We have recorded for us in the synoptic gospels (Matt. 19:13-15; Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15-17) an exchange between Jesus and his disciples, a fairly heated exchange. In fact, the language that describes Jesus’ response is quite intense, the Bible Knowledge Commentary notes, “This verb of strong emotional reaction is unique to Mark who highlighted Jesus’ emotions more than the other Gospel writers”.
And they were bringing children to him that he might touch them, and the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, “Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”
Mar 10:13-15
The word “indignant” used in v. 14 is translated from the Greek word aganakteō,1 which means “to be greatly afflicted“. Why was Jesus so disturbed and what can we as the Church heed from this lesson?
Christ’s Passion for the Children: A Call to the Church
In this short but powerful scene, Jesus shows an intense emotional reaction to the disciples’ attempts to prevent children from coming to Him. His indignation in Mark 10:14 is not mere frustration but a deep, righteous anger. Why such a strong response from the Lord? Because the disciples’ actions symbolized a misunderstanding of the kingdom of God and the qualities Jesus truly desires—Jesus makes it abundantly clear that children, in their purity and trust, represent the very nature of those who inherit the kingdom. To hinder, or forbid, them access to Him was to deny a core truth about the kingdom’s openness to all, especially the most vulnerable and dependent.
This powerful scene should serve as a warning to both parents and the Church. Christ’s invitation is open to all—His grace extends beyond the limits of human comprehension or age restrictions. Yet, in many church contexts today, children are often kept at a distance from fully participating in the life of the Church, particularly in the Lord’s Supper.
A Look at the PCA’s Stance and the Book of Church Order
The Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) upholds a particular view on children and their participation in communion, as outlined in their Book of Church Order. The PCA requires that children reach an age of discernment and go through a profession of faith before being admitted to the Lord’s Table. This position is rooted in the belief that partaking in communion requires not just a scrutinized profession of faith, but additionally a level of intellectual maturity, allowing the individual to properly “examine themselves” as instructed in 1 Cor. 11:28.
According to the Book of Church Order, PCA 57-5, children must first be examined by the church elders, typically around the age of discretion, which varies but is generally set around 11-13 years old. The rational is that this examination ensures that the child understands the meaning of communion, the significance of Christ’s sacrifice, and the responsibilities of a communicant member2
However, as we reflect on Jesus’ sharp rebuke of His disciples and His open invitation to children, it raises important questions. If Christ welcomed children without hesitation, should the Church, particularly the PCA, impose such restrictions? Does the need for intellectual maturity outweigh the grace that is freely given to all believers, including the young?
The Argument for Paedocommunion
Paedocommunion, the practice of allowing baptized children to partake in the Lord’s Supper, directly addresses this tension. While the PCA and other denominations maintain that communion requires self-examination and discernment, those who advocate for paedocommunion argue that the focus should be on the grace given through the sacrament, not the recipient’s level of understanding.
This sacrament is not a reward for reaching a certain intellectual milestone; it is a means of grace. Henry Melvill—whose commentary on Mark we will dig into in this discussion—so poignantly notes that to withhold children from communion under the guise of protecting them due to their immaturity is akin to the disciples’ mistake of trying to keep children from Christ. Jesus’ strong reaction suggests that spiritual benefits, including the Lord’s Supper, are not about the individual’s readiness or knowledge but about Christ’s willingness to give freely. As Melvill emphasizes, the same mystery that confounds adults also confounds children, and faith requires submission to that mystery rather than full understanding:
If I strive to make intelligible what ought to be left mysterious, I do but nourish in the child the notion of his being competent to understand all truth, and prepare him for being disgusted if he finds himself in riper years called upon to submit reason to faith. –Henry Melville on Mark 10:13-15
Reconciling Christ’s Call with Church Practice
As parents and leaders in the Church, we must ask ourselves: Are we faithfully allowing children to come to Christ, or are we, like the disciples, setting up unnecessary barriers? While the PCA’s Book of Church Order, provides well-intentioned guidance, it’s worth reevaluating whether maturity in faith, or the ability to submit to church authority, should be the primary criterion for communion. After all, we see through the NT, let alone from Christ Himself, invitations to come as we are, with a childlike faith, purity, and innocence (Matt. 18:2-4, Matt. 19:14, Mark 10:14-15, Luke 18:16-17, 1 Peter 2:2, 1 Peter 2:2, Matt. 11:25, Jas. 1:5-6, Gal. 4:6-7, Rom. 8:15, Phil. 2:15.).
