I like what John Van Oene said. God offers an open grace to all. We don’t withhold “preaching the word to all.” Why would we withhold communion? Just as with the encounter between Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch, what’s to keep me from baptism - nothing, so we could wonder, what’s to keep me from Christ’s body and blood. I’m inclined to say “nothing.” However, I have regularly said to all who participate, including baptized believers, “Now you’re on the hook, for you have taken part of Christ and you are called to live in response to that reality.”
My sense is that open communion reflects the all encompassing nature of God’s grace more fully than “close” or certainly closed communion. I particularly like the Ionia invitation to the table in all it’s variations:
"This is the table, not of the church, but of Jesus Christ. It is made ready for those who love him, and for those who want to love him more. So come, whether you have much faith or little; have tried to follow, or are afraid you've failed. Come, because it is His will that those who want to meet him, might meet him here."
Len - we celebrated at our church today. And ours is an open table. So, I couldn’t help but reflect on your comments after. (Our church BTW uses bread and whole grapes. Which has come to be even more meaningful in my experience - to bite thru the flesh of a grape is a very visceral connection.)
We also had another sermon in our series on the book of Acts. The story of Cornelius and Peter’s receiving the message of “nothing unclean”. That seems to me to speak to the open table concern, too. For who - as one of God’s good creation - desiring or in need be prohibited from partaking, experiencing, growing in the body of Christ, which is the communion of believers? And children, to be mentored and trained into the practice of breaking bread with all people.
It seems to me it is up to the individual to approach with their own level of awareness and understanding. The opportunity to belong, to be embraced, to be welcomed and not judged (by humans) could be the first step for a newcomer towards an awakening, realization, relief or even into new life. For others, an affirmation. Or an act of supplication and repair.
Even if the only reason to be at the table was because some one is literally hungry and this is the only sustenance they’ve had for the day - it does not defile the sacrament or reduce the act for other participants. It is me and my saviour at the table, side by side with others.
I would suspect the greater travesty is when self professed Christians partake for appearance - without humility, without remorse, repentance, or for show - that is far more an “unworthy” manner of participation.
But only God knows and sees this. I can’t tell When that happens. Or who might or will do it. So,
I don’t think an elder or pastor should be empowered by a dogmatic principle to stand between any individual and the table of grace.
I’ll Hazard a guess that a proud heart and public show at the table is how someone truly “eats and drinks judgment” to themselves. Hi
I've been wondering about this for a while now. When I first was confronted with the question of whether to support the open Table or maintain a close Table, my gut instinct was to continue favoring a Table with limits.
I think that reflex comes from holding a high value for doctrine and the Sacrament; ideally, one should know what exactly they're getting into before entering Holy Communion - but I'm not sure I myself fully know, not really. I've got my guesses, informed by the Scriptures and traditions, but the LORD's Supper falls squarely within the realm of mystery, so I'm disqualified by my own standard. Furthermore, while "it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs," it's true that "even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table."
At the same time, I'm really hesitant to throw open doors that the Church of the Apostles opened only with care and caution. I'd want to spend significant time examining other options for making catachumens feel included and welcomed before resorting to erasing the lines that the early Church maintained with such seriousness. One might ask "who are we to keep folks from the Table?" yet I don't think it'd be out of line to answer that "we are the Church, given authority by Christ Himself."
And yet... is it not exactly the story of the forgiven-yet-unforgiving servant to gladly receive that which the Sacrament both accomplishes and signifies, while withholding it from others? If Christ gives the Church (or at least Peter...) the keys such that "whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth with be loosed in Heaven," then shouldn't we use the authority we have to loosen this for as many people as we can?
I'm caught in the middle, and can't figure out where I land, so I'm thankful that this discussion is taking place.
Hello Len this is off topic but how would you move a small older CRC congregation towards weekly communion their overall ethos is very low church is it best to start over with a new church plant?
That's a tough one. I was 18 years in a medium size church and never quite got further than twice a month. For most folks, you can feed them a lot of biblical and theological reasons for it, but their practical concerns and experience often wins out. I'd say try to work hard with the Council first and let them know about your convictions. There is nothing like the experience itself. Six months of weekly communion will swing lots of people over. You can also start with the season of Lent, but in my experience, that's not enough time to convince most folks.
