Paedo-Baptism Answers Communicant Membership

[Prolocutor Twisse]

I have recently been discussing with my pastor regarding the timing and requirements for communicant membership examinations and vows. After doing some minimal research in this area, it is apparent there is not a lot written as to what age or the requirements for a non-communicant member (a baptized covenant child) to be examined by the session for communicant membership. At my own congregation, we examine children at the age of 12 for communicant membership. Here are the specific questions asked each communicant member at their interview:

1. Do you acknowledge yourself to be a sinner in the sight of God justly deserving His displeasure, and without hope, except through His sovereign mercy?
2. Do you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and Savior of sinners, and do you receive and trust Him alone for salvation as He is offered in the Gospel?
3. Do you now resolve and promise in humble reliance upon the grace of the Holy Spirit, that you will endeavor to live as becomes the followers of Christ?
4. Do you promise to support the Church in its worship and work to the best of your ability?
5. Do you submit yourself to the government and discipline of the Church, and promise to study its purity and peace?

So, let me be specific with my questions:

1. Do you know of any Biblical or extrabiblical support for a certain age in which covenant children baptized in the church should be examined for communicant membership?
2. Is there any specific reason why a mature 7 year old (for example) could not become a communing member as long as he/she could adequately and proficiently demonstrate their knowledge and ascent to the above 5 questions?
3. Other than a credible confession of faith, the ability to examine one's self prior to the table, and adequate answers to the above questions, what does a communicant need to demonstrate prior to taking their communicant vows?
4. Should we hold our covenant children to a higher or different standard than we would hold a new convert to Christ who makes a credible confession of faith? Stated another way, if we simply require a new convert to make a credible confession of faith to be baptized and to receive the Lord's Supper, should we require the same or more from our covenant children seeking to becoming communicant members?
5. Finally, any resource suggestions on this topic would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks a ton,

Jordan

 

[jwithnell]

The scriptures appear mute on the point, aside from the Jewish custom of seeing the transition to manhood at around age 13. As you've noted, the BOCA does not give an age. (I'm not sure if you were quoting OPC or PCA.) That means the local session has latitude. I've seen some reason that the Lord's Table is a means of grace and that children should be admitted as young as they can possibly express faith. I've seen others show concern for the real judment involved in not properly discerning Christ in the ordinance and push for a near-adult age before examing a young person for communicant membership. In any case, I believe it is essential that churches not have a set age (all 12-year olds). This can lead to a presumption of faith which is quite dangerous in my view.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

1. Do you know of any Biblical or extrabiblical support for a certain age in which covenant children baptized in the church should be examined for communicant membership?
2. Is there any specific reason why a mature 7 year old (for example) could not become a communing member as long as he/she could adequately and proficiently demonstrate their knowledge and ascent to the above 5 questions?
3. Other than a credible confession of faith, the ability to examine one's self prior to the table, and adequate answers to the above questions, what does a communicant need to demonstrate prior to taking their communicant vows?
4. Should we hold our covenant children to a higher or different standard than we would hold a new convert to Christ who makes a credible confession of faith? Stated another way, if we simply require a new convert to make a credible confession of faith to be baptized and to receive the Lord's Supper, should we require the same or more from our covenant children seeking to becoming communicant members?
5. Finally, any resource suggestions on this topic would be greatly appreciated.

1. What I gather from the OC precursor, is that a) a period of catechesis is required to teach the faith that is to be confessed and exhibited; and b) the assumption of the right to partake fully in the religious life of the covenant community was a measure of adulthood. Jesus' examination by the elders in Jerusalem clearly demonstrated his unearthly learning in the faith, however he came by it; and also that he was ready for the demands of attendance 3X a year at all the required feasts by the adult Jewish male. If he had the mature knowledge even before age 12, he still abode by the community standards and waited. But after he turned 13yrs, he was regarded as an adult.

