Paedocommunion Vs. Confirmation

As stated in an earlier post, at the conference with Peter Toon in Franklin, there was a good bit of discussion back and forth about paedocommunion and confirmation. Toon’s argument was that confirmation was long ago established by the Church for good reason, which requires the right paradigm [my word here] to understand. He considers the grace of regeneration given at baptism as a life principle that grows and matures in time and that there is nothing wrong with recognising that growth with participation in the Eucharist. He emphasised that we should not talk of "withholding" young people from the table, but rather giving them an "opportunity" to eagerly anticipate and look forward to. This elevates the desirability and importance of the Supper to the child. The issue of withholding communion should be represented in a positive fashion, rather than a negative one. The Church is preserving something for the child, not withholding something from the child.

Now the paedocommunion folks have trouble with this. I believe their problem is in the way they stage the debate. For example, I refer you to Peter Leithart’s recent article in Credenda Agenda. He says, “The specific practical question is, Does baptism initiate the baptized to the Lord's table, so that all who are baptized have a right to the meal?” He then proceeds to seek out what he calls a more fundamental issue, which we learn is whether we understand the gospel and its attending sacraments in a more corporate or a more individual manner. He then gives a list of questions in a sic et non fashion (which inherently lends itself to false dichotomies, as we shall see). As I list his questions below, I give my reaction to them, informed by some of the things said by Toon:

“Is the Supper an ordinance of the church (paedocom-munion), or is it an ordinance for some segment of the church (antipaedocommunion)?”

This is a straw man and also a false dichotomy. First of all, those who wait to give communion to baptized children are not necessarily “anti” paedocommunion, as Leithart himself admits at the beginning of his article. Let me call them, rather, “Confirmers” (I hope that is OK). Confirmers do not consider the baptized children of the church as “some segment” thereof, but members who are maturing into the various privileges of the Church, which include, not only Holy Communion, but the offices and other such graces.

“Is the church the family of God simpliciter (paedocom-munion), or is the church divided between those who are full members of the family and those who are partial members or strangers (antipaedocommunion)? “

The answer to this question is basically the same as that above. To delay communion is not to create a segment of people who have only partial membership. All the blessings of Christ are theirs (aha! the paedocommunionist would say!), but the wisdom of the Church is to “ease,” if you will, the members into the various privileges of the church militant out of concern that arises from other issues, one of which is indeed the “worthy manner” which confronts us in 1 Cor. 11.

Leithart is concerned about the way the Church portrays the nature of the gospel to the world. He sees the delay of the Communion to its members as a symbolic fragmenting of the Body and thus a perverting of the gospel. I appreciate his concern, but I disagree with his conclusion. Every time the Eucharist is celebrated, we show forth the death of Christ and His Body – by definition and in reality (though the symbolism is not as absolute as Leithart would like it to be). It is precisely because we do hold to the belief of the oneness of the Body that we expect all baptized members to partake of this communion. The fact that we withhold some, for a time, is not a denial of what is represented in the sacrament, but rather a manner of administration of the sacrament in light of an understanding of I Cor. 11. Does not our order display the gospel? We must look to the whole counsel of God’s Word for the proper administration of the sacraments. Yes, all those passages that talk about the unity of the Body and so forth are in the Bible. So is I Cor. 11. This brings us to the consideration of his next question.

“Did Jesus die and rise again to form a new Israel (paedocommunion), or did He die and rise again to form a community with a quite different make-up from Israel (antipaedocommunion)?”

On this point, Leithart later writes: “Because the church is the new Israel, the entry requirements to the church's Passover are the same as they were for Israel. Discontinuity with regard to admission to the table, like discontinuity between the subjects of circumcision and baptism, undermines the identification of the church and Israel. What are we saying about the church when we exclude children from the table? We are saying that we are not Israel.”

Again, we’re dealing with straw men and “either-or” fallacies. The Reformed Churches are famous for their “new Israel” doctrine. The alternative which he is leaving out relates to the ceremonial aspects of every covenant, which are unique to that covenant. There is continuity and discontinuity in all the covenants. Yes, the Eucharist was inaugurated at the Passover, but it is not the Passover. The Eucharist is a New Covenant ordinance. There is absolutely no reason why the apostles could not order the administration of the Eucharist in a fashion that distinguished it from the Passover in any particular.

“Did Jesus die and rise again to form the new human race (paedocommunion), or did He die and rise again to form a fellowship of the spiritually mature (antipaedocommunion)?“

Our fellowship is based on our union in Christ, via baptism. Our participation in the Lord’s Supper together is the way we experience together that unity – it does not inaugurate or establish the unity. The Eucharist is a celebration of the unity. Again, this is an attempt to portray the confirmers as people who split the church up into segments.

“Does baptism admit the baptized into the covenant or symbolize his prior inclusion in the covenant (paedocommunion), or does baptism merely express a hope that the baptized one day will enter the covenant in some other fashion (antipaedocommunion)?”

Lot’s of straw around here. Since when has any “antipaedocommunion” person – in the Reformed tradition – thought anything else about baptism but that it is the sign and seal of covenant membership?

“Does the covenant have an inherently historical/institutional character (paedocommunion), or is it an invisible reality (antipaedocommunion)?”

Does Leithart think it does not have an invisible reality? I thought both were true.

“Does grace restore nature (paedocommunion), or does grace cancel our nature or elevate beyond nature (antipaedocommunion)?”

According to Toon, obedience to I Cor. 11 is a celebration of nature. Children are made by God to grow into their various responsibilities and privileges in life. Thanks to God’s wonderful grace, the restored image of God also matures in that individual. Their first communion is a way of recognising and even congratulating (careful here!) the child’s maturity. We mutually rejoice in what God has brought forth, as the tree grows and matures and puts forth the glory of its fruit. To consider this, as does Leithart, as some sort of undermining of the gospel of God’s grace is to simply miss the point.

The more I read this article of Leithart’s (please read his other writings – he’s a good brother), the more I’m convinced that he is troubling himself.

What do we do with I Cor. 11? We could answer, as does Toon, with, “Well, we simply appreciate what the Church has done for centuries.” By the way, Toon certainly does not think we should be confirming at some arbitrary age. He says that pastoral decisions have to be made and that he is only really drawing the line between the infant and the child. Leithart wants to argue, “But is that tradition biblical?” He doesn’t think so. But, as I’ve, hopefully, demonstrated with my answers to his questions, he apparently is not currently able to think otherwise because he has painted himself into a corner with his false dichotomies.