Perhaps Lutherans should listen more carefully to our friends in the Roman Church when at Vatican II they suggested: "A careful investigation is always to be made into each part of the liturgy which is to be revised. This investigation should be theological, historical and pastoral.... Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing." (The Documents ofVatican II, Abbott & Gallagher, Page l46-l47)

This concern is also reflected in Solid Declaration, Article l0, 9 where it states tha Lutherans are to adopt ceremonies "without frivolity and offense but in an orderly and appropriate way." The practice of blessing children during the Eucharist has been adopted by most congregations without any serious reflection at all. Most pastors or congregation members probably could not express formally even one or two of the reasonswhich those who have thought about the practice semi-seriously have put forth. "The commandments of men" (Matthew l5:9) were adopted simply because they were "nice," the word most frequently used by clergy and laity when asked what they think about the children's blessing.

The Apology, XV:20 notes that human rites are good if they "help instruct the common folk." The content and source of this instructionfor the children's blessing during the Distribution is a major concern. There basically is no content nor source, other than that which every pastor or lay person can imagine for himself.

Luther stated the basic principle which is the foundation of a critical examination of the blessing of children during the distribution of the Lord's Supper in his "Confession Concerning Christ's Supper (LW, Vol. 37, p. 193): "Now I wrote very carefully in my last treatise ("This Is My Body") that our administration of theSupper consists of two parts, viz. the Word and the eating, and that that Word requires faith and spiritual eating along with the physical..." The "Word" is the Consecation and the "eating" is the Distribution. These actions, with faith, are the Lord's Supper. They go together. They are the essence and the necessary actions that bring the benefits of forgiveness, life and salvation. (Note also "The Power of the Sacrament of the Altar" in the Small Catechism)

Chemnitz in his Examen says particularly of the Lord's Supper: "However, when Christ says: "Do this" He commands that as often as we do it we should follow and do what was done at the first Lord's Supper. There is not a trace to be found in the history of the apostles that they did something else or different, such as separating or tearing apart the distribution and reception from the blessing..." Chemnitz's comments on innovations touching the Lord's Supper can be read in Kramer's translation, Volume 2, Page 285 ff, especially Page289, numbers 2 and 4. He is disturbed that the Sacrament has been changed from its divinely instituted use into another use, "which does not have the testimony of the Word of God." The reason, he declares, that the papists instituted this innovation (distribution in the wafer only) was "nothing but an opinion which militates against the institution. For in the Eucharist Christ instituted a memorial of Himself which is not to be celebrated as one pleases but in a definite way." Please note his concern about the "distribution and reception "being "separated or torn apart" from the "blessing..." (the consecration).

FC Art. X states that "external ceremonies not commanded by God "are not to be a reason for condemning other churches as long as there is "agreement in doctrine in all its articles as well as in the right use of the holy Sacraments." The Lord's Supper is not an "external ceremony, not commanded by God", but rather a sacred action commanded by Jesus Christ. Is it "right use of the Holy Sacrament" when something not commanded by God is added to it? Chemnitz thinks not: (Page 342) "For it is a universal judgement repeated a number of times in Scripture that nothing is to be added to the Commandments of God, nothing taken away from them, that men are not to depart from them either to the right hand or to the left". He cites Cyprian: "If not even one of the least of the Commandments of the Law should be dissolved, much less is it permissible to infringe upon one of these great Commandments which pertain to the Sacrament of our Lord's passion and of our redemption, or to change it by human tradition". He lists Galatians 3:l5 ("Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case.") as a reason why the Sacrament should be maintained "inviolate and whole". An "external ceremony" that changes the use, character and understanding of the Sacrament of the Altar, for whatever reason, is not an adiaphoron.

Apology XV:24 warns about misunderstandings of various practices because of the flesh. When there is little if any Scriptural warrant for a ritual or practice, there is a wide opportunity for misunderstandings to creep in. XV:5l, 52 says, "Nevertheless, liberty in these matters should be used moderately lest the weak be offended and become more hostile to the true teaching of the Gospel because of an abuse of liberty. Nothing should be changed in the accustomed rites without good reason, and to foster harmony those ancient customsshould be kept which can be kept without sin or without great disadvantage. We believed that the greatest possible public harmony, without offense to consciences, should be preferred to all other advantages..."