By acknowledging that both baptism and communion are acts of grace, not intellectual achievement, we open the table to the youngest members of Christ’s covenant community. Just as Christ said, Let the children come to me perhaps the Church should follow suit, ensuring that no child is hindered from receiving the grace Christ so freely offers.
Five Reasons The BCO is Wrong
In Henry Melvill’s heartfelt commentary on Mark 10:13-16, he recognizes Jesus’s response to the disciples, and the word used to describe it, as nothing short of shocking:
. . .the word denotes a very high degree of dissatisfaction, anger being more excited than sorrow, as though the thing done were specially offensive and criminal. It is never again used in connection with Christ; Christ is never again said to have been “much” or “sorely displeased.” On the occasion of having little children kept from Him, but on no other occasion, did Christ show Himself “sorely displeased.”3
The full commentary can be found in the Recommended Sources section below. Melvill’s insights will prove insightful as we continue the discussion to better understand how Christ’s relationship with children should inform modern church practices, especially regarding the PCA’s stance on communion.
Grace Over Maturity
At the heart of the gospel is the truth that salvation is a gift of grace, not something earned by human effort or understanding (Eph. 2:8-9). This same grace applies to communion, a means of spiritual nourishment for one who is in Christ. By placing intellectual maturity as a prerequisite for communion, the PCA risks shifting the focus from grace to human works and understanding.
Paul’s call for self-examination in 1 Cor. 11:28 has often been misinterpreted as a rigorous introspective search for sin, leading some to believe that one must be spiritually flawless before partaking in the Lord’s Supper. However, when read in context, it becomes clear that Paul is warning against treating communion like a trivial social event or a mere meal. The focus is not on identifying sin and perfecting oneself beforehand, but rather on approaching communion with reverence and recognizing the body and blood of Christ.
Age or recited creeds don’t guarantee spiritual maturity or perfect self-diagnosis, nor do they ensure that we’ll always “remedy” our spiritual ailments when we uncover them—as J. Parker comments, “There must be self-examination, but beware, if you please, of vivisection. A man may lacerate himself, and he will find no worthiness in his own nature.”4 Thus, even if Paul were referring to the need for self-examination before communion, it’s flawed to assume that maturity comes automatically with age or the recitation of vows.
But I digress, for I don’t believe this is what Paul truly meant. The broader context of 1 Corinthians 11 reveals that Paul was primarily concerned with the attitude and intention in which believers approached communion. He wasn’t advocating for endless introspection but for proper reverence and recognition of the unity in Christ (1 Cor. 11:18-9).
Let’s say, for argument sake, that a child is not capable of self-examination in the first place, therefore disqualified from coming to the table—albeit the early childhood educator would highly disagree with this baseless accusation—is grace not efficient to cover this child who may not be capable, yet desires to partake because they know and love their Savior? Is at this point the Advocate incapable of stepping up to intercede? Is the Great High Priest unable to be their propitiation? Grace covers our shortcomings, and it’s the same grace that should allow children to come to the Lord’s Table, even if they are not yet capable of adult-level self-examination.
Henry Melvill echoes this point by emphasizing that “infancy of itself was no disqualification for a religious privilege.” Christ’s grace, extended to all believers—regardless of their intellectual maturity—demonstrates that communion is a gift, not something earned through elder scrutiny or self-analysis. Just as grace sustains adults in their weakness, it can sustain children in their simplicity of faith. In the end, communion is not about how well we can examine ourselves, but about how well we can trust in the sufficiency of Christ’s grace. For more on this topic of “self-examination” read further discussion under the heading here.
Christ’s Invitation to Children
One of the clearest indications of Christ’s view on children is His command in Mark 10:14, Let the children come to me, do not hinder them. This statement is more than just a directive—it is a powerful affirmation that children are welcomed into the kingdom of God without reservation. Christ’s strong rebuke of the disciples demonstrates His indignation at the idea of children being kept away from Him.
Melvill remarks on this point, observing that “Christ draws their young hearts; but how often are serious thoughts discouraged in children!” He warns that children are quick to perceive inconsistencies in how they are treated within the church, adding, “inconsistencies will stop them just when they might be determining on taking the first step towards Christ.” If Christ so passionately invited children to come to Him, it seems contradictory for the Church to impose barriers based on an arbitrary age (BCO 57-2) or level of maturity, as Melvill highlights how easily small hindrances can stop a child’s spiritual progress.
