In the past the practice in the CRC has been that baptized members were admitted to the Lord’s Supper upon a public profession of their faith. Normally, such a profession was not made before the latter years of high school. In 1988, synod gave encouragement to the churches that younger children should be admitted to the Lord’s Supper by way of profession of faith. Synod said, “Covenant children should be encouraged to make public profession of faith as soon as they exhibit faith and are able to discern the body and remember and proclaim the death of Jesus in celebrating the Lord’s Supper.” And then it added, “Since the Bible establishes no specific age requirement, the common practice of delaying profession of faith even though faith is present has no biblical warrant.” (Acts ofSynod 1988, Art.74, page 559). In 1995, synod re-affirmed and strengthened this approach.
In 2006, in response to an overture, synod allowed “for the admission of all baptized members to the Lord’s Supper on the basis of their full membership in the covenant community” (Acts of Synod 2006, Art.71, page 730). However, because this decision involved a major policy change, it required a ratification by the following synod before it could become official.
Since Synod 2007 did notratify this decision of 2006 it did not take effect. Instead, synod created the Faith Formation Committee to guide the denomination through this issue.
The Faith Formation Committee formulated this principle (which was adopted by Synod 2010 and ratified as a Church Order revision by Synod 2011):
“All baptized members are welcome to the Lord’s Supper for age- and ability-appropriate faith and obedience to biblical commands about participation, under the supervision of the elders. The elders have responsibility to nurture grateful and obedient participation by providing encouragement, instruction, and accountability in the congregation. Requiring a formal public profession of faith prior to participation in the Lord’s Supper is one pastoral approach to consider, but is not required by Scripture or the confessions.”
The following appears in the Acts of Synod 2011, Article 36:
This phrase attempts to put into words a reality that the church has practiced since its beginning: each of us is called to walk with the Lord in a manner that is appropriate to our developmental stage in life and our ability. In other words, should we not view the imperatives regarding participation in the Lord’s Supper as we do with all the life-giving imperatives throughout scripture, as something that all God’s children should obey in an age- and ability-appropriate way? Just as we encourage very young children to begin obeying commands to pray to God and to not steal or lie, so too, we invite young children to engage in age- and ability-appropriate ways of participating at the Lord’s Table.
This “age- and ability-appropriate” argument is already practiced by the church. We gratefully observe that congregations regularly welcome baptized persons with cognitive disabilities to the table as members of the covenant who participate according to their ability. Further, the church regularly welcomes persons with dementia to the table, long after they have the capacity they once did to examine themselves and discern the body. It welcomes them to obey “in an ability-appropriate” way.
This position challenges the notion that children are not capable of self-examination and discernment. Even very young children engage in the practices commended in 1 Cor. 11, as they express with heartfelt sincerity “I’m sorry,” “I love Jesus,” “this is God’s family,” “this is God’s feast.” Like all professing adults who express these same sentiments, they will not understand them fully, and they may not hold to them consistently throughout their life. But as with professing adults, we see no reason why the church should not welcome and nurture their age- and ability-appropriate participation, as well as commit to their ongoing nurture, education, and accountability.
This principle challenges an over-emphasis on cognitive understanding. Our ability to reason is a great gift from God. But participation in the Lord’s Supper should never be limited to thinking about what we are doing, even as we generously invite each participant to greater learning over time.
Second, we would respectfully note that none of us can comprehend the depths of the mystery of the Lord’s Supper. As adult believers, it is appropriate for us to realize that the difference between a young child and a mature adult pales in significance with the depth of this mystery.
Third, an approach that advocates participation in an “ability-appropriate” way necessarily entails that we challenge children to grow in their understanding. Rather than setting aside the value of learning and pursuing cognitive understanding, it actually reinforces it, calling on Christians to grow in knowledge and depth of participation throughout our lives. Indeed, this “age-appropriate” and “ability-appropriate” consideration also mitigates another pastoral challenge—the fact that some lifelong members either passively or actively resist growth in their walk with God and their participation in the Lord’s Supper over the course of their life.
