This controversial question raised in 1984 faces the coming June CRC synod. A study committee presents two reports, each of31 pages, one representing a majority of 6, the other a minority of 3. The conclusion of the majority and the introduction of the minority reports show that the first was made a “majority” only by trying to combine contradictory views on the point under discussion, since 3 of the 6 members express some dissent from their report. The committee was really divided into 3 minorities, each view being supported by 3 of the 9 members! The majority report favors opening the Lord’s Supper to children, but half hold that (1) they should be admitted just because they are in the covenant regardless of their age or ability to understand, and the other half hold that (2) they should be admitted only on demonstration of their faith. The minority report argues that (3) the Bible’s explanation of the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11 as “in remembrance” of Christ, “discerning” His Body, and “proclaiming” His death, requires that children confess their faith before being admitted to the supper. If one asks what is the difference between the second view, held by half the majority, and the third expressed in the minority report, the answer appears to be that though half of the majority believes the consistory should be assured of the faith of the child, this should not require a public confession of it. In fact the majority wants another committee appointed to study why covenant children should have to make a public profession of faith at all.

   

The Majority Report

The Majority Report, although trying to bridge a disagreement on whether or not children must show any indication of personal faith, wants to have the Lord’s Supper opened to them. Its study of the history of the question, with much of which the whole committee agrees, at the same time at some points shows that it is not so much trying to make an objective study as building a case for admitting children to the supper. Although it is “commonly assumed” that admitting children goes back to the ancient church, this “cannot be documented until the third century A.D.” After a quotation from Augustine we are informed that in the ancient church, including children “is thought to be common, though not universal.” Although in the Eastern medieval church this has been the practice, the Western Church moved toward the view of Aquinas that faith and discretion were necessary. On this matter, Calvin wrote that the Supper was “only for those who are capable of discerning the body and blood of the Lord, of examining their own conscience, of proclaiming the Lord’s death, and of considering its power” (Institutes 4:16.30), and this is shown to be the opinion of virtually all of the Reformers and of the Reformed churches. “Requiring a public profession of faith or confirmation has continued in most of those churches to the present” (p. 5).

The Report cites as reasons for admitting children (1) their inclusion in the covenant and (2) their evident participation in the Passover. (3) Despite the 1 Corinthians 11 requirement of faith, it argues for including them to nourish this faith, citing (4) “Jesus’ attitude toward the faith of children, coupled with the current understanding of faith in child development,” (5) of “the faith-nurturing” of the Supper (6) and of the “intellectualization of Christianity” since the 11th century (p. 6). The Report cites the 1970 decision of the United Presbyterian Church to admit children, but notes also the Reformed Church of America’s 1984 rejection of such a proposal because of its failure to sufficiently emphasize personal commitment to Christ and confession of faith. The Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (GKN) in 1978 admitted children, and the OPC, PCA and Reformed Ecumenical Synod are studying it.

Ecumenical Synod are studying it. “In summary” the report sees this as “not an evangelical versus non-evangelical issue” but one in which “people fully committed to the inspiration and authority of Holy Scriptures are found on both sides.” Although there is some confusion on the matter, this seems to suggest that we assume what the committee has to prove.

The Report’s case for admitting children to the Supper relies heavily on identifying it with the Passover in which its lengthy Biblical Study says that it is “rooted” (p. 7) and of which it is said to be “the pattern.” “The Passover underwent many changes to become the ‘Last Supper’ Passover of the New Testament.” Some of these are said to be “specifically commanded by God” and others “were introduced due to historical circumstances or theological emphasis” (p. 10) and the following study apparently tries to determine which is which and therefore normative. “Jesus transformed the Passover meal into the Lord’s Supper” (pp. 14, 15).

Although 1 Corinthians 11 with its requirement of self-examination “across the years bas borne the weight of the case against admitting small children to the Lord’s Supper,” the committee declares, “it does not appear to be a conclusive or even valid argument.” Some of the committee agree that where a child “cannot discern the difference between the Lord’s Supper and other . . . eating and drinking, a child may not come to the Lord’s table,” but others argue that Paul was speaking only of those able to make such distinctions, not to children. “To find anything in this passage that would keep very tiny children from the table, or even infants, is to shift the ground of the argument from the ethical to the physiological, and Paul does not intend for his words to be used in this way” (p. 19).

