Bread and babies
Some seminary friends and I were talking the other day about ordination. And, in that first sentence, I just eliminated the interest of many people. Not only was it a seminary conversation, but it was a seminary conversation about ordination. Why anyone outside of seminary should be interested in that is beyond me. And that’s ok. Seminary breeds strange, esoteric thoughts sometimes. I want to write about them. You don’t necessarily have to read them. I’m not even going to bother to try and convince you that something good will come at the end. If you’re not interested in seminary or ordination now, this post won’t make you care about it. Go do something fun with your 12 minutes.
Anyway, we got to talking about what exceptions we were likely to take to the Westminster Standards. In the PCA, you have to say where you disagree with the Standards. For the most part, the Standards are an extremely reliable, well-written, and accurate systematic statement of true, Biblical theology. However, we also recognize that it is a non-inspired document, and therefore subject to scrutiny. For example, most ordained men in the PCA think that the Standard’s statements on Sabbath-keeping are too stringent (basically, they say that you can’t do anything fun, because the Sabbath is a solemn day). So the other guys in presbytery expect you to say that you disagree with something in the Standards. If you say that you have no differences with the Standards, it’s only proof that you’ve not read them closely.
One exception that is rising in popularity is paedo-communion, which is believing that you can give communion to children before they are accepted as church members. Someone told me once that it was the 2nd most-cited exception, behind the aforementioned sabbath exception. This surprised me, but it could be true. At the same time, it’s a rather dicey exception to take now-a-days. Paedo-communion has largely been associated with the Auburn Avenue/Federal Vision movement. To take this exception opens you to a lot of scrutiny, as many within the PCA believe that FV is a direct attack against the purity of the Gospel.
I don’t know all about that. I really don’t. I’ve been in seminary for 3 years now, and I have very little idea what the heck the FV is all about. And I don’t think it’s just me. So far as I can tell, a big part of the problem is that every critical assessment of FV that I’ve ever seen has been attacked by FV proponents, stating that the critic has completely misunderstood FV. And that might be the case. I’m not going to try to tell you that Guy Waters or Ligon Duncan has a perfect understanding of FV. But how is it that EVERY outside assessment has missed the point? Really — how many theological doctors does it take to rightly discern the thought of these guys? Maybe it’s just me being cynical, but I’m far more inclined to conclude that there is something hazy either in the thinking or the writing of the proponents, which is the major cause of the din. Yet I’ll be quick to say again that I haven’t taken the time to read up on all this myself, nor do I plan to (unless presbytery tells me to). I’d really rather spend my time learning about Islam or getting to know my agnostic/atheistic neighbors or praying for my friends than studying an esoteric theological controversy that makes sense to .002% of the world.
So why am I writing this? Well, none of my friends are FV proponents. Most of them feel similarly to me, that the whole thing makes no sense in the first place. But some of my friends were saying that they still don’t understand the traditional arguments against the practice of paedo-communion. After all, if children are members of the covenant community, as we Presbyterians readily affirm, why would we hold back the elements and means of grace from them? If we were to use Paul’s instruction about “each man discerning his heart” before he partakes, then we could never admit a mentally-retarded person to the table.
I got to thinking and wondering and asking myself why I disagree with paedo-communion. I found myself developing a reasoning that I hadn’t heard articulated before, and one that got me rather excited. So I thought I’d write it down here so that I wouldn’t forget.
To me, the big problem with paedo-communion has to do with the charge upon the elders of the church to maintain the purity of the sacraments. We refer to this in the Presbyterian church as the “fencing of the table.” The minister invites all those who trust in Christ to come to the table and commune with God and receive the blessing of His body broken and blood poured. He also warns those that refuse His Lordship to not take the elements in vain, lest they take condemnation upon themselves (again, echoing the warning from Paul). I should also back up and re-iterate that the sacraments are instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church for the encouragement and empowering of the People of God. This is why you don’t just baptize someone, but you baptize them in a local church and into a covenant community of faith. This is why you don’t just take any bread and wine at any time and call it communion, but you partake as a community. The elders, as the under-shepherds of the church, are uniquely tasked with maintaining the purity of the sacraments and ensuring the spiritual health of the congregants such that they do not take the elements in vain.
What happens in most cases with paedo-communion is that the fathers in the family are tasked with the responsibility of maintaining the purity of the elements for their family. Instead of waiting for the elders to receive the child as an examined and recognized adult member of the community of faith, the father takes the role of ensuring that his child is ready to receive communion. And this is a huge mistake. As I stated a while back, complementarianism and Biblical male-headship does NOT mean that fathers are the same as elders in the local church. It is the responsibility of a father (and mother) to entrust that their child is raised up in the fear and love of the Lord. And it is the responsibility of the church to support them in that work. That does not mean that the father suddenly becomes the de-facto elder for that nuclear family.