Furthermore, the PCA itself acknowledges the importance of children in the life of the church in other areas, such as their inclusion in corporate worship and their participation in Sunday School and catechism classes. The Book of Church Order encourages the catechizing of children to nurture them in the faith (BCO 56-4), yet when it comes to communion, these same children—who are actively engaged in other areas of church life—are suddenly deemed unready. This creates an inconsistency that hinders children from fully participating in the sacramental life of the church, directly contradicting Christ’s open invitation.
Baptism and Communion: Sacraments of Grace, Not Achievement
In the PCA, children are baptized as infants, marking them as members of the covenant community. This act of baptism is based on the idea that children are part of God’s covenant by virtue of their parents’ faith. However, if children are included in the covenant through baptism, why are they excluded from the Lord’s Supper, another key sacrament of grace?
Melvill addresses this inconsistency, pointing out that in the Old Testament, children were circumcised as part of the covenant without needing to profess faith. Similarly, he notes how often “little advantage is taken of indications of youthful piety” in children. The same principle applies to baptism, which, like circumcision, is a sign of God’s covenant with His people. If children are welcomed into the covenant through baptism, they should also be welcomed to the table to receive the spiritual nourishment of communion. To withhold the Lord’s Supper from them is to create an unnecessary divide between the sacraments.
The Book of Church Order even acknowledges that children, upon baptism, become “non-communing members” of the church (BCO 57-1), which affirms their place within the covenant community. If baptism welcomes them into the covenant, the sacrament of communion should sustain them in that covenant. Excluding them creates a division between sacraments that was never intended in Scripture, as both are gifts of grace, not contingent upon intellectual maturity or self-examination.
However, those who defend this exclusion often argue that there is a fundamental distinction between baptism and communion. They claim that while baptism is passive, something done to the individual, the Lord’s Supper requires active participation, as the believer must “do something” by eating and drinking. One pastor, writing for the WRPC Pastor’s Press, argues that “Baptism is passive and objective,” while “The Lord’s Supper is an active and subjective event.”5 But this distinction is flawed, and I would like to strongly challenge that assertion.
At the core of both sacraments is the truth that God is the one who works in both baptism and communion, not the individual. The article asserts that baptism is passive because it is administered to someone, whereas communion is active because the individual must “do something” (i.e., eat and drink). However, this argument misses the essential point of the Reformed understanding of the sacraments: they are both means of grace through which God acts.
- Baptism symbolizes God’s covenantal promise, just as circumcision did in the Old Testament. The individual being baptized—whether an infant or an adult—receives the sacrament as a sign of God’s gracious inclusion into the covenant community.
- Communion, likewise, is not primarily about the action of the believer eating and drinking but about the grace of God being conferred through the elements. The believer receives communion as a reminder of Christ’s sacrificial work, and God is the one who nourishes the soul through the sacrament.
In both cases, the focus is on God’s work, not on the believer’s action. To argue that communion is somehow “active” and thus demands a higher level of participation overlooks the fact that both sacraments are God-initiated means of grace, where the primary agent is God, not the individual.
Refuting the “Passive vs. Active” Distinction
The idea that baptism is passive and communion is active creates a false dichotomy. Theologically, both baptism and communion involve a response from the believer, but the response is grounded in faith and reliance on God’s work. The response doesn’t make communion any less of an act of God’s grace than baptism.
- In baptism, whether the recipient is an infant or an adult, the act is indeed passive in that it is done to the person, but it represents God’s promise and grace working in that person’s life.
- In communion, while the individual may physically participate by eating and drinking, the deeper spiritual reality is the same: it is Christ who is acting. As Jesus says in John 6:55-56, For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. It is God’s grace, not the individual’s act of eating or drinking, that brings spiritual nourishment.
At the heart of this debate is a theological misunderstanding of the nature of sacraments. Baptism and communion are not primarily human actions or acts of covenanting; they are first and foremost God’s acts of grace towards His people. The PCA’s Book of Church Order recognizes that both sacraments are means of grace, but fails to fully appreciate that grace is not restricted by age or intellectual maturity.
