# An alternative to Paedocommunion...



## Robert Truelove (Mar 24, 2007)

I have been doing a lot of study in regards to paedo versus credo communion lately.

One of the arguements I find quite compelling that is made for the Paedo position is the critique of how many Presbyterian churches require the subject to be quite old (sometimes 12+ years old) before receiving their profession and accepting them to the table. 

This argument does not establish the practice of paedocommunion but rather presents the challenge that children's professions should be received quite early. 

It would seem reasonable to me that a child who can present an age appropriate profession, should be received to the table. What I am wondering is if anyone has published on this subject from a credo standpoint who defends 'early communion' (for lack of a better term)?


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 24, 2007)

prespastor said:


> I have been doing a lot of study in regards to paedo versus credo communion lately.
> 
> One of the arguements I find quite compelling that is made for the Paedo position is the critique of how many Presbyterian churches require the subject to be quite old (sometimes 12+ years old) before receiving their profession and accepting them to the table.
> 
> ...



It may not be your intention, but "Age appropriate confession" is doublespeak for paedocommunion. Most advocates of that allow 2-3 year olds to answer "Who made you?" with _"God"_ as sufficient, or allow _"Jesus loves me"_ as sufficient.

So I don't think you will find anyone who holds to the Confessional position (WCF, 1689, Three Forms, etc.) defending this.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Mar 24, 2007)

I understand what you are saying but this is not really what I am getting at.

To clarify, lets bump the age up to 4+. Where the elders can sit down with a small child and ask them about their faith and have a conversation (not just pat answers from the Children's Catechism). When I say 'early communion', I mean being able to accept a 4 year old to the table who is able, as a 4 year old, to communicate their faith. I don't know that I have seen a 3 year old be able to do this sufficiently but I am quite certain I have known many who could do this at 4 (to my thinking anyway).

When I say age 4, I am not trying to set an arbitrary age but clarify my intent. I have heard of young children who have been very clear in their profession who have been held back by their session due to what ultimately comes down to their age (not the profession made). 

Also...when paedocommunion supporters speak of "Age appropriate confession" this is somewhat of a smokescreen because their arguement for paedocommunion ultimately has nothing to do with profession but is based upon their understanding of the covenant. As such, most prefer the label 'covenant communion'. For instance, if as a paedo I let my 1 year old daughter begin taking communion, it would be on the basis of the covenant, not upon the basis of her confession (of which she is incapable). I think the whole "Age appropriate confession" thing, from a paedo perspective, has been birthed by those in the paedo camp who are in denominations who do not allow paedocommunion and this is their defense for receiving the small children (particular the 1-3 year olds).

Now consider, if one holds to paedocommunion, the application of "Age appropriate confession" is going to look quite different from someone who is credo who would also accept an "Age appropriate confession". The former would receive an "Age appropriate confession" from a 2 year old, whereas the latter would probably say "that's not really a confession".

This leads me to think that there must be those who are firmly in the 'credo' camp but would argue for receiving children's professions earlier than is typical in many churches. It would be interesting to read a position paper on this from a credo standpoint that is interacting with the paedo/credo debate.



fredtgreco said:


> It may not be your intention, but "Age appropriate confession" is doublespeak for paedocommunion. Most advocates of that allow 2-3 year olds to answer "Who made you?" with _"God"_ as sufficient, or allow _"Jesus loves me"_ as sufficient.
> 
> So I don't think you will find anyone who holds to the Confessional position (WCF, 1689, Three Forms, etc.) defending this.


----------



## ServantOfKing (Mar 24, 2007)

I am interested in this as well! This is something my husband and I were just talking about today at lunch. It kind of links with the other recent thread about what Jesus means when He says we are to emulate the faith of children.


----------



## KMK (Mar 24, 2007)

This falls well short of a position paper, I'm afraid, but...

From my unseminary trained perspective, I would think that the issue is not so much about a profession, but an ability to examine one's self, to discern the Lord's body and to judge one's self. (1 Cor 11)

There might be children who are 4 who have more faith in the Lord than many adults in the church, but they have as yet no ability to self-examine. Wouldn't this be the real concern?


----------



## Founded on the Rock (Mar 25, 2007)

Some good thoughts Pastor Klein. I would say though that in Rev. Trueove statments that giving the sacrament to children ought to be done when they CAN examine themselves and have a credible profession of faith.

It becomes a tough judgment call when you look at a child or handicapped person who professes faith but intellectually, they are somewhat lacking. Can a 4-year old truly reflect on the Lord's Supper.... I certainly would not rule it out. Though, obviously this does not mean every 4 year old is ready to take of the Supper either...

