Tim Samoff // Weblog

You've touched on the fring of one of my favorite subjects - legalism.

I live in the middle of the conservative Bible belt, and questioning what the church does is guaranteed to bring up nothing but a big silence. Or worse, a naseating, I'm-more-Christian-than-you-are lecture.

At this point, I could write a book about the things my church does that I think are legalistic. But I won't. I'll just say a quick prayer asking the Lord for guidance, wisdom, and understanding.

Would love to hear your thoughts on grape juice vs wine.

Ha! That's a good debate too, grape juice vs. wine. (By the way, I'm touching on the Bible-Belt here myself.)

Back in October, Andy Crouch visited our church and brought up the grape juice vs. wine debate -- he's a wine man himself. To tell you the truth, I didn't know it was such a debate until that day. I do believe, though, that one of our commands -- even though from Paul and not directly from Jesus -- is to not do anything that would cause someone to fall (Romans 14:19-21). This being said, if the members of a church do not know every other member and what might be a stumbling block for them, then we should try our best not to introduce anything considered a "stumbling block" (i.e., alcohol).

So, I figure, drinking grape juice is a good attempt at avoiding the chance that someone in a church may be an alcoholic.

I hope I'm not sounding too legalistic. :)

You raise an interesting point. Here's my take:

"We are not part of an exclusive club that requires its members to be cleared of all of their wrong-doings before they are accepted. I assume that we would all agree with this, right?"

Of course.

"So, if that is the case, why do we continue to judge people for “trying out” our faith? Why, when this happens, do we feel infringed upon or violated — as if those people are not “good enough” to partake in the “gifts” that we have been given."

It has something to do with Paul again, and specifically 1 Corinthians 5 and 11 and the responsibility of the church as a whole toward those who might partake of the Lord's supper in an unworthy manner. We might disagree on exactly what tactic we ought to take to discourage this, but surely we can't just invite anyone and everyone interested to participate, can we?

And it really oughtn't be that we feel infringed on or violated, but that we are concerned about the seriousness of Paul's warning for those who put themselves inside the boundaries of the church, partaking of the Lord's supper while continuing unrepentently in persistent sin. We, like Paul, shouldn't be worried about ourselves, but about their well-being, both temporaly and eternally.

I knew someone might bring up 1 Corinthians! :)

"...the responsibility of the church as a whole toward those who might partake of the Lord's supper in an unworthy manner."

Couldn't it be argued that Paul was speaking to us as believers?

Like Spencer posed, "So what if an unbeliver partakes in communion? Will he go to Hell twice?"

Since we believe that an unbeliver goes to Hell just for being an unbeliever, then what difference does it make if they take communion or not? They are not going to go to a "worse" Hell.

I am pondering the fact that the real danger here is whether or not we -- we who believe in Jesus Christ -- take communion in an unworthy manner. It is our responsibility not to dishonor our Lord or take His name in vain or receive His body and blood in an unworthy way... Not that of those who don't even believe yet.

It's almost like saying, "No no no... You can't open the bible and read it, because you don't believe yet." When opening the bible just might be the thing that leads an unbeliver to believe.

You're not sounding legalistic. You're sounding considerate and loving toward others.

I still can't help but think that the Lord's Supper is something Christ commanded us to do - with wine.

Nevertheless, my church celebrates with about a teaspoon of grape juice. So I drink it and pretend it's what my Lord intended.

I like your thoughts on letting non-believers take communion.

I had a relationship with God for many decades before He led me to His Son and told me to become a Christian. I know in my heart that I've always been His, even before I accepted Jesus.

According to the church I attend, this is not possible. I, of course, disagree.

God knows the future. He knows His children even before His children know they are His children. He can get their attention in any way and in any sequence of events that He cares to use.

It makes sense to me, then, that the Holy Spirit can and will speak to a non Christian through the rite of communion. Why not?

Great thoughts, Marguerite. I hope that the church you attend doesn't cause too much internal strife -- I've gone through that before! The great thing about the grace of God, though, is that we have it wherever we worship Him... At church or anywhere.

Why shouldn't you let unbelievers partake of communion even though they're already going to hell? I love Jesus, and I don't want ANYONE guilty of profaning his body, whether or not they're going to hell.

