The Case For Covenant Communion -- A Review

Rayburn, et al. The Case For Covenant Communion. Edited by Gregg Strawbridge. Monroe, LA: Athanasius Press, 2006. 210 pp. with foreward, appendix, and Scripture index. $14.95 (paper) ISBN 0-9753914-3-7.

CFCC presents a forceful case that covenant children within the church should be allowed to participate in communion. The case presented here is grounded in Scripture, history, and covenant theology, and is in general well-argued. Though the various arguments are not entirely dispositive, they are nevertheless the ones to be reckoned with by those who think about communion in Reformed Churches.

The book consists of a series of essays by various contributors. The first article, by Robert Rayburn, sets forth the framework of the argument. As Rayburn sees it, children should be admitted to the table because (pp. 14-15)

* Children of believers have always participated in covenant meals and been nourished thereby,
* The theology of covenant children demands participation,
* The sole argument against paedocommunion, from 1 Cor 11, is based on a misreading, and
* Paedocommunion was the practice of the early church.

The articles that follow then flesh out Rayburn's skeleton. Jordan demonstrates that children participated in Passover and the other OT feast meals; Leithart explores the theology of those meals. Gallant, Sutton, and Lusk argue for childrens' participation in communion as a necessary consequence of covenant theology. Meyers and Strawbridge deconstruct the objections to paedocommunion. The article by Blake Purcell attempts to demonstrate that paedocommunion was practiced as early as the first century.

These articles are followed by a fascinating reprint of Rayburn's article in Presbyterion 22.2 of the development of the Presbyterian theology of covenant children, which includes details about the 1857 controversy between Charles Hodge and Thornwell concerning the status of unbelieving covenant children. Included are a set of excellent questions and objections by V. Philips Long which were part of the original Presbyterion article.

The book's case is stimulating and persuasive, but not finally compelling. Meyer's argument helped me to rethink the current communion practices at our church and to strongly consider a lower age for the communion table. Jordan's argument is speculative at points, but his central claim, that children did partake of the Passover, is quite well-established and demolishes Murray's contention that only adults participated. On the other hand, Purcell's attempt to push the date of paedocommunion to the first century is strikingly unpersuasive, as the evidence prior to Cyprian (AD 250) is simply too thin to bear the weight he wishes to place on it.

In the end, the central issue appears to be one's reading of 1 Cor 11.

If in fact 1 Cor 11.28 means "examine yourselves", then all of the other arguments can be seen in other lights. Perhaps the Passover has been modified in the New Covenant to require evidence of the circumcision of the heart. Or perhaps the children that participated in Passover were young, but not infants. Perhaps the theology of covenant children demands that we prepare children to partake, rather than give them communion as early as possible. These hypotheses are but examples of the routes one is compelled to take if 1 Cor 11.28 is indeed a command to be followed by all who partake.

But if on the other hand 1 Cor 11.28 is directed solely at the misbehaving Corinthian adults (so Rayburn), or means "prove yourselves" (so Meyers), then the objections to paedocommunion evaporate entirely.

This point needs to be discussed further. The current weight of translation work lies heavily on the side of self-inspection; yet Rayburn's argument that the command is directed towards the miscreants at Corinth is compelling. Whatever the case, we can be grateful to the authors for bringing the discussion to the fore and providing substantial food for thought.

One question that I brought to the book was its degree of entanglement with Federal Vision theology. Since so many of the contributors are also signatories to the Federal Vision Statement, and since that same statement explicitly advocates paedocommunion, I found myself approaching the book wondering to what extent I would have to evaluate its arguments without the benefit of accepting or understanding all of the Federal Vision.

To my pleasant surprise, I found that the arguments stand more or less on their own. The case for paedocommunion is argued almost entirely within the bounds of theology that is common to the Reformed community.

An experienced churchman might ask, "Why revisit the issue at this time, since both the PCA and OPC have considered and rejected paedocommunion in the past?" The answer appears to be this: even if paedocommunion is not the answer, the unacceptably long period of time that our children wait to take communion is a problem. This book serves as a stimulus to reconsider that problem afresh.

JRC

For further reading:
1987 OPC report on Paedocommunion
1988 PCA report on Paedocommunion.
Read more...

Paedocommunion -- A Modest Proposal

No, it isn't what you readers of Jonathan Swift are thinking.

