Lutherans, Infant Communion & 1 Corinthians 11:28

Greetings,

I personally DO NOT subscribe to infant communion, let that be told up front to avoid any misunderstanding.

I have assembled below some resources which I found in a variety of Lutheran sources, the Church Fathers and works of Biblical languages.

Here they are:

1 Corinthians 11:28
δοκιμαζέτω δὲ ἄνθρωπος ἑαυτόν, καὶ οὕτως ἐκ τοῦ ἄρτου ἐσθιέτω καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ποτηρίου πινέτω

Lutheran Sources on 1 Corinthians 11:28

Who is to Be Admitted to the Lord’s Supper

(Finis Cui Coenae Sacrae)

However, not even all Christians are to be admitted to the Lord’s Table. To be admitted are:

1. Such as have been baptized. On this order of sequence in the use of the two New Testament Sacraments see p. 292.

2. Such as are able to examine themselves. Scripture expressly declares spiritual self-examination necessary for a salutary use of the Holy Supper: “Let a man examine himself [δοκιμαζέτω δὲ ἄνθρωπος ἑαυτόν], and so [οὕτως] let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup” (1 Cor. 11:28). Excluded therefore are children, the sleeping, the unconscious, the dying deprived of the use of their senses, the insane and possessed while not in their right mind, etc.

3. Only such as believe the words of institution, hence believe both that they receive the true body and blood of Christ in the Lord’s Supper and that Christ gives them this priceless gift for the remission of their sins. This provision excludes the Christians in Reformed denominations. There certainly are children of God among the Reformed who still preach Christ’s satisfactio vicaria. Since, however, they lack the right understanding of, and therefore faith in, the words of institution, they are not in condition to use the Lord’s Supper to their benefit. Paul expressly disqualified all who do not believe the Real Presence, since they do not discern the Lord’s body (διακρίνειν τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Κυρίου), 1 Cor. 11:29. With their denial of the Real Presence they also lose the finis cuius of the Lord’s Supper, namely, that Christ’s body and blood is given us in the Sacrament for the remission of our sins. This applies, of course, also to such Lutherans as are afflicted with grave doubts as to the Real Presence of Christ’s body and blood, or who, though they confess the Real Presence, are not seeking the forgiveness of sins in the Sacrament, but ascribe to it a salutary effect ex opere operato.

 - Pieper, F. (1953). Christian Dogmatics (Vol. 3, pp. 383–384). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House.

 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Worthiness for receiving the Sacrament consists of our recognition that we are unworthy, that we need God’s love and forgiveness. Luther suggested that if the devil, the world, and the flesh still threaten to tarnish or take away the joy of our faith, we need the Sacrament. Christ offers it to the hungry, not to the satisfied. It is Christ whose worth is at issue in the Lord’s Supper. The meal is planned for those whose worth has disappeared, who need the gift of worth.

Paul insisted that believers examine themselves (1 Cor. 11:28) as they come to the Supper. That examination, Paul continues, includes the recognition of what God is giving in the Sacrament. Those who do not discern the Lord’s body receive judgment (1 Cor. 11:29). Although some have suggested that this body is the body of Christ, the church, the context, particularly verse 27, prevents that interpretation. This judgment that we can receive in connection with an unfaithful use of the Lord’s Supper is no different than the judgment that falls upon those who hear his Word in a frivolous or apathetic manner.

Because of Paul’s command to examine ourselves, the Western church has offered the Lord’s Supper only to those who are able to do so. The Eastern church has communed infants as soon as they are baptized. There is no biblical warrant for this practice. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are not to be equated even though the church has placed them both in the category of “sacrament.” There has been no general agreement on the proper age for admission to the Lord’s Supper. In Luther’s own time children began to commune at an earlier age than they normally do today.

“Examination” in preparation for the Lord’s Supper recognizes no more and no less than who God is as he comes to us in the Supper and who we are as we receive it. We recognize with joy and thanksgiving that God gives in the Sacrament and that we receive. We recognize that we need the blessings God gives in this meal of life. We recognize that our own unworthiness draws us to the Lord’s life-giving body and blood. Believers approach the Lord’s Supper craving not only the forgiveness of sins but also the power to live out God’s callings in daily life. The spirit of repentance guides us to come to receive death and to be raised to genuine human life once again. At his Supper our God feeds us for living.

