A Theology Of Confirmation

A number of relatively clear theological assumptions under gird the liturgies of confirmation used by a variety of churches.

Baptism must be regarded as complete Christian initiation; it is not the first part of a staged-out action. By it, one becomes a Christian, not a partial Christian. Many of the modern baptismal liturgies (for example, those of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America and the Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Methodist churches) require or commend some additional actions at the actual baptism itself, such as anointing with chrism, the laying on of hands, the sign of the cross, or the giving of a lighted candle. Such actions were rejected by the Reformation churches of the sixteenth century, which regarded them as otiose, if not actually harmful. Reformation emphasis was on what was needed for validity. In the twentieth century, however, such actions and their accompanying verbal formulas are no longer contentious. They seem to be ways of making explicit the richness of baptismal meanings. They must not overpower the basic water rite, nor take on some separate identity, but be within a clear, economical baptismal act. When they are, they can contribute valuable images. Many churches are persuaded that if baptism is complete Christian initiation, it should admit one to the Holy Communion. The sign of birth is closely rated to the sign of feeding. No additional rite is necessary to complete baptism or to make one eligible for participation in the Eucharist. If a congregation or a family has pastoral or practical difficulties with infant Communion, they should be resolved with understanding. However, it should be a matter of principle that children who are baptized are members of the family of God and welcome at the Table of the Lord without any further ritual act or pastoral requirement. Such a conviction about baptism changes the practice that had made entry on communicant life a part of the second stage of initiation. One feeds at the sacramental table because one is a Christian, and one is formally made a Christian by baptism. (In practice, the churches that are changing their initiatory rites along somewhat similar lines are not moving uniformly on first Communion. Some quite deep emotions and long-standing practices are involved; change requires education and modeling.) Positively, the act of confirmation is an occasion for the renewal of one's baptismal promises. Confirmation is neither the only nor the last time for such renewal, but for most persons coming to confirmation, it will be the first public occasion on which these fundamental Christian pledges are reaffirmed. Thus it is a pastoral action especially appropriate for persons who have been baptized in infancy. It provides them an occasion for an articulate response to the baptismal gift. It is a liturgical structure whereby the church can recognize the important interior events in the growth of Christian young persons. Clearly, if confirmation is the renewal of the promises of baptism, it is not an initiatory action. One is already a baptized (and, in many case, also a communicating Christian) if one has baptismal promises to renew. Confirmation is not part of becoming a Christian, but is a responsible action which appropriately falls within the life of one who had been baptized as a child and is now, as an adult, affirming that action. Similarly, confirmation would suit the experience of an adult who had been baptized at an early age, but whose baptism has not been followed up in any way. Such a person's adult discovery of faith is appropriately recognized by confirmation. The act would be completely inappropriate for a person who had been baptized as an adult; such a person's baptism was itself a responsible, mature declaration of faith. The implication is that confirmation should be entirely voluntary on the part of the confirmed. It should not be part of an expectation created by an adult generation and imposed on impressionable young persons. If this counsel is followed, confirmation will no doubt fall in many cases at a considerably later age than past practice has put it. But who is effectively adult at age twelve? Or even, as twenty-four-year olds see it, at age eighteen?