Musings about Open Communion

My blog today has to do with the particular element of worship called communion, or the Lord’s Supper. Let me say at the outset that my position has dramatically changed during the past few years from what it was while I was going to college. Therefore, this position, to me, is a fairly recent one, but is certainly in good company with many other believers throughout church history including Samuel Goddard, the grandfather of the more famous Jonathan Edwards, who by the way did not agree with me or his grandfather.

The position that I hold to now is the position of open communion, which is of the persuasion that all present at the worship gathering should be invited to participate in the communion. Now, for some this may sound rather strange, since they will immediately conclude that the Lord’s Supper is a time of worship for believers. Before I give my reasons for believing that this is the best and most Christ-honoring way to do communion, I would like to give a couple of clarifying remarks.

First of all, I do not believe as some Roman Catholics do, that there is justifying power in the elements of the communion, or that any work or deed we perform can make us righteous in the sight of God. The Apostle Paul wrote to Titus that it is “not by works of righteousness we have done, but according to his mercy, he has saved us…” He also said in his Ephesian letter, “For by grace are you saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves. It is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast.” And Paul writes to the Roman Christians that believers are “justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.” We are justified by faith in Jesus Christ and his atonement for our sin.

I am not opposed, however, to the use of the term “sacrament” to identify the communion, because of the fact that it does accurately represent what communion is and does for the believer. A sacrament is something that contains an element of saving efficacy in it. Now, as we have already stated, we are justified in the sight of God, i.e. made righteous and declared not guilty, through the death of Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, our salvation is not complete, and we are not fully saved. God is still in the process of saving us. For those who are committed to the Baptist adage “once saved, always saved” this will not mean much. But for others who believe that salvation is secure, yes, but also believe that true believers will continue in the faith, and if they don’t, then they were not ever true believers, this will make sense. In other words, Christ is the one who saves us, but anyone who has ever struggled with his or her own wickedness knows that he must be saved, in a sense, every day. Does that mean that he loses his salvation? Again, we are not talking about deliverance from a final hell, but rather a deliverance from a spiritual hell on earth each and everyday. We must get up everyday and fall on our knees in fresh repentance and brokenness and cry out to Jesus to save us from ourselves, so that we can be involved in redeeming the world in which we live.

So, if we realize that we are BEING saved, then we must also realize that God uses various tools in our life to point us to Christ, who was, is, and shall be our salvation. Those tools are in our lives as the means of grace to us so that we will experience more of Jesus and his love, and it will cause us to renew our dying in him. There are many, the Scriptures, the community of Christ, baptism, giving, singing, fasting, praying, loving, and, of course, communion. Each of these things can be called sacraments if we understand them to be means of God’s grace in the process of our ongoing salvation from sin.

Secondly, I do not believe that the unleavened bread and the wine are the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. I, also, do not believe that the presence of Christ is in the actual bread and wine, although I am not adamantly against this Lutheran concept altogether. I do believe that Christ’s presence is with us as we celebrate the communion, as the Bible clearly teaches. This subject is a blog in and of itself and does not fit my purpose here, other than to clarify what I do not believe, so criticism of my position might be more aptly directed to the core of my blog.

Now, why do I believe open communion is to be preferred over close or closed communion? As I see it, this answer is to be given in the context of the three basic reasons for communion. What that means is that Scripture gives some specific reasons for the giving of these elements, and those reasons are not contradicted by the practice of open communion. On the contrary, I find the practice of open communion very consistent with what the Scripture gives as its reasons for communion.

Firstly, Jesus explicitly states that the eating of the bread and the drinking of the wine should be done “in remembrance” of him. In other words, this is an opportunity for us to worship Christ and revel in his person and his actions on our behalf. This reason may entail many components, including personal scrutiny whereby the believer examines himself. Paul wrote about this in the corrective portion of his first letter to the Corinthians: “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.” Now this section is a rebuke for the professing believers who were abusing this worship element by indulging themselves. The punishment that is spoken of here is not in reference to unbelievers. I have heard others use this text before to refer to people who take the communion “unworthily”, and then say that unbelievers should, therefore, not be allowed to partake of the communion. This is the theological equivalent of comparing apples with oranges. Let’s look at the passage in question for just a moment.

