Communion: How Early is "Too Early"?
There has recently been a small discussion on early communion over at the Rebellious Pastor's Wife. Pastor McCain points out in a comment that "There is conversation about the practice of waiting until a child is in 7th or 8th grade to offer them the Sacrament, after they have been confirmed. More and more are advocating an earlier age for first communion. This is what the LSB rite anticipates and is for.
Then there is the conversation going on "out there" about giving communion to infants and babes in arms.
Two different issues. One being, in my opinion, worthy of being a practice we need to move toward, the second however being simply incompatible with Holy Scripture and our Lutheran Confessions."
First of all, I would say that they are not two different issues but one, the primary issue being the eligibility of children to receive communion. The Rebellious Pastor's Wife puts (I think) the correct spin on it when she said "Pastor McCain is right, there is more than one communion issue out there. Whether children should be communed when they can confess their faith, or whether they receive faith and are confessing it through their baptism."
And here, I anticipate one of the arguments against infants and children communing would be that our own Small Catechism states in the answer to the question - to whom must the Lord's Supper be denied - To those who are not able to examine themselves, such as children and adults who have not been sufficiently instructed, and persons who are unconscious; Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. 1 Cor. 11:28 It seems to me that the Small Catechism is concerned that communicants be able to examine themselves but it does not stipulate a specific age for a communicant (neither does the Bible). My own two-year-old son is able to examine himself for I have seem him be as heartily sorrowful over his own sin as any adult. He also possesses the faith given to him in Baptism. He is a child of God and he recognizes his Father. When I ask him where Jesus is he undoubtedly points to the altar where Christ's very body and blood awaits it's consumption. If these things I have seen evidenced at the age of two, at what younger age could they have also been there though unnoticed because of the lack speech? For what person filled with the Holy Spirit would not be led to examine themselves?
Jesus says "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." He did not say to send them away for their lack of instruction in the faith or perceived inability to examine themselves. When the disciples, who clearly thought the children were ineligible in some way, protested, Jesus proclaims that they are worthy, for the kingdom belongs to them. Jesus not only speaks His Words but He holds His promise. He lays His hands on the children, gives them His Body. Until He does this, He does not depart. I am much more afraid that we (Lutherans) hinder our children, and in doing so, doubt the works of Baptism and deny them the unity in the Holy Spirit.
Then there is the conversation going on "out there" about giving communion to infants and babes in arms.
Two different issues. One being, in my opinion, worthy of being a practice we need to move toward, the second however being simply incompatible with Holy Scripture and our Lutheran Confessions."
First of all, I would say that they are not two different issues but one, the primary issue being the eligibility of children to receive communion. The Rebellious Pastor's Wife puts (I think) the correct spin on it when she said "Pastor McCain is right, there is more than one communion issue out there. Whether children should be communed when they can confess their faith, or whether they receive faith and are confessing it through their baptism."
And here, I anticipate one of the arguments against infants and children communing would be that our own Small Catechism states in the answer to the question - to whom must the Lord's Supper be denied - To those who are not able to examine themselves, such as children and adults who have not been sufficiently instructed, and persons who are unconscious; Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. 1 Cor. 11:28 It seems to me that the Small Catechism is concerned that communicants be able to examine themselves but it does not stipulate a specific age for a communicant (neither does the Bible). My own two-year-old son is able to examine himself for I have seem him be as heartily sorrowful over his own sin as any adult. He also possesses the faith given to him in Baptism. He is a child of God and he recognizes his Father. When I ask him where Jesus is he undoubtedly points to the altar where Christ's very body and blood awaits it's consumption. If these things I have seen evidenced at the age of two, at what younger age could they have also been there though unnoticed because of the lack speech? For what person filled with the Holy Spirit would not be led to examine themselves?
Jesus says "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." He did not say to send them away for their lack of instruction in the faith or perceived inability to examine themselves. When the disciples, who clearly thought the children were ineligible in some way, protested, Jesus proclaims that they are worthy, for the kingdom belongs to them. Jesus not only speaks His Words but He holds His promise. He lays His hands on the children, gives them His Body. Until He does this, He does not depart. I am much more afraid that we (Lutherans) hinder our children, and in doing so, doubt the works of Baptism and deny them the unity in the Holy Spirit.
Comments
If I may offer a few thoughts.
First, the Sriptures and the Confessions clearly teach that Baptism affords the baptised the gifts of forgiveness of sins, life and salvation---in other words, full-fledged membership in the Body of Christ. Our children from teeny on are taught that they have been rescued and made alive in Christ according to their baptisms. Unlike other confessions, our children are respected and taught as believers--I very much disagree with your words that we hinder them and doubt the work done in their baptisms.
Second, since everything must be done in an orderly way in our churches, there has to be some age at which children are instructed formally, by their pastors in the basics of their faith. For many LCMS churches, this is done between 5th-8th grades. Although many children are 'ready' earlier, there must be a time in general. This 5th-8th grade period fits in pretty well with the age at which children are ready developmentally to tackle some pretty tricky concepts and to think more conceptually. Not a bad idea, really.
