Considering Open Communion
Many of the more liberal Protestants churches these days practice an “open communion”, in which they welcome anyone professing to be Christian to share Eucharist with them. Apparently the ECUSA doesn’t even require Baptism for participation in Eucharist. I don’t know what the common practice is at other Evangelical churches, Baptist or the conservative reformed churches might be … but my particular church (Eastern Orthodox) does not practice this. To share Eucharist in the Orthodox church one must be a member in good standing, have confessed recently, and fasted from food and water (on Sunday) since midnight.
In the Didache, Chapter 14 we find (wiki on the Didache is here):
And coming together on the Lord’s day of the Lord, break bread and give thanks, confessing beforehand your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure. And everyone having a quarrel with his fellow member, do not let [them] gather with you until they have reconciled so that your sacrifice may not be defiled. For this is what was said by the Lord: “In every place and time, offer me a pure sacrifice because I am a great king,” says the Lord, “and my name [is] great among the nations.”
It seems to me this teaching is both based in Scripture and applicable to the notion of open communion. There are in fact non-trivial doctrinal differences between our churches. That we might approach these irenically does not belie the underlying seriousness and importance in working to resolve these differences. However, the word “quarrel” is important. We do not gather together and share communion until we are reconciled so that our sacrifice might not be defiled, not the least of which by our quarrel.
So I’m curious, if your Church practices open communion … why? By what reasoning do you justify that practice? What tradition?
Filed under: Christianity • Mark O. • Religion
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
We practice open communion, and we do so for the simple reason that we see no reason not to do so.
There is no biblical restriction saying “only those who are saved,” and certainly not “only those from your faith tradition” can participate.
Speaking for myself (not my church), I don’t think that “Communion” is a Special Rite instituted by Jesus for church members to do.
When we see the breaking of bread together in the Bible, we see it in the context of a regular meal (as opposed to a church service ritual). Jesus – it seems to me – was just offering a visual reminder to his followers: As oft as you gather together, breaking bread and drinking wine, do this in remembrance of me – Remember the breaking of my body and shedding of my blood.
Now, I have no problem with the ritual-as-reminder. I love communion. I’m just saying I’m not inclined to think that it was some solemn religious ritual, just a friendly and loving reminder.
And, when I say “regular meal,” I meant to say, a regular shared meal within the context of a church meeting. Not unlike, for our church, our Wednesday night prayer meeting, where we have dinner before hand, or meetings that we have in one another’s homes…
The story of the Lord’s Supper, from Matthew…
On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Where do you want us to make preparations for you to eat the Passover?”
He replied, “Go into the city to a certain man and tell him, ‘The Teacher says: My appointed time is near. I am going to celebrate the Passover with my disciples at your house.’ ” So the disciples did as Jesus had directed them and prepared the Passover.
When evening came, Jesus was reclining at the table with the Twelve…
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
Here we see Jesus, in the context of a meal (a passover meal) at a house. Jesus tells his disciples (again) he’s about to be killed, but when he’s gone, they can remember him each time they eat, in the breaking of the bread and the sharing of the cup.
Nothing in that story that I see that suggests a “closed communion.”
In fact, we may recall that many of Jesus’ stories involve meals, including the one where Jesus tells the parable of the great feast, where ALL were invited, ALL were welcome, even the most undesirable. All they had to do was Come. Show up.
Over in 1 Corinthians 10, we read Paul saying…
Therefore, my dear friends, flee from idolatry. I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.
It is not suggested that there are any who CAN’T take part. He’s saying, again, that as they eat, they can remember and honor Jesus’ life and death. He further points out that, just as Jesus one body was broken, that the church, too, is one body, one loaf. We are one from many.
Now, he does say that “we all partake of the one loaf” in the context of a conversation with church folk, but it doesn’t say, “And while you’re eating that one loaf and remembering Jesus’ life and death, be sure NOT to let infidels share the bread, too.” Right?
I just see nothing there suggesting exclusivity.
cont’d…
In the next chapter of 1 Corinthians (11) Paul rebukes the Corinthians because of what was happening in their “communion…”
In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good…
When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!