In sum, “age- and ability- appropriate participation” should be not considered merely a way of “lowering the bar” for young children, persons with dementia, or persons with cognitive disabilities. Rather, it “sets the bar” for every believer in ways that fit with their own age and capacity.
When a baptized member of the CRC makes a formal profession of faith, he or she makes three commitments: to surrender his or her life to Jesus, to accept the teachings of the Christian Reformed denomination, and to become an active participantin the life of the local church. We believe it is good for members to make such a three-part commitment, but Scripture does not link that kind of commitment with admission to the table. The Christian Reformed practice of requiring morethan the Scriptures do for admittance to the table can have the effect of communicating that one must earnthe right to come to the table, and this undermines the Lord’s gift of the table as a means of grace.
This fear has frequently been expressed. It arises primarily from the concern that if Profession of Faith receives its significance from the fact that it grants one the right to come to the Lord’s Table, then it potentially loses its significance if children may come to the table on the basis of their baptism or at any time prior to their public Profession of Faith. If not handled wisely, this problem could occur.
However, the Faith Formation Committee believes that with wise implementation, this change will strengthen the role of public Profession of Faith in the life of the congregation. The church has always taught that the Bible tells us that our profession of our faith has a far greater significance than to be a gateway to the table. Through our profession we declare to God, our fellow believers, and the world that we “confess with our mouth that ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe with our heart that God raised him from the dead” (Romans 10:9) for our salvation.
The church has also given consideration to the fact that even if young children come to the Table of the Lord, we should still “devise an appropriate means for securing a commitment to the creeds of the Christian Reformed Church and to the responsibilities of adult membership in the local congregation from confessing members who, having attained the age of 18, have not yet made such a commitment.” (Acts of Synod 1995, Art. 69, page 720). This concern addressed by the 1995 synod tacitly acknowledges that many congregations will seek evidence of faith in the child who comes to the table, but they should also affirm the three commitments implicit in a public Profession of Faith: surrender to Jesus, commitment to the Reformed creeds and confessions, and commitment to participation in the life of the church. Because the 1995 decision did not distinguish the simple profession of the child from the more mature three-part profession, children who came to the table did not need to make a public profession of faith during their teen years. It is our hope that by distinguishing the invitation to the table from the public profession of faith, congregations will be free to develop robust Profession of Faith programs for adolescent members who are participating at the table.
For generations the Christian Reformed church has used its preparatory communion forms to teach that mature self-examination is a prerequisite for participation, and this teaching was based on 1 Cor. 11. Quotes from this chapter appear in our communion forms as follows: “Beloved in Jesus Christ, since we hope next Lord’s day to celebrate the blessed sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, we are called to prepare our hearts by rightly examining ourselves. For the apostle Paul has written: ‘Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup’ (1 Cor. 11: 27-28).” According to this interpretation and application, children who are not mature enough to conduct such self-examination may not participate.
The force of generations of repetition has left the impression that this is the only proper interpretation of this passage. But a careful reading of the context suggests that another interpretation is also worth pursuing. The context tells us that:
When we note this context, the verse that follows the two verses used in the CRC preparatory form takes on profound meaning: “For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself” (vs. 29). The phrase “body of the Lord” points us in two directions: (1) the body of the Lord who died for us, calling us to personal examination concerning our walk with the Lord [as the form does], (2) the body of the Lord as the community of believers [as the metaphor is used in ch. 10:17 and ch. 12], calling us to corporate examination concerning our spiritual health as a community.
Some commentators observe that this text should take us in this second, communal direction, and ask questions such as, “Are we truly a Christian community that includes all members?” “In what ways are we saying to certain members, ‘We don’t need you,’ (12: 21)?” “Who are the contemporary equivalents of the Grecian widows who are being overlooked (Acts 6: 1)?”
This second communal direction in which 1 Cor. 11 takes us challenges us also to ask the question, “If we prevent children from participating in communion, are we guilty of not recognizing the body of the Lord?” Though the answer to this question is not immediately clear, the passage does properly challenge us to explore the question.
Many Reformed denominations are engaged in conversations about this subject at this time. The following give us a picture of the landscape of the churches and their positions on this matter.