Third and perhaps most importantly, our pastors have an enormous responsibility as stewards of the mysteries of God to instruct, teach and lead in a thorough manner because no one of any age receives the Lord's Supper in neutrality. He either receives the body and blood to his great blessing or to his great spiritual harm. Our new adult converts have this period of instruction also--it says nothing about the genuine nature of their faith---it is a matter of pastoral responsibility.
Beth
The Large Catechism states that staying away from the Supper for a long period of time causes one to grow cold toward it.
Thank you for your thoughts. You make some good points, especially about no one recieving communion in neutrality. My husband also pointed out that examining yourself does not simply mean feeling sorry for your sins but that also you desire God's forgiveness through His Son.
In regards to hindering our children, I did not say that we actually do but only that I am afraid we might. In other words, my mind is not firm on this issue. I did, however, make that statement to be rather harsh sounding in the attempts to stir up some conversation about it (playing a little bit of the devil's advocate if you will).
Susan -
I would have liked to look at the Large Catechism but my husband keeps it next door at the church, so the next handy text was my own Small Catechism. I was not aware, though, that it was a synodical book and not Luther's.
Thank you both for your comments. I am sure this is an issue that some may have gone round and round in circles over and may be tired of discussing. However, it has only lately concerned me to think of it. My daughter Evelyn has already noticed that she is excluded from the same practice of everyone in the congregation when it comes time for communion. I dread the moment when she may ask "why?". What should I tell her (besides the pat answer that she's just too young)? I can only pray that God would, as ever, lead me in the one true Faith and that He would stave off that question until I can give her an answer.
Yours in Christ,
Emily
Susan is right. Where you are quoting from is an "expansion" of the questions in Luther's Catechism. Usually this is listed as an "annotated" catechism. Often the real Small Catechism is in the front, while the expanded questions and answers (that are generally numbered) are behind it.
I do struggle with the issue of paedocommunion as well, and in my individual study, I do not see a difference in our confessions in how the faith that we receive through our Holy Baptism is described...and the description of the faith required to partake of Holy Communion.
(I highly recommend getting a home copy or a personal copy of the Book of Concord...the Large Catechism alone is great for supplementing home catechesis, personal devotions, and it is a strong lesson in our history and our theology. And it really is an easy read. CPH has their special price of $20 for only a short while longer. I've delayed reading a ton of books because they were in my husband's library and I never managed to remember to bring them home).
In many places, Luther only says that what is required to come to the table is faith in the words "Shed FOR YOU." That Jesus died not only to forgive the sins of everyone, but that He in particular died to forgive MY sins. I do not see how baptismal faith cannot possess that.
There are other places that Luther specifically says "all Christians should know the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer, and the Apostles Creed, and Words of Institution." But at our baptism we confess our faith, even as infants, and as full believers in the body of Christ, if our parents are honoring their vow to raise us in the faith, we should be continually growing in knowledge of the catechism, and having our faith strengthened through exposure to the Word, the teachings of our church, and participating in Christian life. This seems to be more in line with how the Passover practice is described in the Bible...that everyone is partaking, but when a child asks "why do we do this?" the father explains.
I honestly see both sides, and struggle heartily with them.
I hear your argument all the time, but it is not historically accurate.
Confirmation was actually rejected by Luther at first, and continued to be rejected by many orthodox church bodies until the 20th century. In Germany the practice was not unified at all. Bucer and Melancthon re-instituted it (it had been rejected because of the fact that the Catholics treated it as a sacrament that instilled more blessings than Holy Baptism) in order to keep peace with the Reformed, because they believed that church discipline would go amuck if a vow was not made to which people could be held accountable.
Yet, even when this was practiced, it often was simply an issue of parents bringing their children to the pastor for private examination of their faith (at young ages, and Luther advocated children being at the table. 14 year olds were not viewed as children at that time), and then were allowed to the table, with no ceremony if the questions were answered satisfactorily.
Our current practice is much more rooted in the Enlightenment and in pietism, where it was strongly believed that you had to be educated in the faith and choose to be a believer. The level of education we require in confirmation (or at any rate the length of it) are not what should be required to come to communion. So the very body and blood of Christ are treated as a dangling carrot to get children through the process, to learn things that they often should have been learning years ago in the home, and the pastors become frustrated because what they should be doing instead of teaching the basics of faith, they should be leading them deeper into our confessions.
(history information from Confirmation in the Lutheran Church, Arthur Repp, 1964)
8th grade was chosen because in the 1800s and early 1900s, it often was that a common person's education ended at 8th grade, and so they took on the many of the responsibilities of adulthood such as working, courting, and holding responsibilities in the church. It was a rite of passage, or an acknowledgement of that passage at any rate. It holds no meaning now, and the children fall away because they were not strengthened in these beliefs as they grow, but see a Small Catechism for the first time often when they are in 7th grade.
