Application Of The Sacraments

A month or so ago I came across a really interesting, and somewhat compelling, argument in response to a criticism made by paedocommunionists of common sacramental practices in the Reformed church at large. The common practice is to baptized our infants, bringing them into the covenant community, but to withhold communion until a profession of faith. The criticism is that this sends a mixed message: we tell our little ones that they are in the covenant community, but they don't get to partake of the covenant meal until they show some understanding of the Gospel. They are in, but not completely; a profession of faith is needed to prove that they're really in. The point of this criticism is not that a profession of faith is unnecessary or unimportant. It is extremely important, for it shows that God is at work in the lives of our baptized little ones. We look for evidence of God's work in both children and adults alike, and rightly so as we make judgments about covenantal membership. We excommunicate, for instance, when we see evidence that God is not, in fact, at work in the life of the excommunicated. The point of the criticism, rather, has to do with the requirements of covenant inclusion, and the message our common practice sends is that more than baptism is required.

The response to this criticism focuses on what the application of the sacraments says about covenantal inclusion. To the extent that PCists make comparisons between the new covenant baptism-communion pair and the old covenant circumcision-passover pair, they end up being inconsistent. With the old covenant pair, it was not the case that only those who received the sacrament were included in those covenanted with God. Only males were circumcised, but females were incontrovertably included in God's people. The little ones (namely, infants) were not able to partake of the Passover, but they also were certainly included in those whom God looked after and cared for. So, we can claim that those to whom the sacraments were applied did not exhaust who was included in the people of God; the latter group is bigger than the former. If we want to draw comparisons from this with the new covenant sacraments, particularly communion, we have a similar conclusion. Taking into consideration only the males under the old covenant, they could have been circumcised (at a very young age) and yet were unable to partake of the Passover; the former group is larger than the latter, and it is the former who are included in the people of God. The idea here is that participation in the sacraments, as signs and seals of covenant, does not determine inclusion in that covenant. The sacraments are signs and seals rooted as much in, and primarily in, the redemptive-historical context in which they occur. They take their form from just such a context and, thus, their application may not accurately reflect covenant inclusion.

Drawing a comparison with the new covenant sacraments, we could have a situation in which some who have been baptized, and, consequently, are really and completely included in the people of God, are not able to partake of communion. That they don't partake has no effect on whether or not they are included -- really included -- in the people of God. The redemptive-historical change in the institution of new covenant sacraments is that they are meant not just for Israel (and those suitably attached to Israel, such as foreigners living in their midst) but for all the nations, for Jew and Gentile alike. The sacraments are now meant for all who are in Christ and for those suitably attached to Christ's Church (e.g., by being born to believing parents or by profession of faith). Yet, despite this broadening of sacrament application, it is argued, the hermeneutical principle remains: not all who participate in the covenant participate in the sacraments that are signs and seals of that covenant, in the case at hand the focal sacrament is the Lord's Supper.

If there is to be a difference in who participates in the sacraments, it seems there should be a difference in the nature of the sacraments that determines participation. The nature of baptism is union with Christ, and this union includes infants in the NT. It is a passive sacrament, signifying our passive participation salvation. What is the nature of the LS that would exclude children who have not made a profession of faith? It is an active sacrament that involves commemoration and proclamation. We see this in 1 Cor. 11:24-26: "do this in remembrance of me," "For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." But for this to have its proper force in excluding certain members of the covenant from partaking (namely, children), we must take commemoration and proclamation to assume an intellectual understanding (or however rudimentary a form) of what the elements signify. Is it appropriate for someone to remember Christ and proclaim His death without even a rudimentary understanding of Christ's work?

I have a feeling that this question, and the line of reasoning leading up to it, is beside the point of 1 Cor. 11, anyway. It seems to me that the point of Paul's injunctions of remembering and proclaiming point to 11:29: "For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself, if he does not judge the body rightly." What does it mean to "judge the body rightly" in this case? Whenever his reference is to the sacrament in 1 Cor. 10 and 11, he includes both eating and drinking, making reference to the elements of the sacrament. Here, however, he includes only "the body." Is this significant? I think so.