 - Kolb, R. (2000). The Christian faith: a Lutheran exposition (pp. 241–242). St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House.

- - - - - - - - - -

11:27 unworthy manner. Includes celebrating the Sacrament in a manner that is inconsistent with Jesus’ institution, particularly the creation of divisions (see note, v 17). It also includes not recognizing what is given and received in the “body and blood.” Were Paul discussing exclusively the Church as the Body of Christ, there would have been no mention of the blood. However, eating and drinking in an unworthy manner also includes not recognizing the sacramental presence of Christ’s body and blood (cf v 29). guilty. Abusing the Sacrament by making it an occasion for sin, not for its intended purpose of forgiveness and unity makes one guilty and liable to judgment (vv 29–32). “Those who go to the Sacrament [Lord’s Supper] unworthily yet still receive the true Sacrament, even though they do not believe” (LC IV 54).

11:28 examine himself. To see whether or not the person is receiving the Sacrament according to Christ’s institution, not in an “unworthy manner” (see note, v 27). This does not require a perfect, sinless life before reception of the Sacrament but a desire to receive the blessings of the Sacrament, including forgiveness and being formed with fellow recipients as the Body of Christ. Paul illustrates pastoral oversight in the examination by rebuking their sin and returning them to their catechesis (v 23; see p 1965). “Confession in the churches is not abolished among us. The body of the Lord is not usually given to those who have not been examined [1 Corinthians 11:27–28] and absolved” (AC XXV 1; see also LC V 49–50).

11:29 without discerning the body. Short for “body and blood” used throughout this section. Note parallels at vv 27–28. “Discerning” includes recognizing the “true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine” (SC, Sacrament of the Altar, p xli). It also implies a desire for the “forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation” offered in the Sacrament. Finally, in the context of vv 17–34, it also includes a desire to end the human divisions that destroy the unity of the Body of Christ created through the Sacrament. eats and drinks judgment on himself. Not everyone who was participating in the sacramental meal in Corinth was condemned—only those who did not discern the body and so came under God’s judgment (vv 31–32). “The pastors do not force those who are not qualified to use the Sacraments” (Ap XI 62).

 - Engelbrecht, E. A. (2009). The Lutheran Study Bible (p. 1964). St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

19. Self-examination.—To partake of the Sacrament worthily, and to receive its blessings, one is to examine himself. “Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup” (1 Cor 11:28). Every communicant should examine himself:

(a) Whether he understands and believes the words of institution, for he must “discern,” distinguish and recognize the Lord’s body and blood in, with, and under the bread and wine. (Cf., 1 Cor. 11:29). To discern the Lord’s body means to perceive that body in the Sacrament as really present and received.

(b) Whether he knows himself to be a sinner before God, and is sincerely sorry for his sins. Neither the number nor the greatness of our sins make us unworthy; it depends on how we feel about our sins, whether we are penitent or not, that determines our worthiness or unworthiness. He, who does not know his sins, cannot repent, and sees no need of forgiveness, and, therefore, has no faith in the forgiveness through Christ. God wants us to realize our natural evil condition and our total insufficiency before Him.

(c) Whether he knows what Christ did for him, whether he truly desires forgiveness and applies the promise of Christ to himself, believing that all his sins are forgiven. No special degree of faith is required. The weak in faith, who lack the firm assurance of, and experience only a sincere longing for, the forgiveness of their sins, should by all means approach the Lord’s Table for the strengthening of their faith.

(d) Whether he is willing to amend his life and bring forth fruit meet for repentance (Matt. 3:8). For this we need the help of God, who through the Sacrament will so strengthen our faith, that we grow in holiness of life. A willingness and a desire to improve one’s life before God go hand in hand with faith in God’s promise of forgiveness.

 - Koehler, E. W. A. (1999). A summary of Christian doctrine: a popular presentation of the teachings of the Bible (pp. 229–230). St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House.

