The New Terms of the Communion Argument

The paedo-communion argument is fraught with herrings. So many Biblical beside-the-points fog over the issue. Feed my lambs, tend my sheep, feed my sheep continues to be a core text for me, but I also like to use let the little children come unto me and do no thinder them for of such is the kingdom of God. And while I’m not big on the distinction when it comes to this argument I don’t mind pulling out the comment: these are the Red Letters of the Bible.

But I hardly think it is profitable to come at it from this angle, because the anti-paedo argument gives the appearance of caring a great deal about God and His sacrament, when rather it does the opposite. This is why I prefer to use the titles Pro-Paedo and Paedo-Choice. Both Paedo-Choice and Pro-Choice have an age of accountability at which the child becomes a true “son”. It’s the covenant versus Planned Brotherhood.

 They feel like they take the sacrament seriously, whereas we Paedo-communionists let any old wet-head in, but what father wouldn’t feed his son? If the Supper truly is important why would God the Father starve His children? We don’t treat our children that way. Why do we say that God does?

Paedo-Choicers want to conduct a paternity test to discover the father, but God the Father claims them, and Christ the Brother demands they feed them.