So, is a 7yr old an adult? Is she an adult in spiritual terms? Could we tell if she was? Is the 7yr old capable of an intelligent vote on congregational matters that require it? Will she vote on the budget? On calling a minister? Or a deacon? Being a communicant member means not just privilege, but also duty. When should she volunteer for the custodial committee?

2. Are there 7yr olds who can answer spiritual questions better than a 37yr old new convert? Probably, but is the ability to respond accurately or completely the measure of maturity called for? And honestly, the 7yr old is only going to grasp the faith with a 7yr old's span of awareness. At this moment in his/her life, the child is in the "parrot" stage of learning. The head is getting stuffed with a plethora of facts, and regurgitating them is frequently made into the fun part of learning. But real appreciation for the intricacies of the connections of those facts has only just begun to happen.

We're justifiably proud of a 7yr old who presents precociously; but that is not maturity. And mistaking it for maturity is like giving the car keys to a 7yr old, because he can read the road signs, knows the lanes, and can reach the pedals.

3. I dare not answer for every 7yr old, but can 1/100 give believable assent to the 3/4/5th vows? If you have a highly compliant child, you can probably believe he means it when he says he wants to believe and obey whatever he's told. Even those who present behavioral or attitudinal challenges will often be sincere about being willing to conform under strict supervision. It's the pressure of external control that helps him govern his impulses. Maturity is about self-control. And what is "self-examination" really about? "Did I get in trouble a lot this week?" "Did I grow a spiritual millimeter this week?" How capable is that young child of assessing his own spiritual condition? He can hardly assess his own physical condition or his own educational/mental condition!

Trying to get a child to partake of the Supper by manducation as soon as it seems feasible is not a wise course of action. It is (oddly) impatient and immature on the part of elders and parents who should know, and care, better. Inevitably, it lowers expectations for what constitutes maturity of faith. "Answers really well for a 7yr old! Better than some 10yr olds!"

4. I think expecting someone with a church-upbringing, or even more a Reformed-church upbringing, to meet a higher standard of admittance to the Supper than a more recent convert is in no way unreasonable. It is the new member or convert who lacks the vocabulary the covenant child grew up with, who may need allowances, and a charitable hearing. It is loving to maintain high demands for our covenant youth. Now, I don't know what other congregations do for their practice of new members, but in our congregation the new members and the covenant-youth all get the same instruction before they come to the Lord's Table. Both sorts have to take a "new member/ communicant member" class with the same content. In that sense, our aim is to have either sort come to the Table at more-or-less the same level.

So, around here I don't see much difference in how we treat new converts or covenant youth. The biggest difference is that the covenant youth have already been participating in the Supper for years and years when they first participate by manducation. The new convert may have only been to one or two or ten Suppers, when they participated simply by observation and inwardly, before they fully engage by the mouth, seated (as it were) at the Table with a plate.

***************************

I think a serious answer to the following question should be sought from any who advocate "early communion." What specifically do you imagine is gained by not waiting for the covenant child to enter an obviously more naturally and spiritually mature state? That supposed advantage should be clearly spelled out, and objections to the proposal answered.

In our society--even if one regards it as dumbed-down and marked by a retarded development of our youth toward adulthood generally--adulthood is not granted (in law) before 18yrs. That's 5yrs beyond the standard in Jesus' day. Driving licenses are generally granted at 15 or 16yrs. Drinking age everywhere is now 21yrs. Lots of people recognize that the push for lowering the voting age to 16yrs is an effort by certain factions to attract a fresh influx of immature voters who are easily manipulated.

Most churches think their children should be coming to the supper ideally between 13-16yrs. This translates roughly to the H.S. period. H.S. is mandatory today, when in time past once a farmer's child had the 3Rs, he might be done with the classroom. Kids still grew up fast about 100yrs ago. Culturally, then, through the very air around us children get the message that they are still growing up until they are approaching H.S. graduation. Delayed adolescence through collegiate enabling is further slowing that maturation process. Are we in the church really moving (not just standing!) against that tide, and lowering the age of maturity in our circles?