September 27th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Hey Tim. As a paedocommunion advocate, I thought I’d comment on this post.
First off, I don’t think you’ve defined paedocommunion acceptably. I think Peter Leithart did a fine job defining the position in the AA/FV Colloquium book.
You said it was “believing that you can give communion to children before they are accepted as church members”. This I utterly reject, and actually don’t know any pro-paedocommunion individual that would accept it. No one believes that anyone outside the church should be given the Supper. No, the point of paedocommunion is that young baptized children are Christians. They are members of Christ’s Church just as fully as the adults sitting around them. The children are church members, and that is exactly why it is argued they should be given the Bread and the Cup.
The second point I want to make is that your entire critique of the paedocommunion position applies just as forcefully to paedobaptism. Why do parents get to decide when their child is going to be baptized? Why isn’t it the session’s duty to dictate when, precisely, after birth any given child will be baptized? I know in my church (which isn’t PCA, but I can’t imagine it being different at any run of the mill PCA) some babies are baptized within a week of being born, and others don’t until they are one or two montsh old. Some even older. Sometimes it is health issues that put off the baptism, other times it has to do with when extended family can travel to be at the rite. Are all of these things failures on the elder’s part to maintain the purity of the sacraments? Your criticism, if valid, applies just as directly and forcefully to paedobaptism.
Moving on, let us consider adult members in the church. Is it a failure for elders to uphold their responsibilities when an adult individual in the church chooses, for whatever reason, not to partake on a given Sunday? Regardless of whether they should or not, they are making a decision that you don’t appear to believe should be made by individuals… only by the session. Right?
I agree with you that fathers are not elders. There is a division between household government and church government. Being a father does not give me the right to decide when my child is worthy to partake of the Lord’s Supper. The Church has that authority, and when the child was baptized, the Church affirmed what God declared in the baptism… that the child is admitted into the Church, signified and sealed in the covenant of grace, ingrafted into Christ, regenerated, forgiven his sins, and is committed to God through Christ to walk in newness of life. Isn’t that what the Church is saying about a person when they baptize them?
No, as a practicer of paedocommunion, I make no decision regarding the worthiness of my children. That decision was made by God when He granted the children to me and they were born into a covenant home, and when they were baptized, personally and individually receiving the promises of God regarding the blessing of the covenant.
Also, even in the understanding of paedocommunion you presented (where a dad just decides his child can have communion, and so gives it to him at the next opportunity–which is not how it actually happens in my experience, btw), the father does not take on the responsibility of ensuring the purity of the sacraments. That lies solely on the shoulders of the session. It is the session’s responsibility to know who is partaking, and whether or not they are qualified to partake. IF the dad thinks its okay, and just gives it to the child, but the session doesn’t agree… it is their responsibility to intervene. The responsibility doesn’t magically transfer to the father just because he is usurping on the authority of the elders.
God Bless-
September 27th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Richard, thanks for your response. I appreciate getting to hear a little from “the other side”, especially as I know this is an issue you’ve given a lot of thought. As you can probably tell, both my thoughts and this post in itself are very much works in progress. I’ve got a couple of thoughts of response, but I’m going to hold off until I have more time to consider it.
October 27th, 2007 at 1:31 am
Tim,
I a member of a PCA church right now that all of the congregants, the session, and the pastor all practice and support paedocommunion and my husband and I are having such a struggle. We have three baptized children 10,9, and 6. Are children are all professing (at home) and have been since they could speak. The Lord has blessed our meaker efforts thus far and we cherish the opportunity to watch His children grow before our eyes. We have no doubt that our children are christians but still we believe that they must be examined by a session and make a public profession of faith before they publically take communion. Communion is not just for ourselves it is an outward sign to others, right? We get a lot of slack from this church because we don’t allow are children to take communion- Not that we should have them examined by the session but that they should just go up and take it because they are church members. They are baptized members (special members) with a special mark of the covenant. Baptism is not a saving ordinance (that is catholic). Anyway I appreciate your comments and would like to see more. Should a PCA church be allowing paedo communion? I thought the PCA as a whole said “no”. Isn’t our session and pastor under a greater authority. This is why we felt protected in this denomination, because of the government structure and because we believe the standards of the WCF most closely match what scripture teaches. How can you argue with 1 Corinthians 11:27-34…Plus at the church that we are members of we take communion every Sunday and we don’t wait for each other, we walk forward to the altar and take the bread and dip into the wine and eat. Of course some take the bread, dip and place it in their babies mouth. This is the best PCA church in our geographical area. It is so frustrating!
