« The New Universalism | Main | Brian Stanley's 2011 G B-M Lecture »

May 04, 2011

Comments

Ed Kaneen

I quite agree. However, for me, it was not about the boldness or otherwise of including children in the communion, so much as the symbolism it engendered. There was clearly a desire to make the children serving the communion a powerful, public symbol, and it was. However, the lack of the public symbol of them actually receiving communion was equally powerful. The children were therefore no more than waiters, which seems to me to radically undercut the intention, and the use of Mark 10:14. Perhaps the children could have broken the bread and poured the wine, and then passed it on to the adults to do the serving - but even then, I think the idea of anyone taking part in communion but not receiving it rather denies the event itself. However, it was a great service, and I would want to applaud those who planned it. It was just unfortunate that this element spoke of something unintended to me.

The comments to this entry are closed.

61NisAiuZwL
Reconcilingrites
Hres.9781532633508
Hres.9781498231572

Pages

Blog powered by Typepad