 

[Edward]

Having a fixed age would seem to invite problems. Our church offers catechism classes for middle school and high school students. So those admitted to the table are generally going to range from 12 to 18 years old, and there is less pressure to join at a certain age.

As to a seven year old, the session should probably generally respond with a polite 'no', and then concentrate on whether there are issues with the parents which need to be addressed.

 

[Jack K]

Here are the specific questions asked each communicant member at their interview:

The questions you cited are the ones to be asked formally and publicly when someone professes faith in front of a PCA congregation. Certainly, someone should be going over those questions beforehand with a kid who is about to take those vows. But I would hope that in their private interviews with the elders, the young people in your church face less formal questioning, and that the elders feel free to deviate from that script. One of their jobs is to shepherd the child, and reading from a script is seldom the best way to do that.

Especially for a kid who is on the young side of the spectrum, one good question to ask during elder interviews is, "Do you think you're old enough to be taking these vows, and why, and do your parents agree?" I've been in more than one interview where that question revealed that the kid felt pressure due to his age to take the vows, which is not is not a reason we wanted to hear.

Having a set age where full membership is expected is a bad idea because it creates pressure or worry, and can lead to false vows or vows made because "it's the thing to do." I always tell kids there's no right age, only a right attitude, and God brings that at very different times in different people's lives. Sometimes I have seen the pressure lifted from a kid's face when I say that. When counselling a kid in a Baptist context I might be inclined to nudge them to take that step at a younger age, because I believe a kid who's being discipled ought to be a baptized kid. But in a Presbyterian context there's little reason to hurry things. It ought to mark a transition to adulthood, which is seldom appropriate in the elementary years, and often not for several years after.

 

[Prolocutor Twisse]

First, I fear that perhaps some reading this think I have Federal Vision leanings. I do not.

Second, I was unclear about my own churches practice. We do not require that every 12 year old undergo a communicant membership class and make a public profession before the congregation. 12 years old is simply the age in which the Session begins to think about and encourage children to think through these things more thoroughly as this is the age the Session believes that children are beginning to mature to participate in the life of the church and to examine oneself prior to the Table. There is no pressure from the congregation or the Session to "force" a profession of faith at 12. I agree with all the comments here stating that would be a very unwise practice.

Third, perhaps a little more background may be helpful. I grew up in a Southern Baptist church. My experiences as a child were often pressured and I always felt the need to "ask Jesus into my heart". I did that at the age of 10 years old. At the time, I truly believe that I was converted, that I recognized my state as a sinner, and ultimately believed that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and had come to seek and save sinners like me. I took the Lord's Supper and was baptized that same Sunday after making my profession of faith. It was a wonderful occasion.

Now, that being said. I would like to ask the question, was I parroting answers from what I had hear my parens say? Was I parroting answers from my pastor? The answer is a resounding yes. Does that make my faith at 10 less genuine than a 25 year old who parrots the same answers he heard from his pastor or parents? I don't believe so. At the age of 10 could I explain my reason for my faith as well as I can now? No I could not. But does that make my child like faith less valid simply because I cannot appreciate the intricacies of the faith to extent of someone with a seminary degree or someone who has grown in the faith for 60 years?

Ultimately, if we follow to its logical conclusion the idea of a 7 year old parroting information coupled w/ the immaturity to partake in the life of the church (e.g. calling ministering, voting on budget, participating in church votes), then we have to say that a 12 or a 13 or a 16 year old for that matter probably shouldn't be involved in those matters either based on your previous comments about delayed adulthood and delayed maturity within our society. So I ask, would it not be better that we wait until the children leave our homes and have their faith personally tested as so many of us have in our early twenties? Wouldn't that be a more consistent time to invite them to the table after their faith has matured, grown, and been tested?