The PCist is sometimes thought to make too much of the context of 1 Cor. 10 and 11, but, then, I tend to think not enough is made of it. Paul is very much concerned with the Corinthians' sense of community in Christ in these chapters. He makes much of it in 10:1-4, 16-17. In that chapter he emphasizes that the cup and bread point to Christ, urging them to therefore cease to partake in food sacrificed to idols (which point to gods other than Christ). In chapter 11, he emphasizes the unity that the cup and bread signify. Paul is very concerned about the Corinthians' lack of unity when they come together and the consequent factions that are at work when they partake of the sacrament, 11:17-22. So, when he urges them to remember what the sacrament signifies and what they proclaim when the partake, he is pointing them to their unity with each other through Christ. What are they not judging rightly when they come together at odds with one another rather than in unity? They are not judging rightly that in eating and drinking they are remembering and proclaiming that they are sharing in the blood and body of Christ (10:16-17). They are one Body in Christ, not unconnected bodies. They are losing touch with what their participation assumes (and signifies): that they are all one in Christ. So, when they come together to eat and drink, they are not judging this union and connectedness through Christ rightly. Paul is not so much concerned with their knowledge of what the sacrament signifies concerning Christ's work; he is concerned that they aren't taking due note of the fact that Christ's work signifies their union with one another.

It could be argued that the pronouns in 11:26-29 ("you," "whoever," "he who") have an unlimited reference, that is, their reference is not limited only to the immediate context of Paul's concern with their demonstrated lack of unity in their participation but instead includes anyone anywhere at any time who participates in the sacrament. I find this a little hard to accept, if for no other reason than that in 11:27, when Paul uses mentions "whoever," he is speaking of the whoevers who eat and drink in an "unworthy manner," the unworthy manner being their demonstrated lack of unity and failure to recognize what Christ's work signifies in terms of their relationship to one another. That this is the context of Paul's instruction throughout the passage is even clearer when he sums up his thoughts on the matter in 11:33-34: "So the, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another" (v. 33). His concern throughout is that they demonstrate the unity that their participation in the sacrament signifies.

This just isn't a good place to go in order to show that participation in the Lord's Supper per se requires an intellectual understanding of what the elements signify. Paul is not doing a bit of systematic theology here on the nature of the LS abstracted from his pastoral concern for the Corinthians. Is he saying something about the nature of the LS? Sure he is. But it is always directed at the Corinthians' apparent lack of understanding not just of what the elements signify, but primarily of what that signification means for their understanding of who they are as members of the body of Christ. He is not talking about the LS in order to give them direction on who gets to partake and who doesn't in terms of intellectual understanding, and I think it is a stretch to put the passage to that sort of work.

So, what is the implication for the PC question? Only that I fail to see how this passage can be used as a prooftext to bar baptized children who fall short of the intellectual maturity (of however rudimentary a form) we require from the Table. I suspect that our baptized children judge the unity of the Body more rightly than we do when they expect to be able to share the bread and cup with us. Paul, at least, is not talking to them in 1 Cor. 11. Does this mean that we don't want them to gain an understanding of the sacrament's significance, that we aren't concerned whether or not they remember and proclaim? Of course not. The issue isn't what we require of them in order to grow in grace; the issue is what is required of them in order to participate in the LS. I suspect that we place an unneccessary obstacle in their way by requiring intellectual maturity.

Is the redemptive-historical principle that was mentioned before touched by my line of argument regarding 1 Cor. 11? Perhaps not. It might be argued that since baptism, unlike circumcision, is in fact to be applied to all who are in covenant with God, we should expect a similar broadening with regard to the LS. This would, of course, involve defending the claim that those who participate in baptism are also participants in the NC, that both groups include exactly the same members. I suspect that an orthodox defense could be made. One obvious counterexample would be someone who professed faith in Christ, and is therefore united to Him, but who wasn't baptized. For this to be a counterexample, we would need to take the profession as an instance of being in covenant with God, of being in "the people of God," of being one of His elect, etc. The problem with this is that we are now delving into the secret things of God, who is in the "invisible church," whereas the point of the sacraments is to show who is in covenant with God in terms of the "visible church." Grounding one's position on something that we cannot know with certainty seems like a dead end; at the very least, it doesn't seem all that productive of a line to follow. So, there is at least this much of a chance that it wouldn't be a counterexample after all, not to mention (though I'm doing it!) that anyone who professes faith in Christ is required (read: strongly urged) to be baptized.

