Confirmation - Confusion and Confession
When I began as Youth and Family Worker at St Philip's, Dunbar, one of the responsibilities that intrigued me the most was the opportunity to prepare youth for confirmation.
The question of why and how we do confirmation in the Church has always confused me. In the early Church, baptism, confirmation and Eucharist were all part of the initiation of new Christians into the Church and were all done by Bishops. They were different moments in the same rite and the Eucharist was the repeatable part which was always linked to the covenant made with God at baptism. This is the way things still are in the Eastern Churches, baptism, confirmation (called Chrismation) and Eucharist all at once except that they are all done by priests now instead of bishops. In the Christian West of which the Anglican Church is part, confirmation was separated from baptism and Eucharist and reserved for Bishops. Now, in many denominations, priests, pastors or congregational ministers confirm most people. It is only the Anglican Church where confirmation is still done only by Bishops. Interestingly, baptism and Eucharist were also separated from one another. Infants were baptized and then at a certain age when they were deemed old enough they received their "first communion" and then again when they were old enough they were confirmed when a Bishop was around. It seems as though Christian initiation in the West has come apart at the seams.
What was the unique purpose of each of these moments? Why were they separated? Why isn't baptism enough? Why isn't Eucharist enough? Or are they? Why don't we just put them all back together? What is the purpose of the Bishop's presence at confirmation? There is one case in the Christian East that might shed some light on this question. When a person baptized according to another Christian tradition, who isn't Orthodox or Eastern Catholic wishes to join one of these Eastern Churches, Chrismation is celebrated apart from baptism. Baptism, as long as it is done with water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is usually not redone. Chrismation, in this case, serves as the act through which one is liturgically joined to a particular visible Church. It has to do with the wider Church and their shared and common faith. Perhaps this is why in the Anglican Church we have decided that Bishops are necessary for Confirmation.
The parish where I grew up does not routinely prepare youth for confirmation. In fact, when as an eager 11 year old I asked my former priest if i could be confirmed, I was given the response that "we don't do confirmation here anymore, but you can renew your baptismal vows." Well renew my baptismal vows I did and I was quite pleased with this for 11 more years or so. Then in my last year of undergrad when I was spending most of my time studying theology and the rest working in youth ministry, when I discerned a call to lay ministry in the Anglican Church, I decided to ask about confirmation once again. Well in an ironic twist on the "we don't do confirmation" policy of my parish, that same priest seemed quite content for me to be confirmed as a 23 year-old theology student. So I was confirmed on the second Sunday of Advent that year when the Bishop came to visit.
As a student of Christian worship, I thought long and hard about why it was I wanted to be confirmed. I had already reaffirmed my baptismal vows publicly on my own behalf, accepting for myself the promises that my parents and sponsors made at my baptism (for which I was an infant). The only difference between a confirmation and a renewal of baptismal vows is that you can't do the former without a bishop. So, what is the significance of the Bishop's presence and leadership in the confirmation service? For me it was indeed this opportunity to be publicly and symbolically joined to the faith of a particular visible Church - that is the Anglican Church. This of course raises the question of whether or not this was done at either my baptism or my renewal of baptismal vows. Certainly at my baptism I became a full member of the Church and at my renewal of baptismal vows I publicly confessed my belief in the faith of the Anglican Church.
If we look back to the practice of the Early Church, where Christian initiation was baptism, confirmation and Eucharist altogether, perhaps we can glimpse some of the purpose of confirmation. All of these moments point to the same thing - the covenant between God and humanity made in Jesus Christ. God, through the incarnation, death and resurrection of Christ, has made a promise to be faithful to this relationship with humanity and in our baptism we have made promises to be faithful as well. In the Eucharist, we recall this covenant and God's grace and faithfulness and we remember our own baptismal promises. Confirmation too points to this covenant and through the laying on of hands by the Bishop we are joined to a visible sign of God's covenant - the Church. Sacraments, as defined in the Catechism of the Book of Common Prayer, are outward and visible signs of inward and spiritual grace. The grace isn't contained in the rite itself or any part thereof - the grace comes from God and we don't control it. Perhaps then the grace of initiation, that is the promises through which we are joined to God and the Church, is not contained in any one of these moments or rites, but each of them points to and celebrates this relationship. In the Eastern Church, sacraments are called mysteries and this emphasizes the fact that exactly what is happening when and by what mechanism is not entirely available for us to know or understand.
As usual, these musings on why and how we do Confirmation have left me without any clear answers. Is confirmation a rite of passage from childhood to adulthood in the Church? Is it a way to join ourselves to the faith and communion of the wider Church? How does it connect to the other sacraments of initiation in the Church - baptism and Eucharist? One last interesting fact about confirmation in the Anglican Church of Canada is that the only purpose for which it is absolutely necessary is ordination. Without being confirmed, you can do anything else in the Church - receive communion, receive various blessings, be married, be a baptismal sponsor, serve as a warden, preach, lead prayers - but you cannot be ordained. So yet another question is raised; what is the relationship between confirmation and ordination? It seems there is no end to the questions around confirmation.