“Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them,” Jesus told his disciples. But should that include taking Communion?
A lot of people in the Christian Reformed Church think so, but a lot don’t. So now a committee will help the church decide at what age young people should be able to partake of the Lord’s Supper.
The Faith Formation Committee has five years to come up with a statement on when youths should take Communion. At issue: whether children first must make a profession of faith, as now required, or whether being baptized is sufficient.
Those who feel any baptized child should have a place at the table got no support from the CRC’s recent Synod meeting here. Delegates soundly rejected a proposal to allow congregations that freedom while the study is under way.
I have a deep and abiding love for the Christian Reformed Church. From 1971 to 1975 I taught the Adult Forum at Cragmore CRC in Colorado Springs at the invitation of the Pastor. He sat under me for the first 6 months as an example to the men in the church who firmly believed that women should not teach men. When I asked the Pastor if I perhaps should take confirmation instruction and become a member he told me that I was more free to teach as a non-member. I disregarded his advice and was confirmed along with my eldest child in 1973. The next month I was informed that the Elders had met and decided that I should be allowed to continue teaching. It was not enough to have the Holy Spirit breathing down my collar, now I had the Elders breathing down my collar too!
I left the CRC only when I moved to Lindsburg, KS; there I sojourned for 3 years in the Swedish Lutheran Church.
I strongly object to children taking communion. I do not think they are mentally capable of understanding the meaning of communion. Therefore, the meaning gets “dumbed down” to their level as just touchy-feely, we are a all a family at the table or it is misunderstood as a commitment to submit to abusive family dynamics.
The crucifixion and resurrection and the communion service are very rich and meaningful. Powerful stuff. Maturity required.
It is particularly ironic that the push for children taking communion comes from the same theological groupings that misunderstand the crucifixion as “God murdered his son”.
Taking communion has had a profound effect on my daughter who began receiving it following a Maundy Thursday service at our church when she was 4 1/2. It has given her a greater understanding of the body and blood of the Lamb. I don’t have anything but positive feelings about her receiving communion and about her communion with Jesus as represented by the bread and wine.
This is the main problem I have with the current ‘open’ communion in TEC. All baptized Christians, maybe, but I strongly feel that most children (and many adults, as well), like Deja Vu has stated, have not the maturity to comprehend the full meaning of the sacrifice offered.
When I returned to the Episcopal Church in 1998, after being away ministering in the Church of God since 1962, I was a bit more than shocked at the 5 and 6 year olds who were serving at the Altar, not just as candle bearers, but as crucifers and at the Table. I remember well working very hard at my formation so I could be confirmed and serve at the early service, when no one else wanted to get up that early, and I was confirmed and began serving at age 11, and that was even early for some of the folk at Grace.
But, back to the ‘open’ communion as now practiced…a person just has to come forward and stand, regardless of their religious training, background, or belief system (if any)…and many have come just for a bit of good wine. When does it stop, when does the sacrament regain its full value in the lives and practices of Episcopalians?
Not rhetoric, I would like some ideas on this.
I believe you, #3 Craig Stephans, you are telling the truth about his experience with his daughter. I think you must be agreat parent and have a great church.
Please, Craig, believe me when I tell you that there are a lot of children who get messed up by this.
And given that, I hate to say your daughter should have to wait because others are not ready, but …
they really aren’t.
In the Reformed Episcopal Church, congregations have the option of practicing pedocommunion. And my parish is one that does.
I’ve found it remarkable how at a very young age, children sense something special is going on — often far better than the adults do. I’ve noticed the youngest ones are usually happy and well behaved at the altar rail — and they are often eager to receive. One baby in particular always reaches out for that wafer.
And if understanding was necessary to receive God’s grace, we’d all be in big trouble, would we not?
Ooops, I decided to change my #5 to address it directly to you Craig, but didn’t change all the “he” to “you” before I hit “submit”.
Newbie #6 but recognizing something special is going on is not a mature theological position. There is room for a lot of faulty theology from that starting point. I am happy to assume your child’s parents have a healthy theology and your child will mature in to it.
What do we do about the children who take away disturbing faulty theology? Ban children from church unless their parents are proven to have a healthy theology?
My son has been partaking of the Eucharist since he was one and a half. The Eucharist is not a litmus test designed to make us holy, but rather a feast at the Lord’s Table. As in the Passover tradition, children are a big part of this feast and should not be made to feel that there are parts of the feast where they are not welcome.