 - - - - - - - - - - - -

The doctrine of close communion must be maintained not only against Reformed sects, but also against Lutheran errorists. (Cp. Geschichte der Luth. Kirche, by A. L. Graebner, sub Abendmahl; Lehre und Wehre, 1888, pp. 257 ff. 302 ff.)

b. Of Christians only those may be admitted to the Lords Table—

1. Who are already baptized;

2. Who are able to examine themselves, 1 Cor. 11:28. This excludes children, unconscious persons, patients in a coma, and all persons who are not compos mentis (insanity);

3. Who believe that in Holy Communion they receive Christ’s body and blood in, with, and under the bread and wine for the gracious remission of their sins, Matt. 26:26–28. This excludes all Reformed, rationalists, etc., who deny the real presence, as well as all papists (Romanizing Lutherans), who teach that the Sacrament works ex opere operato and so deny that faith is the medium ληπτικόν of the proffered forgiveness of sins;

4. Who may do so without giving offense to others, 2 Cor. 6:3; Matt. 18:7. This excludes all those 1) who live in gross sins, 1 Cor. 5:11; 2) who refuse to forgive and be reconciled, Matt. 18:15–17, 35; 5:23, 24; and 3) who are guilty of unionism or syncretism, Rom. 16:17; 2 John 10, 11. The Sacrament must be withheld from all who are connected with erring churches and unchristian or antichristian cults, Eph. 4:1–6; 5:7–11; 2 Cor. 6:14–18.

Since lodgery is a pagan cult, based upon work-righteousness, and as such denies the very purpose of Holy Communion, namely, the imparting of the forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ (sola fide), it is self-evident that lodge-fellowship is inconsistent with the true profession of the Christian faith. Lodge members should therefore be excluded from Holy Communion a) because, as members of antichristian cults, they deny the specific teachings of the Christian religion (the Holy Trinity, the deity of Christ, His vicarious atonement, salvation by grace, etc.) and b) because they give offense to confessing Christians by going to the Lords Supper while holding membership in antichristian societies, Matt. 10:32–39.

Because the Holy Supper may be received to judgment (1 Cor. 11:29: κρίμα), the Christian minister must not only urge all communicants diligently to examine themselves, 1 Cor. 11:28, but also aid them in their self-examination. To this end he should retain both the confessional service and the Lutheran custom of “announcing for Communion” (Beichtanmeldung), which gives him an opportunity to deal individually with those who desire to attend the Lord’s Table.

However, while the pastor should not admit to Holy Communion any unworthy guest, he must take care not to restrain from it any who are entitled to it. In general, it may be said that all baptized Christians who heartily repent of their sins, truly believe in Jesus Christ, regard the ordinance of Holy Communion as Christ instituted it, are open to Christian instruction on every point of doctrine and life, are able to examine themselves, lead a Christian life, and purpose to amend their lives by the aid of the Holy Spirit should be admitted to the Lord’s Table.

 - Mueller, J. T. (1999). Christian dogmatics (pp. 538–539). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House.

 - - - - - - - - - - - -

3] And Paul says, 1 Cor. 11, 23ff., that he had received of the Lord that which he delivered. But he had delivered the use of both kinds, as the text, 1 Cor. 11, clearly shows. This do [in remembrance of Me], he says first concerning His body; afterwards he repeats the same words concerning the cup [the blood of Christ]. And then: Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. [Here he names both.] These are the words of Him who has instituted the Sacrament. And, indeed, he says before that those who will use the Lord’s Supper should use both.

 - Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. (1996). Concordia Triglotta—English: The Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (pp. 357–359). Milwaukee, WI: Northwestern Publishing House.

 - - - - - - - - - - - -

By δοκιμάζω the action of properly testing is referred to as coins are tested, those of genuine metal and full weight being accepted, the rest being rejected, 9:27. The communicant is to test himself as to his fitness for the Sacrament. He alone can do that. In the command there lies the supposition that the test will result favorably.

Paul does not state directly into what the communicant is to probe when he is testing himself. The context, however, indicates what is in Paul’s mind. It will first be in regard to faith in Christ’s words which are used in the very institution of the Sacrament, v. 23–25. Secondly, it will be in regard to the removal of anything from the heart that would clash with the reception of Christ’s body and blood. This is done by true contrition and repentance.