The implication here is, I believe, that those who might be called “the working poor,” those who have to labor late and arrive to this gathering late (or who arrive late for any reason), they miss out on the shared meal all together, while others stuff themselves and even get drunk.
Paul continues…
For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.
What does it mean to eat “in an unworthy manner?” Doing so in such a way that is gluttonous and selfish, ignoring the shared meal with the greater body, especially those who are poor and most in need, in this context, anyway. Or at least that.
But in all of this, I see no reason to suggest that this meal should be reserved only for some. At the most, you might say the gluttonous and greedy and selfish might ought to be excluded. But even then, it is being suggested that THOSE people ought to remove themselves from the sharing of the meal, I don’t see Paul saying, “The church should (somehow) decide which among you are unworthy and not allow them to partake,” do you?
Instead, it says a person should “examine THEMSELVES” and decide.
That’s what makes sense to us. That’s the only limitation I ever see on shared meals or shared “communion” in the Bible.
And that is probably WAY more of an answer than you wanted, but I decided to be thorough…
Mark, I tend to agree with Dan on this. Are you saying that before your congregation has communion, you make sure that everyone, individually, has confessed recently? I’d be interested in how Eastern Orthodox arrived at the requirement to fast before it, but do you also poll everyone to make sure they’ve done it? I suspect, instead, you leave it to the individual to determine if they’ll be participating in a worthy manner.
In our church, we simply say that if you have given your life to Jesus and He’s your Lord, you are welcome to join us in communion. If you haven’t, we respectfully ask you not partake, since the Bible says you would be eating and drinking judgment on yourself. But with that reminder, we leave it to the individual.
I’d note the slight difference between Doug and myself is that we don’t respectfully ask anyone not to partake. We don’t think that the “eat/drink judgment upon yourselves” is speaking to non-Christians, but to Christians.
At Jeff St, all are welcome to partake, period, and if you feel as if you don’t wish to partake, you are free not to partake.
As with the call to come to the feast, all are welcome. Especially “the sinners.”
Doug,
Sorry for the time delay getting back to you. Work was very busy today.
Communion at our church is administered by the Priest and/or Deacon. We are a small parish. Our priest hears our confessions, so yes an un-confessed person would not be administered communion. The frequency of confession varies by diocese. When I was visiting in Atlanta a while back, I visited a OCA and a ROCOR parish (OCA=Orthodox Church in America) and ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia). The OCA priest heard my confession (and on the basis of that laid on me penance of not taking communion for a month) … and a few days later I noticed that at the ROCOR parish everyone who was taking communion gave their confession either Saturday night or Sunday before the service. Our parish priest has less frequent individual confessions. I have to say, I’ve found the process of confession very salutary.
As for fasting, again this in on individual recognizance (recall confession however). I would mention that all are made aware that fasting does not include those who might need to eat for medical reasons (taking pills or diabetics needing to maintain blood sugar levels) for example should eat and this would not be a detriment).
After my conversion and for some time I found fasting before communion for that length of time difficult. I’d be standing through the length of the service (we rarely sit … kind of like Texas A&M?) and be often thinking of my hunger. That has passed however, and I rarely think of that if ever. I find at this point the fasting is just part of my bodily response to liturgy like the smell of incense. I’m also often surprised at the positive bodily response after fasting to the small amount of wine and bread received. One other small (odd?) detail. Orthodox communion, unlike the West, the bread and wine are mixed in a chalice and the wine-soaked bread is administered to communicants via spoon.
Dan,
Very very early the Church was following a practice of closed communion … back to the apostolic age. Our liturgy (which is little changed from the 4th century … and I know that is not apostolic) holds relics of this time.
In the early church catechumens and the believers were separated during the service. We still say “the doors the doors” for the time when the catechumens (those who were preparing and studying prior to Baptism and a welcome to the full life as a Christian) were dismissed for study. The doors were shut and locked and the anaphora (Eucharist) was celebrated. The locking and shutting of doors was also done because of the pre-Constantine period of persecution and the need for secrecy.
