As an adherent to Paedocommunion (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table. One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table. You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation. Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians.
Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward. 1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup." If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup. This is a pretty logical deduction, right?
Credobaptists would adamantly agree. Acts 2:38 says, "Repent and be baptized..." If you can't repent, you can't be baptized, they argue. Those of us who baptize infants, however, believe that the metanarrative of Scripture provides a basis for administering the sign of covenant inclusion to the children of believers. This covenant hermeneutic gives us confidence that we are following God's will by baptizing our children, despite passages that describe faith and/repentance as a precursor to baptism. Based on many examples in Scripture we believe that membership in the covenant trumps the inability to comply with the stated prerequisites for receiving the sign.
So why do Credocommunionists apply this covenant hermeneutic to Baptism and not to Communion? I have heard a variety of answers, some better than others, but the typical response is that Baptism and Communion are different in nature, so they are also different in recipients. Again, that makes a certain amount of sense, but is it Biblically warranted? When I have asked for a defense of their assertion, I have generally received two answers. The first is that children did not partake in the Old Testament feasts. That is, I believe, simply false. The second, and far more common, answer is that 1 Corinthians 11 tells us that Communion is different from Baptism. It is, of course, the epitome of circular reasoning to use your understanding of 1 Corinthians 11 to determine how you interpret 1 Corinthians 11, but I've heard it done.
So, with no reason to believe that our covenant hermeneutic would not apply as equally to 1 Corinthians 11 as it does to Acts 2, we can confidently bring our children to the Table, knowing that their Savior welcomes them with open arms.
This, however, only tells me that 1 Corinthians 11 does not forbid PC. What about my assertion that 1 Corinthians actually serves as a defense of PC? Let's take a closer look at 1 Corinthians.
Let's establish a few preliminary assertions. Firstly, Paul is dealing with a specific situation/sin. Children were not the ones committing this sin. Secondly, Paul never tells anyone not to partake, nor does he instruct the elders to withhold the Table from anyone. He's exhorting them to worthy participation, not abstinence. Thirdly, Paul never establishes any standard for participation. He never tells them that a profession of faith, expression of Christian doctrine, memorization of a catechism, etc. is required before partaking.
Bearing these in mind, let's look at our Epistle as a whole. What is Paul's primary motivation for writing to the Corinthian church? If we read the opening chapters, it is clear Paul is writing to encourage unity. In 1:10 he says, "I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you..." We simply must interpret the rest of the Epistle through this lens. Even his discussions of various sins are viewed in this context because he has the purity of the Body in mind--our individual sin affects the entire Body. In case we didn't get the point, Paul goes on to mention unity several more times throughout the letter, including Chapters 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10. So, when we arrive to Chapter 11, this theme is in full view.
Let's look at our immediate context. In Chapter 10 Paul warns against idolatry. In Verses 1-3 he tells them that their fathers were baptized into Moses in the Red Sea and ate spiritual food and drank spiritual drink (a pretty clear allusion to both Sacraments). He says, "All were baptized into Moses...all ate the same spiritual food...all drank the same spiritual drink." Here, again, is our covenant hermeneutic. The Covenant people are all identified together through these acts.
Later in this chapter the allusion to the Table becomes clearer when Paul describes "the cup of blessing" and "the bread that we break." He describes these as a "participation" (koinonia) in the blood and body of Christ. In Verse 17 he says, "Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of one bread." Based on what he has just said above, it is difficult to imagine that Paul sees any member of the covenant people as being excluded from the Table. In case we didn't catch that, he says explicitly in Verse 18, "Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar?" Eating of the sacrifices offered on the altar indicates inclusion in and communion with the covenant people. The physical and the spiritual worlds do collide. This, Paul tells us, is why eating of food offered to idols is unwise. "You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons."
This participatory language fits well with our covenant hermeneutic. Covenant members have the right, even the responsibility, to partake of the covenant signs. Paul draws a line--you're either in or out. Participation in the signs reflects this status of being in or out of the covenant. Union and communion are coextensive. You don't have one without the other.
