Monday, June 9, 2008

communion

I've been thinking about communion and what Paul has to say about it in 1Corinthians 11:27-34. I've always been taught, and believed, that people were not to take communion if they were not Christians. This has been of particular concern to me where children are involved. I'm not sure what a child thinks when their parent forbids them to participate in communion for fear of the instructions Paul gave to the church in Corinth. But, like many doctrines I've been taught and just accepted as fact because of who was teaching me, the text from 1Corinthians11 seems to indicate that this is more about an attitude rather than being a believer or not.


27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. 30 For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep. 31 But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world. 33 So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34 If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not come together for judgment.

Isn't communion to be a time of reflection on what Christ has done through the sacrifice of the body and the blood? I don't see how a child, who may not fully understand sin, cannot still reflect on Christ's love for them and partake in communion. Here's another thought. Not sure about other denominations but the Baptists believe in the "age of accountability"...still searching the scriptures for where that comes from and I'm sure that's another thread...But, IF a child is unsaved without an understanding of sin are they not considered innocent if they have yet to reach this "age of accountability"? Then my question would again be, why not let them participate?

I really didn't mean to get caught up in the issue of children being allowed to participate in communion. I mainly was thinking about when any lost person shows up where communion is being given and they are told they should not participate in communion because of what !Cor11 says. Is the instruction from Paul more about our attitude toward Christ's sacrifice and an honest evaluation of ourselves? Could our presumption that we are worthy of partaking in communion because of a profession of faith in 1999 be an example of partaking in an unworthy manner?

My goal in this discussion is to dispel legalism and traditions of man to figure out what God says about this.

Blessings,
Brandon

11 comments:

Lew A said...

I think the key to your question is in the context of the verse. Paul is talking people who are gathering together to "take the lord's supper" but in reality they are being selfish and not considering their other brothers and sisters.

As far as I can tell, this is the unworthy manner they are taking the Lord's supper. So, then, the traditional teaching of this verse (as you have clearly pointed out) is not about the unsaved taking the Lord's supper. It is more about how we should be graceful when we participate in the Lord's supper. And since I believe we should be graceful, we should not prevent anyone who wishes to participate, even the smallest child.

Just my thoughts.

God's Glory,
Lew

Brandon said...

That was exactly where I was coming from too...he's not talking about people who just showed up and the need to make sure they're qualified to partake of communion.

Where do we get this stuff and why is it swallowed whole by the church. (I obviously include myself in that group.)

Oh, and I'll have to get Heather to fix the post...I dunno what I did to make the text black...LOL!

Nathan said...