Deja Vu, I think our church St. James on James Island SC gets the credit for facilitating the teaching on communion by having a Family “supper” on Maundy Thursday that explained the last supper and the communion celebration in detail for children. We also had a foot washing that had an impact on my young daughter.
I remember as a Catholic experiencing a more formal process for first communion that was not at all bad.
We could probably all use regular refreshers on the significance of communion and why we partake of it.
Thanks for your comments
Deja Vu & Chip Johnson
If understanding is a pre-requisite to receiving communion, then we are all in big trouble.
The problem isn’t with children receiving communion. The Eastern Orthodox Churches practice infant communion (after baptism, of course). The problem is with poor catechesis in the churches. But that problem is not regulated to just children receiving baptism, it is the root cause of all the other problems in our church too.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Exactly, #6 Newbie! That has been my feelings for years.
And #8, Deja Vu–there is a lot of room for faulty theology no matter your age….as the ECUSA/TEC has proven over and over again. I believe that children receiving the Body & Blood at communion is fine as long as they have continued teaching as they mature….this goes for most, if not all, adults also!
My point is that we have this movement against atonement theology because there are people who get the messed up idea that “God murdered his Son”. So they are trying to move us to view Holy Communion only, as “Brian T19puts it, “a feast at the Lord’s Table.” Of course their is no need for confession of sin if there is no atonement and no casting off the old clothes in this theology. We are all invited to “come as you are” to the feast. It is a theology for young children, to be sure.
#11 I completely agree, Phil. I try my best as priest to explain what the Eucharist is about, as all priests do. In fact I have written a booklet for our parish on the topic. Still, my, and I dare say, everyone’s ‘understanding’ is far short of the real significance of this sacred act. What did the apostles understand at the last Supper?
We have allowed baptized children to communicate as soon as their parents choose to do so at our church for many years now. I don’t want children to ever remember a time when they were not welcome at the Lord’s table. Now, when they are old enough, I strongly support all the teaching we can provide regarding what the Eucharist is, how to prepare for participating, repentence, etc.
There is one 2 year old girl to whom I have been giving communion for the past year or so. Each week I am struck by how she revenently kneels at the rail and accepts the bread when I place it in her hand. She always carefully closes her hand tightly around it …then covers it with both hands…and then eats it. She treats it as if I gave her the finest gift she could ever receive. And I did! That we should all grasp onto the Lord the way thisl ittle girl does!
In the early Christian church, didn’t they make a distinction between the Agape meal and the Eucharist?
I love the idea of having a regular Agape meal for all the children and adults in the church.
But I m concerned about the effect on theological formation when the idea of the Eucharist and the Agape meal are conflated.
It is being used as a step towards eliminating the confession of sin and the theology of the atonement.
Remember 1979! All the seemingly benign changes to the Prayer Book paved the way to the problems we face today.
Deja Vu
Please, Craig, believe me when I tell you that there are a lot of children who get messed up by this.
What do you see as “messed up?” What are the consequences?
There is one rite that I think liturgical churches should adopt:
The rite of receiving First Holy Communion.
In the Roman Catholic Church, the age for receiving is around first grade. Special classes are offered to the children to teach the respect and theology due to the Sacrament, and there is a special Sunday (usually in May, I think) where the class ‘graduates’ by receiving communion at Mass for the first time. If parents were ‘requested’ to attend, that would make it even more special.
Our daughter was given communion by our rector without consulting us. She was with us at the altar (two or three years of age), with her hands folded, and he told her to take it. After when we told him we objected, he dismissed our concerns and said “every baptised Christian regardless of age should receive communion!” And that was the end of the argument as far as he was concerned. We’d go to the ‘line’ where he was NOT giving the bread after that.
I am 70 years old, an ex Mensa member(not worth keeping the dues paid) college educated in Bible History & Interpretation, Psychology, and Sociology and I don’t really grasp the mystery of the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. What separates me from a young child? Jesus said that we must become like little children to inherit the kingdom of heaven…he did not say that we must become “childish”.