If we follow your same kind of logic, why should we care if an unbeliever committs any sin at all? Even better, let them committ a sin which might eventually bring them around to god. Wow we're opening up a whole can of worms aren't we.

But I'm sure we have completely different views of "communion". Don't even get me started on the evangelical view of communion.

:P

Well, see, that's sort of my point... I'm coming to find that I don't think the Catholic OR Evangelical views of communion are necessarily correct (whether you believe that the elements are the real body & blood of Christ or not).

Christ didn't come to save a select few, but EVERY person in the entire world.

A couple of final thoughts on your comment, Jayson...

In John 12:47, Jesus says he did not come to save the world, but save it. If we are trying to live as Christ lived, then we should not try to judge the world either. And couldn't communion, therefore be a path to salvation?

And later, in 1 Corinthians 5:12-13, Paul tells us that it isn't his business to judge those outside the church (i.e., unbelievers). Yes, I think that we should care that unbelievers sin. No, I don't think that we should judge them for it -- "for they do not know what they are doing" (Luke 23:34). And I think that not allowing unbelievers to have a connection with God -- in any way -- is very close to judging them and handing them a verdict.

I don't mean to sound confrontational... That's not my point. This is just a new idea for me and I'm feeling a bit passionate about it.

Can you state what you think communion is, and why that supports bringing nonbelievers to the table of Christian fellowship when they haven't really come to the table of Christian fellowship?

Your argument seems to be that we should welcome nonbelievers into our community so they can partake of some of the benefits of the covenant community. I don't see how that requires their participation in the covenant community's own celebratory reminder of a salvation that only applies to those who have accepted the offer of grace. It doesn't matter if there's an offer to all. The celebratory remembrance is only something someone can even do if they accept the significance of what that sacrifice we're remembering is all about.

I know of no nonbeliever who would even think it legitimate to partake in communion once they know what it's about and that partaking in it means you have repented, accepted that offer of forgiveness, and trusted in Christ for your salvation. I don't see how it's exclusionary to point out that this is something believers do to remember that. Anyone generally considering Christianity will understand that since they haven't come to that understanding and that commitment then it's a bit odd to act as if they have. Do we expect nonbelievers to recite creeds and be baptized when they haven't committed their life to Christ?

"Since we believe that an unbeliver goes to Hell just for being an unbeliever, then what difference does it make if they take communion or not? They are not going to go to a "worse" Hell."

Ahh, which is why I mentioned both temporal AND eternal consequences. The eternal consequences seem to come from allowing someone to think they have the approval of the church because they are allowed to partake of the supper. This confirms to them that they are "of the faith" when the testimony of their life proves otherwise, but because of their continued acceptance by the church body, they never face up to their true status. "Brothers-so called" (those who claim to be believers but who continue blatantly and perhaps proudly in immorality) are to be put out in hopes that that will be a wake-up call to them--that they will see their true state of lostness and respond appropriately.

But there are earthly consequenses as well--in chaper 11 of 1 Corinthians. Some people were sick and others had died because of a careless attitude toward the supper. Perhaps a church is just protecting people from nasty temporal consequences rather than being closed-minded or legalistic.

Jeremy... To answer your first question (sort of), I guess I should have been more clear about what I thought communion was. Now days, it is what we do as rememberence of Christ, usually with other believers, usually, within the walls of a church -- not to say that it can't happen elsewhere, as I myself have taken this "communion" in a number of different locations.

I am coming to think that "communion" might be something believers should do EVERY time they break bread (i.e., eat). Look up the word communion. It means (paraphrased), 1) an act of sharing; 2) a Christian sacrament; 3) intimate fellowship; 4) a body of Christian faith.

The act of eating used to be a much more important act of daily living... Especially among believers. I think we have lost this. I think Jesus wanted us to "remember" Him every time we ate.

Back to the modern occurrence of communion -- the type we do in church. So, let's say an unbeliver is in church and for some reason he has the urge to take communion. I think it is awfully arrogant to think that this person couldn't be led by God to do this.

Rebecca... Good thoughts about temporal consequences. You got me thinking. I do believe in corporate sin and its effects on us temporally.

