Looking like an ordination without robes and a baptism without water, confirmation is an intriguing mix of ceremonies. It involves those being confirmed saying things about faith and commitment which are similar if not the same as said at a baptism. But no water is involved. It involves the bishop laying her hands on the candidates and praying for the Spirit of God to strengthen them with “gifts of grace”. But no one is ordained as a deacon or priest – no one becomes a “Rev”!
In other words there are two sides to the coin of confirmation. On one side faith and commitment are confirmed through the candidates stating what they believe and what they will do as followers of Christ. On the other side the work of the God’s Spirit which was begun within the candidates at their baptism is confirmed through the bishop laying her hands on them. In each case, the profession of faith (e.g. 1 Timothy 6:12) and the laying on of hands (e.g. 2 Timothy 1:6) are ancient Christian actions which are carried on as a living tradition in the practice of our faith.
If that deals with the question of ‘What are we confirming in confirmation?’ what about the question, ‘Who is confirmed?’ The answer to that question is anyone who wishes to make a public profession of their faith and commitment to God and to be strengthened in God’s service through the laying on of hands by their bishop. Many then want to ask ‘What age can people be confirmed?’ Some churches confirm very young people. For several decades now the wisdom of our Anglican church is that we think young adulthood is the appropriate earliest age to be confirmed (without defining that to a specific number of years). Anyone of any age beyond that is most welcome for confirmation.
What do you think? That is three hundred or so words for a small article in a parish magazine.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
“On the other side the work of the God’s Spirit which was begun within the candidates at their baptism is confirmed through the bishop laying her hands on them”
What does your sentence actually mean, Peter? If a person is not confirmed is the action of God’s Spirit less? Is there something missing in baptism? If so what? Is the Spirit not fully present in the baptised? Why would an adult who is baptised need to be confirmed? Why is confirmation by a bishop different to confirmation in a non-episcopal church? Is what the Eastern Orthodox do not good enough? Do they have the Spirit less than we do?
Blessings
Bosco
Hi Bosco,
To attempt to answer your questions
(1) The action of the Spirit of God is not less if there is not confirmation at the hands of a bishop, but confirmation at the hands of the bishop serves a pastoral purpose of offering through visible action an outward confirming of that inward work of the Spirit begun in baptism which, for those baptised as infants, may be a desirable experience to have.
(2) I think for infants who are baptised there is something missing: the memory of the event. This may or may not 'matter' to the baptised, but I think the church can be gracious in offering a rite to those for whom the lack of a memorable experience does matter. Confirmation in this way is 'confirming' what has been and is real about the work of the Spirit; not 'adding' to it.
(3) Alongside (1) and (2) I would nevertheless raise what the 'laying on of hands' on Timothy and reception of gifts meant: was it (so to speak, in our terms) 'ordination' or 'confirmation'? Can 'confirmation' be about a deepening of the experience of the Spirit and a calling down of gifts of the Spirit? After all, what is 'ordination' in respect of the question "Is the Spirit not fully present in the baptised?"? If we may call down the Spirit in ordination, might we do so in confirmation? [In asking these questions I believe we would be teasing out the mystery of the Spirit in which we believe the baptism of the Holy Spirit is the fullness of the Spirit being poured over and into us and yet, with St Paul we may also and should continue to pray to be 'filled with the Spirit?'
(4) The questions in (3) lie at the heart of the answer to the question of Why we might consider confirming a baptised adult?
(5) I wonder if the same answer attends the question 'Why is confirmation by a bishop different to confirmation in a non-episcopal church?' as attends the question 'Why is ordination ... to ordination in a non-episcopal church?'
(5) On the understanding of confirmation I am exploring here I do not think confirmation in the Eastern Orthodox tradition is good enough: it leaves the person seeking a memory short of an adult rite!
(6) The Eastern Orthodox do not have less of the Spirit than we do through baptism; they may have as much of the Spirit as we do through confirmation!
In sum: I think I am trying to argue through this reflection that confirmation is (1) a supportive rite to baptism for adults, which is pastorally helpful to adults once baptised as infants, but does not add to baptism in respect of the Spirit; (2) a rite for deepening the work of the Spirit in our lives, in keeping with a theology of gifts of the Spirit and of being filled with the Spirit.
Peter, I think that one cannot draw what you do from Timothy beyond there is a strong Christian tradition of laying hands on a person one is praying for.
"what is 'ordination' in respect of the question "Is the Spirit not fully present in the baptised?"?"
Ordination is about receiving power/authorisation/gifting for a particular ordering within the community of those who have all equally received the Spirit.
"I do not think confirmation in the Eastern Orthodox tradition is good enough: it leaves the person seeking a memory short of an adult rite!"
The Eucharist is the repeatable part of the sacrament(s) of initiation. The person is not left "seeking a memory short of an adult rite" - they are remembering and growing into their baptism every Sunday at the Eucharist.
