OK. There is this position known as paedocommunion. It has been around as a discussion between parties within Reformed circles since at least the late seventies, though it goes back to the early Church and was even advocated some (but not much) during the Reformation. The only reason I bring it up is because it seems there is a new move to associate paedocommunion with the so-called “Federal Vision” and/or “New Perspective.” This could be a good opportunity to again point out the severe misconceptions suffered by critics of these “movements,” but I’ll simply point out the absurdity of mixing paedocommunion into the accusations of “novelty” and “reformulation,” and associating paedocommunion with allegations of new views on justification. Someone should notify G. I. Williamson of his affinity; I think he would be surprised. Notice when the PCA study committee dealt with this issue: 1988. And a study committee does not form until interest and discussion develops “from below,” especially with the PCA’s “grass-roots” orientation. Nothing is here warranting some sudden panic. It is old news.

Paedocommunion has been held by respected PCA ministers for more than two decades. While the PCA has (rightly, in my view) ruled against allowing freedom of individual congregations to practice paedocommunion, I know of no case where anti-paedocommunion presbyteries have tried to get SJC involved in trying a paedocommunionist. Everyone knows that many (most?) presbyteries have no problem with a minister believing in paedocommunion or even teaching it as long as submits to the practice mandated in our Book of Church Order. When I was in seminary, I had to attend Missourri Presbytery meetings. Back in 1998 paedocommunion was considered a completely uncontroversial exception to take. Indeed, my friend Tommy Lee was ordained that year. He had to turn in a paper on historical theology and a paper on exegetical theology. Take a look at them. By far, the majority of the presbyters were not paedocommunionists, but they obviously respected Reformed covenant theologians who felt differently about the issue and could show by their argumentation their respect for Scripture and theology.

When I was admitted into the Pacific Northwest Presbytery, paedocommunion was, likewise, not an issue. I don’t think paedocommunionists were in the majorit at all, but they weren’t regarded as some sort of threat. I have been on record, for what it is worth, of recommending in at least a couple of cases to independent paedocommunion congregations that they would be better off switching to young child communion and joining a larger body. Also, when I moved to my second pastorate I moved from a paedocommunion congregation to a PCA congregation and promptly cut my children off from the table. This was painful but people have been in worse ecclesiastical situations in Church history. I’m thankful for the PCA. It seems strange to me that some seem to only think one can minister within a denomination if one agrees with everything she does. I don’t think we can have an hour’s peace within the church under those circumstances. One tertiary reason I appreciate paedocommunion is it lets me demonstrate how we can submit to Church leadership even when we disagree with the decision.

When I moved to Mid-America Presbytery for the first time I was asked not to preach paedocommunion from the pulpit or in other ministerial activities. That was fine. I had no desire or expectation to practice paedocommunion so I complied. Eventually Mid-America joined and was received by North Texas Presbytery. Within a year a minister in that presbytery informed his presbytery of a change in his views regarding paedocommunion and asked if he could teach and preach it on the condition that he convinced his session. The ministerial relations committee, while not each convinced, came back and recommended to the presbytery that this exception be granted. At that point I asked if this principle be extended to all presbyters. In what must have been an attack of paralysis of the tongue, I somehow gave the impression that I was asking that every exception be allowed. The presbytery voted that down but the way was now open for me to simply apply to the ministerial relations committee and go through the same process and get the same recommendation.

I didn’t bother.

When I thought about the amount of work it would take, and what difference it would make in my ministry (not much since I had every intention of keeping my practice within the bounds of PCA law), it simply seemed like too much effort. Perhaps I would have gotten around to it eventually.

The point here is that there is nothing new to this. It wasn’t invented at some 2002 conference and is advocated by people in no way associated (even by some of the more imaginative critics) with that event. It is an issue that several presbyteries have found to be within the bounds of acceptability.

POSTSCRIPT: By the way, it is not uncommon for me to find both paedocommunionists and antipaedocommunionists treating this article of mine as a plea for paedocommunion. But it is no such thing. I wrote it simply to explain to a congregation why the session was lowering the age when a believing child would be permitted to the Table. It does not argue for anything outside the bounds of Presbyterian law (as evidenced by antipaedocommunionists who admit young children).