Yet again, though, I think that 1 Corinthians 11 is speaking to us as believers, not those as unbelievers. I spoke about that above. I do think that there are plenty of ways that the bible tells us to act towards believers that are profaining the name of God.

In reference to non-believer's partaking of communion, I think it is helpful to examine what some well-known church fathers thought of the idea:

John Gill (1697-1771): "...now such are all unregenerate persons, for they have no spiritual life in them...and therefore ought not to be admitted to the table of the Lord."

1599 Geneva Study Bible: "The examination of a man’s self, is of necessity required in the supper, and therefore they ought not to be admitted to it who cannot examine themselves: such as children, furious and angry men, also such as either have no knowledge of Christ, or not sufficient, although they profess Christian religion: and others that cannot examine themselves."

Matthew Henry: "Those who, through weakness of understanding, cannot try themselves, are by no means fit to eat of this bread and drink of this cup; nor those who, upon a fair trial, have just ground to charge themselves with impenitency, unbelief, and alienation from the life of God."

C.H. Spurgeon: "Have any of you eaten the bread, and yet have you not seen Christ? Then you have gained no benefit. Have you drunk the wine, but have you not remembered the Lord? Alas! I fear you have eaten and drunk condemnation to yourselves, not discerning the Lord's body."

There are others - John Wesley, John Calvin & Martin Luther may have disagreed about what was contained in the offering of communion, but they were all agreed that it was to be reserved only for believers. To admit non-believers to partake in a ceremony in which they have no understanding will, at best, be a meaningless act for them and, at worst, will only add to their sin.

In response to your original post:
You say, "We are not part of an exclusive club that requires its members to be cleared of all of their wrong-doings before they are accepted. I assume that we would all agree with this, right? So, if that is the case, why do we continue to judge people for “trying out” our faith?"

First of all, I believe we *ARE* part of an exclusive club - as Christians, be believe that we have the key (in Jesus Christ) to eternal life, and that all other religions are false and lead to eternal damnation. In other words, we are right and everyone else is wrong. If that's not exclusivity, I don't know what is.

Secondly, we don't judge people for "trying out" our faith. In fact, I'm not sure I even know what you mean by that phrase. How do you "try out" Christianity? You either believe that Jesus Christ died for your sins and rose again or you don't. You either confess your sins and believe in His name or you don't. It's not like going to Foot Locker and trying on a pair of shoes to see if they're your size. Yes, one may need to become familiar with Biblical teaching and see what's it's like, but at some point they have to make a decision one way or another.

You also quote, “So what if an unbeliver partakes in communion? Will he go to Hell twice? Or, what if that person has a real, life-changing experience with Jesus?”

This is absurd on two counts: 1) You don't go to hell "twice." You either go there or you don't. Period. If sin in any amount causes us to be removed from God, then it really doesn't matter if you commit 1 or 100 - you still are sinful and thus unworthy of heaven, save for the grace of God. 2) If a person has "a real, life-changing experience with Jesus," then I would say that at that point they are no longer an unbeliever and thus would be invited to participate in the believer's fellowship of communion with Christ.

Dave... Good quotes above. I know and understand what the "well-known church fathers" said. What if I said I think that they might be wrong?

As far as our exclusivity goes... I still don't agree. I think that Jesus came to save the world (I could pull a few verses out of my hat here, but I won't) not just a select few. I don't know exactly what that means to us in our temporal forms and I won't try to substantiate it. It's just what I am beginning to believe.

Last, I don't think you got my point about going to hell twice. I was being facetious. I know that people don't go to hell twice. That's my point. Who cares then, if an unbeliever takes communion -- it won't condemn them any more than they already are.

I was speaking to a friend recently who asked, "But, why would an unbeliever even want to take communion?"

And that's a good point. Maybe they wouldn't. But if they did, who are we to judge and condemn and tell them they can't.

Dave, you said, "If a person has 'a real, life-changing experience with Jesus,' then I would say that at that point they are no longer an unbeliever and thus would be invited to participate in the believer's fellowship of communion with Christ."

This doesn't quite make sense to me. It sounds like you're agreeing that the unbeliever who might take communion and have a life-changing experience is now a believer... Then, why should we warn not to take it in the first place? If we did that, the person would still be an unbeliever.

