What is Open Communion At Epworth?
In an effort to determine who can receive communion, we have several sources to consider. First, of course, is scripture. Next (in my opinion) is the Church fathers and Church tradition. After that we can look at the founder of the Wesleyan movement, John Wesley, as well as others who have made a scholarly attempt to understand his doctrines. Lastly, as Free Methodists, we must abide by the communion doctrines of the FMC, even if they run counter to Wesley and church tradition.
Scripture
The first passage of interest for this discussion is more descriptive than prescriptive and comes from Acts 2: “41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. 42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.” This describes what the brand-new church did. They believed, then they were baptized. After that, they devoted themselves to the means of grace, such as teaching, prayer, fellowship, and communion. It only makes sense that this reference to “breaking bread” is a reference to the love feast that the early church maintained, which included the Eucharist. So, the very earliest church seemed to practice baptism before communion.
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. (1 Corinthians 11)
So then, we must be careful not to receive communion unworthily. But what does that mean? Our clues here are that one should “examine himself” and “discerning the body”. Can one truly examine himself without the help of the Holy Spirit? Does one have the Holy Spirit without first accepting Christ? How then, can a non-Christian examine himself, and thereby, receive communion “worthily”? By extension, a Christian who does a self-examination and sees a state of rebellion against God should repent and ask forgiveness before receiving communion, otherwise, what good is the examination? Failure to do so seems to be grounds for not receiving communion.
My best understanding of “discerning the body” goes back to the context leading up to these verses.
18 For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it, 19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. 20 When you meet together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. 21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not. (1 Corinthians 11)
Since this passage is about the corporate body, it seems to indicate that not only should one examine his own heart, but that should include how he or she behaves towards others in the congregation. Is there peace or strife? Are everyone’s needs being cared for? Of course, we must include Jesus’ admonition, “23 So if you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift” (Matthew 5). There is also Paul’s instruction in 1 Corinthians 10:17, “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.”
What I gather from these verses is Paul telling the Corinthian church to be at peace with one another and with God before receiving communion. Failure to do so is to receive the bread and wine in an “unworthy manner” and to bring “judgment upon” oneself. Even if one were to disagree with this conclusion, one must still wrestle with the question, What does it mean to receive communion unworthily? Paul clearly teaches that such a thing is possible and should be avoided. If belief in Christ isn’t the minimum standard, then what is?
Church Fathers & Church Tradition
Irenaeus wrote in the mid-100’s, “How can they allow that the bread over which thanksgiving has been said is the body of their Lord, and that the chalice is the chalice of his blood, if they say that he is not the son of the creator of the world”? How can one make such a profession without faith in Christ? Without the profession, it is merely bread and wine.
The Didache (traditionally dated to around 100 AD) has this to add: “But let no one eat or drink of your thanksgiving (eucharistia) but those who have been baptized in the name of the Lord”. So baptism was a prerequisite of the early church for receiving communion. Regarding being at peace with one’s neighbor, it states, “let none who has a quarrel with his companion join with you until they have been reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be defiled.”
In a eucharistic liturgy dating from around 225 AD, we find the words, “and that thou wouldst grant it to all the saints who partake, making them one, for fulfillment of the Holy Spirit and for the confirmation of their faith in truth…” None of these things are true of unbelievers. They are not “saints”; believers and unbelievers cannot be one; unbelievers have no faith to be confirmed!
For roughly 1,000 years, church services paused at the end of the service of the Word to excuse all those who had not yet completed catechism. It was once only confirmed believers were left that they passed the peace (being unified in Christ, as only believers can) and received communion. Non-believers never had the opportunity to receive communion because they weren’t present.
None of this is to be construed that the Church necessarily got it right regarding communion. However, anyone wanting to deviate from such long-standing tradition and from the understanding of the very earliest Church thinkers is obligated to have very solid reasoning for doing so.
John Wesley & Rob Staples
John Wesley wrote the following regarding fitness for communion:
The Lord’s Supper was ordained by God to be a means of conveying grace according to the need of each person. Those for whom it was ordained are all those who know and feel that they want the grace of God, to restrain them from sin, or to forgive their sins, or to assure them of pardon, or to renew their souls in the image of God, or to enter into the holy presence of God in communion with him. No preparation is indispensably necessary, other than a desire to receive the grace God pleases to give. No fitness or church membership is required at the time of communicating, other than a sense of our state, of our utter sinfulness and helplessness apart from Christ. Therefore, if you want such grace as God pleases to give to you, draw near with faith, and as you prepare to receive this holy sacrament to your comfort and strength, make your sincere confession to Almighty God, kneeling if you wish and are able, or otherwise sitting.
