Communion: When To Exclude?

[qos]

My friend P is a conservative Christian. He started out Baptist, became conservative Episcopalian, and recently converted to Greek Orthodoxy. We meet occasionally to have dinner and "Talk Shop". However different our personal faiths are, we don't know many people with whom we can have an intense theological discussion. Unfortunately, as he's become more conservative our talks have become less satisfying for me. He's far less inclined to consider my perspective, and his own positions are becoming more and more narrow.

Last night he sent me an email asking "Can you say you love Jesus? I'm not going to sign you up for a visit by The Presbyters, regardless of your answer, but even a qualified 'yes' will help. (I'm "arguing" with a Protestant who has a wrong view of communion.)"

My response was: During the time that I was actively taking communion, my answer would have been "yes." And if I had to answer "yes or no" now, it would still be "yes." I'm curious about what my answer has to do with the discussion. Even apostates can say they "love Jesus" yet not be in a place where they are eligible for communion under certain doctrines?

To which he responded: Exactly. Which is just the sort of point I'm going to try and make. If one's view of communion is a memorial meal for "friends of Jesus", then how can one exclude a Christo-pagan? Or other heterodox notions of Jesus?

My response was why are you looking for grounds to exclude people from Communion?

In my understanding there are two ways to look at who can and should partake of Communion. The first is that everyone is welcome at The Lord's Table. Jesus got into trouble because he would break bread with anyone who invited him to dine. He scorned no one's company. The second way of looking at it is that the Communion ritual was first celebrated and given to Jesus' closest followers. It's not something to be shared with those outside the Body. Sheep over here; goats over there.

I understand both positions. I favor the first, and always have, even during my own most orthodox (small "o") times of Christian faith.

On reflection, this is a rather ironic statement since in my personal life I am more inclined to draw circles of exclusion rather than invite others in.

I guess what it comes down to is that my vision of God is of One who invites all to come closer. The invitation is open to everyone. If you choose to stay away, that's your decision, but God will always have a place at the table for those who want to join the feast.

Comments

[parisgarters.livejournal.com]

That made me feel physically ill, but I'm glad you shared it.

I read recently that, if you really want to understand how scandalous Jesus' choice of friends and associates was, imagine him fellowshipping with sex offenders.

The most "exclusive" Gospel is John, and, in John, the last ritual is foot washing, not the Last Supper. I'm wondering where in Scripture he's getting this. As far as the sheep and the goats go, the criteria for being a sheep or a goat was how you treat the least of these, whether you feed the hungry, visit those in prison, etc. It has absolutely nothing to do with belief "in Jesus."

I'm proud of you that you can dialogue with this person. All I can usually do is back away slowly.

[sashajwolf.livejournal.com]

I'm wondering where in Scripture he's getting this.

From very early church orders, it seems that first-generation Christians did not admit people to communion before baptism; in fact, those who had not yet been baptised were expected to leave the room after the liturgy of the word, i.e. right after the point where the Peace is usually given in a Communion service today. The reason for this is not entirely clear, but it is very likely linked to an idea found in Paul's letters (in another context) that communion is "eating and drinking judgment on yourself", i.e. inviting Christ to judge you; it was therefore probably considered potentially dangerous for people to participate without fully understanding what it meant and/or without being baptised. It's difficult to distinguish whether it was the understanding or the baptism that was crucial because the instruction on the meaning of Communion was given as part of baptismal instruction and because there is no unequivocal evidence of infant baptism before, IIRC, the 3rd century; by the time the evidence does become a bit clearer, it seems that baptised children are being admitted to Communion (at least on certain occasions) before they are old enough for instruction, so by this time at least it is baptism that is decisive.

There's a related issue about which (if any) sins are serious enough to justify excommunicating someone who was previously admitted; the scriptural backing for that is drawn from the passages on shunning and church discipline generally, e.g. in Mt 18, and don't make any specific reference to communion as far as I can recall.

Today, I'd take the view that anyone who loves Jesus and feels drawn to receive has nothing to fear from being judged by him, but like qos, I can understand both points of view. The practice in my current (Anglican, English) parish is to admit adults on request, and children on the recommendation of a sponsor (usually a godparent). We prefer that they have a few sessions of preparation first in both cases (led by the Junior Church teachers in the case of children and the priest in the case of adults), but we don't insist. Someone who simply presents themselves at the altar will always be offered communion, no questions asked. Theoretically, the priest has the right to refuse communion for "grave and open sin which is unrepented" and is causing "grave and immediate scandal to the congregation", but I've never known this to happen in any of the congregations I've been involved with. The priest then has to report what he or she has done to the bishop and follow his direction as to how to proceed; I believe the last time a Church of England bishop formally excommunicated anyone was in 1909, and the person concerned was a priest who had murdered two parishioners. Which, yeah, I can see might cause grave and immediate scandal...

[don-negro.livejournal.com]

Perhaps he'd be more comfortable in a religion without a radical agape-filled martyr at it's center. Confusianism, perhaps, or orthodox Islam if he's intent on staying in the Abrahamic tradition.

Or do you think this is a secret desire to discover some kind of pre-Nicean mystery school Christianity?

