One of my
biggest struggles on my journey into Orthodoxy was the closed communion
table. It seemed quite unfair that
someone else could deem who was worthy to take communion, and who was not. Infants and children in the Church could
partake of it, but I as a Christian and inquirer into Orthodoxy could not.
But I
eventually learned that the idea that the communion table should be open to
anyone who wants to partake is actually a very modern concept.
Communion in America in the 1700’s and 1800’s
I own a
two volume Baptist Encyclopedia set that was published in the 1800’s. I find it
interesting because I can see just how much the faith of mainline
churches has evolved over the past couple of hundred years.
In the
second volume of the Baptist Encyclopedia there are statements of faith, mostly
written in the 1700’s. These were
essentially creeds written in conjunction with most of the ministers in a given
region.
In the
New Hampshire Declaration of Faith, we find the following: “[baptism] is
prerequisite to the privileges of a church relation; and to the Lord’s Supper,
in which the member of the church by the sacred use of bread and wine, are to
commemorate together the dying love of Christ.”
In the
Philadelphia Confession of Faith (adopted by the Baptist Association on Sept
25, 1742), we find a list regarding the purposes of Lord’s Supper in section
XXXII. It includes, “confirmation of the
faith of believers in all of the benefits thereof.” And it later states in part 8 of section
XXXII, “All ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion
with Christ, so are they unworthy of the Lord’s table and cannot…partake of
these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto.”
In
summary: before the 20th century, baptism was a sign that one accepted the
teachings of a church. It was also a
strict prerequisite to partaking in the Lord’s Supper. Communion was not a right one could demand,
but rather a privilege of church membership.
Communion in the first centuries of the
church to today
There was
a brilliant Christian writer who lived during the 100’s (second century). His name was Justin Martyr and he left us
many valuable writings that historians frequently use in order to understand
the life and teachings of the early church.
In chapter LXVI of Justin’s First Apology, he explains the requirements
for communion saying,
“And this
food is called among us the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake
but the person who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who
has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins…and who is
so living as Christ has enjoined.”
I find it
interesting that up until the 20th century, there were three commonly accepted
requirements for a person to take communion within a church, whether Orthodox,
Roman Catholic, or Baptist. They were:
1. A Trinitarian baptism.
2. A confirmation that one has accepted the
beliefs and teachings of that particular church.
3. A life that is marked by morality (in other
words, you were actually expected to change your behavior to conform with the
teachings of Christ when you became a believer).
With faith and love come forward
When I
enter into an Orthodox Church and want them to change their ways, I am not only
displaying my historical ignorance, but I am unconsciously stating that church
is all about me and what I want. For
nearly 2,000 years, most if not all churches had what would nowadays be deemed
a “closed communion table.”
Partaking
of communion within a church body has - until modern times - been an assent that
you have come to a place of agreement with their teachings. At every liturgy, the priest holds the
communion cup before the congregation and extends the invitation, “In the fear
of God, with faith and with love come forward.”
That statement is packed with implications, but here is the gist of the
requirements:
1. One must approach the altar with a respectful
fear and awe of God.
2. One must agree to the faith a.k.a. the
teachings of the Orthodox Church.
3. One must have love for God and for his
brothers and sisters. The fathers of the
church teach that if you have something against your brother, you are to leave
the altar and go make amends with that person.
Only when we have unity amongst ourselves can we be unified to Christ..
Concluding Thoughts
If you,
like me, have struggled with the idea of having a closed communion table, then
I would say that firstly you are not alone.
I have no desire to make someone feel guilty for thinking that way nor
am I condemning those who have a very open practice in their church.
A closed
table is thought to be unloving and unwelcoming in today’s church culture. I sometimes feel that pressure to be socially
acceptable has diluted the meaning of certain foundations of the Christian
faith. It is important that we
understand that an open table is a very unusual and modern concept when you
consider the church as a whole. Even the
Baptist churches of a couple hundred years ago had closed tables.
I hope
this research helps others as it helped me to take off my modern, Western
glasses and see things in a more historical light. The Orthodox are generally loving people and
mean no disrespect, so please don’t take offense when they don’t allow you to partake
of communion. They simply have a very
high view of the teachings and traditions of the early church.
Source: http://www.orthodoxroad.com/why-a-closed-communion-table/
CONVERSATION