If I understand correctly, the question is related to how much must a person know/believe and how much mental capacity to have before they come to the table (a question I don't have a good answer too )


----------



## jolivetti (Mar 25, 2007)

*How do we guard the table?*

Our session has, in the past, placed the emphasis on self-examination as a sign of inward spiritual life. That is, is this child coming under conviction of the Word, confessing sin, repenting & turning to righteousness, without their parents' direct discipline? 

This isn't to deny the possibility and presence of real faith in a covenant child, no matter how young (we regularly pray for and expect that very thing). But the table is guarded/fenced by the elders, who can't/shouldn't be convinced of faith by the repetition of some children's catechism questions. The elders need to have some assurance of conversion by seeing the fruits of the Spirit overwhelming the fruits of the flesh. 

This is why I would be extremely hesitant to admit a 4-year old to the Lord's Supper, but as the age increases, so does my comfort in discerning a real, spiritual abiding in Christ.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Mar 25, 2007)

That is exactly what I am saying. 

My thinking has changed a lot since my baptist days when I was looking for that crisis conversion moment. Now the ideal is the child that grows up, never having knowledge of a time when he or she did not know Christ and that being more the rule than the exception. As I reflect on that, and I hear some (not all) small children talk about their faith and understanding that the Lord's Supper is an observance of Christ; I don't see how refusing them the table is biblical.

These sorts of examples are used very effectively by padeocommunist supporters and can be very persuasive. But again, these sorts of arguements don't prove anything for paedocommunion but rather challenge traditional thinking regarding when we can receive a confession (and thus have confidence that the subject is able to partake with discernment).




Founded on the Rock said:


> Some good thoughts Pastor Klein. I would say though that in Rev. Trueove statments that giving the sacrament to children ought to be done when they CAN examine themselves and have a credible profession of faith.
> 
> It becomes a tough judgment call when you look at a child or handicapped person who professes faith but intellectually, they are somewhat lacking. Can a 4-year old truly reflect on the Lord's Supper.... I certainly would not rule it out. Though, obviously this does not mean every 4 year old is ready to take of the Supper either...
> 
> If I understand correctly, the question is related to how much must a person know/believe and how much mental capacity to have before they come to the table (a question I don't have a good answer too )


----------



## Robert Truelove (Mar 25, 2007)

What if the child is able to do more than simply give answers from a children's catechism? What if the child is also being raised in a strong Christian home with consistent family worship and Christian nuture and his or her parents can attest to the child's desire for spiritual things (loves family worship time, prays for others, is broken over sin when disciplined, etc.)?

Another thing to consider, the young child who is beeing brought up from birth in a faithul Christian home with Christian nuture and discipline is far more likely to be able to 'discern the body' than a child of the same age who is beeing brought up in a weak home with little Christian training besides church (no family worship, no catechism, athiestic education in government schools, etc.).

Finally, I think sessions who are going to hear the profession of younger children, should use wisdom. For instance, don't expect to hear a good profession from a 4 year old if you call the child into the pastor's office where there are a bunch of 'old guys' who very seriously begin asking questions to the child. I have heard of examples where children have been held off because of they 'could not make a good profession', when in actuality, they were scared (being kids). One thing about seeking an 'age appropriate confession' is also conducting an 'age appropriate examination'. This does not mean we simply look for some answers from the children's catechism as many of the paedocommunists (in non-paedo denominations) do, but rather seek some real answers while understanding we are dealing with a little child. It also means that sessios would use wisdom in regards to the place and manner of the examination. I think we can get a far better picture of where a child is if we examine them in their own homes after having had dinner with the family and kicked the ball around the backyard with them a bit first. Such considerations would also be considered when dealing with the mentally handicapped. 

My experience is that, when given the chance to properly demonstrate, many of our young ones can discern far more than we give them credit for.



jolivetti said:


> ...the table is guarded/fenced by the elders, who can't/shouldn't be convinced of faith by the repetition of some children's catechism questions. The elders need to have some assurance of conversion by seeing the fruits of the Spirit overwhelming the fruits of the flesh.
> 
> This is why I would be extremely hesitant to admit a 4-year old to the Lord's Supper, but as the age increases, so does my comfort in discerning a real, spiritual abiding in Christ.


----------



## non dignus (Mar 25, 2007)

I can't help but to think there is a presupposition here that because children aren't partaking, they are 'halfway in' or lacking spiritual nurture of some sort. Nonsense. It seems self-evident that:

Minors should not take a primary role in contracts/covenants. 