[wlotus.livejournal.com]

The thing that bothers me about excluding certain people from communion is the fact that you don't know who is lying about their "worthiness". You may exclude someone who does not openly professing Christ while you are freely offering the bread and wine to closet racists, rapist, abusers, and adulterers. That doesn't seem right to me, somehow. So what comes next: inquisitions into people's personal lives to judge their "worthiness" before you will allow them to partake of communion? And what purpose does exclusion serve, other than to shame those whom you do not deem "worthy"? Shame isn't a redeeming force; it's a purely destructive one and certainly would not draw me closer to God. In fact, the shame woven through my religious upbringing all but drove me away from Christianity.

[thomryng.livejournal.com]

I don't actually thik those two positions are mutually exclusive.

In the Catholic tradition, non-Catholics are generally not admitted to communion (there are some very specific exceptions), and indeed pastors are supposed to deny communion to Catholics who persist in grave and public sin. Now, obviously for pastoral reasons, there's usually a conversation outside of the liturgy, rather than a public refusal at a liturgy.

However, although these folks can be denied communion, they're really expected to self-select themselves out of communion.

I'll leave the "bad Catholic" situation for now as an intramural issue and concentrate on the non-Catholic.

During the Communion Rite, the priest (or EMHC) holds up the Blessed Sacrament and says "the Body of Christ" to which the communicant replies "Amen". Let's take a look at what that implies -

The priest is asserting that the piece of bread he's holding up is, in accordance with the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, the actual body and blood, soul and divinity, of Jesus Christ, wholly God and wholly man.

It's not a symbol. It's not a holy cracker. It's God.

And with an "Amen", the communicant is saying "I agree".

So unless you actually believe what the Church teaches, taking communion would make you, at the very least, a liar or a hypocrite. And it's certainly not the Church's intention to make anybody a liar.

The Church expects that if you don't believe (and are therefore not "in communion") you won't take communion.

If you do believe what the Church teaches, you're invited to join right up. :D

[coen.livejournal.com]

"So unless you actually believe what the Church teaches, taking communion would make you, at the very least, a liar or a hypocrite. And it's certainly not the Church's intention to make anybody a liar."

What you say makes sense, but it can be more complicated than that. When I was a kid, I was Roman Catholic, and at age 10 or so, I would join in my first holy communion. This was a very important event for me.
Of course both my parents would be there, and also a couple of aunts and uncles and grandparents. My father had this problem: He was raised as a catholic, but he did not believe anymore. He didn't go to church anymore. He didn't take communion anymore. But of course he wanted to be present at my first holy communion.

He talked to the pastor about this. The pastor said he was welcome to join and take communion. My father asked: "Wouldn't it be a lie if I were to take communion and not believe in it?"
The pastor said: "If you take the communion out of respect for your son's faith, I am sure God will have no problem with it."

It is funny. I am now about the same age my father was back then. And now I am an atheist. And my son is on a christian school, and he believes in Jesus.
My son asked me: "dad, are those stories about Jesus, and all the other stories in the bible, true or not?"
Me: "I think no one knows for certain, but a lot of people believe they are true."
My son: "Of course no one knows for certain, but what do YOU think?"
Me: "I don't believe in it. What do you think?"
My son: "I am not sure. I am thinking about it."

Now when my son wants me to join the christmas celebration at his christian school, I do show up, and I do join in singing about our Lord Jesus, and all that stuff. And I were asked to join in comunion, I surely would. Because I remember how much I appreciated it when my father did that for me, and I will do that for my son. And I don't feel like a hypocrite or a liar.

[thomryng.livejournal.com]

Well, nothing's ever quite so simple, is it?

This is exactly why, ultimately, the Church leaves it up to the conscience of the communicant.

I would like to point out, though, that unless you've notified a bishop of your withdrawal from the Church, you're technically still Catholic.

;)

[coen.livejournal.com]

When I was young, the state held an administration of who belonged to what church.
A lot of people in the Netherlands were registered as catholics who did not feel like catholics. I was one of them.
Then in 1985 pope Johannes Paulus II visited the Netherlands. A lot of people in the Netherlands, both catholics and non-catholics, at that time dissagreed with the conservative polices of the pope, and they wanted to protest. So all the people who were registered as catholics but were't, officially de-registered as catholics. I did too.
So the catholic population in the Netherlands was diminished overnight.

From that day off, I was no longer a catholic. Not for the state, not for the church.

[dorjejaguar.livejournal.com]

"And I don't feel like a hypocrite or a liar."

What you sound like is a good father.

[coen.livejournal.com]

Exclusive or inclusive?
If I were to invite people to share an intimate event with me, I'd only invite an exclusive group of close friends.

But if I were to start a religious tradition, and the religion was meant for everybody, then of course I would welcome everybody to join in the tradition.

So what was Jesus intention when he shared the bread and called it his body? Was it intended as a intimate moment with close friends, or was it intended as the start of a religious tradition?

[dorjejaguar.livejournal.com]

The idea that anyone would be excluded from Communion made me cry.
Whose Communion is it? The Church's or the Great Spirit's?

"Communion" is really only a symbol. We can have it whether any church allows or not, but the idea that any would attempt to block that to any one else, to me is just horrific.

[elevengirl.livejournal.com]

I am in favor of including all who come to the Table. I, too, am dismayed at the exclusionary practices of many denominations within Christianity.