Fourth, is there any biblical evidence (other than Jesus examination by the Elders at the Temple at the age of 12) for communicant membership? Or is this simply something we do from good and necessary consequence and sound biblical wisdom? I'm not trying to be confrontational here, I'm truly asking as a lay-person if there is any evidence or scriptural support for this idea of waiting until a child is "mature" enough to make a valid expression of faith?

Fifth, Q: "What specifically do you imagine is gained by not waiting for the covenant child to enter an obviously more naturally and spiritually mature state?"
A: I will simply ask you to clarify what you mean by more naturally and spiritually mature state? Do you mean naturally mature as related to human age? How mature must a child be in their spirituality? What fruit of spiritual maturity does a child need to demonstrate to be mature enough to become a communicant member? You said your church requires new converts and communicants to take the same class, what does this class entail and what do they need to demonstrate at the end of the class to take their vows? Once I have a better understanding of those things, I think I could answer your question more thoughtfully.

 

[Prolocutor Twisse]

I did want to pass this along from the OPC "Ordained Servant". I think it is an interesting read regarding the nature and relationship of Covenant Baptized Children to the church.

I would also recommend reading the most recent addition of "The Confessional Presbyterian" regarding the article by CN Willborn "A Children's Book about God's Hesed: T.D. Witherspoon's Children of the Covenant". Both the article by Willborn and the book by Witherspoon are wonderful reads.

 

[Grant]

scriptural support for this idea of waiting until a child is "mature" enough to make a valid expression of faith?

Yes there is scriptural support. The same scriptures are not just for a “child”, but more broadly for anyone desiring to sit at the table. For the Lord’s Supper we (communing members) must be able to examine “ourselves” according to the fencing given before EVERY observance of the Lord's Supper. See the scripture references from the chapter of the Westminster Confession of the LS.

I think waiting and beginning examinations at 12 and up is solid (as others have said), so long as we do not make a culture of it "MUST" happen at 12 in our congregations. We should not put in place some automatic "turn 12 and your in" format. However, I see no issue with a session deciding to begin a more formal type of training or counseling at that age. Of course there are always special cases, but that does not negate the wisdom of general guidelines.

After discerning if this person exhibits a form of maturity and a serious mood towards sin (determined by the local session), I think below are things to consider, regarding if the person can give honest reflection on:

1. Reflecting on if one has unrepentant sin. Including reflecting on if you may have “beef” with another brother/sister in the faith family. This is important because a huge aspect of the Lord’s Supper is unity and oneness within the body.

2 Being mature enough to recognize when abstaining is appropriate (this one is very important).

 

[Contra_Mundum]

To Jordan,
Perhaps your session is fine with taking an interview with a covenant child, who has not had "specific preparation" (i.e. a class) for joining. I don't think it's absolutely necessary; I myself did not so take a class growing up. I was able to make a credible profession of faith near my 14th birthday. My sister who was nearly her 11th was examined and received at the same time. We had recently returned from the mission field, where becoming a communicant church member was not simple in our situation. However, when it is required, there is no question (or distinction) in what the adult/communicant membership instruction comprises.

I don't think comparing your Baptist-youth experience is as good an analogy as you seem to. That's a difference of opinion and of no consequence. However, I do think that there is a difference between what a Baptist elder board thinks "discerning the body" means, and what a Presbyterian session thinks it means. You were making a credible profession of faith, as a 10yr old, with 10yr old sentiments. In the Baptist church, that's what constitutes whatever it means to come with sufficient knowledge to the Supper. Baptism implies access to the Table in that system. But that not "mapped" to the covenant-youth's communicant declaration in Presbyterianism. I can have a 5yr old Presbyterian church member give me a 5yr old's credible profession, but he's not ready for the Table.