I can only comment on my own personal experience on this one. I was raised in the Anglican Church of Canada, and during my childhood no child was allowed to take communion. Most of us were baptized during infancy and then became eligible for confirmation around the age of 11. Before we were allowed to take communion we had to go through a rigorous period of preparation where we were taught the doctrines of the church, the divinity of Christ as it was stated in the creeds, and so much more. Our confirmation service was very formal. The girls wore white dresses with veils (as in the “bride of Christ”). The boys all wore formal suits. It was a very meaningful service for all of us. We had to state the Apostles Creed on our knees before the Bishop and then the Bishop laid his hands on our heads and welcomed us into the church as full observers of the faith. That day, the preparation, the service, (all of it) were so important to me that I will never forget them as long as I live.
I know for a fact that none of my six brothers and sisters and myself were ready for communion in it’s full meaning before that education and experience. I have 3 children and I feel the same applies to them. My youngest son was just confirmed last year at the age of 12. He did receive the proper preparation for the ceremony. I could see the meaning it had for him. He was so awed by it all. He was also able to tell me what it meant to him in a very meaningful way. I am so glad I didn’t rob him of that experience and opportunity. And I am also just as glad that my parents didn’t rob me of that same experience and opportunity. To do that just cheapens the whole thing to me some how.
After my brothers were confirmed they were prepared to serve as alter boys, and were in full understanding of what their service was all about. Us girls were continuing on in JA’s (Junior Auxiliary) and served the church in many ways through that. My mother was on the Ladies Auxilliary (ACW) (Anglican Church Women) and the Alter Guild.
All through my childhood I was taught the importance of the church in my life, what it was all about, what Jesus was all about, and always was taught to have nothing but the highest respect for the church. None of that has ever left me. I still genuflect when I approach for communion, but very few others do. That is so sad to me. I love the honor which that simple act gives to the cross of Jesus. It doesn’t come even remotely close to what He has sacrificed for me. It’s just my small and humble way of honoring Him.
So, for me, I have to say that children coming up for Holy Communion is questionable. We were all allowed at the alter during communion with our families, but we were blessed with a laying on of hands and a verbal blessing given. Not once did I feel I was missing out on anything or rejected by the church. Yes, Jesus does love little children. And, of course, he wants them near Him. But does he want them to observe the Holy Communion as a sacrament which they cannot yet fully understand? In my opinion, no!
Mugsie
It’s an issue I could go either way on. I see the merit of a First Communion, but I see nothing wrong with including children in the Eucharist as soon as they can comprehend the solemnity of the event and can properly handle the Host. My daughter has been receiving communion since she was about 4 1/2 years old.
#16 I highly recommend a book by the “worthy opposition”: Proverbs of Ashes by Rita Nakashima Brock and Rebecca Ann Parker (the President of a Unitarian Seminary!).
What I learned from the book is that people can develop faulty atonement theology that is very damaging and keeps them trapped in abusive situations. They then need to reject Christianity altogether in order to break out of the abusive patterns. (Or they get murdered first.)
“Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” –Jesus (Matthew 18.3)
“Then little children were being brought to him in order that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples spoke sternly to those who brought them; but Jesus said, ‘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.’” Matthew 19:13-14
It seems like some here have a backwards theology. They want to hinder the children from receiving Christ in the Eucharist when he explicitly said not to hinder the little children from coming to him. I would go as far as to say that it is wrong to refuse communion to baptized children based solely on them being children. I don’t think that Jesus would like us refusing children any more than he liked his disciples trying to send the children away when they came to him.
As for the idea that children must fully understand communion before they can receive it, if that is the standard then it must be refused to all of us. The Eucharist is a mystery. It is not something that we can expect to understand fully in any of our lifetimes. The idea that children must be refused communion because they lack understanding should logically lead to the idea that they must also be refused baptism for the same reason. If that is your theology, I’m sure there is a Baptist Church or Church of Christ down the road that would welcome you.
Both of my children ages one and four receive communion and they have the appropriate amount of understanding for their developmental level. My oldest began after she was baptized at the age of three and was able to understand even more than I as her mother would have expected her to. My one year old began receiving at 18 months shortly after she began to put her hand out to receive. She receives with great reverence. She treats it quite differently than a snack and will of course learn more as she grows and matures.
I agree with my Friend “Newbie Anglican”. I am also REC and we practice Paedocommunion. I think the whole thing about “proper knowledge” and “maturity” can be overplayed. OK, here is the scenerio as I see it.