Let's skip over Chapter 11 for a moment and look at Chapter 12. Our theme of unity is explicit once again. "For just as the body is one and has many members," says Paul, "and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ." Why? He continues, "For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--Jews or Greeks, slaves or free--and all were made to drink of one Spirit." Again, I think we have an allusion to both Sacraments here--we were baptized into one body; we were made to drink of one Spirit. This allusion further reinforces our insistence that the recipients of the Sacraments are coextensive with the members of the body.
Regardless, note the emphasis on the unity of the Body. Paul spends the rest of Chapter 12 reiterating this concept that there is one Body, despite the many, various members, and that this Body is indivisible because of our mutual indwelling by the Holy Spirit. We aren't simply united by the same beliefs--we are indwelt by the same Spirit.
What are we saying, then, when we withhold Communion from someone? We are stating that they are not members of the Body. There is only one Body. You're either in or you're out. If you are refused the sign of communion with the Body, you are being told you aren't a part of the Body. So, if our children have the reality of covenant membership in this Body, as reflected in their baptisms, then they ought also to have the sign of continual participation in that Body. I simply cannot imagine that Paul envisioned a distinction between "communicant" and "non-communicant" members. Such an idea is categorically impossible for Paul. There are no degrees of membership in the Body--you cannot be a partial member.
Now, let's go back to 1 Corinthians 11, the chapter that allegedly forbids children from approaching our Lord's Table. Paul opens his discussion by chastising the Corinthians for approaching the Table selfishly. He mentions again that there are divisions and factions when they come together. "One goes hungry, another gets drunk," he says in Verse 21. He proceeds to relay the administration of the Sacrament as he received it from Christ, reminding us that "as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." This is an objective reality that we accomplish by worthily participating in the Sacrament as a Body.
This is the foundation for the warning and command that follow. "Whoever" partakes "in an unworthy manner," he says, "will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord." Paul's solution? "Let a person examine himself..." Why? "For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself." Paul is calling the Corinthians to unity and agape love when partaking of the covenant meal because this meal has been given to us for the express purpose of exhibiting our membership with one of another. We see the bottom line in Verse 33: "So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another..."
Opponents of PC point to the phrase discerning the body as a minimum requirement for coming to the Table. Again, our covenant hermeneutic refutes that, but we also need to make sure we're understanding this phrase correctly. It has been interpreted as indicating that those who partake must understand the Table, either in a mystical way (i.e. understanding how the meal "works") or in a generic way (i.e. having a basic understanding of the Gospel). Does this, however, make any sense in the context that we have observed thus far?
What is the Body? Is it the elements sitting on the altar? Yes, but only indirectly. The Body in 1 Corinthians is the Church, the covenant people. The Body of Christ is the group of people who have been united to Christ through the Spirit. Failure to discern the body, then, has nothing to do with misunderstanding communion or being unable to articulate the Gospel; it has everything to do with failing to recognize and live out our unity with our brothers in Christ. Unworthy participation is partaking of Communion with others without really living in communion with them.
Let me be clear that I genuinely respect the my brothers' desire to maintain the sanctity of the Table. The warning Paul issues is quite startling, so we should take it seriously. This is why I am so passionate about PC--there is much at stake. Those who keep members of Christ's body from approaching the covenant meal are failing to discern the body. When you refuse to commune with others, you are sacramentally telling them that they are not a part of the Body of Christ. This has implications that go far beyond PC. It is no minor thing to break communion with members of Christ's body--to chop off limbs. How can the ear tell the eye that it doesn't belong? We can be sure that we grieve the Spirit when we divide the Body. What God has joined, let no man put asunder.
I am sure I have not ended this debate today, but I pray that those who are undecided on this issue would push beyond the status quo and read 1 Corinthians 11 in context. I also pray that my Credocommunionist brethren would consider the weight of what it means to withhold communion from another member of the Body of Christ. Regardless of who you are, I highly recommend reading 1 Corinthians in one sitting. It doesn't take very long and you'll be glad you did.
Comments
Post a Comment