Having declared debatable or invalid this Biblical teaching, the report turns to the theological argument that God’s covenant includes children of believing parents who are therefore entitled to the Lord’s Supper as well as to Baptism. If one stresses God’s promise he will tend “to include children and perhaps even infants, in the celebration,” entailing the danger of encouraging presumption and destroying the discipline of the church. If one stresses the obligations of God’s covenant, be will tend “to exclude children until they have made public profession,” entailing the danger of children thinking themselves outside of Christ and His covenant, and encouraging Baptist and Arminian views (p. 24).

Although promoting admitting children to the Lord’s Supper, the report recognizes “the danger that spiritually immature parents might think it would be ‘cute’ for their children to partake” or “would view the Supper as magical,” and to prevent such a result, suggests requiring new parents to take a short course of training (p. 27). The, report recognizing the radical change of its suggestion that admission to the Supper no longer require public confession of faith and its “potential for becoming divisive,” counsels patience in dealing with the issue. It recommends, (1) admitting children to the Supper because of their inclusion in the Covenant of Grace, (2) since this is an act of faith, admitting those who show they can and desire to remember and proclaim the Lord’s death, (3) to make necessary change in the Church Order, ( 4) have a committee study the Biblical warrant for and meaning of public profession of faith, and (5) not put this change into effect until reaffirmed in 1990.

The Minority Report

The Minority in its introduction points out that the other report for admitting children tried unsuccessfully to bridge a crucial difference among its members. Half favored admitting them regardless of age simply because they were included in God’s covenant. The other half believed that they must show evidence of faith before being admitted. The result is unavoidable contradictions in their report. Although the minority was reluctant to follow a separate course, it believed that the church is better served by unified advice to follow “the biblical principle that covenant children are brought to the Lord’s Supper when they confess their faith.” The minority agrees with the rest that “Only those who ‘belong to Christ and thus are Abraham’s seed, heirs according to the promise” (Gal. 3:29) should be admitted to the Lord’s Supper” (p. 3), but it must strongly disagree with the half of the majority who say that this is the only biblical requirement. The Bible requires faith for admission. Participants must “discern the body of the Lord” (1 Cor. 11:25, 26) and “remember” and “proclaim” His death. In obvious reference to the other report, it observes that “although helpful . . . indirect reference from other biblical passages and argumentation from theological assumptions ought never to be permitted to obscure this rather clear scriptural instruction regarding the faith ·required to join the Lord’s Supper with blessing” (p. 5). The report cites the Heidelberg Catechism’s Belgic Confessions’ echoing of the biblical requirement.

It notes the obvious difference between Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, their “different purposes and different applications within the believer’s life.” While baptism is “a mark of the new birth,” the Lord’s Supper “is a nourishing event” (p. 6). Taught that “the church baptizes infants on the basis of the covenant which includes children,” “sometimes Reformed Christians forget that the church baptizes children of believers because of specific biblical commands to do so” (Acts 2:39; 16:31). “There is no parallel biblical command to bring children and whole households to the Lord’s table,” but the contrary requirements “to discern, remember, and proclaim Jesus Christ” in it.

The report observes that this is far from a “new{ issue in church history. Calvin on this point was not merely following tradition, but opposed Augustine with whom he usually agreed. “It is unfortunate that the majority report overlooks the one er a in church history when a significant segment of the Reformed churches did separate profession of faith from access to the sacraments,” the disastrous experience of the New England Puritan churches with the “Half-way Covenant.” They too were going to view the sacraments as “converting ordinances,” designed to create faith rather than only confirm it. Despite good intentions, this contributed to the decline of those churches which were soon “filled with nominal Christians.”