Can a non-believer “know and feel that they want the grace of God”? Are they not in that instant Christians? No one wants grace from a God they don’t believe exists. What non-believer wants forgiveness of sins from a God who doesn’t exist? If one has the faith to desire forgiveness from Christ, then again, that person is now in the camp of believers. Obviously, no one can be assured of a pardon that has not happened. Have unbelievers been pardoned? No. Only those who have put their faith in Christ (even if a mere second ago) have received pardon. Can non-believers “renew their souls” without becoming a believer in the process? Clearly, no one who lacks faith can be “in communion” with our holy God. Who desires to receive the grace of God? Christians. What good is grace to one who rejects the author of that grace? It’s an utter contradiction. In short, every sentence of John Wesley’s statement establishes the standard that communion is for believers only.
John Wesley’s position is known as “open communion” because it does not require a previous declaration of faith, such as baptism or catechism. As we saw from the section above on Church tradition, this was clearly a break from accepted practice. Wesley rightly understood that the heart of the unbeliever can be pierced at any moment—even while receiving communion. However, some caution is required here. We must remember that it is possible to receive communion in an unworthy manner, and faith in Christ certainly seems to be the minimum standard. (And baptism before communion was the normal practice.) If one goes forward to receive the elements and in his or her self-discerning senses disbelief, it would be better to not receive communion at that time.
Also, one must recognize that John Wesley’s silence on baptism being a requirement for receiving communion cannot be construed to mean he didn’t think it necessary. Almost the entire population of England was baptized in his day, so being baptized before receiving communion was a non-issue.
Professor Rob Staples (Nazarene Theological Seminary), in Outward Sign and Inward Grace further muddies the waters. He writes, “All are invited who ‘truly and earnestly repent’ of their sins” (259). Do non-believers repent? Isn’t the very act of repentance an act of faith? He goes on to say, “It is at the point of inviting those who have not yet ‘believed in Christ unto salvation’ that many present-day Wesleyans may be prone to drag their feet” (259). The question is, is he arguing that non-believers can receive communion, who remain unbelievers after they leave the communion rail? He never specifies this. Nor does Wesley.
Dr. Staples then goes on to argue that open communion is proper because it is a foretaste of the wedding feast of the lamb in the eschaton. I believe he is correct in making this connection; however, it can be easily misunderstood.
God’s call to salvation is universal. He has invited everyone to feast with Him in His final Kingdom. And the invitation to the sacramental Supper, which is the foretaste of the final feast, must therefore likewise be universal. The universality of the invitation makes of every eucharistic celebration an evangelistic or missionary event. It is the offer of salvation to all who will accept (261).
He is absolutely right that communion is evangelistic. But how can something be evangelistic if it isn’t calling for a faith decision? He twice says that it is a call to salvation. The Eucharist is not an invitation to remain a sinner. It is a call to faith. Therefore, only those who respond to the call in faith are to receive. Without salvation, there should be no communion. Like Wesley, Dr. Staples does not qualify what he means by open communion, particularly regarding the results in the heart of the receiver beyond what we can interpret from his words above. Does he believe it is proper to receive communion and remain a sinner? Based on his emphasis on salvation, I think not.
The Free Methodist Church
The Articles of Faith for the Free Methodist Church state that the Holy Sacraments “are means of grace through faith, tokens of our profession of Christian faith, and signs of God’s gracious ministry towards us. By them, He works within us to quicken, strengthen and confirm our faith.” How can one profess a faith they don’t possess? How can a faith be confirmed unless it first exists?
It then goes on to say, “The Lord’s Supper is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ’s death. To those who rightly, worthily and with faith receive it, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ; and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ. The supper is also a sign of the love and unity that Christians have among themselves.” Where is the redemption apart from faith in Christ? How can one receive communion apart from faith?
In short, open communion means all are invited to receive communion, just as all are invited to accept Christ as their Lord and Savior. However, apart from faith in Christ, which ends the war between the individual and God, communion should not be received. Apart from ending any strife between believers, to the extent possible, communion should not be received. Failure to make peace (or at least begin the journey towards peace) within the body of Christ is rebellion against God. These are internal movements of the heart. A person finally at peace with a neighbor can receive communion even if that peace is never communicated.
Communion as a Means of Grace
But if communion is a means of grace, should that grace not be made available to non-believers? Unlike Catholics, Protestants do not believe that the sacraments and other means of grace are magically potent in themselves. (Anglicans—including John Wesley—agreed.) One could go through the motions of baptism apart from faith, but then it is really just a bath. No grace is imparted. Apart from faith, communion is just a tiny meal. That’s true even though Wesleyans believe Jesus is literally (though spiritually) present in the elements. There is no grace (a blessing of the Holy Spirit for living the Christian life) apart from first believing!
Withholding Communion
As for the pastor who is offering the elements, he cannot possibly know what is happening in the heart of each person at that time. Because the onus is on the individual believer, it is better for the pastor to offer communion to all. Where there is a known, long-standing rebellion against God, the pastor is obliged to counsel the parishioner and advise him or her to abstain from communion until their heart has changed. In the withholding of communion, that person is forced in a tangible way to reckon with their rebellion against God. This is a very powerful tool in motivating rebellious believers and not yet believers to turn from their sin.
