Additional Note: By the way, in case anyone wonders, I’m glad that this blog is engaging in a conversation with Doug Wilson about paedocommunion, and appreciate the tone. I didn’t think I needed to spell this out, but I am second-guessing that decision now (for no reason other than my imagination; I have seen no feedback).
I do not think that most 6-year-olds would be able to understand the significance of the Lord’s Supper. Maybe I have seen too many modern-day public school educated 6-year-olds. My daughter is 5 and nowhere near ready, in my opinion, and she will not be publicly educated, at least for the first grades. In fact, to my knowledge, she hasn’t even asked about what the bread and the wine mean yet. We’re still working on what Jesus Christ means, and His sacrifice. After that, we’ll move on to the physical sign He has given us of His Person and work.
Interesting. My first son started spontaneously telling me the significance of the bread and wine, as body and blood of our Lord, when he was four, I think.
But my first pastorate was in a practicing paedocommunion church so he had been living this reality for at least a couple of years. He learned the meaning of the Lord’s supper the same way the Israelites in the wilderness were taught the Sabbath–by eating.
How else would the Lord want to disciple the children of the Church?
There seems to me to be something fundamental that needs to be addressed. Wittgenstein addressed it when he began Philosophical Investigations with a quotation of Augustine claiming to have learned to speak as an infant by means of ostensive definition. Wittgenstein dismantles this claim, but not many Christians care about Wittgenstein.
Cartesian Christianity is the default practice of the churches now.