Rethinking Baptism

The scene is a common one and is repeated regularly throughout the Church. At a certain point in the service, the pastor invites a couple and their infant child to the front of the sanctuary. The smiling parents and their family proudly present their child for Baptism into the family of Christ. The pastor speaks a few words and puts water on the baby’s head. The child starts to cry and the congregation laughs.

The General Board of Discipleship has stated that "Baptism brings us into union with Christ, with each other, and with the Church in every time and place." In addition to incorporating us into the Body of Christ, Baptism is a means by which God offers, and we accept, the forgiveness of our sins and we begin new lives in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. For United Methodists, Baptism is a sign of the covenant connecting God, the community of faith, and the person being baptized. And the congregation laughs.

Imagine with it is like to be that tiny infant. You are asleep on your mother’s shoulder when suddenly, you wake up as a pair of unknown hands picks you up and turns you around. Now you are facing a sea of strange faces and loud words are being spoken by an unfamiliar voice. Without warning, cold water is put on your head. You are surprised and scared. Using the only method you have of communicating, you begin to cry. You see your mother and father just inches away, yet they make no move to pick you up. You are cold and scared and even though the familiar solace of Mom and Dad is no longer there, the congregation laughs.

I can think of no other situation in we watch young children cry in fear and discomfort as we stay where we are and laugh. If a toddler looses his mother in a crowd of people and begins to cry, do we all stand and laugh? Of course not. Immediately someone comforts the child and helps him find his lost mother. If a kindergartner falls on the sidewalk and skins her knee, do we all stop and laugh? Of course not. Immediately someone rushes up with a tissue to dry the tears and a bandage to stop the bleeding. And yet, on this day, the day of one of the most important rituals of Christian life, when a tiny baby cries in fear, we sit and laugh.

Imagine what it is like to be that infant’s parents. At a Baptism this morning, I sat in my pew and watched the infant’s mother wipe away tears each time her daughter began to cry. It was very obvious that she wanted nothing more than to hold her child and dry her baby’s tears. Instead, she had to dry her own as the congregation laughed.

So why does the congregation laugh? I can think of only two reasons. Since the first reason, that is actually is funny to watch a child suffer, is too horrible to imagine, it must be the second reason, that nobody has ever told the members of the congregation how to react to this situation.

Perhaps now it is time to add a few additional words to the Baptismal service. Although the importance of Baptism is recalled in the text of the service, often we as members of the congregation simply speak the words without pausing to understand them. At the point in the service when the family is invited to the front of the sanctuary, that would also be an appropriate time for the pastor to remind the congregation not only the importance of Baptism, but also how to act during that time. It may be as simple as saying something like the following: "As we participate in the Baptismal service for David, let us remember that Baptism is a sign of God’s continual forgiveness and transformation in our lives. Let us also remember how frightening this may be for David. If he cries, we should remember how frightened we might have been in a similar situation."

Certainly, it would take a strong pastor to encourage his or her congregation to rethink the importance of Baptism. However, when the congregation is asked if they will "nurture one another in the Christian faith and life and include these persons now before you in your care?" it is important that the congregation respond with love, not laughter.

Another thought on Communion

Since Communion was freely given to the people by Jesus himself, it is not the place for anyone to exclude someone from Communion.

Communion and Reason

Recently, the first communion on an 8 year-old was nullified by Catholic authorities. (AP story) A sufferer of celiac sprue disease, Haley Waldman can not eat any wheat products whatsoever. This disease, estimated to affect as many as 1 in every 133 people, damages the small intestine and can cause a variety of problems including a greatly increased risk of gastrointestinal cancer. According to physicians, there is no cure for celiac disease and "the only acceptable treatment for celiac disease is strict adherence to a 100% gluten-free diet for life. An adherence to a gluten-free diet can prevent almost all complications caused by the disease." (source)

People with celiac disease must avoid any products containing wheat, rye, and barley. Many processed foods such as canned soups, processed meats, and pasta contain gluten, as do a number of products like tablets, vitamin capsules, and cosmetics.

For Catholics, the host used during Communion must also contain gluten. Catholic guidelines have been issued allowing low-gluten breads and a low-alcohol wine, however priests and laypersons must provide a medical certificate to use the low gluten bread. Priests who wish to use the low-alcohol wine must also provide medical certificates but the priest then is under certain restrictions about presiding over a concelebrated Mass. Laypersons who wish to use the low-alcohol wine must appeal directory to the Vatican.