Blessings
Bosco
Hi Bosco,
I thought there was a line in modern (Kiwi) Anglicanism re confirmation that it, too, was about an ordering for ministry, albeit as one of the people of God and not as a deacon, priest or bishop. You and I well know that not all the baptised take seriously their response to God in service; indeed it is rumoured that some do not come to church at all :) Confirmation (on this line) is power/authorisation/gifting for service taken up as a conscious response to God. But then I might be wrong ...!
I think you are missing the pastoral point about those who would like a particular experience of 'confirming' baptism, even as they enjoy regular repeatable eucharists. Each time I kiss my beloved we renew our relationship together ... but that does not stop us from longing to participate together in our wedding ... and if our parents were to inform us that they sorted the wedding when we were infants, might we not reasonable ask for a ceremony we could participate in as knowing adults?
Greetings Peter
I fear for those who see confirmation as “lay ordination” (complete in some places with presentation of a stole!) that it is yet another manifestation of clericalism – lay people’s baptism isn’t good enough until they have gone through a similar rite to clergy!
So, you’ve never met any confirmed people who “do not come to church at all”? I know ordained people who don’t – all the way “up” to a bishop!
Quite happy to have lots of different “pastoral opportunities” for people to affirm their baptism alongside the Eucharist (Easter Vigil is an obvious one). Unhappy to see baptism as being understood to be somehow “incomplete”. Can’t see any logic to episcopal confirmation being a requirement for ordination, nor to episcopally confirming an adult recently baptised. But, as always, am prepared to change my mind – can’t see a reason to here yet.
Blessings
Bosco
Hi Bosco,
I do not think understanding Confirmation as an occasion of public commitment to Christian service etc need be critiqued as a form of 'lay ordination' (save for those occasions when the dressing up of the candidates makes it look like that ... but I have never experienced such confirmations).
In one important sense, baptism is 'incomplete': when an infant is baptised their own personal public avowal of the promises and commitments made by their parents and godparents has not yet been made. Confirmation offers that opportunity to 'complete' the involvement of the one who was baptised by confirming the faith and commitment once made on their behalf.
I agree that it is strange to insist on confirmation for those who have been baptised as adults. It might also be strange to insist on confirmation for those (baptised as infants) who see no particular need to be confirmed.
Yes, baptism can be renewed (our NZPB provides for that) and, arguably, that sets aside the need for a rite called confirmation. But, conversely, one might argue that the first such renewal for a young adult could be acknowledged by the church as of special significance and given a special name ... Confirmation!
Greetings Peter
I do not think of the essence of ordination as being in the dressing up. I hear echoes of confirmation being ordination-lite in some of the things you write here, including “confirmation … was about an ordering for ministry, albeit as one of the people of God and not as a deacon, priest or bishop”
Your second paragraph may apply in other provinces, but our province is strongly clear in our rite that no “faith and commitment [was] made on [the baby’s] behalf” at his/her baptism. We might not agree with the theology of our province’s rite – but there it is. So whatever you think confirmation is, in our province it is not making one’s own promises and proclamations made on a baby’s behalf.
Also, I do not see where in NZPB you suggest there is provision that “baptism can be renewed”. I can see a way of repeating confirmation – but no mention of renewal of baptism.
Blessings
Bosco
Hi Bosco,
I acknowledge sloppiness in my use of language and in my readin of our service for baptism, confirmation and renewal.
I do not think, however, that that failure on my part changes the essence of the case for confirmation for those baptised as infants in our church: it is pastorally caring and appropriate to provide a specific, distinctive rite for 'those making a profession of faith for the first time' (p. 380).
I am quite happy, Peter, to have confirmation as one option amongst many for making significant faith commitments.
I am not convinced by the p380 quote and I think that providing other opportunities for making a profession of faith much earlier, for example, than confirmation, is important. Around age 7 has traditionally been a significant point. Moving into high school could be another one, just as confirmation can mark a moving into adulthood. Such a more flexible model, hence, does not see confirmation as the "profession of faith for the first time".
I continue to think that confirmation is a rite in search of a theology. And I think our own rites (your page 380 quote included) hinder rather than help the search.
Blessings
Bosco
In my ideal church, Bosco (you are most welcome to become member number 2), at the age of seven there would be a course for 'Admission to Communion' (with appropriate opportunity for profession of faith), at the age of fourteen and over, Confirmation. Then the age of deaconing could come down to twenty-one (another multiple of seven, you will observe!). Changes would be required to the prayer book, including to p. 380. But, of course, in my ideal church I would have the copyright to the prayerbook and thus the right to change it. Not to suit me, of course, but to conform it ever more closely with God's liturgical will.
:)
I am strongly in favour of communion for all the baptised. From baptism. Including babies/infants. This is our province's position. And I endorse it strongly.
That being said, I think we should have long ago developed age-appropriate rituals.
As I suggested: aged around 7; going to high school; moving into adulthood. With later possibilities of renewal.
It is very interesting, Peter, that you keep saying you don't associate confirmation with ordination, and yet again, in your last comment, you conclude your chain of options with... ordination!
Blessings
Bosco
Post a Comment