To claim that communion requires active participation in a way that baptism does not is a contrived distinction. Both sacraments are gifts that God gives to His people, and it is God who does the work in both, making us part of His covenant and nourishing our souls.
Nourishment and Unity
The Lord’s Supper is not merely a symbolic act, meant to be controlled by an uninspired rule book, but a vital means by which Christ offers spiritual nourishment to His people. Jesus’ words in John 6:53-56 reveal the profound importance of this sacrament: Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Here, Jesus emphasizes that partaking in the Lord’s Supper is essential to receiving and sustaining spiritual life, just as food and drink are necessary for physical life.
By withholding communion from children, the Church may unintentionally deprive them of this critical means of grace. If we believe that Christ’s body and blood are true food and drink for the soul, then excluding children from the Lord’s Table could stunt their spiritual growth at a crucial stage of their development. Children, like adults, are in need of spiritual nourishment, and the Lord’s Supper is one of the primary ways Christ provides this sustenance to His people.
Moreover, Scripture tells us in 1 Cor. 10:16-17 that The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Communion is a sign of unity among believers, and excluding children from it fragments this unity, suggesting that they are not fully part of the body of Christ, and are hindered or forbidden until something is achieved or someone approves:
The child soon catches this; he soon detects the superior anxiety which the parent [or Church] exhibits for his progress in what is called learning, the comparative coldness as to his progress in piety. He quickly becomes aware of the eye being lit up with greater pleasure at an indication of talent than at a sign of devotion. And thus the child is practically “forbidden” to come to Christ. He is practically told that there is something preferable to his coming to Christ. —Henry Melvill on Mark 10:13-15
Furthermore, Psalm 34:8 invites all believers, Taste and see that the Lord is good. This invitation is not limited to adults but extends to all who are in the covenant community, including children. Denying children the opportunity to taste and see the goodness of the Lord through the sacrament of communion contradicts the inclusive nature of God’s grace and the nurturing role the Church should play in the spiritual growth of all its members.
Children and “Self-Examination”
Jesus Himself holds up the faith of children as the model for all believers. Their faith is not clouded by doubts, intellectual pride, or the complexities that often accompany adult reasoning. A child approaches God with openness and trust, free from the burdens of skepticism or self-righteousness. Even if we continue, for the sake of argument, with the notion that self-examination before communion is intended as a process of self-reconciling, it stands to reason that the simplicity and purity of a child’s faith may inherently preclude the need for such a process. Their approach to God is already marked by humility and dependence—two key elements that Paul seems to be addressing when warning against taking communion unworthily.
In 1 Cor. 11:28, Paul calls for self-examination, but the context reveals that this instruction was aimed at adults who were misusing the Lord’s Supper. This was an issue of authenticity and intent and Paul was exposing their so-called Supper (1 Cor. 11:20) — the Supper was treated as a social event, rather than a true sacrament, while neglecting the needs of the poor (1 Cor. 11:21-22). Paul’s main concern was the improper conduct that was trivializing the sacrament and undermining the unity of the body of Christ, not that participants needed to attain some heightened spiritual state or pass a doctrinal test. J. Parker aptly captures this sentiment when he writes:
Now, why should any of us go away from this sacred opportunity? Take the children away? Take the poor, broken-hearted sinner away? Take away the poor soul that loves Christ, but knows nothing about theological metaphysics? God forbid. Take away the man who thinks he is fit to sit here, the man who thinks he is conferring patronage upon the table. —J. Parker on Mark 10:13-15
Children, with their innocent faith and lack of the social entanglements and sinful distractions that often accompany adulthood, are far less likely to fall into patterns of unworthy behavior at the Lord’s Table. Their natural openness, trust, and humility—the very qualities Jesus commends—align perfectly with the reverence Paul calls for in approaching communion. And yet, despite this alignment, children are often taken away from this sacred opportunity due to arbitrary barriers set by modern church practices.
One particularly striking example of this is the statement from a member of the Puritan Board who asserts, “If they are too young to answer the questions, they are too young to be admitted to the table.”6 This rash and contrived logic reflects the rigidity imposed by the Book of Church Order, where the inability to answer a set of pre-established questions automatically disqualifies children from participating in communion. Such a stance overlooks the purpose of coming to the table; it’s not an achievement. It creates a barrier where none was intended, shifting the focus from faith to compliance with human-made rules.
