John M. Brenner
What is confirmation? How do we define it? What is its purpose? Whom do we confirm? When do we confirm? What are the historical roots of this traditional rite?
Most major denominations have been struggling with these questions over the last several decades. Often they have been moved to study confirmation out of ecumenical concerns. Since various denominations and branches of Christianity understand and practice confirmation in widely differing ways, ecumenical dialogs have forced participants to study the rite of confirmation and to explain why they do what they do.
Lutherans have recognized a need to rethink their practices because of "shrinking numbers, distorted visions, shallow depth, (and) many disappointments." At least one writer has seen enough problems associated with the traditional practice of confirmation and encountered enough resistance to changing it that he has called Lutheran confirmation a "sacred cow." Two pastors writing in a recent edition of Currents in Theology and Mission claim that it is time to perform radical surgery on Lutheran confirmation.
Obligating youth to a comparatively short period of study followed by an ecclesiastical rite of passage lacking in theological foundation is not only inconsistent with our understanding of and response to baptism, but also contradictory.
It is past time to abandon the current confused practice referred to as "confirmation." We do more harm than good. By allowing this historical mutation to remain untested, we facilitate its insidious growth. Generations of Lutherans have attempted and are attempting to address adult questions with adolescent answers all because we perpetuate the myth that their educational process has been completed. It is too late for preventative medicine; we need radical surgery.
Although there have not been such radical calls for the abolition of confirmation in our Wisconsin Synod, our practice has come under study for some important reasons. Many of our laity see confirmation as the end of all formal Bible study. Pastors and congregational leaders are concerned because so many of our high school and college age youth seem to be drifting away from church. The busy pace of modern life makes it difficult to keep in touch with young people once they are confirmed. Too many activities are competing for the time of our youth. Family life today is less structured and parents often seem to be less involved in the religious education of their children. What can we do to solve these problems? How do these problems relate to our confirmation practice? Is it time for a change?
This study will not attempt to answer those questions directly, but will try to give an historical and theological framework within which to discuss them.
What is confirmation? It is not easy for us to define because Lutherans have practiced and understood confirmation in a variety of ways over the centuries. In fact, Missouri Synod scholar Arthur Repp claims to discern no fewer than six types of confirmation within the Lutheran church:
The first four types of confirmation can be seen in the sixteenth century. The other two appeared in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. These six basic types of confirmation have also tended to appear in various combinations, particularly in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
The subject of confirmation is even more complicated when we consider the rite and practice in the Christian Church at large. Some have identified as many as eight different models of confirmation within the various branches of Christianity:
Why is there such a variety in the understanding and practice of confirmation? Confirmation is not a biblically mandated practice. It is an ecclesiastical rite. It is an historic development. We need to look at history to see confirmation's origins and subsequent development to gain an understanding of the wide variety of practices which have developed. A look at history will also help us understand our own practice. A complete history of confirmation cannot be attempted because of time constraints, but we will give a general overview of the development of confirmation through the various periods of church history, allowing the voices of the past to speak for themselves whenever possible.
There is no evidence for anything like the later practice of confirmation in apostolic times. The earliest historical witnesses to practices in post-apostolic times also know nothing of any ceremony resembling a rite of confirmation. Baptism was the sacrament of initiation. The Didache (dated from the mid first to the early second century) prescribed a very simple ceremony for baptism without any indication of anything resembling confirmation.
Regarding baptism. Baptize as follows: after first explaining all these points, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, in running water. But if you have no running water, baptize in other water; and if you cannot in cold, then in warm. But if you have neither, pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Before the baptism, let the baptizer and the candidate for baptism fast, as well as any others that are able. Require the candidate to fast one or two days previously.
In the course of time more elaborate ceremonies developed. Two practices soon became a part of the baptismal rite, the laying on of hands and the anointing with oil after baptism. A lengthy period of catechetical instruction began to be required for those contemplating baptism. These practices (the catechumenate, the laying on of hands and anointing with oil) provide the seeds for what might be considered the two most basic types of confirmation: sacramental and catechetical.
Hippolytus (c. 170-c.236) in his Apostolic Traditions described the catechetical and baptismal practices of his day and offered this advice, "Let the catechumens spend three years as hearers of the word. But if a man is zealous and perseveres well in the work, it is not the time but his character that is decisive." He gave these directions for chrismation and laying on of hands or signing following baptism.