What are the "good reasons" for this innovation? Reasons have been put forth, but are they valid? Everyone appears to have his personal reasons without regard for other's reasons. What is the unanimous, positive benefit, "good order" and support of the "true teaching of the Gospel" to come from this innovation, beyond its being"nice"? Is this one of those "ancient customs" we should keep and treasure for its spiritual advantages? No. There is good reason to question this practice, since few good reasons for it have been put forth in public writing. Have there been serious theological objections raised to this innovation which have been given thoughtful consideration by those using the novel practice? The only thing this writer knows about is Dr. David Scaer's brief article in theTheological Observer section of The Concordia Theological Quarterly several years ago.

In informal discussions, pastor's conferences and in written dialogue a number of justifications for the practice have been expressed. It is enlightening to critically examine them. Everyone, not only the defenders of this new insertion in the Sacrament, understands the desire to "promote family unity." However, are we permitted to use the Lord's Supper to symbolically enhance family unity? Is this what Christ said the Lord's Supper is about? What Scripture do we adduce to affirm and educate our people about this purpose? The Sacrament expresses an even deeper unity than family, the mystic oneness with Christ and our heavenly Father.

Luther was rightly disturbed that the Mass had become "the foundation of their anniversaries, intersessions, applications,communications, etc., that is to say, of their fat income." "It hascome through the opinions and ordinances of wicked men, who, passing over the Word of God, have dished up to us the thoughts of their own hearts and led the whole world astray." (Babylonian Captivity, LW, 36,p. 49) The "use" of the Lord's Supper had been made something apart from what Christ intended. Now whether this comes about by the intention of "wicked men," desiring gain as in Luther's day or bycareless men in our day desiring to enhance family unity matters not. The use of the Lord's Supper is not up to us, but Christ.

When pastors begin to emphasize human aspects of the Lord'sSupper they make both the sacramental union of Christ's body and blood with the bread and wine and the union of the communicant with JesusChrist inferior to "family unity". Elert, in his chapter on TheSacrament As Fellowship in his book "Eucharist and Church Fellowship"make s the point that the "Koinonia is first individual." Thefellowship-nature of the Sacrament is in this, that Christ incorporates into Himself those who partake of it. (P.28) Using theLord's Supper to "signal a concern for family unity" is something too difficult to defend on Scriptural and confessional grounds. Besides, there are bound to be other ways of stressing family unity effectively than by inserting a discontinuity into the Sacred Supper.

Another goal of this practice, "bringing up children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord," is certainly commendable; but to try to do so by fracturing one of His Sacraments is not proper. Teaching children the truth of God as found in the Holy Scriptures and how to use the blessed gifts He has given us in the Sacrament is a better route to this goal.

One can well appreciate the reported children's comments about being present at the altar rail for a blessing. No doubt, there are some positive feelings about it. People probably have positive feelings about the baptisms for the dead, but it is not proper. Some objectivity should be injected into their comments. Children are not "being included" when they come to the altar rail for a blessing. Their coming forward, nearness to the elements and their posture maybe seen as an even more personal exclusion from receiving the really sacred things the adults receive. "So close and yet so far."

What children are being included in is the so called "pastoral blessing." The force and content of the "pastoral blessing" isanother matter for discussion. All sorts of good feelings and happy emotions might be included in the "encouragement" that they feel, but where does it come from? Is there a reality in it, such as in the words of Jesus "given and shed for you"? At any rate, this is thesubject of another large area of concern, namely, the understanding of the ministry and the powers of the Pastor.

Is having the children present at the altar a good way to preclude the fears and worries the youth have about taking the Lord'sSupper, as is said in favor of this practice? Proper instruction in the Lord's Supper, rather than watching other people take it while kneeling next to them rather than from the pew, is a much better way of reducing anxieties stirred up by superstition about the Eucharist.

It is clear that no Lutheran pastor would expect something happening "exopere operato" to the child because of his nearness tothe elements or his accompanying his parents to the altar rail or that there would be among the clergy of our church body any deliberate intent to give that impression. However, does anybody know what's really "happening for the child" in this action? We constantly must teach our adults that faith in Jesus and His words are necessary for a salutary use of the Lord's Supper because work righteousness is so natural, so human, so fleshly. (Apology, XV, 22) Some have unintentionally and unnecessarily opened a great possibility for misunderstandings on the part of the children and their parents when they foster this novel practice.