On this injunction of Paul’s is based the so-called preparatory or confessional service that precedes the Communion service proper. The demonstrative adverb “so” once more emphasizes the preparation which Paul has indicated. Note how the eating and the drinking are repeated throughout v. 27–30 as if the tremendous significance of these simple acts is to be deeply impressed. Luther has caught the full import of these repetitions.

 - Lenski, R. C. H. (1963). The interpretation of St. Paul’s First and Second epistle to the Corinthians (p. 480). Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House.

 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ancient Sources on 1 Corinthians 11:28

Ambrosiaster: Paul teaches that one should come to Communion with a reverent mind and with fear, so that the mind will understand that it must revere the one whose body it is coming to consume. Commentary on Paul’s Epistles.

 - Bray, G. L. (1999). 1-2 Corinthians (p. 115). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Chrysostom: In your conscience, where no one is present except God who sees all, there judge yourself, examine your sins. When you reflect upon your whole life, bring your sins to the court of the mind. Correct your mistakes, and in this way, with a clean conscience, touch the sacred table and participate in the holy sacrifice. On Fasting, Homily 6.5.22.

 - Bray, G. L. (1999). 1-2 Corinthians (p. 115). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Both must therefore test themselves: the one, if he is qualified to speak and leave behind him written records; the other, if he is in a right state to hear and read: as also some in the dispensation of the Eucharist, according to custom, enjoin that each one of the people individually should take his part. One’s own conscience is best for choosing accurately or shunning. And its firm foundation is a right life, with suitable instruction. But the imitation of those who have already been proved, and who have led correct lives, is most excellent for the understanding and practice of the commandments. “So that whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.”⁵ It therefore follows, that every one of those who undertake to promote the good of their neighbours, ought to consider whether he has betaken himself to teaching rashly and out of rivalry to any; if his communication of the word is out of vainglory; if the only reward he reaps is the salvation of those who hear, and if he speaks not in order to win favour: if so, he who speaks by writings escapes the reproach of mercenary motives.

 - Clem. Al., Str. 1.1. Clement of Alexandria. (1885). The Stromata, or Miscellanies. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire) (Vol. 2, p. 300). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

 - - - - - - - - - - - -

25. healing precedes participation in the loaves of jesus

After this the word says, “And when even was come, His disciples came to Him, saying, The place is desert and the time is already past; send, therefore, the multitudes away, that they may go into the villages and buy themselves food.” And first observe that when about to give to the disciples the loaves of blessing, that they might set them before the multitudes, He healed the sick, in order that, having been restored to health, they might participate in the loaves of blessing; for while they are yet sickly, they are not able to receive the loaves of the blessing of Jesus. But if any one, when he ought to listen to the precept, “But let each prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread,” etc.,² does not obey these words, but in haphazard fashion participates in the bread of the Lord and His cup, he becomes weak or sickly, or even—if I may use the expression—on account of being stupefied by the power of the bread, asleep.

- Comm. Matt. 10.25. Origen. (1897). Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. In A. Menzies (Ed.), J. Patrick (Trans.), The Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Gospel of Peter, the Diatessaron of Tatian, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Visio Pauli, the Apocalypses of the Virgil and Sedrach, the Testament of Abraham, the Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena, the Narrative of Zosimus, the Apology of Aristides, the Epistles of Clement (Complete Text), Origen’s Commentary on John, Books I-X, and Commentary on Matthew, Books I, II, and X-XIV (Vol. 9, pp. 430–431). New York: Christian Literature Company.

 - - - - - - - - - - -

Historical Sources

In the Oriental and North African churches prevailed the incongruous custom of infant communion, which seemed to follow from infant baptism, and was advocated by Augustine and Innocent I. on the authority of John 6:53. In the Greek church this custom continues to this day, but in the Latin, after the ninth century, it was disputed or forbidden, because the apostle (1 Cor. 11:28, 29) requires self-examination as the condition of worthy participation.

 - Schaff, P., & Schaff, D. S. (1910). History of the Christian church (Vol. 3, p. 516). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Journals

ALC Convention

The Ninth General Convention of the ALC met in October at Concordia College, Moorhead, Minnesota. Lutheran unity, international justice, social concerns, and human rights were probably the key items for consideration by the 986 delegates. The ALC’s interest in justice, social concerns, and human rights was demonstrated in an invitation extended to and accepted by Vice President Walter Mondale to address the convention.