I’d also note that “not eating/drinking judgement” is (as you note) a typical reason given for closed communion and I have heard it mentioned before. I was suggesting “not partaking before the altar with those with whom you quarrel” is another significant reason why not. I should not have communion if I have a quarrel with my brother. You and I have a significant disagreement on a wide range of important theological matters not the least of which is what Eucharist consists. If God is important then how can this not be a significant quarrel? Why would it be right for us to share communion then? That was my question.
To both Doug and Dan,
Sorry I took so long to respond. I was really busy today at work.
Doug,
Before communion visitors (if Orthodox) will check with the priest before taking communion … or if they arrived before will have a conversation with a greeter who will ascertain how to proceed (that was how the downtown Atlanta OCA church treated with me). Confession standards vary by church and jurisdiction. I’ve seen parishes that require weekly confession to those which only require annual individual confessions. I’ve found the rite of individual confession to be very salutary for myself.
As for fasting (note the confession above) and that if anyone has a medical reason for not holding to a full fast … that is not a restriction on communion.
Dan,
I had a longer response, which some sort of html error lost … but you have mostly responded to only part of my question. I’ve asked why you think we should have communion together given that we have a disagreement (disagreements?) of no small importance. God is important and we differ on quite a few important theological issue, not the least of which is the nature and substance of the Eucharist. The Didache passage instructs that we are not to come together to the altar (before God) until we’ve settled this. Are we cheating ourselves by going separately with others with whom we agree?
I guess a separate question might be of what value you would place on an early Christian document like the Didache? Or say of the writings of other Apostolic fathers (Clement, Barnabas, Ignatius, Irenaeus and Justin Martyr for example)? Some of these men were personally taught by the apostles and the authors of the Gospels.
The early church had the practice of the catechumenate which we still have traces of in our liturgy (but which are no longer fully practiced). The priest or deacon chants “The Doors. The Doors.” at the point where the service moves to toward celebrating the Eucharist (Anaphora). This is after the Scripture readings and the homily. In the early church at this point, the catechumens would depart for instruction and the doors would be locked.
The point is, the early church, from apostolic times did not practice open communion like you do at Jeff St. I think your claim that 1st Corinthians 11 is speaking to a wider celebration for which restrictions only held to the Christians in attendance is not borne up by the text. See also the wiki section especially the “historic practice” part.
OK. I found my lost response … and the one that was lost the 2nd time. I’ve recovered both (they were marked as spam).
I’ve included both because they are slightly different and instead of reconciling them to contain the best of both … hopefully you can read them both far quicker than I could re-write/re-edit them to be one reply.
😀
Dan,
And in the first “that was my question” is not very good. “That is the part of my question which what remains unclear to me.” would have been better.
If God is important then how can this not be a significant quarrel? Why would it be right for us to share communion then? That was my question.
I would rarely categorize differences over relatively less critical theological tenets as a quarrel. If you have a difference of opinion about the Atonement or the Virgin Birth or the rapture or many (most, for me) other typical religious tenets, I would still fully consider you my brother in Christ, one with whom I have minor disagreements on some matters.
These disagreements would not rise to the category of “quarrel” to me. You want to believe that Mary was not a virgin? No big deal.
I guess if you want to say that Jesus actually taught us to HATE our neighbors and enemies, or, you know, some actual direct teaching of Jesus, that would be a big quarrel.
My question to you, then is, how many issues for you rise to the category of “quarrel?”
I think, in context, that “quarrel” passage is talking about more obvious “he cheated while we were playing Spades last night and, boy, I’m mad at him!”
That, to me, is a quarrel. Not petty disagreements over theological tenets.
It seems, to me, your reasons have more to do with tradition than the actual text. I just see no biblical reason NOT to have open communion (with the noted exception that folk who feel unworthy – because of “quarrels” or whatever reason – can opt out themselves).
A point of clarification: What is your source for the concern about “quarrels”? Just the “Didache” (whatever that is – sorry, I’m not familiar with Eastern Orthodox stuff at all)?
I was trying to find a biblical passage about quarrels and communion but came up blank.
