CANDIDATE FOR COMMUNION

CANDIDATE FOR COMMUNION

Virgil Warren, PhD

I. Baptized Believers

            There is a natural correlation between observing the Lord’s Supper and being baptized.  Both ordinances imply the same basic meaning; they are both identifications with Jesus Christ and therefore commitment to his values, purposes, and lordship. Baptism involves this meaning in an initial sense while communion involves it in an ongoing sense.  Therefore, if a person is a baptized believer, there is no legitimate basis for refusing to meet with him around the Lord’s table. Note the issue later of disaffected believers as well as the relationship of communion and church discipline.

II. Open vs. Closed Communion

            Whoever is actually part of the universal body of Christ has a natural right to participation in any local expression of it. There is no way, then, to affirm that believers from other backgrounds are not lost and at the same time refuse to accept the validity of their baptism, refuse to allow them to worship with us in communion or otherwise, refuse to fellowship with them, or refuse to accept them into the membership in our congregation.

            A.  Unimmersed Believers

                  Even churches that practice closed membership in regard to baptism nevertheless say of communion that it is the Lord’s table; so they have no right to invite or debar. Unless one were willing to say that unimmersed believers are not saved, “open communion” seems appropriate.

            B.  Believers Beyond the Local Congregation

                  Some Christian groups consider the ordinances an expression of the local body of Christians; consequently, they do not invite visitors to the communion table. This hardly seems natural since we have no very clear indication that first-century Christians had a concept of local church membership. We in fact see Paul, an itinerant Christian, participating in communion with believers at Troas (Acts 20:7-12). 

            C.   “Alien” Communion (cp. “alien” baptism)

                  This case involves participation in the Lord’s Supper with those of other Christian heritages. Some groups do not invite Christians of other backgrounds to take part in the Eucharist. The practice has its counterpart in also not accepting the baptism of Christians from other groups.

  III. As-Yet Unbaptized Believers

            Parents usually discourage their young people from taking the Lord’s Supper during the worship services if they have not yet committed themselves to Christ in Christian baptism. If the desire to participate in communion is sincere and if it means for the young person what it is intended to mean, then there may be no reason that individual should not be willing to be baptized and thus maintain the natural correlation between observing the Lord’s Supper and obeying Christ in Christian baptism.

            Communion, however, is a recurrent observance, which means it tends to partake of the nature of worship. As long as the young person’s parents or others keep explaining the meaning of the Lord’s Supper, there seems to be no necessary problem encountered by allowing a young person to observe it with parents and other faithful Christians like they do in singing, praying, and the reading of scripture. In the early years, churches met in homes. We would think that that reality would tend to involve children more in those gatherings where appropriate. That tendency would apply especially to a type of communion observance that was part of a love feast. Since revelation does not guide us here, the issue reduces to propriety, which can be achieved by explanation as much here as in acts of worship.

  IV. Disaffected Believers and Cases of Church Discipline

            On the analogy of Jesus’ commandment to leave one’s gift at the altar and go be reconciled to an enemy, people have suggested that a person ought not try to participate in communion when there is serious disagreement between him and another person in the body. 

V. Communion and Church Discipline

            It would seem natural that disfellowshiping someone would correlate with not inviting them to the Lord’s table. The ramifications of the decision to disfellowship would have to be handled in light of the practical situation, however.

VI. Infant Communion

            The same objections that apply to infant baptism apply to infant communion. A performative act has no meaning except the meaning meant into it by the participant. Infants cannot mean anything into either ordinance; consequently, neither ordinance has any meaning because both exist in an interpersonal system.

            The Eastern Orthodox Church and its derivative communions practice infant baptism and infant communion. Interestingly, Western Catholicism and paedobaptist Protestant groups that practice infant baptism object to infant communion for all the reasons adult immersionists give against paedobaptism.