There is no "prooftext" in favor of PC; my point with 1 Cor. 11 is that there is also no prooftext against it. I think it would be the wrong approach to argue from ignorance that scripture (in the form of prooftexts) supports PC. So, we have to look elsewhere, such as to appeals to the redemptive-historical context of participation in the sacraments, continuities and discontinuities between the OC and NC, family meal analogies, drawing "good and necessary consequences" from what is said in scripture about the sacrament, etc. And because prooftexts do not abound, the disagreements do abound.

Paedocommunion: The Family Meal

Tomorrow I'll be spending the final Sunday school lesson on the Lord's Supper with the third through fifth graders, some of whom are participating in it during worship. It'll be good - another opportunity to show them how we point to Christ during the worship service. I bought into paedocommunion a while back and my stance hasn't changed, but I haven't really thought about it in a while. Recently at church we've changed how we do LS: going to the front to receive the elements, adding wine to the trays (finally!), and introducing some explanation of the sacrament along with prayers for folks who are at different places in their spiritual lives (e.g., nonchristians, Christians struggling with sin, covenant children who haven't made a public profession), all of which I think are helpful and good.

Last week I was reading closely the explanation of the sacrament and the prayer for noncommuning covenant children and was struck by something that I once put very little stock in but have been thinking is more important than I suspected. To the paedocommunionist, it comes across as an inconsistency; to the non-PCist, it is a proper division to make between the sacraments of the Church. I'm not sure if it's an inconsistency in a deep sense, but the surface inconsistency of it has been troubling me (ever so lightly) more and more. The first lines of the explanation: "Communion, also called The Lord's Supper, is the family meal of Christians. We invite all committed followers of Jesus Christ to share in this meal: those who are baptized and have made a public profession of faith in Jesus Christ and who seek strength to live more faithfully for Christ." The first line of the covenant children prayer: "Lord Jesus, thank you for placing me inside your family, the church." Okay, so we have the following:

The Lord's Supper is the family meal of Christians.
The "family" here is the church.
Covenant children are in that family.
Covenant children are not allowed to partake of The Lord's Supper

by virtue of their being members of the family.

Again, I know why non-PCists say this isn't an inconsistency at an important theological level, but there seems to be a different theological level at which it is inconsistent. It isn't an inconsistency if the family is that of baptized and professing believers; it is an inconsistency if the family is those who have been entered into the church through baptism. It won't do to get around the inconsistency by saying that the family is that of believers (from a God's-eye perspective), those who have had their hearts transformed by God. First, we don't know hearts the way God does; second, we'd have to come to terms with the reality that nonbelievers who nevertheless have publicly professed faith are partaking of LS. Out of the frying pan into the fire with that line of argument. Yet, that thinking seems to be floating ever so closely behind the public profession requirement. We want to make (more) certain that those who partake are doing so in recognition of what the sacrament is pointing to. We want to make (more) certain that believers are partaking.

This isn't a bad thing. In fact, I would hope that any PCist would agree that we need to make certain that believers are partaking, that those who are partaking are living the sort of life that the sacrament reflects (for instance). That's what makes LS an effective disciplinary action: you're not acting like a member of the family, so you don't need to share in the family meal. Recently, someone who was barred from the table at Redeemer years ago was restored to fellowship, and it was nothing short of a joy to share the family meal with this person. It is a strong, visible sign of who is in the family. And surely catechism needs to accompany participation in LS, understanding what the sacrament signifies. But these points don't necessarily rule out our covenant children being included in the family meal by virtue of their baptism. It can be an effective disciplinary action for them as much as for anyone else; as they participate, they can be (and ought to be) taught what it means, what their lives need to reflect, and that they need to profess their faith. But in this case, it is not a requirement of beginning to participate but rather a requirement of continuing to participate. It remains a requirement, but it is inserted in a different spot along the participation continuum.

I used to be relatively unmoved by those poor ignorant (in the nicest sense!) children who, reaching for the bread and wine, were passed by. I say relatively because I always thought it was sad, but I also thought it really had nothing to do with the theological ins and outs of the PC debate. But what are we teaching our children when we refuse them the family meal yet continue to say that they are family members? The importance of showing that you know enough in order to participate? I suspect that they understand pretty well what is going on (at some nonintellectual level) when this happens: I'm included but I'm also excluded. I'm not comfortable with a lesson like that. I wonder how much of a connection one could draw between this lesson and the disinterested seven and eight year olds busy at their crayon drawings during worship. If I felt excluded, I'd probably lose interest, too.

