Anyone making sense of the rite of Confirmation these days?

[Jamie Howison]

Hi all,
Listen, I'm just wanting to check around and see what people are doing with Confirmation these days... that proverbial rite in search of a theology. In my own context - www.stbenedictstable.ca - we practice open table, but do put real emphasis on baptism. I could rehearse some of what informs that; I've done so in a little book we've published on this topic. I'm going to assume that many of you have also come to a place of seeing participation in communion as being, at least for some people, their point of entry into the Body and something that happens prior to baptismal incorporation. Is that a fair assumption?

So I preach baptism, we proclaim a thoroughgoing theology of the Body of Christ, we celebrate our life in Christ through the shared bread and wine... and the place is full of young Mennonites and Baptists and other evangelicals who are finding a place within the great sacramental and liturgical tradition.

And then my bishop asks when we're going to have some confirmations, which always sounds like "when are you going to make Anglicans out of them?"

Yet what does confirmation "add"? Other than marking one within a particular institutional tradition, does it "do" anything that hasn't already happened in baptism, particularly given that our baptisms are almost all of adults? For anyone who is in a community that is finding resonance with the same kind of folks we are - and particularly if you're practicing open table balanced out with a strong baptismal theology - what sense are you making of confirmation?

[Jamie Howison]

Hey listen everyone who has taken part in this little exchange with me; on Sunday April 26 I presented four adults for confirmation, two of whom were baptized in that same liturgy. This exchange of thoughts and comments proved very helpful to me in doing the confirmation prep, and in fact I had them read the bulk of what you all offered up.
Thanks so much for taking part in this.
Jamie Howison

[Donald Schell]

Kevin, I'm with you 100% in saying it doesn't make sense to rquire adults who are baptized to redo their affirmation. And your question about laying-on of hands and chrism points to the ambiguities of the full rite of baptism in Catholic tradition (and NOT, we can finally say, 'the completion of baptism'). The problem we're up against is that there are quirky compromises in the 1979 BCP that were required to get it past General Convention. Confirmation is one. Crippling 'Rite III' is another. The vision of the book is collegial ministry of the whole people. The compromises shackle it to hierarchical dominance and obeisance to 'the law.'

Hierarchical dominance means we settled with an implicit theology that makes the bishops the church. Whereas the icons of generous servanthood, eldership/wisdom leadership, and vision-discerning and articulating seen and used as icons challenge us all to find the deacon, presbyter, and bishop in all of us and shot through the community, the medieval, hierarchical dominance model defines each as a domain under the control of authorized agents (no longer symbols or icons) and, not surprisingly orders the three in a ranked dominance - bishop-priest-deacon. Does the bishop have an essential role in baptism? The answer from the breadth of church tradition is ambiguous. Chrism blessed by the bishop in the East and senior presbyters in the Roman West are all that's needed for a complete enactment of the rite. The Prayer Book drafters DID NOT INTEND that adult affirmation was required, but expected it would be a familiar and pastorally encouraged norm. Part of the reason confirmation remains so confusing is that this bit of enlightened, ecumenically open thinking did get into the book but only at the cost of acquiescing to the bishops insistence they it was necessary for them to lay hands on every Episcopalian. No thirty years since the book was past we've seen a hodge-podge of canonical legislation partly trying to make the drafters' vision clear (Baptism is full membership, so leadership in the church requires it) and partly, unconsciously 'correcting inconsistencies' in the canons and taking us back to a 'membership' that demands confirmation. When unconfirmed people are always welcomed to communion but we require that a vestry member, delegate to diocesan convention, deputy to general convention, or ordination candidate be confirmed, it's no wonder that we interpret confirmation as the full institutionalization of active members, moving them from generic christan-status (lower case intentional) to Full Initiation as Anglican-Episcopalians.

At the last General Convention, the effort of Associated Parishes for Liturgy and Mission and others concerned with catechesis, formation, and full participation of youth to make it clear that confirmation WAS adult reaffirmation of faith and not sacramentally necessary but pastorally significant (so not required for all these leadership roles) failed. I think what Anglimergent thinking struggles with and what too many of us unconsciously accept is a theology (or at least a theory) that makes leadership equivalent to dominance. The question of chrism or laying on of hands and the gifts of the Spirit isn't 'how do we make sure the bishop is involved, feels included, or makes fully legitimate the membership of this child or adult.' The question is how faithful we are to making clear that we baptize people to the church's whole work and ministry, and that the Spirit at baptism makes them fellow bearers, speakers, and makers of the prophetic vision of a whole church and whole humanity (the work of episcopos).