In matters of church union, the delegates approved altar and pulpit fellowship between the ALC and the new AELC, an action which requires approval of two thirds of the congregations of the Synod for finalization. In his state-of-the-church report to the convention, President David Preus had suggested that the AELC become a non-geographical district of the Synod, an invitation which AELC president William Kohn respectfully declined.

In Dr. Preus’ evaluation of the question of a larger Lutheran union, the president said, “The churches do not have to seek ever larger organizational unions in order to express the unity of the church. The ALC and other U. S. Lutherans have found the way to express Lutheran unity without organizational uniformity.” It is apparent that for Preus, the definition of unity does not involve unanimity in doctrine together with loyalty to the confessions which set forth that doctrine.

Preus described relations with the LC-MS as a continuing mixture of positives and negatives. Preus and the ALC are of the “conviction that Lutheran unity (already) exists for U. S. Lutherans, and that altar and pulpit fellowship ought to bear testimony to that unity.” Preus expressed the hope that increasing numbers of LC-MS members will discover that to be true.

Other convention actions of varying import and interest include:

—Formation of a task force to prepare a position paper on abortion.

—A resolution asking all congregations to adopt evangelism goals and objectives.

—A report that over half of the ALC’s 4,836 congregations have ordered the new LBW for use in worship services.

—Approved a budget of $31.2 million for 1979.

—In the interest of promoting racial justice, endorsed its Board of Trustees’ plan for dealing with companies which do business with South Africa.

—Accepted almost unanimously a statement on “Christian Social Responsibility,” and received another document dealing with “Ethical Issues in Human Medicine.”

—Adopted the joint ALC-LCA “Statement on Communion Practices” which the LCA had adopted at its July convention.

The Communion Practices statement produced some of the longest and most spirited debate of the convention. The debate focused on the declaration that “readiness to participate (in Holy Communion) normally occurs at age 10 or the level of fifth grade, but it may occur earlier or later.… Thus infant communion is precluded.” Three proposed amendments were defeated, one deleting the preclusion of infants, a second discouraging but not prohibiting it, and a third denying communion to children under 10 years of age.

Wartburg Seminary faculty members urged a stand which would not preclude infant communion, not because they favored it, but because it is not precluded by Scripture or by Lutheran doctrine.

Convention coverage in The Lutheran Standard highlighted the emphasis on human rights and justice. It is perhaps understandable that a Lutheran church body which cannot answer the question of infant communion on the basis of Scripture (1 Cor 11:28) sees its role increasingly as an arbiter of “human rights, social responsibility, and international justice.” The invitation extended to Vice President Mondale to address the convention is perhaps more of a commentary on the state of the church in the ALC than were the comments of the Synod’s president on the state of the church.

Joel C. Gerlach

Volume 76 • January, 1979 • Number 1 Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly (electronic edition.), 67–68.

 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Infant Communion

For over a decade we have been hearing rattlings about a Lutheran return to the practice of infant communion. Although the majority remains uninterested, the issue has become big enough that two Missourians, a parish pastor and a seminary professor, were moved recently to comment on the matter. In its Pentecost issue, which dealt with the general subject of confirmation, The Bride of Christ included an article by William Reese entitled, “Infant Communion and the Spirit of the Age.” Edward Kettner’s article on the same subject appeared in the fall-winter edition of Lutheran Theological Review. Reese serves a congregation in suburban St. Louis. Kettner is on the faculty of Concordia Seminary in Edmonton, Alberta.

There is documentation which indicates that the communing of infants and small children was practiced already in Cyprian’s era (mid-third century) and continued throughout the first millennium. When Rome officially confirmed the doctrine of transubstantiation at Lateran Council IV in 1215, it also abolished infant communion, although only in those churches it controlled. The Eastern Orthodox continue the practice to the present day. Proponents of infant communion claim that Lutheran teaching on the issue, although consistent since the Reformation, has been based on faulty exegesis and influenced by scholastic and pietistic thought. These arguments are those most often mustered in any effort to create a new interest in the old custom of infant communion.