Child-like faith is not the criteria for Table fellowship. Child-like faith was good and necessary in ancient Israel, too. It was not, however, sufficient for sacrificial feasting. Necessary, but not sufficient criteria. The session doesn't need to have you get a seminary degree to take the L.S. The State doesn't require you to have a NASCAR certification to drive a passenger car on the public streets. But you need to be able to do more than to reach the pedals and know the brake from the gas. It is the session's job (yes it is a matter of discernment) to determine if it is SAFE and WISE for someone to sit down to the Lord's Supper. If a 25yr old or a 55yr old cannot be regarded as safe behind the wheel, he shouldn't be awarded a D.L. That judgment may be entirely distinct from whether that individual can quote the rules of the road forward and back.

I don't know what you are prepared to accept as evidence, if a Scriptural example is insufficient. You say, "except for Jesus' elder exam," then ask if there's "any" evidence. Why are you bracketing the clearest example in the Bible? But here's one more item. To participate in the sacrifices of the altar, whether occasionally or at the appointed feasts, the participant had to be ceremonially clean, no exceptions. This is a condition that required, that demanded an individual be cognizant of 1) what ceremonial cleanness was, 2) how to gain the status, 3) how to avoid losing the status for the sake of participating in the religious rituals. It involved a personal assessment or judgment; as well, it could involve an ecclesiastical judgment. There was also the possibility that someone else' judgment could affect a related individual, or that one individual's unclean-status could impact someone else, even retroactively. All of these issues would need to be understood and followed to the letter, if an Israelite would avoid being "cut off from his people," Lev.7:19-21. Farming out assessment of your own clean-state was not an option.

The stakes are not lowered in the NC, they are raised. The ritual demands of the NC are far fewer, but for that reason the ones that remain compel the highest adherence to the standards set for them. Circumcision was not enough cleanness to admit one to the feasts; it was only the first necessary condition. The intricate rigamarole of ceremonial cleansing has been done away, and in its place is a strict requirement that a man "examine himself," that he may eat and drink in a "worthy manner," and avoid calling "judgment on himself," for failing to "discern the Lord's body." "Judge yourself" in order to avoid "judgment." Since such a failure is liable to such severe "judgment/chastisement" as may issue in "sickness and death," and since it is required of them who administer and serve the Supper that they "give an account" as "watchers of souls," it stand to reason that they have a duty to make sure the individual participant at the Table has sufficient maturity to conduct himself properly before, during, and after the Supper. (WLC 171, 174, 175)

 

[alexandermsmith]

In my denomination I think the youngest that would generally be considered appropriate to seek admittance to the Lord's Supper would be the latter teenage years. There's no rule, but that's the impression I get.

Our sessions examine prospective communicants on their doctrinal knowledge and their spiritual experience, being asked to give (in the language of the old Scottish men) an accredited profession of faith. So it wouldn't be enough to exhibit even a very thorough knowledge of doctrine, the applicant would need to be able to demonstrate evidences of spiritual life and to give an account of the Lord's dealings with him.

The Shorter Catechism is the basis for questions on doctrine, but the elders are not restricted to this alone and they would also seek evidence that the applicant truly understands the teaching of the catechism and isn't just parroting it.

All this is a general approach and there can be different empahses with different applicants. But with every applicant knowledge of doctrine and evidence of spiritual life would be sought.

I think the point made above as to our society's threshold of adulthood is important. In the past adulthood often came upon children earlier than today. But was there a large number of children/teenagers becoming communicant members accompanying this? It would appear that it was, even in the times of Edwards, an exceptional occurrence for a child to exhibit conversion. And I don't know: was Phoebe Bartlett admitted to membership at the time of her experiences? I understand she would go on to live a life evidencing true Christian faith, but that doesn't mean it would have been wise to admit at age 4 (assuming she was truly converted then).

