Heidelberg Catechism and Paedo-communion

Attached is the mp3 of a Sunday School lesson I taught yesterday on Heidelberg Catechism 81-82, including a discussion of Wilson’s (and others’) paedo-communion doctrine. Those just starting to think about this issue might find a useful point or two — a first word as we say. Accompanying powerpoint can also be downloaded.

4 thoughts on “Heidelberg Catechism and Paedo-communion

  1. Thanks for posting this lecture. My church (PCA) is currently working through these issues, so I have a few thoughts and questions.

    Let me preface by saying neither I nor the congregation of which I am a member advocate automatic paedocommunion, that is, feeding the sacrament to a child from infancy. But care must be taken to properly distinguish various positions (Dr. Bahnsen made a distinction between “automatic paedocommunion” and “paedocommunion”).

    The term “paedo-communion” embraces both infant communion and child communion, which begs the question, are all forms of paedocommunion (in reformed circles) necessarily connected with independent groups like CREC, FORC, ARC? Do they all presuppose an ex opera understanding? You treat the practice chiefly in terms of those independent groups. But what about the CRC or minority reports and views in the PCA and OPC?

    Questions on your talk:

    45:22
    You state that just as there is a communal curse for profanation, there is a “communal blessing to non-communicants.”

    If this is true, why not allow just the elders or heads-of-household take communion and the benefits will flow to those they represent? However, if the blessings (not general covenant blessings, but communion blessings) are received only by faith, what benefit is the communal blessing to non-communicant members anyway?

    You also note the sacrament is “void” unless taken in faith. I assume you mean there is no blessing received by the faithless participant, not that there is no effect. Otherwise, how do you account for curses on unworthy participants and profanation? Would this not indicate either blessing or curse is received at the supper? There is no neutrality at the table of the Lord.

    47:29
    In discussing views on age of admission, you state the variable age view leads to a “two class separation of the youth.”

    True. But why is this a problem? There already exists a “two class separation” between communing and non-communing. It seems this situation would naturally occur if the criteria for admittance to the supper is something additional to baptism. A subjective element naturally enters in at this point due to differences between children. I would rather admit those who are ready and withhold those who are not, and deal with whatever challenges arise from “separation of the youth,” rather than establish an arbitrary age requirement. Separation from the supper is worse than separation among peers.

    Your subsequent criticism argues from the abuse of this position based on a single case. And the fault in the case you cite is on the part of not just the child, but the parents and the elders as well. It is the duty of the elders to judge by both the life and the profession (not the heart). Heidelberg Q. 82 asks: “Are those also to be admitted to the Lord’s supper who by their confession and life show that they are unbelieving and ungodly?” Obviously not. But conversely, those who are to be admitted to the supper are those who have shown their 1. confession and 2. conduct. (Q. 81 detailing these points).

    While the active/passive distinction between the sacraments is valid, you import an additional unnecessary sub-distinction with regard to age. Instead, following the catechism question above, an objective/subjective qualification (for communion) should be recognized. That is, baptism is the objective requirement (looks the same for all), and confession/conduct subjective requirements (differs by age/maturity). The CREC errs in emphasizing the objective to the virtual exclusion of all else. However, you seem to overemphasize the subjective (conduct) requirement (or attempt to make it objective) and minimize the significance of the baptismal and confessional requirements.

    The problem with the child in your example was not that he confessed his belief in a manner commensurate with his age and maturity (or even that he confessed by means of catechetical answers). It was that he profaned the meaning of the supper by ignoring the preached word. The elders should speak with his parents, but he should not be immediately barred from the table, nor should his behavior somehow lead us to impose stricter qualification for admittance than what the catechism or Scripture defines. Moreover, a similar type of situation may just as easily occur (and often does) in the case of adults. Is texting on a cell phone or knitting (I’ve seen it happen!) any better than sleeping during the sermon?

    50:57
    Here you are arguing from silence.