Jesus never asked five questions or demanded an intellectual demonstration before offering His grace. He asked one simple question: What do you want me to do for you? (Mark 10:51), Do you want to get well? (John 5:6), Do you believe that I am able to do this? (Matt. 9:28). When rigid practices turn faith into an obstacle course, the Church risks blocking access to Christ’s table for those who—like children—already embody the very qualities the table calls for: trust, humility, and faith.
Henry Melvill, in his commentary, underscores how adults often project their own fears and complexities onto children, assuming they need to be shielded from certain religious practices until they “mature.” However, Melvill argues that children’s innocence and simplicity actually make them more open to receiving spiritual blessings. Applying this to communion, one could argue that children’s natural purity is a better qualifier than those imposed by the PCA’s rigid BCO.
In conclusion, the innocent, trusting faith of children could indeed preclude them from needing the kind of self-examination that Paul speaks of in 1 Corinthians 11. Rather than being excluded from communion, their childlike faith might actually make them the ideal participants, embodying the very qualities Jesus praises and aligning perfectly with the grace offered through the sacrament.
Scripture as Authority
(bonus reason #6) The Scripture has final authority, not men nor their interpretations. In George Peters’ 10th proposition, he discusses how “creeds, confessions, formulas of doctrine” should never subvert the authority of the Scriptures themselves; the opening paragraph to his proposition is a perfect reminder and conclusion on this subject:
This Proposition in its definite statement is the more needed, since at the present day multitudes find themselves so fettered by an undue reverence for human authority, as presented in and through the church, that it is scarcely possible to get them to consider any subject in its true scriptural aspect. We have no sympathy with the men who would, if they were able, destroy the memorials of the church’s views and struggles. The creeds, confessions, formulas of doctrine, systems of divinity, theological writings of the past, however some may be one-sided, prolix, etc., are precious heirlooms, giving us in a dogmatical or systematic form the opinions of noble men, in different epochs, entertained respecting the truth. They, too, subserved a great and glorious purpose in holding up Christ and the essentials in Him, in opposing gross error, and in resisting the torrent of unbelief. Admitting that the necessities of our spiritual nature, the thirst after truth, the deep feeling caused by the realities of Revelation, the impressive ideas evolved and suggested by contact with the truth, the earnest desire to extend and defend the same, have caused fallible men to erect these writings as bulwarks and barriers;—while receiving them with gratitude, and acknowledging our indebtedness to them, yet we cannot, for a moment, give them the authority of God’s Word. They, too, the workmanship of man, must bow to the supremacy of Holy Writ, as, in nearly every instance, the framers thereof intended and declared by appeals to the Bible, indicating it to be the sole, paramount rule of faith. (Prop. 10, Obs. 1)
Recommended Sources
Commentary on
- Commentary: Read here on this blog site Melvill’s commentary on Mark 10:15
On creeds, confessions, formulas of doctrine, systems of divinity, theological writings of the past
- Book: The Theocratic Kingdom (Prop. 10) (available on this blog site)
- In this section, Peters emphasizes the supremacy of the Bible as the ultimate authority on matters of faith and doctrine, over and above human traditions, creeds, or interpretations, no matter how respected. While historical creeds and theological writings are valuable and informative, they must always be subordinate to the Word of God, which alone is infallible and sufficient for establishing truth.
- In this section, Peters emphasizes the supremacy of the Bible as the ultimate authority on matters of faith and doctrine, over and above human traditions, creeds, or interpretations, no matter how respected. While historical creeds and theological writings are valuable and informative, they must always be subordinate to the Word of God, which alone is infallible and sufficient for establishing truth.
Strong G43:
ἀγανακτέω
aganakteō
ag-an-ak-teh’-o
From ἄγαν agan (much) and ἄχθος achhos̄ (grief; akin to the base of G43); to be greatly afflicted, that is, (figuratively) indignant: – be much (sore) displeased, have (be moved with, with) indignation.
Total KJV occurrences: 7- WRPC Pastor’s Press
- Biblical Illustrator, “The sin of keeping back children from Christ” by Henry Melvill
- Biblical Illustrator, “Worthy and unworthy communicating” by J. Parker, D.D.
- The Age for Communion, Scotty Anderson, The Age for Communion – WRPC Pastor’s Press
- Puritan Board, PCA BCO 57-5 | The Puritan Board