You make some good points (none that are "absurd" by any means), but they are, in my mind, very traditional. And I still don't think I agree.

Also, the quote about going to hell twice is from something that Spencer Burke said (see original post) in the book, "Stories of Emergence: Moving from Absolute to Authentic."

Good thoughts, GG. I appreciate your time a lot.

This is a rather modern dispute. Until the Enlightenment, at least, there was no questioning of the "closed" nature of the Eucharist/communion. To discuss "universal access" speaks to the issues of authority and commitment. (I think there is a danger in mis-linking communing with salvation. Not all the saved commune; not all who commune are saved. And all this is despite the intention of the Father that the world -- all of it -- be saved through his Son. )

In the ancient Church for generations, after the sermon the cry went out "the doors; the doors," which meant that all the unbaptized were excused from the gathered communion, either to go home or to go to the instruction for baptism which was constantly offered. One first partook of the "Body of Christ" with the "Body of Christ" upon the event of one's baptism (usually on the Eve of Easter).

To understand the current uproar over what seems an easy question to solve, it is important that one get a bead on "ecclessiology" -- i.e., on what the church is and means. For many of us (following the thinking of Stanley Hauerwas and Will Willimon in "Resident Aliens"), the Church is not a private club, but it is a community with its own culture. That culture is often at odds with the wider national, ideological, and even spiritual cultures. Because of our confession that "Jesus is Lord," when conflicts with other cultures arise, we are duty bound to side with the Church (which has always been understood not in some static way, but as the ekklesia reformanda, the Church always in reform). The Church has a definite identity and way of doing things. Part of the peculiarity is the community meal, which is offered to the commuity and has meaning only for the community gathered intentionally around the presence of the confessed Lord.

We are, of course, hospitable, and welcome "seekers." We are more than happy to explain ourselves, to admit new believers, to try to convince, to make room at our liturgical gatherings, and the like. But, anthropologically speaking, just as any self-identified group has its own "private" aspects, so the Church rather closely guards communion for itself. And I don't have a particular problem with that. It is not legalism to insist that there are boundaries for the community and its activities. Neither is it necessarily judgment on those are not encouraged to commune. (After all, ex-communication is a method of disciplining the supposed "faithful," which is intended to draw the disciplinee back to the fold by making it painful to be separated. What would "universal access" do to the issue of discipline in the church -- something which almost doesn't exist at all anymore?)

Where my big problems lie is in the distinctions Church bodies make among the Christians, duly baptized and whose baptisms we acknowledge, we admit to the communing fellowship. Many of four congregations, despite written policies, welcome anyone baptized in the name of the Triune God. When I make retreats to Roman Catholic monasteries, I have not been allowed NOT to commune. The monks (and nuns) consider it an insult to their hospitality. But Romans and Orthodox officially do not want others than their own to commune. That, it seems to me, is a scandal, on the order of self-mutiliation -- cutting off one's nose to spite one's face comes to mind.

Dwight P.

Great thoughts, Dwight... You really made me think today. (I'm glad that this topic is staying alive for a little while!)

My opinion:

> This is a rather modern dispute.

While I think that the "dispute" may be a modern one, I don't think it is very modern to be discussing it like this. I think modernity still strongly bases its identity in the "Enlightenment" view of communion.

To be discussing the possibility of unbelievers taking community is something beyond modern. I'd hate to say that this is a postmodern discussion, but it may be one that lay somewhere along the path to postmodernity.

> ...so the Church rather closely
> guards communion for itself. And I
> don't have a particular problem with
> that. It is not legalism to insist that
> there are boundaries for the
> community and its activities.

I do understand this, and part of me wants to agree... I just can't come to terms with placing the name of Jesus next to the word "boundary."

I'd write more, but I feel like I need to think about it a little.

I agree with your opinion of the "Roman" and "Orthodox" stance on communion. For what is communion without communing -- with everyone. What is communion without hospitality and acceptance? I think Jesus would have a problem with this whether or not the Eucharist was his living body and blood.

I enjoy hearing stories about monastaries' continuing love and hospitality for outsiders. There is a monastary not far from here that I've been wanting to visit for a while now. I need to.