There is agreement that this intrusion does not invalidate theSacrament: "...so also does this blessed Sacrament remain unimpaired and inviolate even if we use and handle it unworthily" and "...no one can change or altar the Sacrament, even if it is misused." (LargeCatechism, Fifth Part, 5, 16) Pastors and people of the church are to be constantly aware that the Sacrament is capable of being misused andshould also be critical of ourselves, our ideas and our actions that we not become guilty, intentionally or accidentally, of misusing His Supper.

Theologically, aesthetically and logically, however, there are problems with the children's blessing. Theologically, it is an interruption in the essential action (institution/reception) of the Sacrament and its purpose is different from Christ's use of theSupper. Consecration and distribution should be a united action that focuses on Christ's death for the forgiveness of sins. Aesthetically, interruptions hinder one's meditation and focus on remembering and showing Christ's death. Exploding shells don't ruin the Sacrament's efficacy as a wartime Chaplain distributes, but they most certainly interfere with both the Chaplain's and the communicant's pious participation. Finally, logially, the blessing of children has more to do with Baptism than with the Lord's Supper. The laying on of hands that usually accompanies the blessing is often associated with the initiatory Sacrament, and a Baptism reminder is even a common blessing in use by pastors at the communion rail.

The reformers were concerned that they do nothing to disrupt the natural flow of the Sacrament: Words of Institution and consequent distribution and reception. Thus their concern about reserving the Sacrament and taking it to absent parishioners. The words of distribution are a simple paraphrase and personalization of the Words of Institution for the communicant. Interrupting those words is, in effect, an interruption in the Words of Institution. Perhaps some do not interrupt the words of distribution to include a blessing for the children. This is less offensive than "messing with" the sacramental flow from Words of Institution to the (words of) distribution.

While theologically not improper, aesthetically and logically, blessing the children in the context of the Lord's Supper without disrupting the consecration/distribution flow still presents problems. It has been suggested that people who are sensitive to maintaining the integrity of the Sacrament are "weak in faith" and need to be patiently instructed about the benefits of the children's blessing. This is 180 degrees "out of synch" with Luther and the orthodox reformers. Certainly, no offense is intended in adding something to the sacramental action, but offense may indeed be given. If the essence of the Lord's Supper is the total action of Consecration/Distribution, as the orthodox have held, those who want to maintain the Lord's Supper as it was given in the Scripture and essentially preserved in the practice of the church until recently are indeed the strong in faith, even though they may not be able to present the pertinant theological arguements.

Promoters of the children's blessing advise pastors to instruct the congregation about the blessing and correct the misbehaving children in personal visits with the family. Rather, it would be a better use of their time and talents to have pastors instructing about Christ, His work and the blessings of the Sacrament. Already much instruction time is used to teach about various layers of liturgical, traditional, congregational and synodical adiaphora. We could end up like the Catholics of Luther's time: "When our opponents do preach,they talk about human traditions, the worship of the saints and similar trifles." (Apology XV, 42)

It is claimed that the Lord's Supper has a "family emphasis,"since it was instituted during the Passover, which was a family celebration. The apostle Paul, in I Corinthians ll:l7 ff.,specifically demonstrates that the Lord's Supper is qualitatively distinct from the family style agape feast. The Passover is obviously background to the Lord's Supper, according to our Lord; for the Scripture clearly states "after He had eaten". The Passover is not part of the content for the Lord's Supper; indeed, Christ'sinstitution of the Eucharist fulfilled and abrogated completely the Passover. In view of this, might the presence of children at the altar rail for the Lord's Supper even be viewed as a tacit denial of the true mystery of the Holy Communion, since it emphasizes a physical, earthly relationship, similar to that of the Passover (family celebration, deliverance from earthly slavery, promise of a physical land), over the personal, spiritual relationship of the believer to Christ through Spirit given faith?