Then the bishop, laying his hand upon them, shall pray….Then, pouring the oil of thanksgiving from his hand and putting it on his forehead, he shall say, I anoint thee with holy oil in the Lord, the Father Almighty and Christ Jesus and [the] Holy Ghost. And signing them on the forehead he shall say: The Lord be with thee; and he who is signed shall say: And with Thy spirit.
Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315-86) taught that the chrismation or anointing with oil symbolized the Holy Spirit descending upon the newly baptized as the Holy Spirit descended on Jesus after his baptism. Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444) taught that the chrismation signified the "perfecting" of those who have been justified in baptism. By the end of the fifth century the anointing with oil following baptism was seen as completing baptism and imparting the Holy Spirit. Pseudo-Dionysius (c. 500 AD) wrote: "The most divine consecration with ointment completes the perfecting gift and grace of the divine birth….Furthermore in being initiated in that sacred sacrament of divine birth, the perfecting anointing of the ointment gives us a visitation of the divine Spirit."
In the West the post-baptismal ceremony of laying on of hands began to be separated from baptism and chrismation as the church grew and moved into rural areas and as infant baptisms increased. The actual term confirmation seems to have been used first by two French Councils, Riez in 439 and Orange in 441. These councils used the term for the ceremony of laying on of hands after the baptism. They stated that the local priests had the right to baptize and to anoint with oil following baptism, but the bishops were directed to visit the parishes and confirm the baptisms. Around 460 Bishop Faustus of Riez preached a Pentecost sermon on episcopal confirmation which claimed that it made its recipients more fully Christian. Confirmation, he said, gave added strength for battling the devil, the world, and the flesh. This sermon became quite influential in the development of the Western rite.
During the Middle Ages theologians began to refer to confirmation as a second sacrament. In his Summa Theologiae Thomas Aquinas gave classic theological expression to what would become official Roman Catholic teaching.
As was said above, character is a spiritual power ordered to certain sacred actions. We also said that as baptism is a spiritual generation into Christian life, so confirmation is spiritual growth bringing man to spiritual maturity. But it is clear that, from a comparison with bodily life, the activity of a man newly born is different from that which is proper to him when he reaches maturity. So through the sacrament of confirmation a man is given spiritual power for activity that is different from that for which the power is given in baptism. For in baptism power is received for performing those things which pertain to one's own salvation in so far as one lives for himself. In confirmation a person receives power for engaging in the spiritual battle against the enemies of the faith. This is clear from the example of the apostles who, before they received the fullness of the Holy Spirit, were in the upper room persevering in prayer; afterwards they went out boldly to confess the faith openly, even in the midst of enemies of the Christian faith. Thus it is manifest that a character is imprinted in the sacrament of confirmation.
Aquinas reasoned that confirmation had to be performed by a bishop (a more dignified minister than a priest) because it involved spiritual growth from the imperfect to the perfect.
The sacrament of baptism is more effective than confirmation with respect to the removal of evil, because it is a spiritual generation which is change from non-being to being. But confirmation is more effective with regard to progress in good, because it involves spiritual growth from imperfect to perfect being. Therefore confirmation is committed to a more dignified minister.
When the Council of Florence (1439) made confirmation an official sacrament of the Catholic Church, it was merely recognizing what was already generally taught.
Luther was strongly opposed to the Roman Catholic understanding of confirmation as a sacrament. He suggested that it was "invented to adorn the office of bishops, that they may not be entirely without work in the church." He rejected confirmation as a sacrament because he could find no word of divine promise connected to it.
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 applied this to a sacrament, for that is not possible.
Although Luther rejected confirmation as a sacrament, he was not opposed to having a rite of confirmation if it was stripped of its objectionable features. In a sermon on marriage published in 1522 he declared, "I would permit confirmation as long as it is understood that God knows nothing of it, and has said nothing about it, and that what the bishops claim for it is untrue. They mock our God when they say that it is one of God's sacraments, for it is a purely human contrivance." In another sermon he explained, "Confirmation should not be observed as the bishops desire it. Nevertheless we do not find fault if every pastor examines the faith of the children to see whether it is good and sincere, lays hands on them, and confirms them." Luther did not object to Bugenhagen's Brandenburg Church Order (1540) which included an evangelical type of confirmation nor did he object to Melanchthon's Wittenberg Reformation (1545) which also suggested an evangelical confirmation. Luther was always more concerned about instruction in God's Word and the sacraments than he was about any particular rite or ceremony.