Both Reese and Kettner effectively take issue with the presuppositions advanced by infant communion advocates. Kettner insists that there is no indication that the practice had any ties to the apostolic church despite efforts to find evidence for the same in the Didache (ca. 125) and Justin’s First Apology (ca. 150). In fact, Reese notes, the emphasis on the Lord’s Supper had changed already by the third century as more attention was given to “doing” the sacrament than receiving it. They conclude that any argument that infant communion was part of the church’s pristine purity will not hold.

Both authors identify false exegetical presuppositions which led proponents to their false conclusions about infant communion. The fact that women and children were miraculously fed by Jesus along with 5000 men and that Jesus encouraged all to eat what was better, i.e., his flesh and blood (Jn 6), is not applicable in a discussion of the Lord’s Supper and certainly not a defense of infant communion. Nor can it be argued that the “body of the Lord” in 1 Corinthians 11:29 is the church and that Paul’s insistence that there be discernment before receiving the sacrament was intended only for the bickering Corinthian congregation. (An oft-proposed argument runs that the Corinthians were not to receive the sacrament until they were able to discern anew what the church was.) The “body of the Lord” in this passage is nothing else than the body of Christ offered in the sacrament, and therefore Paul’s words have a continuous New Testament application. Any contention, furthermore, that an infant is able to discern the body of Christ because his family discerns that body leads naturally to the conclusion that the baptized infants have faith because their families have faith. Such a teaching has no basis in Scripture.

Kettner clearly understands what lies at the heart of the suggestion that infants should be communed. It is a misunderstanding of the essence of both baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Like the Eastern Orthodox, the proponents of infant communion see blessings in the Supper which are not present in baptism. Such a contention clearly violates the thoroughly Lutheran and thoroughly scriptural teaching that the means of grace, the gospel in the Word and in both sacraments, equally offer the forgiveness of sins, life and salvation. Insisting that a withholding of communion from infants denies them the fullness of God’s grace downgrades the power of baptism and redefines the blessings of the Lord’s Supper. The fact is, the defenders of infant communion often enough imply that the Supper has benefit also ex opere operato and not only when it is received in faith.

Both Kettner and Reese are willing to grant that the call for infant communion may well come from fairly pious intentions. It may be true that some Lutherans have put such a strong emphasis on discernment and preparation that communion-bound Christians have felt almost paranoid about their attendance. We also need to take care that the Lord’s Table is never presented as a reward received after a long stint in catechism instruction. We should certainly ask ourselves if admission to the Supper is too much governed by chronological age, physical maturity or church custom. We need to find ways to assimilate young families into the church’s worship and to promote the nuclear family. But no matter how strongly one feels about correcting faulty perceptions and achieving noble goals, these ends cannot be justified if the means to attain them are misapplied history, faulty exegesis and wrong doctrine.

James P. Tiefel

Volume 86 • Number 4 • Fall 1989 Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly, (electronic edition.), 309–310.

 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Infant Communion?

One of the issues before the assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America this summer in Philadelphia is infant communion. A proposal for consideration states that “infants and children may be communed for the first time during the service in which they are baptized.” Although the Eastern Orthodox practice infant communion, the practice is an innovation for Lutheranism. A recent issue of Lutheran Forum (Winter 1996) and Lutheran Quarterly (Autumn 1996) discuss the subject in some detail.

Marc Kolden in the Lutheran Quarterly summarizes the arguments usually advanced in favor of the practice.

•     The practice has a long history. It was first mentioned by Cyprian about 250 a.d. The West practiced infant communion for centuries. The East still does.

•     Baptism is the necessary and sufficient prerequisite for receiving Holy Communion.

•     Receiving communion is the right of the baptized.

•     Refusing to commune infants calls into question infant baptism.

Some have also seen a justification for infant communion in Jesus’ bread of life discourse. They believe that the following words are a reference to the Lord’s Supper and are at least a justification for communing infants if not a command to do so. “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink” (John 6:53–55).

Lyman Lundeen writing in Lutheran Forum sees outside pressures and the spirit of the times causing Lutherans to depart from historic Lutheran practice. He laments,

We are pressed by the secular culture to be inclusive and respectful of wide ranges of theological opinion. To have children wait for Communion until they have thought a little or learned something about the specific Jesus message seems overly demanding. Since Lutherans have had especially high concerns for theological agreement there are special pressures on us not to ask for too much definite theological understanding. We tend to be embarrassed by our past concern for theological precision and therefore may turn away too quickly from expecting doctrinal agreement from adults or young children. Combine that with the current rage against excluding anyone or asking anyone to wait for something and you get public invitations to Communion that make faith or even Baptism unnecessary.

