Straddling the Communion Fence
March 8, 2010
I have been contemplating the issue of a “closed communion” lately. I had never given it much thought until my oldest daughter became a Christian (she is currently 5, almost 6 years old). We allow her to take communion, but not her younger sisters, because they have not come to an understanding of the gospel in such a way as to be deemed saved. They speak of Jesus and sing songs to him, but they do not get the fact, yet, that they are sinners who, apart from Christ, are doomed to an eternity in hell to pay for their sins. And that Christ’s broken body and shed blood on the cross is the only way for our sins to be atoned. It is because of an understanding of and faith in this sacrifice that we are obedient to Christ’s command to take communion in remembrance of him. Reflecting on his broken body and poured out blood for the remission of our sins is what communion is all about.
The issue that I have is with “fencing the table.” Is it right to refuse the Lord’s Supper to those who do not believe in this sacrifice? I have heard all of the reasons in support of it, but I am still left unsettled about it. The primary reason to fence the table, as far as I have heard, is because of what is written in 1 Corinthians 11:27-29, “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.” The argument (for lack of a better word) is that if a person is a non-believer that he or she would be partaking in communion in an unworthy manner and therefore eating and drinking judgment on himself. My concern is that when Paul says “an unworthy manner” is he speaking of whether or not the person is saved. A look at the context does not lead me to believe so. In this passage, Paul is addressing the atrocious practices of the Corinthians during communion. The rich and fat were eating and drinking first, even to the point of getting drunk while leaving the rest of the poor folk nothing. Communion was not a time of reflecting upon Christ’s sacrifice for our sin, but rather was a time to pull rank and strut your status feathers. Anyone who sat down at the communion table in order to be served was coming in an unworthy manner. It was his belly that was on his mind, not his wretchedness.
We as Christians often come to communion in unworthy manners. Do not let this be interpreted as an out for all people, but rather a higher bar for believers. Any time that we treat communion flippantly, we are disgracing the wonder and the glory of the marvelous work of the cross. We have taken the miraculous and over abundantly gracious act of atonement for our sins and treated it like old mundane news or something that is barely worth our time or effort. Either this or we make it into some sort of religious rite that we can check off in order to tilt God’s scale to the side of his favor. If this is the case, then we don’t understand the significance of the atoning sacrifice that communion represents in the first place. Christian, do not eat or drink communion in an unworthy manner, lest you eat or drink communion on yourself. Paul wrote his letter to the church, not to unbelievers. Do not think he is not talking to or about you here.
So if I’ve upped the bar on the worthiness of communion, is it still inclusive of salvation? This is probably where I’ll catch the most flack (or perhaps get corrected and shown where I have faulty understanding). I don’t think it is. I don’t see anywhere in the context that salvation is even remotely addressed. Logically, it might be inferred, but then why did Jesus let Judas Iscariot take the first communion? Luke 22:21, “But behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table.” Unless you could say that Judas turned Christ over to be killed in faith and was a Christian at the time of the first Lord’s Supper, then Christ himself offered communion to a non-believer. It cannot be a sin to offer communion to a non-Christian since Jesus did not sin. I don’t think that many people would say that anyway (some may, I don’t know), but for the most part it is to protect the non-Christian from God’s judgment. But are not all non-Christian still children of wrath? Are they not all still under God’s judgment? Yes, of course. Judas did not take communion in a worthy manner, he couldn’t he had not seen the glory of God in Christ. He had not seen his own unworthiness before Jesus and could not see the grace in his [future] sacrifice.
My issue, though, is why keep them away? Why prevent someone who is watching Christian behave like Christians from tasting and seeing the Lord in this way? If it is a time of participating in the body and blood of Christ and taking that upon ourselves, why tell someone that they are not allowed and they have to stay in their seat? Yes, communion is a family meal; non-Christians don’t get it. The thing is why would anyone even want to take communion if it doesn’t mean anything to them? Let the person decide whether or not they want to participate. Don’t block them out. If a neighbor came by while you were eating a meal with your family, would you tell them to go away until you were finished, or would you invite them in to dine with you? Would you show them hospitality or a cold shoulder? I think that anyone who feels a desire to experience the grace and hospitality of our savior should be allowed to take communion so that just maybe it becomes real to them. Maybe the conviction of their unworthiness and God’s grace through the broken body and spilled blood will overtake them and our neighbor would become a member of our family at the dinner table.
Please leave comments and teach me where I am wrong here if I am. I am not out to prove people wrong, but to learn or perhaps teach. It is ONLY the truth of God’s word that I am after here, not divisiveness or subversiveness. I am a member of a wonderful church that fences the table. I am and will continue to gladly stay submissive to my elders as my authority. It is my pleasure to do so.
I can’t help you out with any scripture pointing to dispute or confirm your thoughts. But what I want to say is that I’ve wondered about this myself and I agree with you. And I too am very interested in hearing/seeing what other scriptural sound things others have to say. I’m very much so wanting to learn and absorb as much as I can. Good post.
Good thoughts.
I think I agree regarding adults.
Regarding kids, I’m not sure. Feels like I need to save it for them, so it can have meaning… Maybe that’s not right…
I started the post talking about kids because that’s how I got to thinking about communion. After that, I was mostly thinking of adults.
Regarding kids, I kind of think that as soon as a child can understand the significance of communion, let them take it. If we’re raising our children to know the Lord and to understand the gospel, then why deprive them of taking the Lords Supper just because they have not shown evidence of true salvation?
It seems to me that doing something relatively odd such as communion would bring on some good questions. It doesn’t make sense that we would call bread Jesus’s body or that the “wine” is Jesus’s blood. That’s kind of weird to someone that doesn’t understand. It would be a beautiful way to explain the gospel to a child.
Again, this is how I see it. I cannot say that I’m right, but these are my convictions. This is what I’m wrestling with. Apparently there are lots of very smart people and much church history that are contrary to this line of thinking, so you can understand why it’s such a dilemma for me. I may be wrong in all of this, but as of now, I cannot in good conscience agree with a fenced communion table. Like I stated above, I can submit to it, but not agree.
I think there are a number of issues at stake in this discussion — biblically (i.e., textually), theologically, and pastorally. Of first importance is Scripture, so here is some biblical support for fencing the table.
First, though, I really appreciate this post. Our conscience is precious and we should take good care of it. Thanks for airing your concerns. Also, as a pastor, I’m really encouraged by your submission to the church and its leadership. That spirit encourages humility and diligence in your pastors.
Now, here is what I believe to be textual warrant for fencing the table.
1. Jesus’ Last Supper: In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus instructs Peter and John to go and find the place “where I may eat the Passover with my disciples.” Prior to this particular meal, Jesus had shared countless meals with prostitutes and tax collectors. He always welcomed children and the sick to come to him at any time, and chided those who sent them away. However, this final meal he reserved for his disciples. He didn’t invite the crowds; in essence, this table was “fenced.”
Do we then doubt his hospitality? No. Rather, we understand that for Jesus, this meal is special. That’s clear from each account of the Last Supper. It’s small, and intimate. He washes their feet. He gives them specific, disciple-oriented instructions and prays over them.
I think this holds a great deal of weight in our own practice. Remember, Paul is at pains to teach Communion as exactly that which “I received from the Lord” (1 Cor 11:23). Paul’s Communion follows the model of what Jesus himself did “on the night he was betrayed,” and indeed follows closely to the Gospel accounts themselves. Also, Jesus’ own instruction to the disciples is to [keep] doing this (not something different), in remembrance of him.
2. What about Judas?: I believe Judas’ presence at the Last Supper is instructive to us. It illustrates Jesus’ teaching that there will always be tares among the wheat and wolves among the sheep. However, I do not think you can go so far to say that we should encourage betrayers to come to the Table. At this time, Judas is not a visitor, he is a disciple. That’s why he’s invited. From this we learn that every church will at times have false disciples come to the Table.
However, Judas is not just any false disciple: he’s remarkably unique – no figure in history like him. It would have been better for him to have never been born. He is not the seeker you allude to: there is no chance that his participation in the Supper would have persuaded him to change. So we cannot appeal to him as a reason to leave the Table open. As the betrayer of the Son of Man, he shouldn’t be compared to a lost person, but to Satan himself (Lk 22:3; cf. John 13:27, where Satan enters Judas after he partakes sinfully of the Last Supper – coincidence?).
Similarly, Jesus relationship to Judas is unique. Jesus invites Judas in because he’s going to betray him, as it was prophesied in the Scriptures. Jesus knew Judas’ hypocrisy long ago, could have exposed him for a fraud, but chose not to (for the sake of our salvation!). Just because Jesus did this, though, doesn’t mean we follow his example here. We don’t intentionally bring in false disciples to the community, much less put them in a prominent place of leadership. Likewise, I don’t think we should intentionally encourage false confessions at the Table.
3. I Corinthians 11: I think your reading of Paul here is spot on, but I do not think it follows that it’s wrong or unnecessary to fence the table. Rather, I would propose that Paul assumes a fenced table because he is modeling Communion after Jesus’ own practice at the Last Supper. So, given Jesus’ practice of a fenced table (see above), we would need subsequent, additional biblical evidence strong enough to counter Jesus’ own practice. I don’t know of any. What we have, though, in 1 Corinthians is Paul telling us to do it just like Jesus did.
Additionally, I think your reading of Paul’s criticism of the Corinthians adds further weight to the fenced table argument. For the Corinthians, “Communion was not a time of reflecting upon Christ’s sacrifice for our sin, but rather was a time to pull rank and strut your status feathers.” You also acknowledge that this same attitude can be the attitude of a lost person. So, if they share the same attitude, wouldn’t they share the same injunction? Paul warns “whoever” against taking communion wrongfully, for fear of judgment, even to death. That whoever would seem to include both Christian and non-Christian.
What’s more, because of death, the stakes are much higher when a lost person takes Communion in an unworthy manner. You said you couldn’t find salvation anywhere in the passage, and on the face of it you’re probably true. But if a lost person dies and stands before the Throne, it becomes a salvation issue. If a believer dies in judgment, “he himself will be saved, but only as through fire” (3:15). However, a lost person won’t survive that fire, but will burn in Hell eternally.
We don’t want to push a lost person toward death more quickly than he’s going. Really, we don’t want to push anyone faster, which is why I’d hold you (a member) from the Table if I knew there was unrepentant sin in your heart. Love demands it.
—-
I think the above points are sufficient reason to encourage us to fence the Communion Table. One additional thought, though: What does it mean to take Communion in an unworthy manner?
You elaborated the details of the Corinthians’ sin in their context really helpfully. But do you think their specific sins — flaunting wealth and status, gluttonous and selfish attitudes — are these the only way to take the elements in an unworthy manner? If not, what is it broadly defined? At first, I thought Paul defines it as “anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body,” but I think this also speaks narrowly to the Corinthians’ disregard for their brethren. This is still too narrow. The only other clue toward a definition is his call to “examine oneself.” So, what is this? In 2 Corinthians 13:5, he calls the same people to again examine themselves, “to see whether you are in the faith.” Is he calling for the same examining at the Table as he does in 2 Corinthians 13?
A way I have usually thought about this sin (and all sin really) is this: Am I taking communion like an unbeliever? Remember, anything done without faith is sin (Romans 14:23). So, as applied to communion, am I taking it as pagan ritual, ignoring unconfessed sin, or to feel included in my religious clique, or for self-justification, or just plain mindlessly, taking God’s name in vain.
You might say that’s the Corinthian problem throughout, believing their outward confession of Christ is good enough and need not affect what they do. In reality, what they do speaks volumes about their confession of Christ.
If that is a good definition — taking Communion unworthily is to take it like a lost person — that seems to mean that a lost person can only take communion in an unworthy manner. Therefore, he shouldn’t. And, if we love him, we shouldn’t let him.
Is this helpful? Does it make sense to you why I would think it important to fence the table? Where are you not persuaded by my reasoning, or where do you find errors?
Thank you very much for your reply. The only problem is that my thoughts are a jumbled mess right now. I read through my post and I still agree with it, but I read through yours… and I agree with most of it as well (some I’m still not sure of, but I don’t know if I can even defend my stances on some of them, so I’ll stay quiet for now).
I have much to ponder and will continue to meditate on it.
Thanks, Dave. I have grown to really love and respect you as a brother, teacher, elder, and mentor. (Pride check!)