Communion 2010

On occasion the newspaper headlines will announce that some church body – often the Roman Catholic church – has denied communion to one of its members, usually a politician or other public figure. To many Evangelical Christians this seems very strange. Church discipline is rare in Evangelical churches, and the practice of “open communion” is frequent.

Open communion has its advantages. First, it is self-policing. You tell the congregation to examine themselves. Rarely is the possibility of refraining from communion mentioned, so it’s assumed that practically everyone who considers himself a Christian will partake. This method also has the advantage that there is no administrative trivia involved. No committees must meet; no announcements are made. It’s particularly appealing to Americans, for whom the concept of “individual responsibility” is practically an article of faith.

There are, however, advantages in closed communion too. The true believer, knowing that communion could be denied, is affirmed in a sense of approval and belonging. It’s also a form of warning: knowing that communion could be denied serves notice on the backslider that it’s time to repent. Indeed, telling the backslider that he might be denied communion can serve as a step on the way back to faith. The purpose of church discipline, after all, is the restoration of the sinner. God is not “tolerant.”

It is not our purpose to settle a theological debate. Rather, it is to warn and prepare the Christian for the Lord’s Supper. Please, therefore, consider:

Therefore, examine yourself. If the door to communion were watched, would the sentinels of Christ let you in?