Many of the arguments for infant communion are sentimental in nature rather than doctrinal or theological. The arguments from history are weak on two points: (1) Lutherans do not base their practice on historical precedent, but on the clear words of Scripture, and (2) the historical evidence for infant communion in the early church is scanty at best. A careful reading of the bread of life discourse will show that Jesus is using a metaphor. He is talking about faith in very graphic language. The bread of life discourse is not a commentary on the Lord’s Supper.

A careful study of St. Paul’s warning in 1 Corinthians 11 will reveal several reasons why infants should not be admitted to the Lord’s Supper. Jesus instituted this sacrament for those who can remember and show forth his death until he comes. Participants are to be able to examine themselves. Those who cannot or do not discern the Lord’s body in the sacrament eat and drink to their judgment rather than their benefit.

Denying infant communion does not mean denying infant baptism. Rather than drawing conclusions from a sacramental paradigm, we must understand each sacrament according to the passages of Scripture that deal with each specific sacrament. There are some important differences between the two sacraments. Baptism is the sacrament of initiation to bring people into God’s family. The Lord’s Supper is meant to confirm and strengthen faith. Participation in the Lord’s Supper is limited to those who can examine themselves, remember Jesus’ death, and discern his body. The Bible does not place the same limitations on those who are presented for baptism. Baptism is not repeatable. The Lord’s Supper is to be received often. We cannot draw conclusions about one sacrament from what Scripture says about the other.

Those in the ELCA who are opposed to infant communion are probably arguing for naught since it is already an established practice in some ELCA congregations. Whatever the decision this summer, those who are already practicing infant communion will undoubtedly continue to do so. When a church body has made it a practice to adapt and adjust doctrine and practice to prevailing societal sentiment, how can anyone in that church body fault those who innovate?

John M. Brenner

Volume 94 • Summer 1997 • Number 3. Infant Communion? Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly, 207–208.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

The ELCA and LCMS

In 1964 the LCA, ALC, and LCMS established a Joint Committee on the Theology and Practice of Confirmation. In 1969 the Commission presented a report to be considered by the various synods. The report offered this definition of confirmation: “Confirmation is a pastoral and educational ministry of the church that is designed to help baptized children identify with the life and mission of the adult Christian community and that is celebrated in a public rite.” The commission unanimously recommended that first Communion and confirmation be separated as two distinct acts. This separation will allow children to partake of the Lord’s Supper at an earlier age and then permit the church to carry on its pastoral and educational ministry through confirmation instruction at a time when Christian children are more mature.⁵⁷

The Commission recommended fifth grade for first communion and tenth grade for confirmation. The Commission also made the following suggestions for the rite of confirmation (summary mine):

1.   No impression should be given that confirmation completes or supplements baptism.

2.   No formal vow is necessary. The confirmand is simply to assert or affirm, in his declaration of faith, his personal acceptance of God’s acts of grace and his resultant personal intent to express that grace in a Christian life.

3.   The blessing is the spoken Word and intercessory prayer on behalf of the one who stands in the full and complete faith already received in Baptism.

4.   The laying on of hands personalizes the prayers of the congregation as they intercede for the confirmands in prayer and petition God to impart the gifts of his Holy Spirit.

5.   If the rite attests that the confirmand now may assume certain privileges and responsibilities in its organizational structure, it must be clearly stated lest the impression is given that he is receiving through confirmation what he already has by virtue of his baptism.

6.   No statement should be made that the confirmand is now a “member of the church” or entering into “full communion” with the church.

The ALC, LCA, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Canada accepted the recommendations. The LCMS in 1971 refused to adopt a stand, but left it up to individual congregations to continue to study and establish a local practice.

Today in the ELCA there is a trend to replace the term confirmation with “affirmation of baptism.” Children of various ages may be invited to the Lord’s Supper with the responsibility for that decision shared by the pastor, parents, child, family sponsors, and the congregation. Confirmation programs now emphasize adult mentors and sponsors as well as more parental participation.

