If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion. It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate. Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC. I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament.
Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC. I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did. So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC.
1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.
Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion. However, let me clarify what I mean when I use the word Biblical. The Bible is not a Systematic Theology dropped from Heaven. We cannot turn to a specific section and read a thorough explanation of God's design for the Sacraments. Hence the division throughout Church history over the details, like participants and administration, of both Sacraments. When I say that PC is Biblical, I simply mean that the commands and examples, along with the general ethos, of the Bible support the practice of PC.
I could spend a large deal of space illustrating this, but I will limit myself to two points. Firstly, the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, reveals a God who works through Covenant--that is, He sets a people apart through promises and concomitant obligations. We find a series of covenants in the Old Testament--Adam, Noah, Moses, David--until the Advent of Christ brings the final, better covenant. These covenants often have different commands, emphases, and administrations, but without exception they all share one principle--their children are included. This is as true of the New Covenant as it was of any Old Testament covenant, with the children of believers specifically mentioned multiple times (see here and here). We can argue about the implications of these and similar passages, but I believe we can safely say that our God still thinks generationally.
Secondly, the Bible ties the Sacraments to the covenant people. Most Reformed Christians would agree, so I may not need to prove this assertion, but I believe it is relatively easy to demonstrate from both Testaments. In the Old Testament circumcision is given as a dividing line between the covenant people and commoners (in fact, it is actually called the covenant). The ceremonial meals were for the entire covenant people and only the covenant people (while it is true that not all the people were commanded to participate in all of the feasts, this is due to the physical hardship such a rule would entail; they were all allowed to partake). In the New Testament we see that we were all one body because we have been baptized and partake of one loaf. 1 Corinthians 11, which happens to be sandwiched between the two passages just referenced, is often used to refute PC, but it, too, emphasizes the importance of the the unity of the Body at the Table.
I hate to oversimplify a heavily debated issue, but I think we can boil it down to this. Are children part of the covenant people? Are they part of the Body? If so, they ought to receive the signs of union and communion with the covenant Body.
The way that God views our children and the promises that He makes both demand PC.
2) Paedocommunion is historical.
Often portrayed as a historical irregularity pioneered by those pesky Federal Visionists, Paedocommunion has, in fact, quite a foothold in Church history. I would direct you to this collection of quotes and this article for more info, but I will share my two favorite proofs.
My favorite quote comes from St. Augustine. He says:
If, therefore, as so many and such divine witnesses agree, neither salvation nor eternal life can be hoped for by any man without baptism and the Lord’s body and blood, it is vain to promise these blessings to infants without them. Moreover, if it be only sins that separate man from salvation and eternal life, there is nothing else in infants which these sacraments can be the means of removing, but the guilt of sin.
Were we to read the entire context, we would see that Augustine is using the practice of PC to justify his view of the efficacy of the Sacraments. We need not agree with his conclusion to appreciate the historical importance of his logic. His argument only makes sense if one assumes that his hearers understood and accepted the first part of his syllogism. This means that in Augustine's day PC was universal enough to be assumed as the basis for his debatable view of the Sacraments. This doesn't necessarily prove that PC was the only practice in Augustine's day, but it shows that it was certainly an acceptable, even normal, practice.
Over a century earlier we see St. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, similarly assuming PC. Again, he is not asserting anything regarding the participants of the Table, but, while discussing a totally different subject, he simply takes the practice of PC for granted. He describes an unusual event where a child, specifically said to be too young to eat flesh, was forced to participate in an idolatrous ceremony. He then reports the visceral reaction of the child later being offered the Eucharist after having partaken of the idolatrous sacrament.
When, however, the solemnities were finished, and the deacon began to offer the cup to those present, and when, as the rest received it, its turn approached, the little child, by the instinct of the divine majesty, turned away its face, compressed its mouth with resisting lips, and refused the cup. Still the deacon persisted, and, although against her efforts, forced on her some of the sacrament of the cup. Then there followed a sobbing and vomiting. In a profane body and mouth the Eucharist could not remain; the draught sanctified in the blood of the Lord burst forth from the polluted stomach.
Cyprian here clearly assumes the place of children at the Table. The phrase its turn approached matter-of-factly illustrates that children, even babes for whom intinction was the only physical option, partook of the Eucharist as naturally as they would have eaten at the dinner table to the degree that they were physically able.
It is also of historical significance that the Eastern Orthodox Church, which is not particularly known for change, has practiced PC as far back as we can tell (the Byzantine Catholic Church does, as well).
The witness of history provides clear precedent for the practice of PC.
3) Paedocommunion is consistent.
Having demonstrated that PC is Biblical and historical, we may also take solace knowing that it is logically consistent. We could even say that PC is common-sensical.
If we believe that children are part of the Body, and if we believe that the Sacraments are tied to membership in the Body, it follows that children should receive the Sacraments. If we baptize our children because they are members of the covenant people, then it only makes sense that we give them them the covenant meal. Union and communion go together. If they have received the rite of initiation into the covenant, they should receive the rite of continued communion with the covenant body (some refer to PC as Covenant Communion to reflect this emphasis).
There is a reason many PCers were formerly Baptists. Once a Baptist accepts the idea that his children are members of the covenant, he has a much easier time giving them both covenant signs. Numerous Baptists have told me that they respect my position because it is logically consistent. I, too, respect my Baptistic brethren who withhold both baptism and communion from children based on their understanding of the New Covenant, the place their children occupy in the Covenant, and how they are called to bring their children into Christ's Church. We heartily disagree on these matters, but we can respect each other's consistency.
Logical consistency--common sense--supports PC.
4) Paedocommunion is beautiful.
We should never base our beliefs on what feels right, but I think, theological arguments having been made, practice can provide appropriate confirmation that our theology is within God's will. I think many Credocommunionists, if they were to witness an integrated congregation participating in the Sacrament together, would at least soften their opposition to it. It is beautiful to see men and women, children and adults, mature and immature, all sharing naturally in the meal given to us by our Savior.
I have always loved to watch my children engage with the Table, especially when they were toddlers. They hungered and thirsted for it in a way that was quite convicting and instructive. They participated eagerly and joyfully and they knew that they belonged.
I remember asking our oldest, then four or five, what the bread and wine meant, to which she promptly replied that they were the body and blood of Jesus. This is how it's supposed to work. Children learn by engaging their senses and being part of the congregation, and it is a joy to watch them learn by doing.
The witness of experience confirms the propriety of PC.
I am sure more reasons could be listed, and I am confident that more thorough treatments of the subject exist, but these are the reasons that I practice, and loudly advocate for, PC. To say it in a word, my children have just as much right to partake of their Savior as I do. How could I keep them from Him?
Comments
Post a Comment