Communion for Kids? – Part One

This is part one of a three part post on paedocommunion that my friend Jon put together.  It’s the practice of allowing young children to partake in the Lord’s Supper.  The usual disclaimers apply in that I didn’t write this, but I happen to think what he says has merit.  I’ve posted this as is, as close to what he sent me as possible.  Please comment and check out his blog where he opines on things infosec.

The biggest difficulty I find in writing a piece like this is the same difficulty with any writing: consideration of the audience. This was initially written for a number of individuals already thinking and operating within Reformed practice, although, thankfully, labels have a hard time sticking with these folks. Its very likely that I am making some gigantic assumptions that need further unpacking – preference of a philosophical model, knowledge of assorted particulars within church history, understanding of covenant theology, familiarity with past and present church practice of reformed churches – but in spite of that, I’m willing to put this out if for nothing else than a catalyst for good conversation. I am very appreciative to Scott for providing the space for publication and the editorial advice – sage writing wisdom at it’s best.

I have come to embrace the position commonly known as paedocommunion. I accept this label, however, with some reservations about the term. I do not embrace such a doctrine of “infant communion”. I hold to what could be called “young child communion.” Notwithstanding, I am in agreement with all so-called paedocommunionists in humbly insisting that the Reformed churches have erred in delaying the admittance of covenant children to the Table until they “are of years and ability to examine themselves.” I am comfortable with the label and thereby identify myself as one member of a class, loosely defined, of “paedocommunionists.” In what follows, I hope to summarize what has persuaded me to embrace the position I was once content to oppose. I do not intend to provide a comprehensive defense of paedocommunion. There is already existing and thorough writing towards this end, particularly in the 1988 majority report of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church’s committee to study paedocommunion, primarily authored by G.I. Williamson, and more recently in Tim Gallant’s book “Feed My Lambs: Why the Lord’s Table Should Be Restored to Covenant Children” and “The Case for Covenant Communion,” edited by Gregg Strawbridge. Rather, I intend to briefly highlight a selection of points, seeking to demonstrate what has led me in particular to this perspective. We’ll chase these down under three headings: 1. The role of the sacraments in the life of the church, 2. The teaching of 1 Corinthians 11, and 3. Observations regarding the historical record.

The role of the sacraments in the life of the church

My orthodoxy has been preserved by one iteration or another of the Reformed faith. I will readily admit that it was God’s providence that preserved me, but the means by which he did has been through the many shapes, sizes and various streams within the Reformed pale. Through this, I have an ever-increasing appreciation for the Reformed view of the nature and function of the sacraments in the life of the Church. I simply affirm the description in the Westminster Confession of Faith, that the sacraments are:

“holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and his benefits; and to confirm our interest in him: as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the church and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to his Word” (WCF 27:1, emphasis added)

While I affirm this, I also have no problem asserting that it is a regrettable inconsistency in the Westminster Standards that the sacraments are together spoken of as marking out the visible church, yet the sacrament of the Lord’s Table is withheld from certain members of the visible church as “unworthy receivers” until they reach “years and ability to examine themselves” (Westminster Larger Catechism #177). The traditional perspective asserts that for those children their baptism alone is sufficient mark of membership, yet it seems to me that this statement of the Confession – that the sacraments considered together provide the mark of membership – finds plenty of proof in the obvious case of excommunicated persons. While I am not trying to say that we are treating our baptized children as apostate by denying them the supper, it is obvious that while excommunicated persons are still baptized persons, they are not counted as members of the church due to having been barred from the Table. Through this, I find it to be true that not only are both sacraments essential in defining the boundaries of the church, but that, if anything, the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper has the primary role in this identification.

The simple and straightforward argument made by paedocommunionists that the signs and seals of the covenant are to be received by the members of the covenant is an insurmountable one.

I do believe it is a misuse of the Lord’s Supper to impose it upon a passive recipient, whether it be an infant or an adult. While baptism is administered to those who are passive in order to represent God’s sovereign initiation and establishment of the covenant, the Lord’s Supper, as the sacrament of continuation with that covenant, is rightly administered only to those who are active in order to represent in part the response of God’s people to his covenant. However, I do not believe these differing designs of the sacraments can justify the traditional practice of withholding the sacrament of covenant response and communion from children until they are able to make an articulate profession of faith and undergo the ordeal of taking vows before a congregation.