Minors should not drink wine.

Puberty is a natural demarcation mentally and physically, where one becomes emancipated from parents in order to think and worship independently; and begins that phase of life whereby one propagates holy offspring per the cult/cultural mandate.

There are exceptions where particular children are gifted with spiritual acumen before the usual time so I believe this is why there is no explicit age rule given.


----------



## Founded on the Rock (Mar 25, 2007)

non dignus said:


> I can't help but to think there is a presupposition here that because children aren't partaking, they are 'halfway in' or lacking spiritual nurture of some sort. Nonsense. It seems self-evident that:
> 
> Minors should not take a primary role in contracts/covenants.
> 
> ...



I did not understand everything about the Supper and I still do not. I do know that I have a relationship to God through Christ and that I am commanded to partake in the Covenant Meal.

I am seeking to understand more and more about the Lord's Supper but to refuse someone because they are not old enough to understand everything about it. I am NOT advocating that someone be given communion that has no understanding at all, but I believe that there ARE (not all) 4 year old children who have a good capacity for understanding and partaking of the Lord's Supper. To refuse it to them would be something I would find contrary to Scripture. As you said above, there are exceptions and that is why there is no age limit. We must be sensitive to those who profess faith and seek to come to the table.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 25, 2007)

A very good work to read concerning the spiritual capabilities of younger children is "A Token for Children" by James Janeway.

Suffice it to say, if half of the adults in church were as spiritually minded as these children portrayed biographically in that work, the church today would be a very different place.


----------



## non dignus (Mar 25, 2007)

Founded on the Rock said:


> I did not understand everything about the Supper and I still do not. I do know that I have a relationship to God through Christ and that I am commanded to partake in the Covenant Meal.



Yes, me too! 



> I am seeking to understand more and more about the Lord's Supper but to refuse someone because they are not old enough to understand everything about it. I am NOT advocating that someone be given communion that has no understanding at all, but I believe that there ARE (not all) 4 year old children who have a good capacity for understanding and partaking of the Lord's Supper. To refuse it to them would be something I would find contrary to Scripture. As you said above, there are exceptions and that is why there is no age limit. We must be sensitive to those who profess faith and seek to come to the table.



I think the issue is not if profession is credible but if profession is independant from the parent's profession. The child certainly could be regenerated and converted but he is not able to think abstractly about himself apart from his parents. And this is a good thing, he is protected by the family covenant. Should the elders insinuate themselves into that special relationship? Add to that the question of church discipline on youthful folly?

My concern is if the child were really able to choose between church and TV cartoons on Sunday morning, a real choice mind you, cartoons would probably win out most of the time. I feel a profession of faith must be completely free of coercion and nearly all children are coerced into church attendance.

On the other hand, if a child, _on his own_, were to adamantly ask the elders for permission to partake, and demonstrated an independent faith; in other words, he really desired communion with God and could back it up with reasons why, then he should be given permission. 

This is very different than pushing little Johnny forward to get on with it.

I frankly think Johnny is getting ripped off in this case because if he were to patiently wait and grow toward this rite of passage he would find it much more meaningful in the fullness of time.


----------



## ServantOfKing (Mar 25, 2007)

Has anyone ever been to a church that fully practices paedocommunion? 

I wonder if there is a difference in behavior and manner of children in worship. 

Often times, children and adults act as they are expected to. 

If they are expected to conduct themselves as the rest of the congregation, perhaps they would do so. 

It's hard for me to imagine some little children in my church taking communion because they have a hard time sitting still in worship. They make funny faces and laugh at the other babies.


----------



## MW (Mar 25, 2007)

In reply to the OP, 12 is rather young. They are deemed responsible to vote at 18; hence I consider ecclesiastical vows may be responsibly undertaken at the same age.


----------



## wsw201 (Mar 26, 2007)

To answer your question, you might check out Auburn Ave. Pres. Chruch's web site. Steve Wilkins advocates "covenant communion" and I believe that they have published something on it.

Personally, I think that in the denominations that do not allow peadocommunion, advocates get around it based on the fact that neither the Standards nor the BCO give a clear definition of what a "credible profession" is suppose to sound like. Therefore, a profession can be just about anything a Session will consider (or stomach) so an "age appropriate" profession is a misnomer.

As Mr. Winzer has also alluded to, a 4+ year old child will be required to make covenant vows. Most 4 year olds can't even spell covenant much less understand the vows they are taking.


----------



## wsw201 (Mar 26, 2007)

> I did not understand everything about the Supper and I still do not. I do know that I have a relationship to God through Christ and that I am commanded to partake in the Covenant Meal.