    To be sure, an argument from silence is unavoidable at this point. However, here we do not possess the explicit testimony and presuppositional warrant as is the case with circumcision. Thus when it comes to Christ’s early life or Passover, it is unwise to be dogmatic or conclude too much either way. The passages are not detailed enough.

    It is true Passover was originally a more family-based ordinance, yet some have argued that later (under the “theocracy”), the Passover became more of a cultic feast associated with Temple worship and the Hebraic liturgical calendar. Thus it was, at some point, a “church” ordinance in which children participated. Even granting Passover was exclusively family-centered in the OT, why would participation in the antitypical feast of the new and better covenant be more restricted?

    Furthermore, since it is nowhere explicitly stated women took Passover, why is it valid to argue for the expansion of the participants in the new covenant meal to include women, but invalid to make a similar argument for inclusion of children?

    Thank you for your consideration of my questions. I hope you will post more MP3s after you teach on the Holy Catholic Church. I am still awaiting the rest of your blog series on the HCC, especially regarding marks of the church, independency, presbyterial succession, etc.

  2. Joshua — I’ll do a teaspoon at a time. To the 45:22 comments:

    “Why not allow just the elders or heads-of-household take communion and the benefits will flow to those they represent?”

    Because that would disobey the ordinance as described in Scripture; and specifically, would thereby distort the content of its signatory function. The point is certainly not that we get to “make up the rules” as it suits us. Any more than the Hebrews could have decided, “we’ll just have the tribal heads be circumcised.” Yet, we can clearly infer that the blessings of the faithful community were possessed by females that belonged to the community, though they were not circumcised.

    But perhaps your question is more speculative: if Communion is a communal blessing/cursing, then why would God not have set it up to be taken (only) by covenant represenatatives? In a sense he did do that in the “sacraments” of the OT. (Maybe this insight should make us more sympathetic to how the RC came to the single-celebrant concept.)

    Even the males-as-representative principle of the OT cut the representational heirarchy off at some point (i.e. not at the “tribal head” level), so our speculation can only take us so far. The common answer would be something like “the principle has been intensified in the new covenant.” Today, either husband or wife can stand in for the child. At the end of the day, we have to take that as a “given” and reflect from there, rather than always trying to deduce the principle.

    “However, if the blessings (not general covenant blessings, but communion blessings) are received only by faith, what benefit is the communal blessing to non-communicant members anyway?”

    This is a good question, and worthy of further pondering. I’m not sure that “general covenant blessings” differ from “communion blessings.” It would work something like this: the communicant engages in an activity the essential organ of reception for which is faith. This would be similar, though in expanded and enriched form, to that which received the circumcision in the OT. And as the entire covenant community was blessed then, so now.

    It seems like the paedo’s principle of proportionality has an application here, though not by direct participation. To a greater and greater extent, the non-communicant in hearing the blessing and words of institution, exercises his faith, to the extent of his ability and budding faith. Perhaps an analogy would be to that of the congregation in witnessing a baptism, in which each should “improve his own baptism” and re-appropriate it in faith.

    I’m not completely settled on this, but perhaps the blessing of communion is entirely a corporate one — i.e. one in which every individual part of that corporation has equal access, where the community consists of individuals that desire to take, eat, but to do so in terms of the rules that have been set down. However, the arguments against paedo-communion do not depend on this model.

    Even if there is a blessing that is individuated, this would also not necessarily speak against the model. As hinted above, God could so have ordered the rite that the non-communicant could still receive an individuated blessing proportional to his faith. The principle of minority/majority seems like a pervasive one in church, state and family, and in every case (as I alluded to in the lecture) there are blessings that accrue to the person in his state of minority even though there is also an expanded mature function to look forward to as majority status is approached year by year. The goal of childhood is manhood, but the time of incubation should not be hastened, and the time after all has its own rewards.

    Some young Americans would be ready to form binding contracts by age 16. Yet there are advantages to having a uniform age. The world is not out of joint because the 16-year-old that is “ready” cannot make a contract for two more years. Perhaps there is some other area of life in which he can redeem the time — if nothing else, the humility of having to wait.

