Why Paedocommunion is a Bad Idea

Expanding a Blessing or Bringing down a Curse?

Gregory Johnson • Covenant Theological Seminary • 1997

 

(Greg Johnson graduated from Covenant summa cum laude in 1997, winning the school’s Theology Award and Grant for Theological Studies that year)

 

 

In an age in which Reformed evangelicals are habitually on the defensive over their adherence to paedobaptism (the baptism of infants), in an era in which many if not most Christians consider themselves liberated from the bonds of the Old Testament, questions of covenant continuity are ever at the forefront of the covenant theologian's thinking.  And in such a climate, one topic that arises again and again within Presbyterian circles is the question of paedocommunion.  If the two most important sacraments of the Old Testament, circumcision and the passover, are fulfilled by baptism and communion in the New, would it not seem logical that children, who were admitted to both in the Old, would also be admitted to both in the New?  Is the new covenant not more gracious, rather than less, than the Old?  Does not the continuity of the covenant require paedocommunion?  Is it not wrong, some ask, to withhold so great a blessing from our children?

 

Paedopassover & the Burden of Proof

            One assumption some adherents of paedocommunion make is the assumption that the passover meal was for infants.  Yet the passover was not for infants, but for older children.  A passover meal would include roast lamb, bitter herbs, and unleavened bread (Ex 12:8)-- hardly Gerber's baby food.  And the children would be taught the meaning of the sacrament from the earliest days.  At each observance, the head of the family would explain to the children the significance of the meal, of Yahweh's deliverance of His covenant people (Ex. 12:26ff.).  By the time a child would be old enough to take full part in the act, such children would have the knowledge to discern the meaning of the sacrament, even if at a still young age.  Children of all ages participated in the passover by listening and learning, but full participation was only for older covenant children.  Even in the old covenant, the sacrament of spiritual nourishment was not given for some time after the initiatory sacrament, and then only with teaching.  Still, the parallel between the passover and the Lord's supper is inadequate to either prove or disprove paedocommunion.  But the question in this debate is this; which party must assume the burden of proof?

            Were the New Testament devoid of teaching on the Lord's table, the parallel with the passover might leave the burden of proof unclear.  Which principle is to be brought into the eucharist:  that covenant children are accepted to the sacrament without necessarily professing faith, or that the sacrament comes only after maturation and teaching, and not to infants?  If systematic deduction from an Old Testament sacrament were all the data we had to draw from, the burden of proof would seem unclear.  But the burden of proof will be more clear after looking at one key New Testament passage concerning the Lord's supper.  For if the New Testament were to present an apparently universal prerequisite for admittance to the table, then proponents of paedocommunion must accept a burden of proof they are unable to fulfill.  An argument from clear exegesis is rarely at the mercy of an argument from systematics alone, all the more when 2,000 years of church history point almost unanimously in the same direction as Scripture.

 

Warnings of a double-edged sacrament

            The fundamental passage dealing with the requirements for worthy taking of the Lord's supper is 1 Corinthians 11:17-34.  In this passage, Paul presents a principle that Christians must examine themselves before taking the Lord's supper (v.28).  Christ's body and blood are present in the sacramental meal (v.24, he does not specify how), and so those who take of it in an unworthy manner partake Christ, but in Christ His judgment (v.27).  Examination is therefore an absolute necessity, for to fail to recognize the Lord's body brings temporal judgment, even death (v.30).  Participants in the sacrament must judge themselves in order to avoid discipline (v.31). 

            The argument of those supporting paedocommunion that Paul's argument in 1 Corinthians is limited to adults and therefore cannot be applied to children cannot be sustained.  Nearly all theology in Scripture is presented in application; it cannot be rejected simply for this reason.  The question, rather, is over which theology is being applied.  While it must be acknowledged that Paul is addressing adults, he proposes a theology of the Lord's supper that leaves no room for paedocommunion.  For if taking the eucharist without examination makes one liable to temporal judgment and even death, then to urge the sacrament upon those incapable of testing themselves in this matter is not an act of blessing, but of cruelty.

            Still, proponents of paedocommunion argue that there is precedent for exempting covenant children from the otherwise universal prerequisites for receiving the sacraments.  In covenant baptism, they point out, children are unable to believe, even though faith is a requirement for adult converts.  Similarly, they argue, covenant children need not be able to test themselves in accordance with 1 Corinthians 11, even though this is required of adult believers.  This argument, however, is not cogent.

            To argue from covenant baptism a general principle that covenant children are temporarily exempt from the requirements of a different sacrament (the Lord's supper) is to separate the fact that covenant infants are baptized without faith from the reason they are baptized without faith.  Adults and children have different requirements for receiving the initiatory sign of the covenant (baptism) because adult converts and covenant children have different means of entering the covenant.  But to import this concern into discussion of the Lord's supper, the nourishing rite of the covenant community, is foreign.  This would fail to properly distinguish between initiation and  nourishment and the requirements for each.  There is no difference in the way covenant people are nourished-- they feed upon Christ in faith, without respect tot age.  If this is not being done, the supper should not be taken.  Covenant baptism gives no general principle of freedom from sacramental requirements; it merely acknowledges that entrance into the covenant differs between covenant children and adult converts.  Before one receives the nourishing sacrament of the Lord's supper, however, testing is required, whether for adult or child.  Those unable to successfully test themselves (due to sin or ignorance), whether adults or children, are prohibited from eating the bread and the wine.  The discipline for disobedience here is sometimes death.  The Lord's supper is a double-edged sword, bringing blessing on the worthy receiver and judgment upon the unworthy.

 

Parental & Ecclesial Responsibility

            None of this is to imply that a small child who is unable to express his faith necessarily does not have faith; it is very likely that small children can believe.  The key issue, rather, is the parental and ecclesiastical responsibility to protect children from unworthily partaking of the sacrament.  Unless the child is known to believe in Christ,[1] the permissive parent and church have failed in their duty to protect the child from eating and drinking to his or her own judgment.  If the child can express genuine faith, can discern the Lord's body and can examine his or her heart, then there is a responsibility to open the table to the child; but if not, there is a responsibility to prevent such access.  Both the session's and the parent's responsibility must be to protect children from incurring judgment; therefore children must be discouraged from participation in the Lord's supper until they profess a repentant and committed faith in Christ.  Granted, such profession may potentially come from a three-year-old, and churches must not bar professing believers-- even young ones-- from the sacrament simply because of age.  But the child must profess faith and be committed to seeking the Lord before admittance to the supper is permitted.  Again, the Lord's supper is a double-edged sword, bringing blessing on the worthy receiver and judgment upon the unworthy.

 

Tolerance in Doctrine & Practice?

            Tolerance at the doctrinal level should be encouraged, so long as such disagreement does not cause division.  Still, the question arises:  Could the PCA allow both in practice?  Were this possible without disrupting the peace of the church, I would at least consider tolerance at the level of practice, but such a possibility seems unlikely.  Believing in paedocommunion need not necessarily cause division, but practicing it certainly would.  Differences of practice are more divisive than differences of doctrine, for the division is more visible.  Can a denomination be at peace where one church invites small children to the table and another does not?  When parents move from one church to another, would their small children be excommunicated?  The hopes for unity with two opposing practices seem slim.  It should come as little surprise that the issues that divided the Protestant Reformation were primarily sacramental and ecclesiological.  Doctrine divides; practice divides even more-- particularly when the same act may be either blessing or curse.

 

 


[1]Belief in Christ vicariously through belief in the parents is an inadequate argument I have seen presented by some supporters of paedocommunion.  Such a suggestion replaces a saving response to a redemptive Person with a moral response to a divinely-ordained yet human authority.