At issue is the Catholic doctrine that in order to be valid, a Mass must be celebrated with bread made from wheat and wine made from grapes. Catholic officials have stated that either the bread, consecrated to become the Body of Christ, or the wine, consecrated to become the Blood of Christ, when taken alone can constitute a valid communion. Many people, for a number of reasons, choose only to take the bread and not the wine. It has been suggested that people suffering from celiac disease receive only the wine if they choose not to take the bread.

So, evidently, it is acceptable for Catholics to receive either the bread alone, the wine alone or both. The U.S. Conference of Bishops, however, has stated that

"Holy Communion has a more complete form as a sign when it is received under both kinds. For in this manner of reception a fuller sign of the Eucharistic banquet shines forth. Moreover there is a clearer expression of that will by which the new and everlasting covenant is ratified in the blood of the Lord and of the relationship of the Eucharistic banquet to the eschatological banquet in the Father's kingdom."

Later, the same document refers to this statement:

"For the faithful who take part in the rite or are present at it, pastors should take care to call to mind as appropriately as possible Catholic teaching according to the Council of Trent on the manner of Communion. Above all they should instruct the Christian faithful that, according to Catholic faith, Christ, whole and entire, as well as the true Sacrament are received under one kind only; that, therefore, as far as the effects are concerned, those who receive in this manner are not deprived of any grace necessary for salvation.

So, although receiving both the bread and wine is preferred because it is a more complete sign, taking only one form is acceptable with no loss of grace.

As I understand thing so far, the Catholic church would prefer prople to receive both forms, but chooseing to receive only one if fine. And they have also stated the following in the same document:

"Pastors are also to teach that the Church has the power in its stewardship of the sacraments, provided their substance remains intact, to make those rules and changes that, in view of the different conditions, times, and places, it decides to be in the interest of reverence for the sacraments or the well-being of the recipients".

Alright. Fine. They realize that people may not be able to have alcohol. They understand that some people may not be able to eat gluten.

What they don't seem to understand is that some people who are not able to eat any gluten also may not be able to (or choose not to) drink alcohol.

And from reading the comments at this site, a number pf people find that position unacceptable. They have made comments such as these:

The Church allows for low-gluten hosts to be used. I wonder if the family tried those? They could also ask that their daughter be given only a tiny sliver of the Host. Technically, celiacs are unable to digest anything made with gluten, the protein in wheat and other grains. (Which is basically saying, "I realize you're not supposed to have any gluten at all, but, here, have just a little.")

"Take it to the media" seems to be the current attitude when "Catholics" won't accept the teachings of the Church. The priest who gave the kid the rice cracker fits right in with those who create scandal by making the Church in their own image and likeness.

We here have an example of a priest who did not know his catechism.

The host she recieves is not wheat but the broken body of Jesus Christ, by whose stripes she will be healed. Believe the Gospel, for Christ's sake.

If (as I recall) Mama doesn't want her to drink wine, remind her that it's not wine.

The last two comments refer to the Catholic belief in transubstantiation, defined here:

As the Council of Trent says, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church repeats: “. . . by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.”

It has been said that since Jesus used bread (containing wheat) and wine (containing alcohol) during the Last Supper, only bread and wine containing these elements may be used.

Okay, fine.

But what Jesus said was,

"For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, 'Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.' In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes" (I Corinthians 11:23- 26).

There was no mention of gluten or alcohol. He said, "Remember me, remember my sacrifices for you." Perhaps the Catholic church is losing sight of what is truly important here.

Father John Crothers recently wrote regarding this topic and its impact on one of his parishoners in Australia. He concluded his article with this paragraph:

Jesus' way of ministering was anything but rigid and institutionalised. He focused on people, rather than laws. In particular He was always inclusive, rather than exclusive. I feel that many of our church leaders need to reassess the model of church leadership in the light of Jesus' style of leadership.

A comment mentioned above suggested that the priest who gave Haley Waldman a gluten free host did not know his catechism. I think perhaps he knew the catechism but he also knew the teachings of Jesus. He knew that Jesus would have welcomed this girl despite her medical concerns. He knew that letting religion become an end to itself is to ignore the needs of those he devoted himself to serving.

To be exclude the faithful simply because of medical problems is to turn from the teachings and ideals of Jesus himself.