The report expresses its distress that the majority relies “on indirect evidence and theological conceptualization because the Bible does, in fact, give direct teaching regarding the role of the Lord’s Supper in the covenant.” It goes on to direct attention to Exodus 24 as an overlooked and “key passage for understanding the Lord’s Supper,” since this was cited by our Lord in instituting it, “This is my blood of the covenant.” “Any simplistic notion that somehow the Lord’s Supper is just a new version of the Passover . . . really ignores . . . Jesus’ own testimony when he instituted” it. It is the “new covenant in Christ’s blood” (pp. 9, 11). The majority (in trying to identify the Lord’s Supper with the Passover) “has not done justice to the discontinuities between Old Testament practice and New Testament fulfillment.” “The Bible never calls the Passover an atonement.” “When Jesus Christ came, he established a ‘new’ (Heb. 12:24) and ‘better’ (Heb. 7:22) covenant which replaced the Mosaic.” While the Passover and other Old Testament feasts “can illumine the meaning of the Lord’s Supper . . .” “the Passover cannot determine its practice.” “The apostle Paul never mentions the Passover while giving instruction regarding observance of the Lord’s Supper.” “Hebrews never once compares Jesus to the Passover lamb.” “The virtual equivalence . . . sometimes drawn between the Passover and the Lord’s Supper cannot be .maintained.” Against the motion that one needed to merely assent to whatever the church taught, the Reformation had to stress the need to know in whom and what we must believe (Romans 10:9). An “informed faith” and confession was necessary. Thus our Church Order came to stress that admission to the Supper must involve public profession of faith. The report raises a serious objection to the majority recommendations because “they set up a separate category for admitting church members to the Lord’s Supper, a category which apparently cannot be used for admitting others.” That must lead to real difficulties in evangelism, as well as other problems that will certainly arise in the confusion about who may and who may not participate in the Supper. Thus the report highlights the “weakness of separating profession of faith from admission to the Lord’s Supper and thus exempting children of church members from standards for admission to the Lord’s table which would continue to be applied to all other believers.” The committee would remind us that the only changes which will be truly helpful must be those supported by Scripture. It proposes 4 pastoral guidelines. These include (1) that admission of covenant children to the Lord’s Supper be on the Lord’s own conditions of faith that discerns, remembers and proclaims His body. (2) Consistories require a profession of faith on the part of all who partake. (3) Because the Bible establishes no specific age, covenant youth be encouraged to make a profession faith as soon as they show a faith that can discern, remember and proclaim the body of Christ. ( 4) This profession for admission to the Lord’s Supper is an expression of faith and not necessarily an acceptance of adult responsibilities in the church.

Some Conclusions

What will the synod do with these 2 reports? An inclination to favor change and “pluralism” may make the majority recommendations, despite their inherent contradictions look attractive. But consider some objections highlighted in the reports.

1. The clear teaching of especially 1 Cor. 11 that we must “remember” Christ, “discern” His body and “proclaim” His death in the Supper plainly forbid the innovation. 2. That Biblical teaching has been decisive for virtually all Reformed churches since the Reformation. 3. The majority proposes, to a greater or less degree, to let arguments from covenant membership of children of Christian families overrule the stated Biblical requirements. We may not let our speculations overrule God‘s Word. 4. The minority shows that the elaborate effort to equate the Supper with the Passover is invalid. The Lord said, “This is the new covenant in my blood.” 5. To argue that qualifications for baptism must also apply to the Supper ignores the Bible’s plain distinction between the two and its differing requirements for them. 6. The majority argument of the educational value of having children learn by participation (“We learn by doing, not doctrine”) is letting a mechanistic educational theory of child development overrule the Bible. 7. The reported disastrous experience of the Netherlands churches and that of the New England Puritans with such a “Half-Way Covenant” which promoted the apostasy of those churches, warn against it. 8. The majority’s suggestion of special classes to prevent children’s participation because it is “cute” or because of superstitious “magical” notions about it anticipates the kind of confusion it will encourage. 9. Trying to maintain two contradictory and discriminatory standards for participating in the Lord’s Supper in the same congregations must create hopeless disorder. 10. Such a discriminatory double standard must encourage a false dependence on baptism for salvation and prove to be a real obstacle to effective evangelism. The Bible knows no two ways of salvation (2 Cor. 5:20). 11. The proposed practice will eliminate what we have left of church discipline. 12. As the majority anticipates in recommending delay, accepting its recommendations will further divide our churches. PDJ