1) We believe (in many different ways of understanding in the various Anglican jurisdictions) that Christ is “Really Present” in the Eucharist.
2) Thus Christ is present with us at Communion.
3) Some “mature” and “understanding” religious folks once tried to keep the Children from our Lord.
4) He was not pleased!
5) Therefore, if it was wrong for the Apostles to try to keep the Children away from Christ, it would be equally wrong for us to keep Children away from Him in the Eucharist.
I also serve as a Layreader and Lector so I get a “front row view” of people at the altar rail. Many adults reach up for the communion like they are reaching for a bus token (we need to work on that!!) but EVERY young child (especially the very young) reaches up as if they are reaching out for God’s hand (and in a way they are!!). Many of the “mature” ones seem to be receiving communion as a matter of routine (vacant looks, no emotions) the kids all act as if they are entering into the presence of the King. (as they are!!).
Suffer the little children to come unto Him. Those kids (as long as they are baptized) are just as “worthy” of communion as any of us. We dare not deny them one of the “means of grace” which we give gratitude for every time we say the General Thanksgiving.
RECCHIP
#23, when I was going up to the alter as a child I was blessed, while kneeling, with the laying on of hands. I was still present with Jesus. I was in no way kept from him. So, I’m concerned that you feel this way. A child being at the table to receive the blessing is still in the presence of Jesus.
I feel knowledge has a lot to do with it. Jesus never sent his disciples out to teach his message without giving them the knowledge with which to do so. We are also his disciples. We are expected to teach His message to all others around us. We do that in faith in Him, which we have been taught. Each time we observe the Holy Communion we are reaffirming and strengthening that faith in Him, which He has taught us. I personally believe that is just too much to expect a very small child to understand.
But that’s why I want to see a ‘first communion experience’ class — it will serve to show the children that we hold that something very special happens at the Eucharist, and they can partake of it, too, and that it is so special that we want them to be aware — as a Church Body — of how special it is so that we make a big deal of it by having a special ceremony just for them.
Deja Vu
You lost me:
What I learned from the book is that people can develop faulty atonement theology that is very damaging and keeps them trapped in abusive situations. They then need to reject Christianity altogether in order to break out of the abusive patterns. (Or they get murdered first.)
Are you saying that people with a faulty atonement theory are more likely to suffer physical/sexual/emotional abuse?
#4 Chip Johnson: “I strongly feel that most children (and many adults, as well), like Deja Vu has stated, have not the maturity to comprehend the full meaning of the sacrifice offered.”
Then…why should there be a magic age of admittance to Communion? Are you proposing some sort of examination?
#9 Brian from T19 — yes, yes again and amen.
Dear #26 Brian at T19,
Yes, some people get confused about violence and redemptive suffering. Some people think that the Christian thing to do is to accept humiliation, rejection and betrayal in family relationships.
I’m not trying to keep the little children from Jesus.
I’m trying to protect the little children from a disturbing misunderstanding of the crucifixion that feeds into sado-masochistic relationships.
I am truly happy for the people on this thread that have no idea what I am talking about.
Deja Vu,
Anyone of any age can be led astray by false teaching, that doesn’t mean we should bar them from communion because of the possibility. Indeed, my experience has been that children actually understand more than adults because they don’t have as much mental baggage. As my friend’s boy said about the chalice “I drink God in there…” that’s a better and more clear understanding that most adults who try to strain and stretch all varieties of theology to soothe their rational minds. Personally, I think if one is going to make “understanding” a prerequisite for communion, you can’t possibly justify infant baptism. Either infants have faith or they do not. If they do, and they are Baptized they should be able to receive–if they do not, and the rational mind has to reach some level of development before “faith” can be present, then both Baptism and communion should wait until a later stage. Not only does the requirement to “understand” rule out all of us if we are honest, I don’t see how it’s any more than gnosticism dressed up and paraded about as serious Christianity.
P.S.
Having read some of the theologians who push for so-called “non-violent Eucharists,” I can honestly say that with all the mental gymnastics they go through in trying to warp the Biblical testimony and come up with an alternative, they should certainly be able to understand the truth if it were all about mental capability. Fortunately it has very little to do with it, and much more to do with with the faith God works in the heart.
As I get older, I realize that I find myself increasingly drawn to the positive experiences of my youth. Like mugsie, I too went through formal confirmation classes before receiving Communion.