It's just this: as I've been thinking about the issue of paedocommunion in regard to Federal Vision and whatnot, I've been struck by the case of my own three-year-old daughter.

One of her recent questions: "Why did Jesus have to die on the cross for me?"

Now it strikes me that at a developmentally appropriate level of understanding, she's a believer. I honestly feel uncomfortable with the fact that she doesn't receive communion when it is served (when I help distribute it, no less!).

First question: what do the standards have to say about it?

BCO 12-5:

The church Session is charged with maintaining the spiritual
government of the church, for which purpose it has power:
a. To inquire into the knowledge, principles and Christian conduct of
the church members under its care; to censure those found
delinquent; to see that parents do not neglect to present their children
for Baptism; to receive members into the communion of the Church;
to remove them for just cause; to grant letters of dismissal to other
churches, which when given to parents, shall always include the
names of their non-communing, baptized children;

BCO 57:

57-1. Believers’ children within the Visible Church, and especially those
dedicated to God in Baptism, are non-communing members under the care of
the Church. They are to be taught to love God, and to obey and serve the
Lord Jesus Christ. When they are able to understand the Gospel, they should
be earnestly reminded that they are members of the Church by birthright, and
that it is their duty and privilege personally to accept Christ, to confess Him
before men, and to seek admission to the Lord’s Supper.
57-2. The time when young persons come to understand the Gospel cannot
be precisely fixed. This must be left to the prudence of the Session, whose
office it is to judge, after careful examination, the qualifications of those who
apply for admission to sealing ordinances...

57-4. It is recommended, as edifying and proper, that baptized persons,
when admitted by the Session to the Lord’s Supper, make a public profession
of their faith in the presence of the congregation. But in all cases, there
should be a clear recognition of their previous relation to the church as
baptized members.

BCO 58:

58-2. The ignorant and scandalous are not to be admitted to the Lord's
Supper.

Larger Catechism:

Q. 177. Wherein do the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper differ? A. The sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper differ, in that baptism is to be administered but once, with water, to be a sign and seal of our regeneration and ingrafting into Christ, and that even to infants; whereas the Lord's supper is to be administered often, in the elements of bread and wine, to represent and exhibit Christ as spiritual nourishment to the soul, and to confirm our continuance and growth in him, and that only to such as are of years and ability to examine themselves.

So what are the underlying Scriptural arguments here? The PCA position paper outlines the primary lines of thought. On the one hand, as per the majority position, the Reformed theologians have traditionally insisted that children be capable of fulfilling Paul's command to examine oneself:

In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval. When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. Don't you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.

So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.

And when I come I will give further directions. 1 Cor 11.17-33 NIV

The majority felt simply that young children are incapable of examining themselves.

The minority responded unsuccessfully that the parallel between Passover and Communion is strong enough to require parallel practices also. Since children were admitted to Passover, they should be admitted to Communion also. (Aside: Murray denies that children were admitted to Passover in a footnote in Christian Baptism that I don't have in front of me, stressing the 'you' in Ex. 12.26, "why do you do this?" That argument seems thin to me.)

The second majority argument, developing out of Calvin's theology of communion, was that communion is not effective ex operato, but only through faith. Thus, communion (unlike baptism) requires an active response of faith.

(It is this argument that no doubt led to Wilson's rude title of one of the articles in Credenda, "Give 'em the bread, you lumpy anabaptists!")

What to make of this in light of 1 Cor 11?

First, it will not do to argue that all kids, regardless of expressed faith or otherwise, should have communion. To so argue makes light of Paul's warning, "For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself." If this warning has any force as a warning, it must mean that we make some effort to fence the table from the "ignorant and scandalous"; else, we are like the man in Proverbs who sees danger and fails to warn of it. Children unable to express faith of any sort should probably not receive communion.

But second, it will not do to deny believing children access to communion for up to 10 years of their lives just so that we can verify that they really are Jacobs instead of Esaus. That's an unacceptably long time of "covenantal probation."

So here's the proposal: allow sessions, as per BCO 12-5, to develop developmentally appropriate examination questions for kids, to be asked prior to admitting them to communion. And then keeping examining them every two years, again with developmentally appropriate questions, so that they can continue to see that they are in the faith. Or not, which is a kindness as well.

As I read it, this proposal is in line with the standards, fulfills the requirements of 1 Cor 11, and also fulfills Jesus' command to let the little children come to Him in Mark 10.13-16.

JRC
Read more...