Melanchthon (1497-1560) in the Apology joined Luther in rejecting confirmation as a sacrament because there was no scriptural command instituting it nor a gospel promise attached to it. "Confirmation and Extreme Unction are rites received from the Fathers which not even the Church requires as necessary to salvation, because they do not have God's command. Therefore it is not useless to distinguish these rites from the former, which have God's express command and a clear promise of grace."
Lutheran practice included instruction and examination of communicants prior to partaking of the Lord's Supper. The Apology states, "With us many use the Lord's Supper [willingly and without constraint] every Lord's Day, but after having been first instructed, examined [whether they know and understand anything of the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, and the Ten Commandments], and absolved." Luther's emphasis on Christian education is well known. He intended his catechisms to be used in the home as parents carried out their responsibility of training their children. Luther's co-workers expected that this would be done and that even young children would receive enough instruction to partake of the Lord's Supper. As Bente explains in his historical introduction to the Concordia Triglotta:
The Large Catechism was to serve all; the same applies to the Small Catechism. But above all it was to be placed into the hands of the children, who were to use and to memorize it at home, and bring it with them for instruction in the church….Luther was accustomed to direct his admonition to partake of the Lord's Supper diligently also to children, and that, too, to children of comparatively tender years. In his sermon of March 25, 1529, he says, "This exhortation ought not only move us older ones, but also the young and the children. Therefore you parents ought to instruct and educate them in the Decalog, the Creed, the Prayer, and the Sacraments. Such children ought to be admitted to the Table that they might be partakers" [of the Lord's Supper] (W. 30, 1, 233). In his sermon of December 10, 1528, we read: "Hence, you parents and heads of families, invite your subordinates to this Sacrament; and we shall demand an account of you if you neglect it. If you will not go yourselves, let the young go; we are much concerned about them. When they come, we shall learn, by examining them, how you instruct them in the Word as prescribed. Hence, do come more frequently to the Sacrament, and also admonish your children to do so when they have reached the age of discretion. For in this way we want to learn who are Christians and who not. If you will not do so, we shall speak to you on the subject. For even though you older people insist on going to the devil, we shall still inquire about your children. Necessity: because sin, the devil, and death are ever present. Benefit: because the remission of sins and the Holy Spirit are received." (121 f.). The tender age at which the young were held to partake of the Lord's Supper appears in Bugenhagen's preface to his Danish edition of the Enchiridion of 1538, where he says, "that, after this confession is made, also the little children of about eight years or less should be admitted to the table of him who says: Suffer the little children to come unto me."
John Calvin (1509-64) was also opposed to the Catholic sacrament of confirmation because it lacked divine institution. He advocated a catechetical model which included a public examination and confession of faith. He suggested the age of ten as an appropriate age for such a rite.
I sincerely wish that we retained the custom, which I have stated was practiced among the ancients before this abortive image of a sacrament made its appearance. For it was not such a confirmation as the Romanists pretend, which cannot be mentioned without injury to baptism; but a catechetical exercise, in which children or youth used to deliver an account of their faith in the presence of the Church. Now, it would be the best mode of catechetical instruction, if a formulary were written for this purpose, containing and stating, in a familiar manner, all the articles of our religion, in which the universal Church of believers ought to agree, without any controversy: a boy of ten years of age might present himself to make a confession of his faith; he might be questioned on all the articles, and might give suitable answers: if he were ignorant of any or did not fully understand them, he should be taught. Thus the Church would witness his profession of the only true and pure faith, in which all the community of believers unanimously worship the one God. If this discipline were observed in the present day, it would certainly sharpen the inactivity of some parents, who carelessly neglect the instruction of their children as a thing in which they have no concern, but which, in that case, they could not omit without public disgrace; there would be more harmony of faith among Christian people, nor would many betray such great ignorance and want of information; some would not be so easily carried away with novel and strange tenets; in short, all would have a regular acquaintance with Christian doctrine.