I like what John Van Oene said. God offers an open grace to all. We don’t withhold “preaching the word to all.” Why would we withhold communion? Just as with the encounter between Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch, what’s to keep me from baptism - nothing, so we could wonder, what’s to keep me from Christ’s body and blood. I’m inclined to say “nothing.” However, I have regularly said to all who participate, including baptized believers, “Now you’re on the hook, for you have taken part of Christ and you are called to live in response to that reality.”
My sense is that open communion reflects the all encompassing nature of God’s grace more fully than “close” or certainly closed communion. I particularly like the Ionia invitation to the table in all it’s variations:
"This is the table, not of the church, but of Jesus Christ. It is made ready for those who love him, and for those who want to love him more. So come, whether you have much faith or little; have tried to follow, or are afraid you've failed. Come, because it is His will that those who want to meet him, might meet him here."
Len - we celebrated at our church today. And ours is an open table. So, I couldn’t help but reflect on your comments after. (Our church BTW uses bread and whole grapes. Which has come to be even more meaningful in my experience - to bite thru the flesh of a grape is a very visceral connection.)
We also had another sermon in our series on the book of Acts. The story of Cornelius and Peter’s receiving the message of “nothing unclean”. That seems to me to speak to the open table concern, too. For who - as one of God’s good creation - desiring or in need be prohibited from partaking, experiencing, growing in the body of Christ, which is the communion of believers? And children, to be mentored and trained into the practice of breaking bread with all people.
It seems to me it is up to the individual to approach with their own level of awareness and understanding. The opportunity to belong, to be embraced, to be welcomed and not judged (by humans) could be the first step for a newcomer towards an awakening, realization, relief or even into new life. For others, an affirmation. Or an act of supplication and repair.
Even if the only reason to be at the table was because some one is literally hungry and this is the only sustenance they’ve had for the day - it does not defile the sacrament or reduce the act for other participants. It is me and my saviour at the table, side by side with others.
I would suspect the greater travesty is when self professed Christians partake for appearance - without humility, without remorse, repentance, or for show - that is far more an “unworthy” manner of participation.
But only God knows and sees this. I can’t tell When that happens. Or who might or will do it. So,
I don’t think an elder or pastor should be empowered by a dogmatic principle to stand between any individual and the table of grace.
I’ll Hazard a guess that a proud heart and public show at the table is how someone truly “eats and drinks judgment” to themselves. Hi
I've been wondering about this for a while now. When I first was confronted with the question of whether to support the open Table or maintain a close Table, my gut instinct was to continue favoring a Table with limits.
I think that reflex comes from holding a high value for doctrine and the Sacrament; ideally, one should know what exactly they're getting into before entering Holy Communion - but I'm not sure I myself fully know, not really. I've got my guesses, informed by the Scriptures and traditions, but the LORD's Supper falls squarely within the realm of mystery, so I'm disqualified by my own standard. Furthermore, while "it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs," it's true that "even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table."
At the same time, I'm really hesitant to throw open doors that the Church of the Apostles opened only with care and caution. I'd want to spend significant time examining other options for making catachumens feel included and welcomed before resorting to erasing the lines that the early Church maintained with such seriousness. One might ask "who are we to keep folks from the Table?" yet I don't think it'd be out of line to answer that "we are the Church, given authority by Christ Himself."
And yet... is it not exactly the story of the forgiven-yet-unforgiving servant to gladly receive that which the Sacrament both accomplishes and signifies, while withholding it from others? If Christ gives the Church (or at least Peter...) the keys such that "whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth with be loosed in Heaven," then shouldn't we use the authority we have to loosen this for as many people as we can?
I'm caught in the middle, and can't figure out where I land, so I'm thankful that this discussion is taking place.
Hello Len this is off topic but how would you move a small older CRC congregation towards weekly communion their overall ethos is very low church is it best to start over with a new church plant?
That's a tough one. I was 18 years in a medium size church and never quite got further than twice a month. For most folks, you can feed them a lot of biblical and theological reasons for it, but their practical concerns and experience often wins out. I'd say try to work hard with the Council first and let them know about your convictions. There is nothing like the experience itself. Six months of weekly communion will swing lots of people over. You can also start with the season of Lent, but in my experience, that's not enough time to convince most folks.
Thanks for your thoughts