Some say blessing children during the Lord's Supper is similar to customs that have come and gone, such as use of leaven, use of wafers, men sitting on one side of the church, women on the other, fasting,etc. The "essence" of the Sacrament is the consecration and reception, not the foot washing, eating the lamb or reclining at table,etc. The customs mentioned before fall into the same category as those mentioned in the Scriptures. The significant difference is that none of these "customs" intrude into "the action" of the Lord'sSupper. None of them insert themselves between the consecration and reception of the sacred elements. None of them modify the purpose of the Lord in the institution of this Sacrament. Ambrose urges the church to be careful with the Lord's Supper: "that person insults the Lord who celebrates this Sacrament differently than the Lord" instituted it, saying in affect, don't violate, change or mutilate the sacred meal. (Chemnitz, Examen, Vol. 2, Page 380-38l).

To occasionally publish the congregation's rationale for blessing the children is a sound suggestion. But where does the congregation get its rationale for this innovation of blessing children in the middle of the Lord's Supper? Does it have a number of committee meetings to make up some soft foundation of Scripturally spurred imagination? Does it turn to the history of the early church? Does it find guidelines and examples in the Reformation era and the Lutheran Confessions? Because no direct rationale can be found for this practice, is enough reason to ask serious questions about it. The answers one gets are a jumble of rash reasons, personally pleasing practices and a great deal of misguided sentimentality.

Besides the questions regarding the placement of a non-eucahristic blessing into the Sacrament there are also concerns regarding the blessing of the children itself. Jesus indeed blessed children. We have only a few words directed specifically to children. And we are also to follow His actions as best we can. Would that we could raise the dead children of our day who are victims of abortion! But we have other directives as well:"raise up a child," "as the twig is bent," "let the children come to Me," "whoever offends one of these little ones," "Impress them on your children." In these and other passages Jesus has told us to teach the Word to the children and others. He has not told us to merely bless them with a spoken blessing of some sort. The church has followed Jesus' example in sacrificing for its Christian schools, Sunday schools and other educational endeavors. The blessing, that is the joy, peace, stability, spiritual health and fellowship with Christ that the word "shalom" entails, substantially comes from the Holy Spirit working with what the child learns intellectually about Jesus. "Faith comes from hearing the message." (Romans l0:l7) Real blessings do not come simply because the pastor pronounces some improvised or institutionalized words, the validity, origin and power of which is questionable. Why do many insist that this "blessing" must be in the midst of the Lord's Holy Supper? When Jesus said "Do this...." He did not include a childrens' blessing, a feeding of the poor or a healing, Messianic activities though they be. If we are truly going to follow Jesus' example, let us separate the Lord's Table from the children's blessing. Better yet, let's eliminate a formalized children's blessing and continue to include them, and all other non-communicants in the other blessings of the Liturgy. Luther's Smalcald Articles conclude with a very instructive comment which touches on "blessings" for purposes other than forgiveness of sins. "These cannot be called blessings and they are not, but are mere mockery and fraud....We do not wish to have anything to do with them."

Laying hands on the children at the altar rail is supposed to communicate inclusion in the Kingdom of God. Who really knows what it communicates? There is a sanctified hope, but no sure promise of God. Baptism, on the other hand, includes this sure promise of God. Congregation members have sincerely included the children by spontaneously and appropriately touching them, carrying them, talking with them, patting them, holding them, picking them up, disciplining them and teaching them. And it hasn't been formalized or institutionalized until recently. If formalization is a good thing, there certainly can be found a less intrusive time to do it than between Christ's words: "Take eat ...(here insert whatever words of blessing seems good to you, friend pastors)...this is my body...(blessing a gain)...given for you..." Perhaps some have better ways of doing the blessing, but this is common.

Another question occurs: What superstitions of the flesh are arising or will arise around this "blessing" at the altar? Actions speak louder than words. Here we have an action that takes place at the same time, with the same basic procedure, the same posture, the same dismissal blessing (often, the only eyes on the officiant at this time are those of the children who have not received the body and blood of the Lord and to whom those words do not apply), and yet there is such certainty on the part of those who do the blessing that the children and parents are not seeing this as a substitute Sacrament or, at least, a type of Roman Catholic "sacramental". There should be some serious doubt about this assumption.