The LCMS hymnal Lutheran Worship has an order for confirmation. The order asks the confirmands this questions: “Do you desire to become a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church and of this congregation?” After all the catechumens have answered several questions and received the blessing, the minister declares:

Upon this your profession and promise I invite and welcome you, as members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church and of this congregation, to share with us in all the gifts our Lord has for his Church and to live them out continually in his worship and service.

The wording leaves the impression that these young people were not members of the church by virtue of their baptism, but have now become members by virtue of their confirmation. The LCMS Commission on Worship warns that these statements must be carefully explained so that they are not misunderstood.⁶³

Lutheran Worship: Altar Book offers this definition of confirmation:

Confirmation is a public rite of the Church that is preceded by a period of instruction designed to help baptized Christians identify with the life and mission of the Christian community.

Having been instructed in the Christian faith prior to admission to the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:28), the rite of Confirmation provides an opportunity for the individual Christian, relying on God’s promise of holy Baptism, to make a personal public confession of faith and a lifelong pledge of fidelity to Christ.

 - Brenner, J. M. (1998). A Brief Study of Confirmation: Historical Development, Theological Considerations, and Practical Implications. Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly, 95, 100–102.

ELCA Approves Infant Communion

Voting members overwhelmingly approved “The Use of the Means of Grace: A Statement on the Practice of Word and Sacrament.” The new statement provides for “the communion of the baptized,” while an earlier ELCA guideline indicated “the communing of infants is precluded.” The new statement, while not mandating or even promoting infant communion, endorses the practice which has long been advocated and practiced by some members, mainly from the old LCA. Baptism is now the only required preparation for Communion. Pastor Paul R. Nelson, ELCA director for worship, said, “This will articulate the ELCA churchwide understanding of how administration of the sacraments should be practiced. It will encourage congregations and their pastors to discuss the sacraments, teach the sacraments and reflect on the way churches practice the sacraments in light of what the larger church says.”

John F. Brug

VOLUME 95 • WINTER 1998 • NUMBER 1 ELCA Approves Infant Communion. Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly, 50.

 - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Confession of the real presence is the third precondition listed by Francis Pieper for participation in the holy sacrament (the first two being baptism and the ability to examine oneself in accordance with 1 Corinthians 11:28). Not only integrity but also pastoral concern demand this restriction. It would seem that Lutherans are increasingly open to the Reformed understanding of 1 Corinthians 11:29, taking the body to be discerned as the mystical body (the church) rather than the actual historic body of Christ present in the elements. A rereading of Paul, who connects the danger with the elements and not the congregation, and of Luther would be in order. Not a few bulletin announcements follow Luther and Paul, that is, our Lord Himself, in urging that only those commune who acknowledge the real presence. Such a printed restriction is undoubtedly intended to preclude "open communion" and hence to preserve the confessional principle. There are problems with this procedure, however. First, even regular communicants do not always read the bulletin, much less visitors. Secondly, even if non-Lutheran visitors do read the bulletin's communion invitation, is it likely that they understand what is written there? To begin with, a generic visitor is unlikely to concede that a Lutheran pastor may supervise the content of his faith. Moreover, teaching the real presence involves hours of catechesis, discussion back and forth, and the assimilation of the true faith in the setting of the worshipping congregation. Should a casual visitor sign a communion registration card phrased in an orthodox way, it is unlikely that he has any idea what is meant and even if the registration of a non-Lutheran communicant is to take the form of a personal announcement to the pastor, can we really take seriously as confession of faith a smile and a nod when the pastor, a few minutes before the Divine Service begins, says something about the bread and wine being the Lord's body and blood? Pieper's statement about confession of the real presence as a precondition for admission to the sacrament contains the law's accusing bite: "This provision excludes the Christians in Reformed denominations."

 - Volume 53, Numbers 1-2 JANUARY-APRIL 1989 Admission to the Lutheran Altar: Reflections on Open Versus Close Communion. John Stephenson CTQ, p. 44.

 

 - - - - - - - - - - - -

I hope this will provide some info for further discussion. I think it makes it fairly clear that the normative Lutheran expectation is that a person should be capable of examining him/herself before taking the sacrament of the altar.

Jim