December 1, 2009: Fencing the Table

I have attended worship services in three different faith traditions where I was not able to participate in holy communion.

One was a Roman Catholic mass. While seated in the pew I read a publication that explained in gracious terms why non Catholics must refrain from partaking of the elements, so of course I respected that.

Another was a service at a Lutheran church that my family visited. Before distributing the bread and the cup the pastor explained the doctrine of consubstantiation - the presence of Christ in, around and under the elements – and advised that only believers in this doctrine should participate. While we had to let the tray pass, my parents always spoke fondly of that church because of the kind and hospitable way everyone greeted us afterward.

Then about 15 years ago I visited a strict Reformed church where it was explained that only those who professed the real spiritual presence of Christ in communion should take the bread and wine. This position is distinct from the transubstantiation of the Catholics and the consubstantiation of the Lutherans, but nonetheless affirms that Christ is present at the Lord’s Supper in a way that he is not when - simply - two or three are gathered in his name (Matthew 18:20). I do not believe the narrow specifics of the “real presence” doctrine either, so, again, I could not eat and drink in remembrance of Christ.

My own view might be called “Zwinglian” (for the Swiss Reformer Ulrich Zwingli), where the Lord’s Supper is understood as a symbolic remembrance feast. I believe that we partake of Christ only by faith, and that the elements of bread and wine communicate to us neither his body nor his blood nor his grace nor his presence (in any way different from the presence already promised us when we worship him). I contend that through communion we indicate our belief in Christ, our fellowship with him and with one another, our gratitude, and our wordless proclamation of his saving work.

I do not regard the holding of any of these four views as a cause for barring from participation at the Lord’s table those who hold differing views. So, if I were responsible for officiating at a communion service, a devout Catholic and a Missouri Synod Lutheran and an Orthodox Presbyterian and a Southern Baptist - each at the theological center of his tradition – would be welcomed to eat the bread and drink the cup with his brothers in Christ.

But despite what seems to be a broadly tolerant view on my part - and despite the fact that my Christian pedigree is as impeccable as Paul’s Jewish one (Philippians 3:4-6) - I do not mind being excluded from the Lord’s Table by different churches for different reasons. Why? Because I love the fact that they all take the Lord’s Supper seriously. It matters to them. They want to get it right so that God will be honored, and I respect that. No worship tradition should take communion lightly. Taking the bread and the cup is not like passing the offering plate or singing a hymn or listening to a sermon. It is an act of worship that lies at the heart of what it means to be a Christian.

There are people whom I would bar from the table of the Lord. Unbelievers must not participate. Some time ago a couple agnostic friends of mine visited a worship service I was leading. I pulled them aside beforehand and explained, in what I hope were the most gracious terms possible, that the bread and the grape juice were only to be received by Christian believers, and they should let the tray pass when it came to them. They understood. As I have sometimes said during the communion devotional: “St. Paul says that through this ‘we proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes’ (1 Corinthians 11:26). By partaking of these elements we proclaim that Jesus died in such a way as to save our souls. We are also proclaiming his resurrection, for it says that we do this ‘until he comes.’ Only those who believe that he rose from the dead can also believe that he is coming back. If you cannot in good conscience proclaim that Jesus died for your sins, that he rose from the dead and will return some day, then do not eat this bread and do not drink this cup. To do so while guarding a spirit of unbelief would be to lie, and to lie against God in this sacred assembly would be to invite his judgment. Only those who trust in Jesus Christ should participate.”

The others who must be forbidden to partake of the elements are those who say they are believers but who do not act like it. I refer to those who are undergoing church discipline, or, in older terms, have been excommunicated, or, in even older terms, have been handed over to Satan. In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul tells the Corinthian church to discipline a man in their congregation who is guilty of profound sexual immorality. "Hand this man over to Satan," (verse 5) Paul writes. "Expel the wicked man from among you" (verse 13). However this expulsion is carried out, at minimum it must include a denial of a place at the table of the Lord. The reason is simple: persistence in grotesque sin, despite warnings and calls to repentance, is a sign of unbelief. See Titus 1:16: "They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him." Or 1 Timothy 5:8: "If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." It is possible to deny the faith with one's actions. Those who act like unbelievers should be treated like unbelievers, and barred from the table until they repent. The goal is to shame them into remorse and change, and bring them back to full fellowship if possible.

None of us can claim sinlessness, and holy perfection has never been (and never should be) a requirement for participating in communion. But we must nonetheless maintain the purity of the Supper in honor of the Lord who commanded us to celebrate it. The Supper is only for Christian believers who are not (rightly) undergoing the discipline of excommunication by their brothers and sisters in Christ.