[Kevin Montgomery]

One of the best explanations of the historical development of confirmation in Anglicanism (and other Christian traditions) is Gerard Austin's book Anointing with the Spirit: The Rite of Confirmation.

As for the practice of confirmation in TEC today, what doesn't make sense is to require adults who are baptized, thus making a public affirmation of faith, to then redo that affirmation in order to receive the bishop's hands. Even in the RC Church, when an adult is baptized at the Easter Vigil, the pastor goes on and confirms him or her, using chrism consecrated by the bishop. However, since we have the episcopal requirement for confirmation, one suggestion might be to do adult baptisms when the bishop visits so that they can then be confirmed, or adult baptisms could be performed at diocesan confirmations. Of course, either one would unfortunately mean that these baptisms wouldn't be done at the Easter Vigil or some other appropriate time.

[Juan oliver]

I meant to add, Jamie, that "When are you going to make them Anglican" has nothing to do with either baptism or confirmation, since neither is the sole property of Anglican Christianity, let alone Episcopal. If your bishop is concerned about this, maybe ha can gather a small team to put together a course on Anglicanism/ Episcopal governance for those interested in the matter.

[Jamie Howison]

Wow, thank you all so much for your considered responses. I do sense that many of you have much the same set of questions, yet have found differing ways to resolve them. Interesting.

What I find utterly fascinating are all of the references to free church and evangelical Christians who have made their way into your communities. Nice to know that we have so many parallels in this, right across the 49th parallel that marks the line between the Episcopal Church from the Anglican Church of Canada.

Please do keep the comments coming...

Jamie

[Juan oliver]

The long, sorry story of Confirmation

In the 4th century (there were differing practices earlier) The laying on of hands was the final blessing by the bishop (who was more like a parish priest those days) in a sort of dismissal (the word missa comes from the latin for "it has been sent." When a person was baptized (in the baptistry, nekkid, apart from the congregation) the bishop blessed them with his missa, ending the water rite, and moving them on to the gathered to celebrate the Eucharist.

When the Roman liturgical books were sent to northern Europe in the eighth century, some idiot at the Vatican sent them the pontifical, which of course, had a rubric after the water bath indicating that the bishop laid hands at that point. But in the north bishops were few and far between, so parish clergy began to wait till the bishop showed up to finish the baptism. Thus my point: Confirmation is the tail end of the rite of Baptism. Properly speaking, its theology should be one of a piece with baptismal theology.

But the problems are many:

1. The original practice had the baptizing minister ie., the bishop, lay on hands. Should we therefore allow todays´s functional equivalent of the ancient bishop, the rector, complete the rite with a laying on of hands? I´d say so but don´t hold your breath. And yet, the BCP has the appropriate words for this: "You are sealed by the Holy Spirit in Baptism and marked as Christ´s own forever." This is a remnant from the original intent that Donald mentioned: to do away with Confirmation as a separate rite. I would call this the first theology of confirmation: the rite is the sending of the baptized to join the church. (this means, of course that we need to be clear about our theology of the church: what is this church thing, what relationship it has to Jesus and his life, and death/resurrection).

2. To complicate matters, as confirmation became rarer in N Europe, some bishops had the genius idea to make it essential for reception of communion, hoping to get more people to the greasy episcopal hands.
It backfired. People simply and gradually stopped receiving, so much so that the Pope had to oblige us all to receive communion at lest once a year, during Easter. Episcopalians have wisely removed this requirement, canonically allowing all the baptized to receive communion. I say wisely because some bishops recently wanted to undo this because they needed "more informed Vestry members." Oh Lord. This is not an appropriate basis for a theology of confirmation, IMHO.

3. Even more complications arose as the Reformers had another bright idea: Confirmation should serve a pedagogical role, helping a maturing kid to make a free decision regarding his membership in the Church.
This is what I would call the second theology of confirmation: it is the rite that manifests the confirmand´s mature embrace of the Christian faith. It of course offers the opportunity to educate someone. Hence "confirmation classes" This make sense only in the case of people baptized before being able to make a mature choice about the Christian faith.

While I do agree with Donald that the Bishop is a sign of the wider church, I´d say that so is the priest. One is not "St. Swithen´s priest." but an Episcopal priest. Dealing with whether rectors should now be ordained to the episcopate, however, is more difficult than any of us has the patience for.

In sum, I´d prefer to allow baptizing ministers -- bishops, priests and maybe deacons, to lay on hands, with chrism if desired, immediately at the words " You are sealed." and I would change the canons to make the whole rite the only rite necessary to serve on Vestries etc. Yes, babies too. IN fact I believe the canons have already been changed.