The Heidelberg Catechism, Q/A 81 and 82, and Belgic Confession of Faith, Art. 35 are the portions that most directly address this practice. Professor Lyle Bierma of Calvin Theological Seminary acknowledges that at first glance, these portions of the confessions appear to prohibit the entrance of children to the Lord’s Table. But he goes on to say that if we study them more carefully and consider their intent, we must admit that the confessions were concerned about something other than admitting children to the Lord’s Table. They were concerned not so much about children but about fencing the table against the ungodly and unrepentant who were mature enough to believe but willfully refused to do so. In addition, the confessions suggest that both of the sacraments are a sign and seal of the promises of God (that is, receiving the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit) to the whole covenant community (Heidelberg Catechism, Q/A 74, 61).
Therefore it is possible to read the confessions in either way. We must admit, however, that our traditional interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 seems to be written into the confessions, and has steered us in our interpretation of the confessions.
In two ways. First, elders are called to discern what implications this new principle has for communion practices in their congregation. This discernment may take place in consultation with the consistory, the council, a committee that is established to focus on this, and/or the entire congregation. This discernment may lead to an affirmation of existing practices (see next question) or a revision of these practices.
Second, the elders are called to oversee the proper implementation of the congregation’s communion practices, and to provide the necessary guidance and resources for all who have responsibilities for such implementation (see question 10).
No, it does not mean this. The new principle encompasses a wide variety of practices. It would be wise for each congregation to assess its current practices in light of this new principle, and discern together if its current practices represent the wisest manner of encouraging the faith formation of all members through the celebration of communion or if changes to these practices are called for.
Parental responsibility flows from the commitment made in the baptismal vows “to do all in your power to instruct this child in the Christian faith and to lead her by your example to be Christ’s disciple.” The more specific responsibility will depend on the type of communion practice exercised by the local congregation. The congregation that allows parents to decide when their children are ready to come to the table will give them guidance and resources for making such a decision and preparing their children properly. All congregations are called to equip parents to guide their children towards meaningful participation in church life, including participation in the sacraments.
Faith Alive Christian Resources and other ministries provide very helpful material on this subject. Their materials include, but are not limited to:
Though it is often easy for many folks to assume that the difference between the two is not great, the fact of the matter is—the difference is substantial!
Infant dedication is usually understood to be an act of parentsby which they make their personal commitment to train this child in the ways of the Lord and ask for the blessing of both the Lord and the Christian community.
Infant baptism, on the other hand, is an act of the church through which God extends to the childthe sign and seal of his covenant promises to be his/her God. This promise is extended through the water of baptism. After God has spoken through the baptism and has given the child the sign of his promise, the parents respond with the dedication of their child to God and the commitment train the child in the ways of the Lord and the church responds with a promise of support and encouragement.
Thus, in infant dedication the parents act, in baptism God acts first and parents respond.
The Christian Reformed Church has always been committed to the sacrament of infant baptism as a sign of God’s covenant relationship with the children of believers. The Heidelberg Catechism (Lord’s Day 27, Q/A 74) expresses the confession of the CRC very clearly on this matter.
In 2007, synod received an overture requesting that it appoint a committee to “study the growing practice of infant dedication and the practice of infant dedication.” Synod did not agree to this overture, and instead affirmed “the church’s commitment to the practice of covenant baptism” and “discouraged the practice of infant dedication” (Acts of Synod 2007, Article 71, page 659). In making this reaffirmation of the church’s commitment to infant baptism synod said, “The practice of infant dedication can never replace the beauty of the expression of God’s covenant grace communicated in the sacrament of baptizing infants.” And “the practice of baptizing infants is the normative practice prescribed by the Reformed Confessions (HC Q. and A. 74; BC Art.34; and Church Order Art.56.).”
Synod 2007 placed this topic on our agenda by affirming its commitment to infant baptism, strongly discouraging the practice of infant dedication, and asking the Faith Formation Committee to provide biblical and pastoral guidance for councils who are conversing with those members who are requesting infant dedication in place of infant baptism (see Acts of Synod 2007, p. 621). For the full response of the Faith Formation Committee to Synod’s request, see Agenda for Synod 2011, p. 612.