On open communion
I’m seeing a lot of ignorant commentary on Methodist “open communion” vs. Roman Catholics’ “withholding” of communion (prospectively, at least, as regards RC politicians who vote to enable and extend abortion). Many of the commenters misunderstand not only the RC understanding of the eucharist but their own official theologies, in favor of an easy, made-up, “y’all come” kind of understanding.
The eucharist is for sinners, yes, but it’s only for those sinners who desire to be united with Christ. To invite someone to partake without belief is to invite them to call down judgment upon themselves (cf. 1 Cor. 11:27-32). This is why we don’t hand out consecrated bread on street corners. You have to want to participate, and it’s our job to explain to you the implications of your participation.
Yes, John Wesley taught that communion could be a “converting ordinance.” Many, if not most, of his hearers were formally part of the Church of England, but had no real faith (yet). They needed to accept Christ (in all the senses of that phrase). And here’s the thing: there is no wrong way to do this, no “official” words that make this the moment that it’s finally real. The person who accepts Christ has accepted Christ – which means that if you accept him in the reception of his Body and Blood, you have accepted him just as surely as if you have wept buckets at the altar rail following a more explicit invitation. Now, the person from outside the faith who feels suddenly moved to take communion with us should be followed up on. That person has taken a serious step toward a relationship with Christ. Movement toward ongoing participation and public profession of faith (with baptism, if needed) should be in the offing.
The point here is, we have boundaries just like the Catholics and Lutherans (inter alii) do. Our understanding of who is within the Church and who is not is just different. We believe that the Church includes all believers, even if they don’t agree with all the points of our theology or belong to our organization. And we’re willing to be gracious to those who have few or none of the marks of Christian belonging, but who evince a desire for Christ. But “open communion” doesn’t mean we’re operating a spiritual buffet for all and sundry. There are those for whom this supper is intended and for whom it is a means of grace; but there are others who ought not approach it in their current condition, and we owe it to them not to cheapen the grace we offer OR endanger their souls by saying that this is for everybody who happens to wander in, regardless of what they believe or what they follow.
But what about withholding communion from those who are officially part of the Church (as defined by one’s own denomination)? This is a matter of church discipline. And the problem here isn’t where the Catholics draw the line in disciplining their flock, but the fact that most Protestants have obliterated any notion of church discipline (short of a trial). We are the poorer for our refusal to set expectations and enforce them. Many who lionize Dietrich Bonhoeffer for his stand against the Nazis haven’t read his works with attention. As he put it,
The eucharist is for sinners, yes, but it’s only for those sinners who desire to be united with Christ. To invite someone to partake without belief is to invite them to call down judgment upon themselves (cf. 1 Cor. 11:27-32). This is why we don’t hand out consecrated bread on street corners. You have to want to participate, and it’s our job to explain to you the implications of your participation.
Yes, John Wesley taught that communion could be a “converting ordinance.” Many, if not most, of his hearers were formally part of the Church of England, but had no real faith (yet). They needed to accept Christ (in all the senses of that phrase). And here’s the thing: there is no wrong way to do this, no “official” words that make this the moment that it’s finally real. The person who accepts Christ has accepted Christ – which means that if you accept him in the reception of his Body and Blood, you have accepted him just as surely as if you have wept buckets at the altar rail following a more explicit invitation. Now, the person from outside the faith who feels suddenly moved to take communion with us should be followed up on. That person has taken a serious step toward a relationship with Christ. Movement toward ongoing participation and public profession of faith (with baptism, if needed) should be in the offing.
The point here is, we have boundaries just like the Catholics and Lutherans (inter alii) do. Our understanding of who is within the Church and who is not is just different. We believe that the Church includes all believers, even if they don’t agree with all the points of our theology or belong to our organization. And we’re willing to be gracious to those who have few or none of the marks of Christian belonging, but who evince a desire for Christ. But “open communion” doesn’t mean we’re operating a spiritual buffet for all and sundry. There are those for whom this supper is intended and for whom it is a means of grace; but there are others who ought not approach it in their current condition, and we owe it to them not to cheapen the grace we offer OR endanger their souls by saying that this is for everybody who happens to wander in, regardless of what they believe or what they follow.
But what about withholding communion from those who are officially part of the Church (as defined by one’s own denomination)? This is a matter of church discipline. And the problem here isn’t where the Catholics draw the line in disciplining their flock, but the fact that most Protestants have obliterated any notion of church discipline (short of a trial). We are the poorer for our refusal to set expectations and enforce them. Many who lionize Dietrich Bonhoeffer for his stand against the Nazis haven’t read his works with attention. As he put it,
Cheap grace means grace sold on the market like cheapjacks' wares. The sacraments, the forgiveness of sin, and the consolations of religion are thrown away at cut prices. Grace is represented as the Church's inexhaustible treasury, from which she showers blessings with generous hands, without asking questions or fixing limits. Grace without price; grace without cost! The essence of grace, we suppose, is that the account has been paid in advance; and, because it has been paid, everything can be had for nothing. Since the cost was infinite, the possibilities of using and spending it are infinite. What would grace be if it were not cheap?To restate the issue: "Open Communion" doesn't mean open without conditions, open without expectations, open to non-believers. It means that we will welcome all who come at Christ's call. And while we probably wouldn't withhold communion from someone acting in what we deem as a manner that damages the Church, we need to think seriously about what we would do about those (clergy, mostly) who teach heresy or who (laity, mostly) drive others away with their crazy-making.