I think one needs to remember that historically infant baptism was usually performed within days of a child’s birth because there was high probability that the child would not survive and therefore needed to baptized quickly.
But when a child is baptized in this way, this decision is not being made by the child itself, but rather by others on its behalf. It seems to me that that there is plenty of evidence in Scripture that Christ expects us to make this decision ourselves before we can be “born again”. Confirmation was the mechanism established for the person who had been baptized as an infant to make that decision. It was also the mechanism by which the child was instructed in the Faith. We were supposed to be know the Nicene Creed (by heart), the Catechism, and the 39 Articles before we could be admitted to the mysteries of the Eucharist.
While I do not wish to criticize those of you who permit your young children to receive Communion, I think it is insufficient to say that that it is appropriate just because they understand they are in the presence of God. The most brilliant protestant Doctor of Divinity will not be invited to participate in the Eucharist at a Roman Catholic church, not because he does not believe in God or understand all the relevant salvation issues, but because Communion is precisely what it claims to be, a sharing of the Body and Blood of Christ by those who are in Communion with each other. To accept Communion at a Roman Catholic church is to acknowledge that you believe what that Church believes, not just their interpretation of the Real Presence but all the other doctrines of the church as well.
It is precisely for this reason that the Anglican Communion will split. We no longer share a common set of beliefs. And one of the main reasons for that is that we no longer require people to be properly instructed in the Essentials of the Anglican Church before being admitted to it and being asked to share its Communion.
I think the rationale behind the Roman Catholic Church’s choosing age 7 has to do with some who state that this is the age of acountability. It’s also concidentally first grade. So it’s a celebration of one milestone with another. The same seems to go along with confirmation. In my case, I was confirmed with a class of 7th AND 8th graders, so a celebration that corresponded with Middle School (leaving childhood behind, so to speak) which also corresponded (coincidentally again) with the Jewish age of Bar/Bat-Mitzpha.
If mature understanding of theology is necessary to receiving the Eucharist, then should adults who are mentally disabled be permanently refused communion? What about seniors with Alzheimers or other forms of dementia? Do we need to come up with a standardized exam–essay questions, even–for every visitor, newcomer and convert? Or re-certify every cradle Episcoplian every five years to make sure that they remember their catechism?
When I was a 12-year-old in confirmation class (which at the time also served as first communion class) in the 1970’s, I remember many secret conversations with my fellow catechumens about the taste of the wafer (“My brother said it tastes like paper!“) and our immanent first sip of wine. We memorized our catechism and we learned our theology, but when it comes to approaching the consecrated elements with respect and awe, at 12 there was nothing mature about us.
And you know something? I believe that Grace happened anyway, because the power of the Eucharist is in God’s hand giving, not in my hand receiving. Outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace, and all that. . . I do remember some of it!
Robert #31,
As someone has pointed out the Orthodox don’t seem to have the same problems as we do, and they practice paedobaptism and include confirmation in the Baptismal service according to the ancient custom, rather than breaking it out as it’s own service as happened in the west, and as a result they commune infants. I think it’s important to realize that Anglicanism has rightly embraced a view of Baptism that understands the normative example of Baptism to be the Baptism of a newly believing adult, rather than an infant. the Baptism of infants is important and I believe scripturally warranted, but if the Church is doing it’s job we should have many more adult Baptisms than infant. This process should of course include an amount of instruction that is beneficial to the catechumen, and demonstrates the enormity of the importance of being admitted to the community and being made one with the Body of Christ by the Holy Spirit. If we are can be a community that takes this seriously, I believe we will also be a community that properly catechizes those who grow up in the church so that they recognize what a blessing they have in being part of God’s covenant people in Jesus Christ. One does not have to make first communion hinge upon such instruction to make it effective in their lives. I understand what you are saying, and believe it is a good and effective practice, but just not that it is the only justifiable one.
Also, I remember from liturgics that there is evidence from font covers, writings etc… that the expected age of confirmation in England was quite young for a long time, but that it became more focused on older people because so many were not bothering to get confirmed until it was made a requirement for receiving communion. Unfortunately all my books are packed away at the moment as we get ready to move, perhaps someone else would be able to speak to this.
LadyTenor and Jodi: I do not disagree with either of you about the validity of an individuals relationship with the Lord.