    None of this would lead to concluding that there need only be one celebrant as in the mass, because that would be taking things into our own hands, and thus deny faith. For example, it would be to deny the sign of the community as “one bread” (I Cor 10:17).

    “You also note the sacrament is “void” unless taken in faith. I assume you mean there is no blessing received by the faithless participant, not that there is no effect. Otherwise, how do you account for curses on unworthy participants and profanation?”

    Due to profaning the word of God, and specifically a covenantal word. Despite the defects inherent in the expression, “the Word visible” could be a way to see this. The Word of God in its covenant form creates a new reality. Therein lies the objectivity. I explained in an earlier talk, that
    1. A covenant is an oath that brings something new into reality (e.g. a law, or a relationship).
    2. An oath is a word that vouchsafes itself by death.
    3. A word is an utterance of a rational being.

    To despise any word of God is worthy of death, but to do so to words that are ratified by oath and covenant are so in a particularly urgent and immediate way.

  3. Now let us reflect on the position that grants the gate-keeping power to elders, but wants to set the bar proportionately to age. First, this would be a direct violation of Heidelberg #81, unless the “minimum bar” was set by that answer. Question 81. For whom is the Lord’s supper instituted? “For those who are truly sorrowful for their sins, and yet that these are forgiven them for the sake of Christ; and that their remaining infirmities are covered by his passion and death; and who also earnestly desire to have their faith more and more strengthened, and their lives more holy…”

    This would certainly rule out the 5-year-old I discussed.

    The second problem with the proportional bar is that a second choice needs to be made, and depending on which way you go with that choice, it leads to other problems. Namely, if the bar is lowered for children, then will they be re-examined periodically to make sure the “proportion” is still met until the HC #81 criterion is met?

    1. If not, then another “two-class” system is set up, whereby adults coming in are expected to confess true faith in Christ alone, sorrow for sins, and hope for their faith to be strengthened, while other adults came in at five, and though they have not advanced at all, are “in.” The point is not that the latter are in an enviable position, quite the contrary. But the method has set up this confusion.

    2. On the other hand, if the children are re-examined periodically, then that sets up a situation in which the same person could drift into and out of communion status, without discipline.

    3. A third choice might be to re-examine the child every year or two to monitor progress, and if it falls short, to actually bar him from the table disciplinarianly. But this seems unfair. He didn’t really sign up for this treatment. It was the parents that pushed to begin with.

    The vicissitudes of childhood faith and doubt should be respected, not plastered over with pious parental hopes. Reflecting on this vortex of dilemmas should bring home again the majority/minority distinction that is part of life in every sphere.

  4. Joshua — to finish up with your remaining points:

    “Moreover, a similar type of situation may just as easily occur (and often does) in the case of adults. Is texting on a cell phone or knitting (I’ve seen it happen!) any better than sleeping during the sermon?”

    The eldership is remiss if it fails to exercise shepherding here also. This was one of my points: simply for the elders to march forward and be the agents that “pass out” the elements is only to fulfill the symbolic part of their task; and too often I fear their real task is neglected.

    Even here, discernment would need to be exercised. It may be that for some women, knitting helps them concentrate, just as they have found that people that doodle often get more out of a speech than those that do not. On the other hand, if it fosters an atmosphere of irreverence, then it should be prohibited. Teeny-bop texting would be prohibited, but you wouldn’t want to forbid a doctor that is on call and summoned, from texting back that he can be there in 45 minutes rather than just automatically leaving right away.

    Discernment and wisdom are unavoidable, and are themselves part of the law of God!

    I am on board that the Passover observance underwent changes with redemptive history, and finally became an annual feast for the nation to which males were required to attend. In that case, it ceased to be familiastic, and thus it is an even more arbitrary assertion to say “in which children participated.”

    Moreover, “why would participation in the antitypical feast of the new and better covenant be more restricted?” For all the reasons that I outlined.

    Let me know if I am scratching where you itch, or still missing something.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *