Outer Rim Territories

This is a copy of the final paper written for Theologia:Baptism last spring. This paper is an attempt to give a comprehensive overview of confirmation history, issues, and resolutions. Dr. Just graded this very favorably so I will pass it on to you. Enjoy.

PDF Format:Confirmation

——————–

Confirmation : Theology and Practice for Today’s Lutheran

Christopher Gillespie
V.12.2006
Theologia I : Baptism
Dr. Arthur A. Just

Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are intimately connected. For confirmation and first communion within the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, this connection is at the hip of the rite of confirmation. The rite of confirmation typically comes at 7th and 8th grades, thirteen years after the infant’s baptism. For adults, Baptism and Confirmation are integrated and are entrance into the church and acceptance to the Sacrament of the Altar. The use of Confirmation in the church has many historical foundations but also widely divergent and varied practices. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the historicity and theology of the LC-MS practice on Confirmation and offer an assessment of its state.

History of Confirmation

Confirmation was an integrated part of the rite of Baptism through the fifth century A.D. Generally, adults would undergo three years of intense catechesis and would be baptized at the Easter vigil. They were “confirmed” into this baptismal faith by means of a chrism (scented oil). On Easter morning they were “confirmed” by the congregation when presented by the Bishop before the altar and recognized as baptized by them. They were then allowed to receive their first communion.

After the legalization by Constantine of Christianity, the popularity of infant baptism increased dramatically. The task of baptizing as well as “confirming” was now given to the local parish priests as the Bishop could no longer be a part of every baptism. Under the Roman rite, confirmation became separate of baptism so that Bishop-blessed chrism could be used. Over time confirmation became a complement to Baptism and not an integral part of it.

In the 12th century, Hugh of St. Victor was willing to consider it a second sacrament. In 1439 the Council of Florence declared confirmation a sacrament by the papal decree of Eugene IV. Now a part of the Roman sacramental system, confirmation conferred grace, was equal to the other sacraments, must be conferred by a bishop, and operated ex opera operato, that is, without the power of the bishop.

Confirmation was subject in in the minds of the reformers. Luther at different times called it monkey business (affenspiel), fanciful deception (lügenstand), and mumbo-jumbo (gaukelwerk). According to Luther confirmation: lacked the command and promise of God; had no Scriptural basis; used by the Romanists to deny the gift of the Holy Spirit in Baptism, instead placing the gift within the chrism and laying on of hands; and Romanists suggested confirmation “completed” baptism.

Luther critically viewed confirmation and only denied it as the was the practice of Rome. He addresses the sacraments in his work On the Babylonian Captivity:

But instead of this we seek sacraments that have been divinely instituted, and among these we see no reason for numbering confirmation. For to constitute a sacrament there must be above all things else a word of divine promise, by which faith may be exercised. But we read nowhere that Christ ever gave a promise concerning confirmation, although he laid hands on many and included the laying on of hands among the signs in the last chapter of Mark [16:18]: “They will lay their hands on the sick; and they will recover.” Yet no one has applied this to a sacrament, for that is not possible.
For this reason it is sufficient to regard confirmation as a certain churchly rite or sacramental ceremony, similar to other ceremonies, such as the blessing of water and the like. For if every other creature is sanctified by the Word and by prayer [I Tim. 4:4–5], why should not man much rather be sanctified by the same means? Still, these things cannot be called sacraments of faith, because they have no divine promise connected with them, neither do they save; but the sacraments do save those who believe the divine promise.1

In the Augsburg Confession, Melancthon and the confessors addressed confirmation. “Confirmation and extreme unction are rites inherited from the Fathers, which even the church does not require as necessary to salvation, since they lack the command of God. Hence it is useful to distinguish these rites from the previous ones [baptism, Lord’s Supper, absolution], which have the expressed command of God and a clear promise of grace.”2 Later, Melancthon provides a solid historical purpose for the rite of Confirmation but is not as kind in regards to its practice. “In days gone by they used to have an examination of the teaching in which individuals recited a summary of the doctrine and showed that they dissented from the heathen and the heretics; and there was also the very useful practice of instructing people in how to distinguish between the profane and the godly. Afterwards there was public prayer and the apostles laid hands on them. Thus they were given manifest gifts of the Holy Spirit. But in our day the rite of confirmation, which the bishops keep for themselves, is an absolutely useless ceremony. But it would be useful to have examination and profession of teaching and public prayer for the godly, nor would that prayer be in vain.”3

A lengthy treatment on Confirmation is given by Martin Chemnitz in his Examination of the Council of Trent. Some examples of his treatment are:

“The principal point of this controversy is the manner in which they speak of the efficacy of this confirmation of theirs. This entire dispute cannot be set forth more briefly nor be more rightly understood than if it is considered that in their teaching there is a constant antithesis between Baptism and confirmation, so that whatever effects are ascribed to confirmation are by that very fact denied to or taken away from Baptism. In what way and for what reason they suppose the sacrament of confirmation to be more excellent, worthier, and greater, so that it is to be venerated and held in greater reverence (for these are their own words) than Baptism itself, they take in part from the nature of the minister by whom it is performed or administered, who must be a bishop. But chiefly they take it from the effects, which are superior to those of Baptism itself…”4

Different types of confirmation and catechetical study became common within the Reformation period which include catechetical, hierarchical, sacramental, and traditional to the Roman rite. The early Lutherans understood that confirmation was not a sacrament, instruction must be given before first communion, and there was a connection between baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Under German law, first communion was at age 12. The Roman canon place it between ages 7-12.

Orthodoxy, Pietism and Rationalism

Under the orthodox Lutheran churches of Germany and Scandinavia, children were instructed before first communion without a rite. Public confirmation was retained in some areas but not in widespread fashion. By the 18th century, there was a general failing on the part of the churches to instruct children. The idea of basic instruction gave way to more advanced theological teaching.

Under pietism and Jacob Philip Spener (1635-1705), confirmation’s purpose was transformed for other purposes: to demonstrate true conversion; to give a specific Bible verse for the individual; as a baptismal covenant ( by a vow and confession of faith, personal testimony); and yielded a de-emphasis of memorization. As a result confirmation became largely subjective, individual confession or testimonial was encouraged, and confirmands were expected to examine themselves as to whether they truly were Christian and could discern the body and blood in the meal. Due to these changes and requirements, the age of confirmation becomes age 14 to 16.

Under rationalism, baptism and confirmation are separated. The rationalist sought to conform everything to reason and natural revelation. They did not want joining of the invisible church in Baptism with the earthly visible church fellowship which is given at confirmation.

With the conflagration of immigrants in the United States came a conflagration of these varied practices. Within the Missouri Synod we can see elements of all these practices at work.

Lutheran Service Book

With the advent of the Lutheran Service Book (LSB), strong consideration was given by the Hymnal Project committee to the rite of confirmation. Several elements are refocused, revised, or emphasized in part for this new effort. Apparently this is an effort to bring consistency to the practice of the Missouri Synod and revise the rites critically. The confirmation rite strongly reflects the confirmand back to his baptism with its reference to Matthew 28:18-20, the opening baptismal question, the confession of the Trinity in the form of the Creed, the final baptismal blessing, and the prayers. As well the LSB includes accommodation for admission to the Lord’s table preceding confirmation. The associate rite of first communion assumes the admitted has been taught the Catechism and has been examined.

According to the LSB Agenda “the rite of Confirmation …is.. a salutary custom that marks the cartechumen’s confession of faith..It is a celebration of the gifts that God gave the catechumen in Baptism and affords the confirmand the opportunity to confess his or her faith publicly before the Church.”

Assessment

History confirms that one primary undercurrent behind our practice is the Enlightenment philosophy of the age of accountability. Children certainly can accept baptism in God-given faith because they are still under the protective wings of their parents and they haven’t succumbed to the semi-Pelagian influence of the world. In the civilized world, “corrupted” adults which now require lengthy time to exorcise such corruption, and can easily apostatize as they are not under the protection of parents. Therefore the power to remain in one’s baptism is the individual (or parents) and the not the Spirit. This represents a dangerous diversion from the Reformation accord of faith being God’s Work and not our action. Also at work is the idea of rite of passage, leading the child to adulthood. This represents a Christian version of a Jewish Bar-Mitzvah and is a relic of Rationalism.

With the Eucharist, Adults having passed the rigorous examination of adult instruction (catechesis) are now prepared to receive the sacrament. Common practice is to set a fixed bar or criteria which must be accomplished before entrance to the table. Such criteria may include 6 weeks to 6 months of “Adult Information Class” and a form of public statement of faith often reiterated within the baptismal rite itself. Concern for the individual not understanding the weight or depth of the Christian transformation as well the conflict the Christian life brings drives this length of time. A desire is present to emphasize the importance of the event and give a true understanding of its effects both in time and in eternity. There is a suggestion that the corruption of society has made them incapable of the same “childlike faith” of infants, received through the hearing of the Word.

Youth require no such examination. With infants, they obviously cannot speak and no such confession is possible. Yet, their “childlike faith” given by God through the speaking of His Word readies them for this acceptance of faith. This practice emphasizes our theology in both the infant’s need for Baptism as well their lack of cooperation in the event.

Confirmation too closely coincides with graduation and puberty. Consequently it is seen as both a graduation from the church and a rite of passage to a higher level of church life. (indeed in many cases yielding no church life and the end of instruction and learning.) This educated status is the natural conclusion of the rational mind for proper discernment of the Lord’s Supper.

Examination by the pastor of the pre-communicant follows a two-pronged approach. According to Luther’s Small Catechism, “That person is truly worthy and well prepared who has faith in these words: Given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins. But anyone who does not believe these words or doubts them is unworthy and unprepared.” The second prong is a confession and absolution of sins. This can be done in either a public or private form. Enumeration of sins is not necessary.5
Because examination for the altar now typically only resides at the singular event of confirmation, its purpose become one of life-long acceptance to the altar. Pastoral concerns expressed to confirmands become unneeded after confirmation. Private confession has fallen into disuse even though Luther considered it useful.6 As a result regular confession like that of the confirmation is corporate rather than personal. Confession and Absolution as well Reception of the Sacrament of the Altar has become part of the liturgical repetition of the laity, losing the emphasis of “for you” within Christ’s proclamation “given and shed for you for the remission of your sins.”

Private confession and absolution and life-long catechesis both emphasize the fact that the life of the faithful is never finished, graduated or completed in this life but its completion comes at our resurrection after death. Luther emphasized the “present tense” of Baptism, that is, Baptism is the state we live in daily. We say “I am baptized” rather than “I was baptized.” The above practices of confession and cathechesis provide the means to relive the purposes of Baptism as daily restoration and regeneration.

In today’s practice, Confirmation is the culmination of a life (or two years) of catechetical study. After a competent level of explanation is given, the confirmand has reached an dead end at the Sacrament of the altar. This practice does not coincide with Lutheran teaching about the Lord’s Supper. From the Small Catechism: “Question 18. Finally, why do you wish to go to the Sacrament? That I may learn to believe that Christ, out of great love, died for my sin, and also learn from Him to love God and my neighbor.”

Nurturing faith for a Christian is not possible apart from the Lord’s very true body and very true blood. Consequently catechesis should not lead to the sacrament of the altar but rather fall back on it as the food for the faithful, strengthening and preserving. The use of the sacrament of Holy Communion was instituted “not only to be marks of profession among human beings but to be testimonies of God’s will toward us, and to arouse and strengthen faith in those who use them. Accordingly, sacraments are to be used so that faith, which believes in the promises offered and displayed through the sacraments, may increase.”7

The Church has become over concerned with St. Paul’s words “Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.”8 Usually verse 28 is emphasized which then misses the answer in the verse 29. How does a pastor or individual examine himself? He asks whether he discerns the Lord’s body and blood within the visible elements.

Confirmation is connected to the Lord’s Supper and not baptism in the modern mindset. Confirmation should be restored as inherently a Baptismal rite in the minds of the laity. Historically, the congregation has always affirmed the baptism and granted entrance to the table through a confirmation of faith of the individual. This pastoral concern is genuine. We should heed the warning of 1 Corinthians 11 for the sake of the individual.

We should not limit this confirming event for the youth to ages 13-14. A flexible age should be allowed where the confirmand remains a confirmand until he or she is deemed admit-able by the pastor. Each confirmand is examined by pastor on behalf of the congregation or by the congregation itself. This change of practice both reflects the Biblical theology and would better accommodate situations of new membership, cultural differences, mentally or developmentally disabled, or parochial versus public school catechesis.

Parental conflict, dissension, jealousy and greed for the sacrament for their children is a sad but expected response. We should be concerned and respond in Christian love when situation arises. A flexible age guideline puts strong emphasis on the need for a competent and engaged pastorate who is involved in the day-to-day catechesis of the whole congregation. It would also allow for stronger parent-child catechesis. This broader catechesis would help avoid such conflict, putting the responsibility for instruction back on the parents who were the true sponsors of the youth at their baptism.