The argument that 5th - 8th grade is a developmentally ideal age has actually been rejected by the Synod. There was a joint commission that studied what age confirmation and first communion should happen (in the 1970's) and it was determined by them that first communion should happen around 5th grade, and confirmation should happen around 11th or 12th grade. I assure you this document was full of developmental processes and psychology in determining this, which is probably why little attention was paid to it.
Yet, Luther himself saw that a young child can readily accept the real presence far easier than an adult can, and frequently attributed children with having stronger faith than adults.
"Therefore, let every father of a family know that it is his duty, by God's order and command, to teach these things to his children, or to have the children learn what they ought to know. Since the children are baptized and received into the Christian Church, they should also enjoy this communion of the Sacrament, in order that they may serve us and be useful to us. They must all certainly help us to believe, love, pray, and fight against the devil."
--Martin Luther, Large Catechism, Part V. The Sacrament of the Altar
As to what to tell the children when they ask "why." Ummm, I can tell you that I gave my kids plenty of wrong answers. I would suggest that "you're not old enough" isn't a good answer. The best I can think of at this point (now that all mine have been communing for two years or more) is to tell them something like this:
Because that's not how it's done. There are people here, people that Jesus loves, people who trust in Him, who think that age matters, and they would be scandalized to see you commune. They shouldn't be. But they would because they were taught that WE make ourselves worthy by what we know. It's going to take a long time for Pastor to teach them that "that person is truly worthy and well prepared who has FAITH in these words, Given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins." So in the meantime, out of love for them and out of respect for the pastor, we have to be patient and suffer.
Rebellious, I think you hit the nail on the head with the analogy of the dangling carrot. It helps to know that our current practice came out of the Enlightenment era. I am also not suprised to hear that the synod enlisted psychologists to tackle a theological issue. I studied psychology as my major in college but it quickly left a sour taste in my mouth. I am sure that children could cognitively comprehend the Lord's Supper at the 5th grade, but psychology is a science, a religion unto its own, and it leaves no room for God or faith.
I completely agree when you said:
In many places, Luther only says that what is required to come to the table is faith in the words "Shed FOR YOU." That Jesus died not only to forgive the sins of everyone, but that He in particular died to forgive MY sins. I do not see how baptismal faith cannot possess that. Baptismal faith must possess that or it is not faith. I have a friend that likened the lack of infant communion to excommunication in the sense that through baptism an infant is brought into the fullness of the Church as an heir to the Kingdom and yet is denied to recieve Christ in the sacraments as was commanded.
you said:
But they would because they were taught that WE make ourselves worthy by what we know.
Are you saying that God's people in churches that practice first communion in late childhood have all been taught that we somehow make ourselves worthy? Is it not more likely that it would be shocking for them to see a wee one commune simply because that has not been the tradition in that place? I have never heard anyone say that there is a 'magic' right age for children to commune, but all things must be done in order.
I also totally disagree with the idea that Holy Communion is the dangling carrot. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are two completely different things. An infant's baptism brings him into the family of God where he is then to grow up in his faith. A period of intense study of the Word allows the Holy Spirit to inform the faith of the child, allowing him to make a good confession. Why would we think that this time in God's Word would be anything but beneficial to a child's spiritual life? As far as I am concerned it matters little at what age that takes place (although 5th-8th grades are rather ideal from a classical learning perspective---I never said anything about psychology) but I believe that it is very good pastoral practice. I think that we have to keep in mind that the sacrament is not magic--nor is it neutral--that it can be received to one's harm and that in the early church all converts went through a several year period of intense study of the Word before being invited to commune. Do the adult converts in your churches commune immediately following their baptisms?
Beth
Thanks for adding again to the conversation. I do think that people would fall out of their pew if they saw an infant commune. We would not wish anyone to stumble in faith and it is good to have order in the church. Certainly where there is doubt about a person's ability to rightfully recieve communion, one should excercise caution. I don't think the LCMS teaches that we make ourselves worthy to take communion - at least I wasn't taught that in my own confimation classes and my husband does not teach that to his confirmation students. I also don't think that churches and pastors use the Lord's Supper as a dangling carrot, but I do think that is what some families may view it as. A sort of mentality of "lets just get through this so our kid can have communion, then we'll see how often we come back to church."
However, I think we're getting slowly off topic. I find everything about our current communion and confirmation practices laudible and faithful. My question is what specifically excludes young children or infants? To this end I am sorry that McCain or another pastor has not found their way over to this discussion in order that they may give some concrete details on this matter.
Beth
However, the worthiness-question comes up in discussions as to why it's not the tradition. Like Emily said, why are the young children excluded? The answer is usually that the children cannot examine themselves. When asked what self-examination means, it almost always comes back to an intellectual activity. So compared to the little children, I am "more mature" or "understand the real presence better" or whatever. Many pastors teach that. But even when they don't, it seems that that's what most of the people believe: there's something in me --some quality I have-- that makes me more worthy now than I was when I was 2.