Now, Christians – wise up. I want some answers. I’d like to return to this question about what it is that entitles someone to receive communion.
We had quite a chat about it when I asked whether one sacrament needed to come before another one.
Lots of people seem to think this really matters a very great deal indeed.
Consider, if you will, the following invitations and exclusions from the table of the Lord. All these are real and are quoted either from service sheets printed by congregations or noted from the spoken invitation to communion given by the person presiding. The first two are quite interesting because they each have a comment in both English and French and it is noteworthy that there is not a direct translation in either case.
- Le pain consacré et distibué au course de la messe a une haute signification pour les catholiques: c’est le Corps de Jésus-Christ leur Seigneur et Dieu. Si vous ne partagez pas notre foi en sa présence, nous vous demandons de ne pas vous joindre à la procession de communion.
The bread distributed during mass has a high significance for Christians: it is the body of Christ, their Lord and God. If you do not share our faith in the living presence of Christ in the eucharistic bread, we ask you not to join your neighbours at communion time. - L’hospitalité eucharistique est offerte à toute personne, quelle que soit sa confession ecclésiale.
All are welcome to share in the banquet of the Lord’s Supper. Please come to the altar at the direction of the ushers. It is customary to kneel at the rail (as you are able). Receive the bread (wafer) in the palm of your outstretched hands with the right over the left. Receive the wine, which follows, by drinking from the cup as it is extended to you. Ladies, please blot your lipstick. - Everyone who loves the Lord Jesus Christ as their own personal Saviour is welcome to receive the bread and wine in this church.
- All baptised Christians of trinitarian churches are welcome to receive communion in this church.
- Those who are in good standing in their own churches are welcome to join us in receiving the bread and wine at God’s table.
- This is the table not of the Church but of the Lord. It is to be made ready for those who love him, and who want to love him more. So, come, you who have much faith and you who have little, you who have been here often and you who have not been for a very long time, you who have tried to follow and you who have failed.
Come, not because it is I who invite you: it is our Lord.
It is his will that those who want him should meet him here. - Everyone is welcome to receive the bread and wine at communion in this church. If you do not wish to receive the bread and wine, please come forward with everyone else for a blessing, holding a service sheet in your hands.
Now, my brothers and sisters. What do we think about all this?
Isn’t it interesting how many churches believe that not everyone should be able to receive communion. And yet, isn’t it interesting how wide the discrepancies are in the terms of the deal, even in the seven churches quoted above. Some say that you are unworthy if you’ve not been baptised. Some that you are unworthy if you don’t believe the right thing about a point of doctrine, some that you are unworthy because you’ve not been initiated properly yet, some that you are not worthy if you are “not in good standing” with someone or other because of something or other.
Is it not incredibly interesting that 2000 years on from the first Last Supper, God’s people really have not managed to agree what the terms of the invitation are?
Now, what do you think?
I work on the principle that it is not the church’s job to put guards around the sacrament, so favour the latter two – half a point to the one with the lipstick (because it’s better to be long-winded about practicalities than actually to exclude), and a “nod, interesting…” to the one about being in good standing (because that has its scriptural basis, but also the liturgy should suffice to clear the air through the Peace).
But ultimately the job of the sacrament is to point beyond, so the poetically florid “This is the table not of the Church but of the Lord” wins.
So what happens at St Mary’s?
St Mary’s is the last one.
Don’t forget that the one about good standing would excommunicate divorced Roman Catholics from Anglican Eucharists. Something which we might not be too keen on doing.
The thief on the cross (not sure if he was penitent even) was assured of a place in paradise and therefore a seat at the feast of the Lord. Jesus shared the bread and wine even with Judas. Now who are we to deny?
My thoughts exactly. If Jesus saw no problem with Judas partaking, it’s hard for me to come up with a reason to deny it to someone. That being said, I can understand the idea behind seeing that baptism comes first. It seems that, at least traditionally, that was the way things were done.
I would go for ‘in good standing in their own churches’. Middle class respectability is the most important thing.
“This is the table not of the Church but of the Lord.”
That’s long been my opinion. The sacrament is Our Lord’s body and blood, and the invitation is from Jesus. No human has the right to refuse those who come forward for the Eucharist.
If, after receiving, the person discloses that she/he is not baptized, then an offer for a quick and easy baptism should be extended.
I love your idea about offering to baptise the person on the spot afterwards, if they disclose that they haven’t been baptised. A non-denominational church that I used to attend would have a sort of ‘altar call’ towards the end of every sermon, in which if anyone wanted to get baptised, they could…right then and there! And then AFTER that offer was made, we would all have communion together.
Who is worthy? We go to receive communion because we are not worthy; any righteousness we have is in Christ. The second last ‘words of invitation’ is what I frequently use. The Church of Scotland (of which I’m a minister) has a very open table tradition: anyone who loves the Lord is welcome.
Ah yes, Blair – those collections of Communion Tokens from your church and my own speak so forcefully of an open table tradition, don’t they?
I also wonder if people’s views on ‘who’ can receive communion have to do with how often a church *has* communion. If you only do it once a quarter, they probably feel that having all these hoops to jump through isn’t a big deal, b/c you have so much time to get everything in order. I’ve never quite understand churches that only *do* communion once a quarter (or even less often).
I recognise the last one, and I like the one second from last.
I have long been of the view that communion should be open to all who feel called to receive it. This is partly, I suspect, a product of my own upbringing in a church where an invitation to communion reeked of exclusivity. It’s more because I think that fully sharing in communion can be a transformative experience, and if they are never given the opportunity to experience it, they may never really understand what all the fuss is about. If by sharing this particular sacrament with people to whom it has usually been denied we open their eyes to faith, then it seems to me that that can only be a wonderful thing.