LITTLE ONES AND THE LORD’S SUPPER: A THIRD WAY by CHARLES L. BETTERS B.M., University of Delaware, 1993 M.M., Temple University, 1995 D.W.S., The Robert E. Webber Institute for Worship Studies, 2006 A THESIS Submitted to the faculty Of Reformed Theological Seminary in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts (Religion) Charlotte, North Carolina May 2017 Approved: Thesis Advisor: _________________________________________________________ The Rev. Scott R. Swain, Ph.D. Global Academic Dean: _____________________________________ The Rev. James N. Anderson, Ph.D., Ph.D. ii To my beloved wife Melanie who has stood by my side and supported my studies for many years. I love you and I am so thankful to have a wife and best friend whose life is about Nothing But Jesus (I Corinthians 2: 2). iii ABSTRACT By not leading children to come quickly to faith, and then to the Lord’s Table, we are effectively barring them from the table. In doing so, are we not thereby insinuating that their love for Jesus is somehow insincere? Is there something else that a child needs to do to receive the Lord’s Supper other than coming to simple faith in Jesus Christ? I believe the best way to move forward is for intense elder shepherding of our people to lead their families in every spiritual discipline, including the table of the Lord. When our children see the spiritual growth and nourishment that comes from the table, they will desire it for themselves. iv v CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 Literature Review ................................................................................................................... 3 2. BIBLICAL STUDIES ............................................................................................................. 7 3. THEOLOGICAL REFLECTIONS ........................................................................................ 28 Theology of Self-Examination .............................................................................................. 34 4. PAEDOCOMUNION THROUGHOUT HISTORY .............................................................. 43 5. PRACTIAL IMPLICATIONS ............................................................................................... 54 Sloth ..................................................................................................................................... 54 A Third Way ........................................................................................................................ 59 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 63 BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................... 66 vi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The question of when infants and young children should partake of the Lord’s Supper has been a subject of vigorous debate in the American Presbyterian Church (PCA). The minority position, and that of some PCA ministers and congregations, is to admit young children, and even infants, to the Lord’s Table.1 The majority position holds that covenant children should not partake of the sacrament until they are able to understand and articulate the essentials of the faith and evidence a theological grasp of the Lord’s Supper. Some PCA churches simply do not admit covenant children to the table until they become communing members. The PCA’s position is to prevent covenant children from receiving the sacrament until they are interviewed and approved by a Session member. In what follows, the PCA’s established theological position with respect to paedocommunion, will go largely unchallenged. I maintain that there are serious reasons for opposing paedocommunion, not least of which is that this position stands in express contradiction to the theology of the Lord’s Supper set forth in the Westminster Standards. As the Westminster Confession of Faith makes abundantly clear, only those who are capable of receiving the elements by faith are worthy of participating in the sacrament of communion.2 Insofar as a young child is incapable of faithfully discerning the body and blood, he/she is not yet fit to receive the bread and wine. In downplaying the role of faith, proponents of paedocommunion thus risk endorsing a somewhat superstitious view of the Lord’s Supper, whereby the 1. PCA ministers must notify their Presbytery if they hold to the minority position. 2. The Westminster Confession of Faith, Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996. 1 sacrament operates automatically (ex opera operato) on the one who receives of the elements. Without therefore departing from the established PCA position, because the current divide strikes me as wanting, I intend to rekindle a sense of covenantal urgency with respect to the question at hand and attempt to offer new theological reflections. Most of the literature and resources regarding Reformed paedocommunion are either staunchly “for” or “against” it. These sources are abundant, and there is no need to rehash what has already been well articulated. It is my goal to use this study to contribute a new perspective to the Reformed, and specifically PCA, theological tradition. Perhaps there is indeed a “third way” of approaching the theological question of paedocommunion while remaining true to the PCA majority position. Whatever our own theological positions are, however, it is incredibly important for us to be able to state opposing positions with grace and charity— exercising what Kevin Vanhoozer calls the “dialogical virtues.”3 I intend to avoid caricatures of the paedocommunion position and to state the position in such a way that its proponents will hear their own views rightly described, even while I do not share them. Our theology regarding practice should have practical consequences. Therefore, I will suggest concrete steps throughout this thesis. The goal of my theological reflection is not to convince people to become proponents of paedocommunion, but to instill in our leaders the urgency of properly bringing our children to the table. I am not suggesting we change the way we admit children, as I continue to believe that they should be fenced until meeting the church and PCA requirements. However, when we fail to shepherd our parents to prepare 3. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “Wrighting the Wrongs of the Reformation?” in Jesus, Paul and the People of God: A Theological Dialogue with N. T. Wright, eds. Nicholas Perrin and Richard B. Hays (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2011), 259. 2 their children for the table at an early age, we are not complying with the PCA requirements for eldership. In many ways, the questions surrounding paedocommunion are symptomatic of a much larger problem facing the PCA. The problem, as I see it, is a lack of urgency to bring young children to the table. There is no reason why a four, or even five- year-old should not be ready to come to the Lord’s Table while remaining true to the PCA conviction against the classic paedocommunion position. In this paper, I will explore all aspects of the theological conversation in order to demonstrate, not that the paedocommunion side is the “right” side, but rather how we need to carefully reflect on this issue as a whole. In this paper I will attempt to open the door to continued theological reflection on this issue while staying within the bounds of settled PCA doctrine. Literature Review While I use many additional resources in this thesis, I have identified the literature that I relied on most and found that focusing on the resources in this section faithfully summarizes the cross section of views on paedocommunion. Cornelis P. Venema, Children at the Lord’s Table? Assessing the Case for Paedocommunion (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2009). Cornelis Venema is a credocommunionist, but is sensitive to the paedocommunionist position. This book, a historical, exegetical, and systematic treatment of paedocommunion, is helpful in defining terms and explaining arguments for both sides of the debate. He focuses heavily on the history of the church’s treatment of paedocommunion in confessions, teaching, and practice. Beginning with a broad discussion of church history, he then moves to the issue in Reformed confessions, the parallels with Passover, the NT evidence for paedocommunion, and ends with extensive commentary on 1 Cor 11:17-34. He argues that Christ’s death is 3 central and criticizes the “lack of aggressiveness” or “neglect” in churches with regard to bringing children to the table. Guy Prentiss Waters & Ligon Duncan, “An Introduction to the Paedocommunion Debate,” in Children and the Lord’s Supper: Let a Man Examine Himself, eds. Guy Waters & Ligon Duncan (Ross-Shire: Mentor, 2011), [11-30]. The articles in this volume examine virtually all facets of the paedocommunion debate. In the introduction, Waters and Duncan, are judicious in their citation of primary paedocommunionist sources. Both are credocommunionist Presbyterians but are fair in how they present paedocommunionist arguments. Their main argument against paedocommunion is that even though all baptized individuals have the privilege of eating at the table, not all are automatically ready to exercise that privilege. They clearly contend that baptized children belong at the table, but they must first meet the requirements of 1 Cor 11. Iain M. Duguid, “Christ Our Passover,” in Children