Potential Solutions

Being sensible, rational individuals (Lutherans) it would be remiss to leave this conflict of practice without pondering resolution. I offer a potential set of resolutions to this challenge. First is to offer the same waiting period for adults just as it is confirmation with children, accelerating the time before baptism and leaving time to work out the kinks of understanding before acceptance to the altar. This would emphasize the usefulness of confirmation, “protect” potential communicants from receiving the Sacrament of the Altar unworthily and to their condemnation, and show a consistency in practice to those who are unfamiliar with Lutheran theology.

As second and better solution of reconciliation is to accelerate the time before children are confirmed from the determinate age of 7th & 8th grade to when they can make a simple proclamation of faith. Catechesis would begin early (for example my children hear and learn to recite the creeds, Lord’s Prayer, and Ten Commandments from the time they can kneel by the bed.) Now, we aren’t left with confusion whether Lutherans acknowledge an “age of accountability” and we limit human participation in the reception to a minimum. Christian concern is still present, and parents still might withhold their children from the altar if they are concerned for their spiritual well-being.

In tandem to this acceleration would be a similar acceleration with adult baptism. Again, we emphasize a fundamental and basic understanding at baptism as with the youth and infants followed by a catechesis. This is more consistent with Cyril of Jerusalem in his “Mystagogical Catechesis II” where he spent days preaching on what had happened during the baptism of the newly baptized. They certainly came with a basic understanding but immediately for days after Easter learned more of the fullness of God’s action and the liturgical symbolism.

Such a practice of early confirmation will create a degree of conflict in our highly mobile society. Because confirmation lacks Scriptural institution, it lacks consistency within congregations. A family with a young communicant may have to hold their child from the sacrament if the congregation they visit if that congregation does not commune at the same age or will not recognize the youth as confirmed. Rather than push the issue, out of Christian love we ought to avoid scandalizing them.

Conclusion

This inconsistency of practice regarding baptism and holy communion of children and adults presents a difficult barrier for those of other Christian denominations or of non-Christian belief sets. Such a barrier is unnecessary and potentially problematic to missions and dialogue with other Christians. (The lower or symbolic view of these institutions by other denominations are resulting from difficulty reconciling with reason God’s action in the sacraments, i.e., Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist and the rebirth of the individual that come in Baptism. Such spiritual actions are difficult or impossible to reconcile with the physical reality of this world. This is a remnant of Rationalism.)

We should approach catechesis with seriousness and rigor. We should treat the sacraments with reverence and respect. But we should not deny their faith-imparting work to those who would benefit and yet haven’t met their time window. We will not and should not throw the rational deterministic approach of the Rite of Confirmation out the window, but we should evaluate the standards we use to reconcile our practice with children and adults.

We must distrust ourselves. Faith comes not from us nor can we be assured of its presence by outward confession. Without divine grace we can do nothing. “Not that we are sufficient to think of anything ourselves, as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God.”9 “And no one can say the Lord Jesus, but by the Holy Ghost.”10 We should not withhold the young from one of the means of God’s grace and where his Spirit is present as we Lutherans believe. Rather we trust in the Lord even where our rational mind cannot understand. “No one hath hoped in the Lord, and hath been confounded.”11 We listen to His words and allow the children to come to him.

Sources:

Peperkorn, Todd A. “Confirmation in the Early Church”, http://blog.higherthings.org/peperkorn/article/print/460.html, 07/09/2005.
Pless, John T. “Baptism in Relation to Confirmation : SYS 142 - Theologia I”, V.4.2006.

1 Luther, Martin. Vol. 36, Luther’s Works, Vol. 36 : Word and Sacrament II. Edited by Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald and Helmut T. Lehmann. Luther’s Works. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999, c1959.
2 Kolb-Wengert. The Book of Concord, p. 220.6.
3 Melanchthon, Philipp, and Jacob A. O. Preus. Loci Communes, 1543. Translation of the 3rd Latin Edition of: Loci Communes Rerum Theologicarum, First Published 1543. electronic ed. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1992.
4 Chemnitz, Martin, and Fred Kramer. Examination of the Council of Trent. Translation of Examen Concilii Tridentini. electronic ed. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999, c1971.
5 as outlined in the Augsburg Confession, Article XXV, The Book of Concord, Kolb-Wengert, p.72-73
6 Expressed in Luther’s Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper (LW 37:368-9)
7 Kolb-Wengert, The Book of Concord. Augsburg Confession Article XIII. Concerning the Use of the Sacraments, p.47.
8 1 Corinthians 11:28,29
9 II Corinthians 3:5
10 1 Corinthians 12:3
11 Ecclesiastes 2:11

 Print This Post

Posted in Manuscript, Opinion, Theology

Tags:confirmation.Opinion