I really have enjoyed this discussion. I feel that I am exactly between Dave Harvey and Tim on this one. I do believe that the message of Jesus is that all come to the knowledge of Christ but we know that not everyone will come to this understanding. This makes for the "exclusivity" that has been discussed. However, the apostle Paul makes it very clear not to hold this over non-believers heads. (I'm paraphrasing) So I believe we are an exclusive group "peculiar people" "a Chosen generation, a royal Priesthood" we just shouldn't be arrogant because at some point in our lives we all were, at unbelievers in Jesus. We must balance our love for the unbeliever with the humbling nature of the fact that eternal judgement awaits the unbeliever. I pray that those who do not believe in Jesus come to this knowledge. I'll leave with this somber note. Sometimes I even cry and have a burden for those souls who are lost without Jesus facing an eternity without the presence of God let alone an eternity in hell. Lord give us a stronger love for those who don't believe.

I wonder whether we might be loading both too much and too little on the Eucharist.

We ask the Eucharist to carry too much of the load of Christian life -- and of evangelism -- if we see it as a means of evangelizing, "including," welcoming, or the like. By our Lord's instruction, the Eucharist is what it is among those who "do it in remembrance." His own mandate, then, was to his committed followers. The life of faith, lived out to manifest the presence of God and the grace of God, is much broader than inviting non-believers or even seekers to the table.

We are, most assuredly, justified (I do not mean that in the Lutheran, theological sense!) in associating "Jesus" with borders and boundaries. Read the sermon on the mount: He himself draws lines all over the place -- and not as general rules for living (which can be incorporated into modern capitalism, for example), but as the new life of his disciplined community. He also gave Peter and his assigns the office of the keys for the binding and releasing of sins.

My point is that there are levels of inclusivity to Christian practice. We welcome strangers among us -- even in worship. We encourage them to join us -- though I think we do no often stress that they join us on the terms of the Lord, which involves rejection of the terms of the world. Unlike the earliest Christians, apparently, we do not bar them from attendance at the sermon and eucharist. But, even without St. Paul's apocalyptic warning about their drinking damnation on themselves, we do not encourage them to commune until they have joined the body of Christ -- or better: until they have been joined to the Body of Christ through baptism.

To make the table open to all comers is, I think, to load too little on the Eucharist, to treat it too lightly, to undervalue it (and ultimately, and this is my real "programme", to undervalue the identity of the Body of Christ, the Church.

It is a similar reasoning that leads many Jewish theologians to denounce Christians' and other non-Jews' participation in seders. The seder, as also the Eucharist, is the peculiar, identity-forming and -manifesting, sacral right by which the community marks its salvation. It is not a public proclamatory event.

But I have gone on too long.

Salaam,
Dwight

Dwight. You made some good points.

This really makes me think:
"To make the table open to all comers is, I think, to load too little on the Eucharist...

...the Eucharist, is the peculiar, identity-forming and -manifesting, sacral right by which the community marks its salvation. It is not a public proclamatory event."

This made me think even more:
"We are, most assuredly, justified...in associating "Jesus" with borders and boundaries."

I even began a new thread about it here:
http://www.sense-datum.org/tim/archives/2004/04/30/07.48.49/

and here:
http://www.sense-datum.org/tim/archives/2004/05/06/08.32.07/

---

Thanks for stopping by, Camassia. To tell you the truth, I think that'd I'd agree with your opinion over most Christians' opinions about this matter.

In fact, one of the questions that a friend of mine asked me when I brought this subject up was, "But, why would an unbeliever even want to take communion in the first place?"

No, communion is not "Chrsitian hors d'oeuvres"! :) But, I don't know if an unbeliever should be told not to partake if they want to partake. (I think most would be like you, though.)

One thing that I find hard to believe is this:
"But I don't take communion, even though nobody would stop me."

I think that you'll find that most church's would tell you that you couldn't if they knew you were considering it. Sadly enough, his is a pretty strict "rule" in most Protestant & Catholic circles.

I didn't mean to insinuate "unbaptized" as I don't regard baptism as crucial to "salvation." Most of the evangelical churches I have been to (and I have been to a lot of 'em!) have explicitly stated that communion was meant for believers and have asked those who are unbelivers (those who haven't "accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior") to "pass the tray."

I am surprised to here about your experiences!