In both the church and the home, we should rightly call for faithful covenant response from the children of the covenant from the very earliest days of their comprehension and self-initiative. We rightly teach them to pray even as they learn how to talk, we rightly encourage them to sing praises as soon as they can carry a tune (and sometimes even before), and we rightly teach them to actively participate in the worship of God from the very early days of their inclusion in it. Likewise, I believe we would be correct to allow them to take part in the Lord’s Table at as early a time as they actively can do so. While this certainly presumes some space of time between their passively receiving baptism and their actively partaking of the Lord’s Supper, it is far from the present practice of many of barring our children from the Table until many years after they have, in fact, expressed their covenant response to God’s love in a plethora of ways. As Passover was and the other elements of worship are, the Lord’s Supper should be a vehicle for their expression of love to Christ from the very beginning of their days of self-expression.

  • http://twitter.com/indianajim Indiana Jim

    My interpretation of scripture is that the sacraments are observances of conscience and the will. It is one of the essential breaking points of Protestantism from Catholicism. No one can be saved unless they, as an act of the will, repent of their sins and confess Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. There is no “get into Heaven free” card. One dies unto himself, takes up his cross and follows Jesus. This is an act of the will.

    Therefore, if salvation is of the will, then the outward expressions of that salvation are acts of the will also. Jesus said he must be baptised “to fulfill all righteousness.” He was not baptised as a child, but as an adult when he took up his ministry. He did this as an act of obedience and as a public display. Therefore, in the Baptist tradition, it is known as “believer's baptism.” first the act of belief, then the obedience and public symbol of that covenant.

    The Lord's Supper, or communion, or whatever you call it, is equally an act of the will. Paul said that one should examine themselves internally, because anyone who “eats or drinks unworthily, eats and drinks damnation unto himself.” Seems to me that only one who has that saving faith can make that act of conscience to partake of the Lord's Supper. Only that person who possesses the individual accountability for their actions can make such an act of conscience.

    God gave us individual salvation, not collective salvation. I believe children possess an innocence up until that point that they are accountable for their sin nature. When they comprehend the consequences of sin. Then once they believe, they join the covenant. We do not join the covenant for them on their behalf.

  • Jon

    Jim,

    Thanks for your response here. I think we agree considerably on the there is no “get into heaven free” card (although, similar to one of Scott's earlier posts, I might quibble with that whole “heaven” thing). I think we might find some different however when it comes to the covenant and its signs. My interpretation sees the covenant as something much larger than the church, and by necessary implication, the signs of that covenant are as well. The baptist tradition breaks from us in that respect with many assuming a full dissonance between God's people in the Old Testament and God's people in the New Testament, whereas the reformed tradition sees essential unity between the two. Others in the Baptist tradition see God's people as unified, but the signs as separate.

    We will in the next two posts (the last one, primarily) begin to discuss what exactly Paul is talking about in 1 Corinthians when he says that one should examine themselves internally, and whether he actually says that.

    Again with regard to a covenantal perspective, God gave both collective and individual salvation. I do not affirm the same “age of innocence/accountability” that you put forward, and perhaps a series of posts on the inclusion of believer's children in the covenant would have been helpful before diving into this specific issue of children's participation in communion!

    Thanks again for your contribution to the discussion!

    JW

  • Jon

    Clarification:

    “My interpretation sees the covenant as something much larger than the church”

    My interpretation sees the covenant as something much larger than “those who are saved” – because I do see the covenant as marking out those who are members of the visible church.

  • http://michaelspence.us Michael Spence

    As I understand it, the issue of self-examination is taken from 1 Cor 11:27-28: “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.” If so, then we need to see it in the context of that passage, which I strongly suspect makes it far less relevant to young children than to their parents.

    What is the “unworthy manner” in which the Corinthians are observing the Supper? Privilege and self-centeredness. Some said, “Awright! Free food!” and gorged themselves, leaving others only the scraps. Likewise the wine (and the primary benefit I see in substituting grape juice has been to make the results of overindulgence less visible). Rather than partaking of the elements _in common_, mindful that they composed one body, each participant thought only of himself.

    It seems to me, then, that the self-examination Paul commands is not general, but has to do specifically with whether one sees oneself and one's fellow believers as equal sharers in the work, gifts, and blessings of Christ, and sees the Supper as highlighting, among other things, that unity. Yes, children are selfish from the get-go (as in other ways, they're just like adults but with fewer inhibitions); but the restraint on this nature comes less from mature reflection than from parental training. The parents, on the other hand, are (should be) mature enough to engage in that reflection themselves.

    If, then, you see communion as proper for young covenant children (and that's another issue in itself, addressing the identity of the covenant), I would suggest that whether the children are of an age to examine themselves is not an issue that should be used to exclude them.

  • Jon Welborn

    Michael,

    Thanks for your input. Please stay tuned for our installment where we dive directly into 1 Corinthians 11. It would appear from reading you that you and I have a very similar take on the text, and I hope you can chime in again once we get to the exegetical considerations.

    JW

«
»