I would then develop a Reaffirmation rite, very flexible, to be adapted to the needs of teenagers as different from adults. Or we could have two rites: The Christian Bar Mitzvah of a 12 year old (Rite 13 attempts this) and the adult reaffirmation of faith which could be repeated throughout life as desired. Of course, neither of these two should be required for full participation in the life of the church. They are pedagogical in nature, not initiatory.

A thorny issue, this. Let´s make it simple, so it can be resolved!

[Donald Schell]

The puzzle about confirmation comes directly from a 1979 Prayer Book compromise. The drafters of the book wanted to omit Confirmation and replace it with a pastorally-prompted 'Adult Reaffirmation of Faith,' something people would do when it mattered to them to do it. The drafters of the book meant deliberately to suppress the distinction of confirmation of the unconfirmed and reception of those already confirmed in its odd application to RC's and Orthodox (neither of whom actually has a bishop lay hands on people's heads anyway). The drafters wanted to eliminate the scandal of our seeming to judge ourselves qualified and necessary to complete the baptism of Protestant churches. All that made really good sense to me and has shaped what I've done pastorally and liturgically.

In 1976, The House of Bishops said they wouldn't pass the book without confirmation being restored as a separate rite. They said it was their one chance to have a hand to head connection (sooner or later) with everyone in their diocese. The drafters muttered under their breath but consented to the skewing compromise. 1928 Prayer Book confirmation (and the theology that got carried forward from 1928) just doesn't fit the theology of the 1979 book.

With the 1979 Prayer Book's overall intent in mind, I have never presented an adolescent for confirmation. It takes some dealing with parental expectations to make that stick. Kids have seemed less concerned. Meanwhile, I've presented plenty of adults for Reaffirmation/Confirmation, and like Karen, most of them people who were coming fresh to Episcopal practice, some from other Christian traditions, some from no previous religious practice. When I was rector of St. Gregory's and Bill Swing was our bishop, I'd tell them, 'We'll present you for the bishop to lay his hands on your head, prayer over you, and bless where you are in your journey into God ['journey into God' is Gregory of Nyssa's language]. The bishop is our living connection to the worldwide church - he's the one who welcomed Desmond Tutu here with a hug - and he's also our living connection to continuity through time back through Bishop Kip (California's Gold Rush bishop who was shipwrecked and swam to shore in San Diego and in the course of his episcopate went from riding the length and width of the state on horseback to riding the brand new train), back to a long line of public teachers and preachers (Irenaeus' description of the Bishop's work) that help us know our lineage (talk borrowed from Buddhists). We'll pray for the gifts of the Spirit. You've already got those gifts, but grace is always overflowing, always more, always beyond anything we need. You don't need to reaffirm your faith or be confirmed, but it's a joyful and moving way to invite the Spirit to continue new work in your life and among us.

or something like that.

[Karen Ward]

We have had around 30 confirmations in the past three years. All adults, mostly 20 somethings new to Anglicanism and coming from free/evangelical type backgrounds. We love confirmations. Why? because for us it is a 'tribal ritual' of belonging to our Anglican tribe. Having our Bishop come and bless our folk means much, like a tribal 'elder' in more traditional societies, so it is powerful socio-religious symbol for us that matters. Our confirmation group is called the "Trailblazers.' Our blog for this year's class is HERE.

Also our diocesan 'Commission for Emerging Mission' is curating our next diocesan wide Confirmation liturgy at our St. Mark's Cathedral. We will use the format of the 'Thomas Mass' for our diocesan confirmations, which is a liturgy that originated out of the Lutheran Cathedral in Helsinki and is a draw for many young adults, who otherwise would not be seen inside the church.
The reason for calling it a Thomas Mass is to make room for all who 'doubt, seek or believe.' Check out info on the original one here

[Revnelli]

Hi,
I'm really in a pragmatic place on these questions - our church is a small town anglican church in the boonies congregation of around 50 for the main service. I've been the priest for about 4 years. Our practice seems to be completely open - anyone who wishes to receive communion is welcome to do so, including children and infants (under parental discretion). I don't ask whether newcomers have been baptised, confirmed, received, etc. We do have baptisms, but I have yet to have a confirmation - and I can't really see the point. I'm not totally comfortable with a completely open policy for long term communicants, but I'm not sure how I would do anything else.......
Neil

[Rich Clarkson]

We have just updated our baptism/confirmation policy at our church,I've attached a copy of it here. I'm not entirely sure I agree with some of it but the section on confirmation is pretty good.
take care, Rich

Initiation policy.doc