Remembering Well

Toward a Scriptural View of Communion - or - My communion can beat up your communion.

   We all do it.  We appeal to logic when we approach an issue that we feel scripture does not speak to explicitly.  Often this approach is helpful, and I would even say valid.  However, I believe that all too frequently we fail to do adequate study because we trust our logic so thoroughly.  I recently found reason for this accusation in myself with regard to communion, and I think probably it is a safe one to point at the academic/pastoral world as well.  I recall spending about eight minutes talking about the Lord’s Supper at seminary…add that to the 12 seconds I got at college, and all totaled I had only spent eight minutes and twelve seconds trying to think biblically about communion.

   This past week I was called out and asked to give a scriptural defense of open communion over against closed communion.  I could bring up a couple of texts that could be interpreted my way, but in the end I found myself saying, “Well, we are one body in Christ.  Open communion is simply the better picture of unity.  Ergo, closed communion is stupid and anyone who believes in it is stupid (insert other ad hominem attacks here…)

   As soon as I took a breath, I realized that I had not ever really studied it.  I am not suggesting that we abandon logic in the Christian life, but I found that for myself I had only logic and a proof-text.  So off I went…and now, off I go.

(If you read this post before 10/6, I have made several updates and shortened it a bit.)

   I am hoping to keep this discussion focused.  Often we are introducing too many ideas to keep straight on this blog (it may be that even I have transgressed in this way before).  I am planning on a couple more posts on the Lord's Supper...so you'll have your chance to take shots at me on various aspects of it (namely, should the church be taking communion at all & what do the bread and cup symbolize).  But for now, I am hoping to keep us locked in on the question, “How do we properly regard the Lord’s Supper (or our remembrance of it)?”  Once we have answered that I will offer my answer to the question, “What does that look like?”

   So, lets assume for now that the Church today is to be taking communion, what teaching do we have regarding it?  The truth is, there doesn’t seem to be much to go on…and this probably explains why we’ve spent so little time thinking and talking about it.  However, as I see it, there are two key passages.  The first is in 1 Corinthians 5.  This is one of those passages I’ve read a hundred times, but never read.  Paul is angry about this flaming immorality and their arrogance over it.  It seems that they were proud of their open-mindedness or their liberty (or something similar).  But Paul roundly criticizes them.  He commands them to remove the man from their midst and invokes the Lord’s Supper.  In verse 7 he urges them to remove sin (yeast) from among them because Christ had been sacrificed as our Passover Lamb.  He then says, “Let us therefore celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.”  Either he is really talking about communion, or he is saying, "Since Christ has come and died and risen, let’s live that way."  He goes on to say that immoral people who claim to be Christians ought to be shunned.  With the close proximity of verse 11, “with such a one, do not even eat,” to thePaul wants only Christians living like Christians to be treated like Christians by Christians. discussion about the Lord’s Supper, I am very tempted to say that Paul was telling them specifically to exclude this man (and others like him) from communion.  Now, even if that is not what is meant by verse 11, that would still be carried out by the shunning.  Paul wants only Christians living like Christians to be treated like Christians by Christians.  (If I knew how to do those fancy sidebar things, I'd make that last sentence one  - thanks Brian!).  From this chapter, it is clear that Paul holds the Lord’s Supper in high regard, and that those who are living in open sin ought to be prevented from taking it.

   The second passage is 1 Corinthians 11.  Here Paul is angry about their mistreatment of communion.  It is clear that he wants them to celebrate communion, but he wants it done rightly.  In this passage we learn that there is a possible death penalty associated with the wrong people (or the people with the wrong hearts) taking communion.  However, the burden of judgment here does not seem to be against the pastor or congregation as a whole, “For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself, if he does not judge the body rightly” (11:29).  In chapter 5, it was the whole church’s responsibility to protect the sanctity of their assembly, but in chapter 11, the weight is placed on each individual.  Why the disparity?  I would suggest that chapter 5 is dealing with open, known and identifiable sin, while 11 is dealing with sin that is not easily quantified (such as the attitude you bring to the Lord’s Supper).  As a pastor, I am not responsible if someone is taking communion that ought not be, only if I am ignorant of (or unable to prove?) their wrongful state.

   I’ve tried to stay on point…but lets come back to our question, “How do we properly regard the Lord’s Supper?”  I would suggest that Paul says that it is sacred, and ought to be treated as such.  It seems clear that it is for the assembled church, and that there are enforceable requirements for taking it (if you missed this, go back to chapter 5 and look up “shunning”).  

   Having said this, what does this look like today?  I think it is instructive that Paul never goes into detail about how it has to be carried out.  There is no one clear right way to observe communion.  I personally don’t think that the typical open communion is best.  You have no idea (in some cases), with whom you are taking communion (are they supposed to be under church discipline somewhere else?), and pastors wield very little protective power over its administration.  I also don’t think the typical closed communion is necessarily the answer either.  Closed communion gives the impression that only the hard core folks are worthy of this rite.  I do not think that the early church had a membership that correlates very well with ours…and even if they did, Paul never mentions a member’s only solution to their problems…it is in fact partially left up to the individual in chapter 11. 

   I see two main points that need to be central to communion. 1) It is for the assembled church, and thus the Pastor is given charge over its administration to his flock.  2) It is sacred and should be treated as such.  Thus, it should only be given knowingly to persons that are recognizable as being in a right relationship with God and his people (ie. Christians that are not being shunned).  I think this means that our communion should not be closed or open (in the extreme sense of both), but should be closingly-opened.

   Let me suggest a perhaps oversimplified resolution.  Instead of tacking it onto your normal service (sorry, we’ve just gotta get this communion over with), have a special time that is announced and explained from the pulpit as being for Christians only.  Encourage people to prepare themselves for the service before they ever show up (do we really think that 30 seconds of quiet before communion is what Paul was talking about?!).  Make a point of knowing the spiritual condition of those present and perhaps even close communion from those you don't know yet, and be willing to refuse communion to someone the church is supposed to be shunning (by the way, make sure you’ve gone through the proper biblical steps before taking this reformer’s stand).  And then make the service about remembering and communing with Christ and each other.  Finally, my personal suggestion would be to abstain from anything additional (eg. a full meal, special music, etc), until you find a way to actually make it contribute to the remembrance.     

   I know this has been too brief.  While I'm not expecting a warm reception, I would really like to hear your various comments.  I am always open to constructive criticism.

Login to add comments