My point was based more on trying to understand what it means for us to say we are part of (say) the Anglican Communion. On what basis might the African bishops decline to share the Eucharist with some of their (presumed) ECUSAN colleagues?
Personally, I am not prepared to say who is or who is not a Christian. Ultimately that is something that Jesus will decide when we come before Him. He will say “Welcome, good and faithful servant” or He will say “I never knew you”. It is not for me to presume what He will say on an individual basis.
So when I find that I disagree with the new theology of TEC and feel I am not willing to share their interpretation of what it means to be a Christian, how am I to resolve that? Should I become a lone Christian or should I seek to remain part of a Communion of Christians who believe what I believe? And if the later, then surely that can only be defined by a specific set of beliefs and doctrines. My point is that those of us who went through confirmation before accepting membership into the Anglican Communion were schooled into what that was supposed to mean. And we reaffirm this every time we share the Body and Blood of Christ.
I am not saying that that makes us better individual Christians, but I am saying that as a body that enables us to be better witnesses and worshippers of the Lord. And our effectiveness in doing is compromised when we as a body are no longer in agreement about what it is that defines our Communion.
To make an analogy to which LadyTenor may relate. I could be the best opera singer in the world, but if the Choir Director admits me into the Choir to sing traditional Anglican music, I may not blend with the other voices, and the sound may not be “pleasing to the Lord”, Conversely, if I start out as an “ordinary” singer and then take opera lessons (or at the other end of the scale don’t practice) at some point it may be necessary for me to leave if the Choir is going to continue to Worship the Lord in the style to which I think He is entitled.
Now it is true, I may be able to persuade the other choir members to sing the way that I do and develop a new style. But then we would be a different choir and could “Sing a New Song unto the Lord”. Which TEC is quite at liberty to do, should they so choose.
You bring up the question of people who are mentally disabled, or have Alzheimer’s or other forms of dementia. You suggest my requirements would exclude them. Firstly, I didn’t say you had to pass the “test”, only take it! As I said, it is not my job to disqualify people. However, let me ask you a question in return. How would you handle someone who comes into the church every week and physically disrupts the solemn moments of the Eucharist by shouting and screaming and throwing things? Would you let them do this without hindrance? How many times? Would it make a difference if they were sane or demented? Would you be willing to even make that judgment?
Jody: My apologies for spelling your name incorrectly!
Robert, I was not responding to you when I wrote my post; in fact, yours and several other posts appeared while I was composing mine. I did not mean to address at all the question of whether a person needs to have the right theology (opera, anglican chant, or jazz for that matter) in order to receive communion. I was merely responding to the idea that communion should only be for those “old enough” to understand what the eucharist means. Because intellect is not merely a function of age; not every 12-year-old, or 7-year-old, or 50-year-old is automatically going to have the mental capacity to “understand.” If the church refuses communion to young children on this basis, then it is logical to ask whether the church should also refuse communion to the profoundly retarded and those in advanced stages of dementia.
I agree with the practice of allowing children to receive communion. I also agree with the practice of confirming young people at an age when they are willing and able to make an informed, mature commitment to the faith. But I do not agree with the practice that was followed in my own youth, when first communion was the “reward” for memorizing the catechism and passing confirmation class.
Ladytenor: I do not think we are necessarily in disagreement.
I also do not believe that receiving “first communion” should be considered a reward for “passing” confirmation classes, or that children should be excluded from communion. I do believe however that they must themselves make the decision that they wish to belong to the Anglican Communion before they receive the Eucharist, that they should have been instructed into what that means, and that that decision cannot simply be made by another (e.g. a parent) on their behalf without these steps having been taken.
In fact, I believe that this criteria resolves the problem you raise about the lot of those such as the demented who may not be able to understand or remember what they have been told. As adults, it is not unusual for others to try and ascertain the desires of such individuals and act on their behalf. In legal matters, this is often accomplished by appropriate powers of attorney. I think a similar accommodation can be made by pastoral leaders concerning access to the Communion.
Why are these steps important? Because ultimately a Communion can only exist if it shares common beliefs. If I permit Open Communion without any attempt to instruct you as to what that means, how can I subsequently object if you say “Well you never told me that what I signed up for”. Again, this is not about an individual’s relationship to God, but rather their relationship to the Communion and others in it.