The quarrels mentioned in the NT tended to be like…
he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions…
Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen…
Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels…
the Lord’s servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful…
But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless…
That sort of thing, which seems TO ME to be talking specifically about little differences of opinion on issues of theology, as well as other issues.
Is your reference the Didache only? If so, what’s that? (I looked up and saw it is an early church book, right?) Being an anabaptist/baptist type, we tend to look only to the Bible (although being a progressive type, I’m open to knowledge from any good and true source).
Dan,
I’ve written in the past about adiaphora and dogma or doctrine, that is what disagreements we have are adiaphora (not important) and those are not. Surely you agree that theological disagreements can be not adiaphora. What sorts of things then rise past the level of adiaphora for you?
The Didache is not “Eastern Orthodox” stuff. The range of dates given for its writing are from 50-100.
The writers I quoted were not “Eastern Orthodox” but church leaders who were personally taught by the apostles (and the gospel writers). I gather you do not study these works. Why not? It would seem to me that they would have a better conception of what the apostles were teaching than we might glean from the Scripture alone.
1st Clement was in the canon for many centuries before eventually being dropped (it is in the Codex Alexandrinus for example). When you look “only” at the Bible do you delve into the formation of the canon.
What sorts of things then rise past the level of adiaphora for you?
As a Christian, those teachings that conflict directly with the teachings of Jesus are the ones that I would tend to have problems with. Since most of Christianity’s doctrinal tenets tend NOT to be directly from Christ’s teachings, I tend not to sweat most doctrinal teachings.
That is, Jesus did not espouse a doctrinal statement about THE VIRGIN BIRTH – he did not tell us what our position should be on the matter. Jesus did not espouse a doctrinal statement on THE ATONEMENT. Jesus did teach and demonstrate a baptism, but he didn’t say what that HAD to look like.
These sorts of teachings that are more of our (Christians throughout history) reasoning out or extrapolations of what some teachings in the Bible mean to us are a step (sometimes several steps) removed from Jesus’ direct teachings and, given the fallible nature of human wisdom and our imperfect understanding of an omniscient God beyond our understanding, I’m willing to cut folk slack on most of these human extrapolations of ideas derived more or less indirectly from the Bible.
On the other hand, if someone were to say, “We ought NOT love our neighbors,” that would be a direct opposition to Jesus’ direct teachings. If someone said that the poor were NOT blessed, that would be a direct opposition; if someone were to say that we ought NOT look out for the least of these, that would be opposition.
These are the more difficult teachings that at least THIS Christian would find hard to reconcile with the teachings of Jesus.
Does that seem reasonable or not?
I gather you do not study these works. Why not?
Not part of my tradition. I’m wholly unfamiliar with them and no teachers with whom I’m familiar and whom I respect have ever mentioned them as significant to Christianity.
Which is not to say that they’re not. Just that I’m wholly unfamiliar with them. I’d have to know more about them to have an opinion on them.
I do know that there were all sorts of writings happening throughout church history. Some have been held on to and some less so. I have not read all the writings of all the church-related people throughout history (obviously) and, given a limited time frame, have to pick and choose what I read.
I will also say that the anabaptist tradition probably begins with a suspicion of ritual. We (or at least I) tend to think of it along the lines of what Jesus had to say about the Sabbath – that the Sabbath is made for humanity, not the other way around. People throughout history have tended too often to gravitate towards traditional rituals and allowed them to lose their meaning. When we use rituals even when they’ve lost their significance or when they harm the human spirit, then that ritual has become problematic in practice.
Which is not to say that I/we don’t find some ritual meaningful, just that I/we begin with at least a little distrust of rituals, especially ones far removed from our culture.
A biblical example of this is the ritual of sacrificing animals. This was perhaps meaningful to the people at the time, thousands of years ago. It would not be today, we live in a different time.
Does that answer the question?
Is this a fair representation of the Didache?
In a very brief reading of at least some of the Didache, I see nothing worth complaining about there. Seems like a rephrasing of other biblical teachings, which is fine. Some nice imagery there.