 

[Prolocutor Twisse]

To Jordan,
Perhaps your session is fine with taking an interview with a covenant child, who has not had "specific preparation" (i.e. a class) for joining. I don't think it's absolutely necessary; I myself did not so take a class growing up. I was able to make a credible profession of faith near my 14th birthday. My sister who was nearly her 11th was examined and received at the same time. We had recently returned from the mission field, where becoming a communicant church member was not simple in our situation. However, when it is required, there is no question (or distinction) in what the adult/communicant membership instruction comprises.

I don't think comparing your Baptist-youth experience is as good an analogy as you seem to. That's a difference of opinion and of no consequence. However, I do think that there is a difference between what a Baptist elder board thinks "discerning the body" means, and what a Presbyterian session thinks it means. You were making a credible profession of faith, as a 10yr old, with 10yr old sentiments. In the Baptist church, that's what constitutes whatever it means to come with sufficient knowledge to the Supper. Baptism implies access to the Table in that system. But that not "mapped" to the covenant-youth's communicant declaration in Presbyterianism. I can have a 5yr old Presbyterian church member give me a 5yr old's credible profession, but he's not ready for the Table.

Child-like faith is not the criteria for Table fellowship. Child-like faith was good and necessary in ancient Israel, too. It was not, however, sufficient for sacrificial feasting. Necessary, but not sufficient criteria. The session doesn't need to have you get a seminary degree to take the L.S. The State doesn't require you to have a NASCAR certification to drive a passenger car on the public streets. But you need to be able to do more than to reach the pedals and know the brake from the gas. It is the session's job (yes it is a matter of discernment) to determine if it is SAFE and WISE for someone to sit down to the Lord's Supper. If a 25yr old or a 55yr old cannot be regarded as safe behind the wheel, he shouldn't be awarded a D.L. That judgment may be entirely distinct from whether that individual can quote the rules of the road forward and back.

I don't know what you are prepared to accept as evidence, if a Scriptural example is insufficient. You say, "except for Jesus' elder exam," then ask if there's "any" evidence. Why are you bracketing the clearest example in the Bible? But here's one more item. To participate in the sacrifices of the altar, whether occasionally or at the appointed feasts, the participant had to be ceremonially clean, no exceptions. This is a condition that required, that demanded an individual be cognizant of 1) what ceremonial cleanness was, 2) how to gain the status, 3) how to avoid losing the status for the sake of participating in the religious rituals. It involved a personal assessment or judgment; as well, it could involve an ecclesiastical judgment. There was also the possibility that someone else' judgment could affect a related individual, or that one individual's unclean-status could impact someone else, even retroactively. All of these issues would need to be understood and followed to the letter, if an Israelite would avoid being "cut off from his people," Lev.7:19-21. Farming out assessment of your own clean-state was not an option.

The stakes are not lowered in the NC, they are raised. The ritual demands of the NC are far fewer, but for that reason the ones that remain compel the highest adherence to the standards set for them. Circumcision was not enough cleanness to admit one to the feasts; it was only the first necessary condition. The intricate rigamarole of ceremonial cleansing has been done away, and in its place is a strict requirement that a man "examine himself," that he may eat and drink in a "worthy manner," and avoid calling "judgment on himself," for failing to "discern the Lord's body." "Judge yourself" in order to avoid "judgment." Since such a failure is liable to such severe "judgment/chastisement" as may issue in "sickness and death," and since it is required of them who administer and serve the Supper that they "give an account" as "watchers of souls," it stand to reason that they have a duty to make sure the individual participant at the Table has sufficient maturity to conduct himself properly before, during, and after the Supper. (WLC 171, 174, 175)

This is really helpful, as all the above answers have been. Thank you brothers and sisters for helping me think through this issue. I'm not trying to say I have all or any of the answers on this, I'm just trying to think through it Biblically. You all have faithfully helped me do that and I am grateful.

In regard to the Luke 2 passage, it is not that I am not willing to accept this as scriptural support, I was simply asking if there is any other scriptural support. I think the examples you have given above are incredibly helpful.

Thanks again.

-Jordan