The ELCA, the LCMS, and paedocommunion
Twyla over at Lutheran in a Tipi has an article about an LCMS church not communing her nine year-old son, who communed in an ELCA church before.
She reaches the dubious conclusion that "the ELCA has a better grasp of paedocommunion than the LCMS does."
First off, "paedocommunion" is a big topic. A great deal depends on whether we're talking about nine year-olds or newborns!
Kids can "discern the body" at a much earlier age than tradition-bound LCMS congregations are often willing to acknowledge. Nor is there any biblical connection between the purely human rite of confirmation and the Sacrament.
It's true that Communion is an act of confession, and that kids who have been merely taught about Communion and not about the rest of the Faith can only confess that Faith to the limited degree that they understand it. But that doesn't make the connection any less human or arbitrary. Kids don't grow up in a vacuum, either- and hopefully their doctrinal instruction doesn't begin with confirmation class!
Now, since the ELCA is in full communion with a number of denominations which deny the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament (as well as one- the United Church of Christ- which does not require its ministers to believe in the Holy Trinity), one can certainly question the degree to which the dimension of confession in Communion is really understood there, much less taught very clearly. And even if it is taught, ELCA practice effectively denies it.
And there is more. Drawing a false analogy to infant Baptism (a completely different Sacrament, and one which - unlike Communion- we have biblical reason to believe that infant faith can lay hold; it is through Baptism that one enters the Kingdom, and Jesus explicitly says that little children are the best candidates to enter it), the ELCA tends to falsely reason that if infant faith can benefit from one sacrament, it must be able to benefit from the other.
The ELCA communes babes in arms- a practice for which I can find neither theological nor biblical justification, especially in light of I Corinthians 11. Clearly Paul did not contemplate the communion of tiny babies!
But "sacrament" in Lutheran theology is a very arbitrary category. Essentially, a "sacrament" is a means of grace involving a tangible, physical element. Obviously, the mere presence of a physical element cannot be the determining factor. That being the case, we are left with their logic essentially being that because we baptize infants, any and all means of grace are accessible to them.
And maybe they are. But we have no promise to that effect for any means of grace other than Baptism. We have no more warrant for believing that infants can benefit from Holy Communion than we have for believing that they can benefit from preaching!
Now, Twyla isn't talking about hard-core, ELCA baby communion here. She's talking about communing a nine year old. There, she has a point. Kids are capable of "discerning the body" at a much earlier age than we confirm them. What age that might be is probably different for each individual kid.
But the point needs to be made, first, that we Lutherans don't have a theology of the sacraments. We have a theology of Baptism, and a theology of the Supper (as well as of Holy Absolution, which the Confessions also describe at one place as a "sacrament;" perhaps the pastor is the visible element). And secondly, there is that troublesome question of just what it is that one confesses when one communes at an ELCA altar- or, for that matter, what the ELCA thinks it's confessing when it admits sacramentarians (deniers of the Real Presence) and unitarians to its altars!
I think maybe a little more reflection (and theological substance) on the part of ELCA pastors, as well as training of ELCA kids, is needed before we reach Twyla's conclusion that the ELCA is on firmer ground here than the LCMS is!
No, on second thought, a great deal more is needed!
She reaches the dubious conclusion that "the ELCA has a better grasp of paedocommunion than the LCMS does."
First off, "paedocommunion" is a big topic. A great deal depends on whether we're talking about nine year-olds or newborns!
Kids can "discern the body" at a much earlier age than tradition-bound LCMS congregations are often willing to acknowledge. Nor is there any biblical connection between the purely human rite of confirmation and the Sacrament.
It's true that Communion is an act of confession, and that kids who have been merely taught about Communion and not about the rest of the Faith can only confess that Faith to the limited degree that they understand it. But that doesn't make the connection any less human or arbitrary. Kids don't grow up in a vacuum, either- and hopefully their doctrinal instruction doesn't begin with confirmation class!
Now, since the ELCA is in full communion with a number of denominations which deny the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament (as well as one- the United Church of Christ- which does not require its ministers to believe in the Holy Trinity), one can certainly question the degree to which the dimension of confession in Communion is really understood there, much less taught very clearly. And even if it is taught, ELCA practice effectively denies it.
And there is more. Drawing a false analogy to infant Baptism (a completely different Sacrament, and one which - unlike Communion- we have biblical reason to believe that infant faith can lay hold; it is through Baptism that one enters the Kingdom, and Jesus explicitly says that little children are the best candidates to enter it), the ELCA tends to falsely reason that if infant faith can benefit from one sacrament, it must be able to benefit from the other.
The ELCA communes babes in arms- a practice for which I can find neither theological nor biblical justification, especially in light of I Corinthians 11. Clearly Paul did not contemplate the communion of tiny babies!
But "sacrament" in Lutheran theology is a very arbitrary category. Essentially, a "sacrament" is a means of grace involving a tangible, physical element. Obviously, the mere presence of a physical element cannot be the determining factor. That being the case, we are left with their logic essentially being that because we baptize infants, any and all means of grace are accessible to them.
And maybe they are. But we have no promise to that effect for any means of grace other than Baptism. We have no more warrant for believing that infants can benefit from Holy Communion than we have for believing that they can benefit from preaching!
Now, Twyla isn't talking about hard-core, ELCA baby communion here. She's talking about communing a nine year old. There, she has a point. Kids are capable of "discerning the body" at a much earlier age than we confirm them. What age that might be is probably different for each individual kid.
But the point needs to be made, first, that we Lutherans don't have a theology of the sacraments. We have a theology of Baptism, and a theology of the Supper (as well as of Holy Absolution, which the Confessions also describe at one place as a "sacrament;" perhaps the pastor is the visible element). And secondly, there is that troublesome question of just what it is that one confesses when one communes at an ELCA altar- or, for that matter, what the ELCA thinks it's confessing when it admits sacramentarians (deniers of the Real Presence) and unitarians to its altars!
I think maybe a little more reflection (and theological substance) on the part of ELCA pastors, as well as training of ELCA kids, is needed before we reach Twyla's conclusion that the ELCA is on firmer ground here than the LCMS is!
No, on second thought, a great deal more is needed!
Comments