Communion: Open, Closed, or Something Else?

I came across our Easter 2013 bulletin this month, and noticed the following comment:

We practice open communion, all those professing Jesus, the Christ, are invited to partake of the sacrament. The elements will be served in the pews.  Please hold the elements until all have received and we will take together.

This caused me to wonder, are we familiar with the topic? Let us consider it now.

Defining Terms

Open and closed communion describe views on opposite ends of a spectrum. “Open” communion is open to worshipers regardless of their membership, while “closed” communion restricts distribution of communion only to members. This may refer to members of the local congregation, a denomination, or a family of denominations. Closed communion tends to err on the side of not distributing the elements inappropriately, while open communion errs on the side of not restricting any ostensibly true believer. Open communion is associated with liberal theology and a memorial view of Christ’s presence in the elements. Closed communion is associated with conservative theology and some form of real presence. Which of these shall we observe?

The Real Question

We may dismiss some edge cases out of hand. Solomon Stoddard (1643 - 1729) believed communion was a “converting ordinance” to be offered even to unbelievers. Quakers and the Salvation Army historically don't observe communion at all. 

There is a consensus among serious Christians that the table must be guarded somehow. Therefore, to answer the question which shall we observe?, we need to ask is it enough to place responsibility on the recipient alone? That is, is it enough to expect the worshiper at communion to abstain, or should those distributing also restrict access?

Paul writes, “For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor 11:29). So, it is to the peril of the one who receives unworthily, and the presiding minister has the liability to do spiritual harm by distributing to an unworthy receiver. I consider it like a pharmacist handing over the wrong drug. At minimum, when “fencing the table”, the minister may say something like “this table is only for genuine believers”. It is also not an accident that a confession of sin and absolution always precede communion. Our Book of Worship includes a Preparatory Service, entirely devoted to the reading of the law, a litany, prayer, confession and absolution. The idea is that a church would have held preparatory services before the communion service, maybe during the preceding week, so that worshipers could be right with God before approaching the table. There was even a custom in some reformed churches to issue communion tokens, only given to members after careful individual examination. On Sunday, the worshiper must have a token to trade for the elements, proving they have been examined. This idea was introduced by John Calvin himself and is most associated with Scottish Presbyterian churches, though it is uncommon everywhere now.

Where We Land

Our tradition informs our practice, and the fact that our children do not receive the elements until confirmation means that we already practice a kind of closed communion. According to our by-laws, reception of communion is required of members (§4), and members are interchangeably referred to as “communicants” (§2.9). Meaning, those who do not have membership in our local church are not expected to commune, at least at the time of writing the constitution.

Our historic E&R Book of Worship hints at a closed view of communion, too: it expects that communicants will approach the table, where a minister could exercise judgment on an individual basis. Instructions for receiving in the pews are given as an afterthought, as if the editors wanted to discourage communion in the pews.

We are not a member of a denomination in which to restrict access, but custom in the United Church of Christ had drifted to a fully open model anyway. Even if we were members of a fellowship all confessing the very same view of communion, is that even the right method? We know from experience that a church may be in the minority among its denomination, and we also know that unaffiliated churches may be totally aligned with each other. Instead of using church membership as a proxy for belief about the sacrament, why not state that common belief is itself the requirement?

In short, we land on a moderate position. If it leans to one side or the other, it is a moderate closed view. Simply self-identifying as a Christian is not enough, because a fellow Christian cannot participate in good faith if they do not believe in what we say is happening during the Communion meal. This is no statement that they do not truly love the Lord, it is simply a matter of conscience. On the other hand, restricting access to just our membership roll seems out of touch with the fellowship we do find with our brothers in other congregations. 

This takes buy-in from the whole church - we need to speak about it the right way with friends and visitors. Right now, this statement is found on our website:

If you are a brother in the Lord and believe what we do about the sacrament, you are invited to join us. Confirmation or believer's baptism are prerequisite to communion in our church. Please feel free to call ahead or speak with the pastor on Sunday about the Eucharist. 

The phrase “believe what we do” links to our catechism on the Lord’s Supper.

It is my experience that the more we consider the Lord’s Supper, the richer it becomes. We cherish it the more, we look forward to it more, and our celebration becomes more truly a communion with God and one another.