake at her behest. On her death, the crown came to her younger sister Elizabeth, who re-instituted the Church of England with the monarch as Supreme Governor. In her reign, the church used the second Prayer Book of King Edward published only three years after the first.
That lasted until after her death, when our 1662 book was published in the reign of James I. I think our recent attempts at liturgical revision have made things better; and theirs made things worse. Maybe the experts agree, because our Common Worship service follows the order of the First, 1549, Prayer book of King Edward.
The reason they had three versions – an original and two revisions – was largely that they were arguing over the meaning of the Eucharist. That discussion still goes on. The most recent contribution I have come across was in the current [November] edition of the journal Theology – which the postman delivered last Thursday.
It may help to know that some of the medieval discussion revolved around the idea that all matter, including bread and wine, had two properties which they called [in Latin] Substans and Accidens: in English, substance and accidents. Unfortunately, those words then meant something entirely different then from their modern English meanings now.
Once again, we can’t spend time on that now. But if we did have time, would you be willing to give a ten minute description of what they were arguing about? Feel free to wave a hand if you would. One hand is waved … and it belongs to a clergyman.
I have asked
Just suppose we made it a condition that only those who could answer those three questions correctly were entitled to receive communion. How many would come to the rail? OK: children don’t understand enough. But what is it that we adults understand so well, and that qualifies us to receive communion?
It is a sacrament, some say; and therefore, communicants should understand. Well indeed, there are sacraments we should understand. The Church lists seven sacraments, which include marriage and ordination. Obviously they belong to adulthood. But marriage was in existence millennia before the time of Jesus: he did not invent it. Nor did he invent ordination: that came about some decades after his time. The two sacraments he did invent were the Eucharist; and Baptism.
It’s true that we occasionally baptize adults; but they are the exception. Almost all baptisms that take place here are baptisms of very small children – too small to have the slightest understanding of what is happening to them. Some Christians think that only adults should be baptized; who would then understand what it is all about. Others – like me – think that infant baptism is a very powerful symbol of the fact that the love of God comes to us before we can understand anything at all – even before we know that there is a God.
It may help us if we follow Mark’s Gospel in taking the Last Supper as a Passover meal. The population of Jerusalem in the time of Jesus was about 25,000. It increased many times over during the Passover. Visitors from elsewhere stayed with relatives if they could; or in lodging houses; or in tents. Jews were obliged to attend. Those excused the obligation were the sick, those who were too old and frail to make the journey, and children who [according to the Rabbis] were too young to walk with their hand held by an adult; or too young to ride safely on their father’s shoulders. That must mean that children as young as two or three attended.
They would share in the Passover meal of roast lamb, herbs such as chickory and dandelion, unleavened bread, and wine. The fact that very young children might not understand what was going on, was seen as a distinct advantage. If they didn’t understand, they were encouraged to ask; and an adult would explain that they were remembering the time when God delivered them from slavery in Egypt in the time of Moses.
If the Last Supper was a Passover meal, and the Last Supper was the first Eucharist, then the Passover was the predecessor of the Eucharist. The fact that young children took part in the Passover might give us some guidance about what we should do at the Eucharist. What would Jesus think?
A few minutes ago, I mentioned Jesus’ response to the disciples shooing children away. You might recall another such incident when [Matt 18:1ff] the disciples asked Jesus Who is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven? Jesus called a child and put him among them and said Unless you change and become like children, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
Apparently some think that children should become more like us, adults. Jesus apparently thought that we adults should become more like children. Without being rumbustious about it, maybe we should try to understand what he meant.