First Corinthians 11:30-32 says, “That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep (i.e. died). But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.” This whole discussion is obviously given to believers. That is why he contrasts the believers’ punishment with the unbelievers’ condemnation. The fact that unbelievers are condemned is an assumed fact that Paul contends for. Jesus said the same thing in John 3:18, “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.” So, if an unbeliever is already condemned to Hell, then how can he be more condemned if he takes the communion? The answer, of course, is that he cannot. It is like trying to distinguish between a dead person and “a really dead” person”. In other words, if a man is already condemned, he cannot become any more condemned than he already is.

What this is in reference to is the attitude that should be lived out in the way we take communion- a sacred remembrance of Jesus and a solemn, introspective examination in light of Him. The pertinent question for us is how does this relate to our taking open communion? The short answer is that our taking communion does not directly have any bearing on those who are unbelievers. All of the prescriptions that are given by Paul to the Corinthian Church are only applicable to believers and how their worship should be conducted. What is conspicuously missing from this is any reference to unbelievers whatsoever. In fact, when Paul speaks about the controversial subject of spiritual gifts just three chapters later, he addresses the issue of unbelievers who were assumed to be present during the worship setting. If Paul was so concerned there with the propriety of believers’ worship with regard to their speaking in tongues in the presence of unbelievers, why is he not equally concerned with whether or not unbelievers might take the elements of communion?

To be quite honest, there could be a number of assumptions made with different explanations in view, but the truth is we don’t know, and Paul didn’t address it. You could make the general assumption that they only served the communion elements to believers, but then why not make other assumptions that they only took offering monies from believers, or that only recognized Christians were allowed to share in the singing time, or perhaps they withheld fellowship or food from those who did not know Jesus Christ? Perhaps, you say, that I am being absurd or argumentative, but I think these are nonetheless fair questions, because even if you argue for inclusion in those other things because they are means by which we can proclaim the gospel, then how is it different when it comes to communion?

This brings me to the next reason given for communion, which is proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ. This doesn’t even seem necessary to defend, because the meaning of communion itself presents the elements of the gospel. This is one of the most powerful examples in Scripture of an object lesson of Jesus’ love for humanity- the shed blood and ravaged body of Jesus Christ given for the sins of the world and their forgiveness. What could be more compelling than that? If there is any doubt that this is in mind when we take communion, listen to Paul again elaborate: “For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” Communion is such an awesome time of worship for me and it, as all authentic worship should be, is also an opportunity to spread the good news about Jesus Christ and his death and his forgiveness for sinners and his love to be experienced through the cross.

On the other hand, what if we keep an unbeliever from taking communion? Have we benefited them any? No. In fact, we may have done great harm to them by not welcoming them and asking them to participate with us in this experience of loving God? Now, if someone is to suggest that we teach people what communion means, then certainly I am in agreement with them. Nevertheless, I think often times we batter people with the banner “now this doesn’t save you” so much to the point that we may actually hinder them from getting saved through it, because, after all, it is the gospel- both preached and experienced. This is why I go back to the word sacrament in this discussion. If by sacrament you mean that taking the communion can save someone, then no, I don’t believe that. But, if you mean that this is one way through which Jesus Christ is seen and treasured and loved and surrendered to, then, yes, I do believe that this can, in the strictest sense of the word, be called a sacrament. As Samuel Goddard believed, I believe, also, that communion has a converting element to it.

For the record, I do believe that communion is also the New Covenant equivalent of the Jewish Passover, i.e. it is the New Passover. As for our discussion now, I think it is similar to what has already been said. Obviously only true believers will worship Christ and fully appreciate the meaning and experience of the communion. Nevertheless, I do think there is great value in sharing it with others who might be brought to Christ through its means.

Finally, let me say that this is the way we have chosen to practice communion, and I am not trying to suggest that everyone should do it this way. What it does mean is that we find this way the most biblically inclusive and the most Christ honoring way to practice communion. In other words, we find the fulfillment of Christ’s command for our lives in this, i.e. by practicing open communion we succeed in loving God and loving our neighbor as our self. I am hoping that this might open up some ideas and a healthy dialogue of disparate views that could hopefully deepen all of our communion experiences.