The Bible records "laying on hands" at the induction into the church at Baptism and into an office of the church at ordination. We "lay on hands" at confirmation as reaffirmation of Baptism. It would be best to stay with Scripture and the Confessions than to wander into uncharted waters with some of the Church Fathers who may have used laying on of hands on other occasions. "Laying on of hands can be a reminder of their Baptism," say some supporters of the blessing. "Laying on of hands can be a reminder" of many things to the child or to the adults. The key words are "can be". But what are the realities involved? Does it remind them of their baptism or of their uncle who sexually abused them? What "can be" is not supposed to be our concern, but what is and should be.

And why should a reminder of Baptism be placed in the midst in the distribution of the Lord's Supper? Would it not be better in some other time and locality, such as at the beginning of the service near the font? The early church did not place "the laying on of hands" on the same level as the Lord's Supper by doing it at the same time as the Sacrament. Laying of hands "can emphasize" that the child is included in the Gospel of Grace. "Can emphasize" are again key words. Does laying on of hands really communicate the Gospel in a genuine way? Couldn' t this also be like the contrived "handshake of peace"? There is real, heartfelt greeting before and after worship. Each congregation spends love, time, money and effort on Christian education that really gets children into the Grace of Christ. This blessing at the altar may be tricking parents into neglecting the real, solid blessings that Sunday School and other agencies of Christian education deliver to the children. A parent could easily think: "I brought Johnny for the Pastor's blessing at communion, so everything is OK between Johnny and God. I don't have to bring him to Sunday School."

We also need to be very cautious about our motives in promoting this practice. Pastors have said that they have a children's devotion each Sunday because it gets the parents to church. Is the children's blessing at the altar rail being used as a manipulative tool to get the parents to church and communion? Luther advises, "We would so preach that, of their own accord and without any law the people will desire the Sacrament and as it were, compel us pastors to administer it to them" (Preface to the Small Catechism).

In conclusion, the most vital concern the church should have is not about the children's blessing, but about the integrity and unity of the Lord's Supper as our Savior intended it. The action of the Lord's Supper as consecration and reception has always been considered a single entity, a unity to be preserved "against mutilation" by distribution of only one kind, reserving the Sacrament, parading the consecrated elements through the streets and even taking the consecrated elements to the shut-ins. The question is: isn't the intrusion of a blessing other than the words of institution and distribution a similar mutilation? We cannot simply say, "We don't intend the blessing to be a mutilation." Nor can we say that the people like it. People tolerate uncritically many abuses in the church and even the Lord's Supper. A nude couple received the Eucharist at a national convention of another church body a few years ago. The people did not complain or refrain from communing. They simply accepted it. Pastors and theologians of the church have an obligation to look very critically at novel liturgical practices that try to become a part of the living worship of the church, particularly those innovations that touch on the Word and the Sacraments. We should especially beware of those things that capture the imaginations and feelings of the people so readily as the children's blessing has done, for the Holy Spirit rarely wins such easy victories. "There the devil gives them the spirit of error and leads them on with brightly colored doctrines and works, so that they imagine themselves to be altogether spiritual." (Avoiding The Doctrines of Men," LW, Vol. 35.p. 137) This innovation needs to be critically examined by pastors and theologians of the church to determine if it truly is an unnecessary, intrusive mutilation of the Eucharist as Christ instituted it. Just saying it isn't, isn't enough. Blessing of the children is certainly an adiaphoron, but blessing the children between the consecration and distribution of the elements to the communicants or perhaps even at the altar rail at the time of the Sacrament is a more serious matter. It may indeed be a mistake, however well intentioned and even buttressed with sanctified sophistry and imagined justification. The church has been fooled before. "For they quote the Holy Scriptures and the sayings of the fathers and at times force them into agreement with their doctrines... the Scriptures are diametrically opposed to them." (Avoiding The Doctrines of Men," LW, Vol. 35. p. 137)

The principle which has guided the orthodox church until now appears to have been: Deliberate, unnecessary and incongruous interruptions of the God instituted action (Consecration/Reception) of Christ's Supper should be avoided by Confessional Lutherans. Shall we continue to operate with this guide? It is the contention of this writer that until the church can agree on the basis of Scripture and the Confessions regarding the form and benefit of such an innovation, it would be wise to maintain an extremely cautious approach to the practice, especially if it is used between the Words of Institution and the distribution of the elements.