Brandon,

Not to pick on you but I think a number of folks are in the same boat. Considering the consequences noted in 1 Cor 11, you would think that the Church would make sure everyone understood what they were doing before approaching the table.

I am always amazed with the number of threads we have on Baptism, but on the Lord's Supper?? Baptism is a once in a lifetime sacrament, but the Lord's Supper will be weekly, monthly, etc. until Christ comes back! Besides, I have never read anything in scripture about someone dying from being baptized in an unworthy manner!


----------



## Founded on the Rock (Mar 26, 2007)

wsw201 said:


> Brandon,
> 
> Not to pick on you but I think a number of folks are in the same boat. Considering the consequences noted in 1 Cor 11, you would think that the Church would make sure everyone understood what they were doing before approaching the table.
> 
> I am always amazed with the number of threads we have on Baptism, but on the Lord's Supper?? Baptism is a once in a lifetime sacrament, but the Lord's Supper will be weekly, monthly, etc. until Christ comes back! Besides, I have never read anything in scripture about someone dying from being baptized in an unworthy manner!



A couple things. First of all, giving that I have grown up in a baptist church and that I was not exposed to the Reformed teaching on Communion, my understanding of the Lord's Supper will be a little lacking as I still study and try to understand it better.

I don't know if you are trying to suggest this, but I will not stop taking communion because I do not know everything about it. I understand that I am to come to the table as a believer in Christ. I don't understand every aspect of theology surrounding it. But if you are suggesting that we ought to understand the full theology of Communion to partake of it, I strongly disagree. One ought to be striving to understand it more, but to refuse Communion to someone because they don't understand all the theology behind the Lord's Supper, you are mistaken.

And I might add, much of Christendom (even in Reformed churches) will be under the wrath of God for partaking Communion without a full understanding of the theology.


----------



## Kevin (Mar 26, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> In reply to the OP, 12 is rather young. They are deemed responsible to vote at 18; hence I consider ecclesiastical vows may be responsibly undertaken at the same age.



Voting for the state seems an odd standard to me. It may not be I just have never heard that before.


----------



## Kevin (Mar 26, 2007)

My oldest was radmitted into the church at age 10. She requested this herself with no pressure from us. We are NOT pc advocates in any way so we had no "unstated but still there" expectation as far as proffession of faith at an early age.

Her request came after asking a series of questions about the meaning of the supper. she literaly asked "why am I excluded? am I not a Child of Christ? Is his body not for me?"

Her brother is now nearly the age she was and I could not see him asking the same questions so I think that it varies a great deal from child to child.

BTW at the age of 10 she had said the Childrens catt several years earlier and was well into the Shorter. If memory serves she was at approx Q30 at that time. She was examined by 3 elders and none of them expressed any reservations after speaking to her.


----------



## wsw201 (Mar 26, 2007)

> I don't know if you are trying to suggest this, but I will not stop taking communion because I do not know everything about it. I understand that I am to come to the table as a believer in Christ. I don't understand every aspect of theology surrounding it. But if you are suggesting that we ought to understand the full theology of Communion to partake of it, I strongly disagree. One ought to be striving to understand it more, but to refuse Communion to someone because they don't understand all the theology behind the Lord's Supper, you are mistaken.
> 
> And I might add, much of Christendom (even in Reformed churches) will be under the wrath of God for partaking Communion without a full understanding of the theology.



To answer the first part, no I wasn't trying to suggest that. Your admittance to the table is between you and your Session.

I am sure you have read the relevant sections of the Westminster Standards regarding the Lord's Supper. And I am sure you have noted in your reading that there is no need for a full understanding on every point of Reformed Theology on Communion before being able to partake in a worthy manner. I am glad to see that you are striving to understand communion more and more. 

My ultimate point, which appears to have been poorly communicated, was that there are more threads on understanding baptism vs the Lord's Supper.


----------



## Founded on the Rock (Mar 26, 2007)

Mr. Wylie

I see your point now 

Well taken! I do believe that the Lord's Supper is something that ought to be studied and contemplated more often


----------



## wsw201 (Mar 26, 2007)

Founded on the Rock said:


> Mr. Wylie
> 
> I see your point now
> 
> Well taken! I do believe that the Lord's Supper is something that ought to be studied and contemplated more often


----------



## ServantOfKing (Mar 26, 2007)

Matthew 19:14
But Jesus said, "Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

I may be interpreting this wrong, but Jesus doesn't say to force children to come to Him (the table?), He simply instructs us to not hinder them from coming.


----------