The Reformed churches in Europe following Calvin tended to retain confirmation with a strong emphasis on instruction at home, in school and church, while being careful not to give any impression that their practice was Roman Catholicism in disguise. English Puritans tended to emphasize thorough instruction and encouraged the personal experience of the individual. Disliking fixed forms and anything that smacked of papalism, they substituted a ceremony of admission to church membership in place of confirmation. They based their rite on acceptance of a local covenant.
Martin Bucer (1491-1551) perhaps had as much influence on the development of confirmation among Protestants as anyone in the sixteenth century. Bucer was concerned with Christian discipline. He emphasized "surrender to Christ" and "commitment to the church." His proposals for a public confirmation for baptized adolescents after they had been instructed in the faith came in response to Anabaptist demands for public profession of faith and surrender to Christ. He wanted to preserve an emphasis on infant baptism while maintaining that those who were baptized must make a public profession of faith and obedience. In principle such a profession was to be voluntary, but in practice it was expected if a person wished to be considered a Christian. "Bucer was unable to resolve the inherent conflict between the idea of a church constituted on the basis of infant baptism and that of a church comprised only of those who had made a public profession of faith and obedience."
Bucer's influence stems from the confirmation ceremony he drew up for Landgrave Philip of Hesse in 1539. This served as a model for other Lutheran territories (including Wuerttemberg, the home of many WELS forebearers). The influence of this ceremony has earned Bucer the title of "father of evangelical confirmation."
Rome reacted strongly to the Reformation rejection of confirmation as a sacrament. In the seventh session of the Council of Trent (1545-63) the assembled prelates condemned the catechetical understanding of confirmation in the strongest of terms and insisted that only bishops could perform the rite.
Can. 1. If anyone says that the confirmation of those baptized is an empty ceremony and not a true and proper sacrament; or that of old it was nothing more than a sort of instruction, whereby those approaching adolescence gave an account of their faith to the Church, let him be anathema.
Can. 2. If anyone says that those who ascribe any power to the holy chrism of confirmation, offers insults to the Holy Ghost, let him be anathema.
Can. 3. If anyone says that the ordinary minister of holy confirmation is not the bishop alone, but any simple priest, let him be anathema.
Martin Chemnitz's (1522-86) masterful examination and refutation of Trent's pronouncements on confirmation includes his own suggestions for a God-pleasing rite. He emphasized catechetical instruction, public profession of faith, exhortation, and the prayers of the church for the confirmand. He linked confirmation to baptism rather than the Lord's Supper.
Our theologians have often shown that if traditions that are useless, superstitious and in conflict with Scripture are removed, the rite of confirmation can be used in godly fashion and for the edification of the church, namely in this way, that those who were baptized in infancy (for that is now the condition of the church) would, when they have arrived at the years of discretion, be diligently instructed in the sure and simple teaching of the church's doctrine and, when it is evident that the elements of the doctrine have been sufficiently grasped, be brought afterward to the bishop and the church. There the child who was baptized in infancy would by a brief and simple admonition be reminded of his Baptism, namely that he was baptized, how, why, and into what he was baptized, what in this Baptism the whole Trinity conferred upon and sealed to him, namely the covenant of peace and the compact of grace, how there Satan was renounced and a profession of faith and a promise of obedience made.
Second, the child himself would give his own public profession of this doctrine and faith.
Third, he would be questioned concerning the chief parts of the Christian religion and would respond with respect to each of them or, if he should show lack of understanding in some part, he would be better instructed.
Fourth, he would be reminded and would show by his confession that he disagrees with all heathenish, heretical, fanatical, and ungodly opinions.
Fifth, there would be added an earnest and serious exhortation from the Word of God that he should persevere in his baptismal covenant and in this doctrine and faith and, by making progress in the same, might thereafter be firmly established.
Sixth, public prayer would be made for these children that God would deign, by his Holy Spirit, to govern, preserve, and strengthen them in this profession. To this prayer there could be added without superstition the laying on of hands. This prayer would not be in vain, for it relies upon the promise concerning the gift of preservation and on God's strengthening grace.
Such a rite of confirmation would surely be very useful for the edification of the young and of the whole church. It would be in harmony with both Scripture and the purer antiquity.
Chemnitz's opinions helped to legitimize confirmation among Lutherans, but in the sixteenth century there was no uniform practice.
The practice of confirmation spread during the Age of Orthodoxy, but the majority of churches in Germany and Scandinavia continued to prepare children for the reception of the Lord's Supper through catechetical instruction without any rite. One addition to the rite of confirmation came about because of the conversion of Friedrich August II, Elector of Saxony (1670-1733) to Catholicism. The children of the nobility were asked to make a vow to remain true to the Lutheran Church.
The advances of the Counter-Reformation, Lutheran defections to the Reformed, and the political and religious turmoil of the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) led to an expansion of the material covered in catechetical instruction. Luther's Small Catechism with its succinct summaries of the chief parts of Christian doctrine was augmented by expositions which included rather complete outlines of Christian theology. Children memorized questions and answers through constant repetition. Poor educational methods with little application of scriptural truth to daily life, however, made catechetical instruction rather tedious for many students.
Philip Jacob Spener (1635-1705), the father of Lutheran Pietism, used Chemnitz's confirmation suggestions in his Examination of the Council of Trent to argue that confirmation was a Lutheran practice. Spener was influenced by Bucer's rite of confirmation and carried it a step farther. He turned confirmation among Lutherans into a decidedly subjective practice. He emphasized the renewal of the baptismal covenant and instructed children so that they could make a conscious decision to make a vow to keep this covenant in the future. Spener was interested in the personal surrender of the awakened Christian to Christ. August Hermann Francke (1663-1727), Spener's disciple and successor as leader of the movement, joined him in his emphasis on conversion, covenant renewal, and solemn vow. Francke added a subjective element of his own. He allowed the child to make a personal confession of his faith in his own words rather than with a prescribed confession. This had the practical effect of changing the confirmation confession from an objective statement of Christian truth to a subjective statement of Christian experience. Pietism did much to improve the educational methodology of the day, but subjective conversion experience and sanctification took the place of justification as the chief emphasis of the Lutheran Church's understanding of confirmation.
Although Pietism did make some important contributions to educational methodology and practice, the movement's underlying subjectivism caused problems. The sacraments were denigrated. Because of the emphasis on the personal surrender of the individual to Christ, there was a strong implication that baptism was not really complete until the confirmand made such a personal decision. Some not only implied but also actually taught that confirmation was a necessary complement to baptism which completed the sacrament.
Pietism's overemphasis on the worthiness of the individual to partake of the Lord's Supper led to self-centered worry about preparation for the Lord's Supper instead of confidence in the forgiveness which the sacrament offers and conveys. Since an individual was not only to remember baptism at his confirmation, but also to renew the baptismal covenant and examine himself to determine whether he was truly a Christian, the age for confirmation was raised. Before this time confirmation among the Lutherans who practiced it was generally from ten to twelve; after this time it was age fourteen to sixteen.
During the Age of Rationalism confirmation became more widely practiced among Lutherans and more festively celebrated with white robes and family dinners. Confirmation at the age of fourteen to sixteen became common practice because of the association with the completion of elementary education. The understanding of confirmation as graduation seems to have its roots in this period. Confirmation meant the entering of the adult world. Since many of the schools in Germany closed around Easter for spring planting, confirmation on Palm Sunday became a common practice. Many began to speak of the confirmation vow in terms of an oath and the rite assumed a greater importance than baptism. It seems that the custom of assigning confirmands personal Bible passages also began during this period. By the early nineteenth century the practice of confirmation became almost universal among Lutherans.
Practice of confirmation in America was sporadic. John Wesley omitted the order of confirmation from the Prayer Book that he revised for America. American Puritans had a strong tradition of religious instruction, but saw such instruction as a preparation for conversion, not confirmation. Revivalism in eighteenth and nineteenth century America made conversion experience and personal piety the basis for church membership and tended to disparage doctrine and religious education.
In the early nineteenth century there was a confessional revival among Lutherans in Germany in reaction to the spiritual emptiness of Rationalism and the forced merger of Lutherans and Reformed in the Prussian Union (1817). Concerned Christians also reacted to state church spirituality in which all citizens were baptized and virtually all were confirmed regardless of inner conviction. Claus Harms (1788-1855) helped spark a confessional revival through his issuance in 1817 of an edition of Luther's Ninety-five Theses along with ninety-five of his own attacking Rationalism and the Prussian Union. Harms also saw a need for reforming the practice of confirmation.