October 27th, 2007 at 2:39 am
Okay I appear grammatically challenged but it is far to early in the morning or late at night (you can interpret) for me to be commenting post. The Are children used twice above should be our children and the meaker efforts should be meager! Oh how I wish I could erase and correct. The main point was to say Write on - and Right on.
October 27th, 2007 at 7:27 am
Tara,
Why hasn’t your session examined your children? If they are in favor of paedocommunion, I don’t see how they would have a problem setting up a meeting between each of your children to admit them to the Table. Have you asked them to do this?
here (pdf) is a link to the PCAs decision on the issue, and it is a ‘No’. However, different presbyteries handle it in different ways. Some allow sessions to examine children a very young… sometimes even as young as two years old. I would have trouble, though, with a session that simply disregarded entirely the judgment of the GA on the matter. And I say that as one that disagrees with their judgment.
Your comment, “How can you argue with 1 Corinthians 11:27-34″ reveals an ignorance of the actual paedocommunion argument. I would suggest you read the PCA minority report in favor of paedocommunion (which is included in the above document, and begins on page 502 (or the sixth page of the document)).
Very briefly, I would argue that 1 Cor 11 requires nothing that a baby cannot satisfy. They are worthy partakers. The word translated ‘examine’ is dokimazo, and would be better translated as ‘prove’ (as in 1 Cor. 3:13; 2 Cor. 13:5, etc.). Thus, the text is not required some sort of intellectual standard of doctrinal integrity. Rather, Paul is requiring the saints to love and serve one another, and their behavior is how they show their qualification for the Supper. The Corinthians were dividing the church by failing to recognize the poor and needy. Paul’s solution, then, is not to require a high level of maturity and doctrinal precision, but rather to wait for one another.
I’m pretty sure the method your church uses to practice communion has a long history in the church. I prefer passing the bread, and then all partaking together also. But I don’t think what you described is a violation of Paul’s exhortation to wait for one another. The problem in Corinth was that some people didn’t have anything at all, and others were getting drunk they had so much. I don’t think that’s what is going on at your church.
October 28th, 2007 at 5:28 am
I think paedocommunion right. As for ‘let a man examine himself’ in I Cor 11, a soft answer allowing paedocommunion is that ‘examine himself’ may not apply to children just as ‘if a man will not work neither shall he eat’ does not apply to children.
A stronger answer looks at the context (which the Reformed tradition often seems to ignore.) What was the problem in Corinth? Some were eating while failing to carefully include everyone who should be included. What was the solution? Examine yourself TO MAKE SURE YOU’RE LOVING YOUR NEIGHBOR BY INCLUDING HIM IN THE SUPPER! So a 2-year-old who takes some of the elements and hands them along has examined himself; but creedocommunionists do not examine themselves, for they fail to include inc ommunion all present who should be included.
“A text without a context is a pretext,’ and ‘examine himself’ is too often torn from context and REVERSED in meaning-the only sin we DON”T examine for is the very sin (non-inclusion) we’re in the very act of committing, the very sin we’re told to examine for!
More details–20 or so arguments for paedocommunion and answers to 30+ objections–on my website, http://www.lohr84.com.
The paedocommunion discussion often focuses on ritual. How about bringing in spiritual realities? If Jesus Christ died for our children, and we’re showing his death, how can the showing not include them?
And I’m glad to hear of PCA churches admitting children as young as two (I’ve heard this of the “Reformed Presbyterian Church” PCA on Lookout Mtn, GA, across the street from PCA’s Covenant College), but another improvement I’d like to see in the discussion is consideration of whether creedocommunion practice is serious sin (close to Reformation level). Did Luther have a duty to submit to the Pope? I’ve mentioned that practicing creedocommunion involves not examining oneself. lohr84.com lists 4 other sins (one of them optional) in creedocommunion practice.
I perceive three issues. (1) Is God for paedocommunion, or against? (Imho, for.) (2) Does it matter much to him, or is it trivial as, perhaps, headcovering, or taking mama and baby birds from the same nest, may {?} be trivial? (Imho, it’s rather important.) (3) So what should we DO? Mmmmmmm, I’m better at reading and writing than at personal politics. But I think the issue more serious (sin to be actually repented of, not just error to be tolerated indefinitely) than most people I know who’ve considered it seem to think it, judging from what they do: wait. (I don’t have kids, but when I found a convenient church doing paedocommunion, I switched churches that week.)
Fwiw. Pray correct my mistkaes.
Andrew Lohr, East Ridge (Chattanooga), TN