Communion and Worship

Every six weeks or so I help the deacon on duty at the church get things together for Sunday School and Worship: making coffee, getting the communion bread and juice prepared (alas! no wine ... but at least it's weekly communion--if I had to choose between wine and weekly, this would definitely be the choice I'd make), handing out orders of worship, counting tithes and offerings, etc. Because there is much to do before, during, and after the service, we don't really get to participate in worship. One thing we do during worship is help get extra communion juice to those distributing it--we have more people attending the service than we have cups for the six trays we keep on the table up front. So, we're in there during communion and are always offered the bread and juice. I always take it. I took it today.

In the past, I have never been inclined to refuse it. What qualifies me to receive the "body and blood" of Christ? I am His. I am a member of His body. In partaking, I commune with Christ and with His people. But today was different. Today I was inclined to refuse it. Not because I was doubting my identity in Christ. Not because I felt particularly disconnected from either Christ or this body of believers. But I was inclined to refuse the elements for the same reason that I don't offer my tithes/offerings while on deacon duty: such an offering is a part of worship, and I am not part of worship when on duty. I am not a part of the covenant community in praising our Creator and Redeemer in song, in publicly confessing my sin with my dear brothers and sisters, in hearing the Word preached, etc. Putting my money in the bag after the offerings have been taken up seems to view tithing much more as a practical affair and much less as an act of worship, which it (the latter) is first and foremost. This morning I started applying this reasoning to partaking of communion, and it took me to a place I didn't want to go.

I haven't thought that much more about it. But I want to. I partook of communion this morning because the feeling that a refusal of the elements would be along the lines of a refusal of my identity in Christ and in His body was stronger than the feeling that this was an act of worship that I had not been a participant in until that point. Of course, a couple of things could be said about the two options that I presented myself. On the one hand, not everyone who refuses to partake of the elements is doing it because they are rejecting their covenantal identity; on the other hand, people who come in late, say, after the initial praising of God in hymns and the communal confession of faith, are from that point on a legitimate part of the worship and should be a part of it.

Concerning the first point, the only time you shouldn't voluntarily partake of the body and blood should be if you refuse to stake your identity in Christ and His body (I say "voluntarily" to account for cases of church discipline, in which the refusal is decided by someone else). So, if you are not partaking because you "don't feel worthy" or "haven't been a good Christian last week" or something along those lines, you are simply refusing the grace offered in this act of worship of which you obviously are in dire need. You need to be reminded by the very act of partaking that your worthiness does not come from your feelings or from how good you were last week. It comes from Christ, on Whom you are feeding freely, Who is your very sustenance.

Concerning the second point, while we should strive to see all of the service as a unified act of worship (or specific acts of worship presented as a unity), it seems a different thing to be in worship from one point after the beginning until the very end and to be coming in and out of parts of the worship service. Can it really be said of the latter (which was my situation this morning) that I was part of the worship? I have my doubts, but I haven't spent the time reasoning out why I have the doubts. Part of it stems from viewing the worship service as a unity and not as acts independent of one another. This notion of independence seems key. Historically/Traditionally (not sure which of those to use here) we put so much emphasis on the Word of God (and rightly so!), that the preaching of the Word becomes central. So, in our minds, we (including myself) have a tendency to see that as the important part and the other parts as expendable. "As long as I'm there for the sermon, I'm good." That attitude just seems downright problematic. Worship is not a fix. We are not there for ourselves--in this case, to learn something from the sermon, to catch a tidbit that we hope we can remember until next week. We are there to give ourselves to God and to receive the grace offered in that giving. This includes our songs, our sins, our hearts, souls, and minds. The worship service is a unit with a call-and-response pattern--God calls, we respond.

It may seem like I have devolved into theological nitpicking about worship, but this has practical consequences for whether or not I should take the bread and juice when I have not been a participant in the unity of the service. If I do, am I (unintenionally, in this case) treating the service as a buffet line? "Oh, yes, I'll have one of these, and Ooo! I like those, but none of that, thank you, not good for the digestion, you know." I am absolutely committed to my place in Christ and in His body, but is this blinding me to the bigger picture of the worship service?