What’s up bro? O.K. so my post is a little longer than I originally meant it to be, you just hit a subject that is near and dear to my heart. All my comments are meant to be constructive, and of coarse anyone is free to disagree.
Good question. This is exactly the type of question we should be asking ourselves. Having come to Christ later in life like you, I tend to ask where is this practice found in scripture as oppose to tradition. However, I have now come to understand that while there are many traditions that are done for the sake of tradition alone, there are in fact many traditions that are practiced because they are rooted in scripture. This is where I would place the teaching of the Lords Supper as being for believers only. First, I would say that the Lords Supper is not just a time of reflection, but where we identify ourselves as members of the body of Christ. See 1Cor. 10:16-17 "Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? 17 Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread."(NASB). Second, I don't think you want to use the "age of accountability" argument. Because it has very little Scriptural backing and because by that rational what would be the harm in letting your 5 year old steal or lie? I know that is extreme but ya know what I mean. Third, as for allowing a lost person to partake in communion. I'm going to save that for last. Forth, I would answer your final question with a definite Yes. I do think that relying on simply being a Christian for our worthiness of communion would be a terrible mistake. That is why we are called to examine ourselves (vs. 28) and prepare ourselves by confession and repentance. And why we as Christians should not take communion if we are under church discipline for any reason. As for the question of the lost taking communion, I would like to quote from a book that I believe to be The book that every Baptist should read, as this is the direction in which the denomination is going. (Praise the Lord!)It is called Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches by John S. Hammett. He writes, "Such an association of the ordinances with the church seems especially justified in the case of the Lord's Supper, for it is the rite that proclaims, not just Christ's death, but the church's unity. In 1Corinthians 10:16, Paul calls the cup and bread of the Lord's Supper a koinonia (fellowship, participation) in the blood and body of Christ, and teaches that in partaking of the Lord's Supper, the Corinthian Christians express their oneness and solidarity with one another. Gordon Fee comments on verse 16: "there can be little doubt that Paul intends to emphasize the kind of bonding relationship of the worshipers with one another that this meal expresses"; he adds that their koinonia (fellowship) was "a celebration of their common life in Christ." Paul goes on in 1Corinthians 11:17-33 to scold the Corinthians because their celebrations of the Lord's Supper were not occasions for celebration their unity but revealing divisions (v.18). He calls on them to recognize "the body of the Lord" (v. 29) when they partake. Fee argues convincingly that "the body of the Lord" refers here to the church, because the Lord's Supper is the meal where they proclaim that they are one body in Christ. Baptists have understood the Lord's Supper along these lines. In their most influential confession, the Second London Confession, the Lord's Supper is called "a bond and pledge of their communion with him [Christ], and with each other. Contemporary Baptist theologian Stanley Grenz says virtually the same thing; "The Lord's Supper is not only a symbol of present community with Christ but also with one another within Christ's fellowship." ...If the Lord's Supper is given to the church, and is designed to deepen and express the unity and communion of the members of the body with Christ and with one another, two conclusions seem inescapable. First, the Lord's Supper is surely only for the regenerate, for only they can experience communion with Christ. Second, it seems that the Lord's Supper is only fully appropriate for regenerate people who do in fact have unity and communion with each other, that is, it is for the members of the local church. Only they can affirm in a meaningful way their unity with the other members of the body."

In Christ The King,

Nathan

Brandon said...

WOW-
That should have been divided with chapters! :-)

First off, wut up bro!?!?!?

Okay, I really appreciate you taking the time to share your perspective on the topic. I know how busy you are so thanks.

While I would agree that there are many good traditions or doctrines rooted firmly in scripture practiced in the church today, I'm still not sure this particular view (communion for believers only) is one of them. I also don't see many people being dogmatic about this issue, but it's one that I've wondered about often enough that I need to learn more about it.

1.)Regarding the reference to 1Cor 10:16-17. I can see how it could be used as a support for not allowing unbelievers to partake of communion, but is that the context in which this portion of the letter is written? Was that what Paul was talking about? I'm not sure I would come to the conclusion that it tells us not to allow unbelievers...especially the children of believers. Although I do think it could be used as a supporting verse, I think it's context dispels the argument. In the context I see a warning against idolatry. Without reading into the text, I don't think it says not to allow unbelievers to take communion.

Okay, I gotta go do some work. I'll have to finish this later.

Brandon

Alan Knox said...

Brandon,

I would also approach this a little differently. The believers in Corinth were eating and drinking, but they were not taking "the Lord's Supper" - even though they thought they were. The act of eating and drinking along does not constitute partaking in the Lord's Supper.

If believers who eat and drink with the wrong attitude toward one another do not partake of the Lord's Supper even when they eat the bread and drink the cup, then I would assume that this would apply to unbelievers as well. So, even if an unbeliever ate the bread and drank the cup, he or she would not be partaking in the Lord's Supper.

Interestingly, Scripture does not speak to whether or not we should invite unbelievers to eat the bread and drink the cup with us - although Scripture does say that we should eat and drink with unbeleivers. However, Scripture does speak toward believers attempting to partake of the Lord's Supper with the wrong motives and attitudes towards others.

I tend to try to keep the focus where Scripture keeps the focus. Scripture doesn't mention unbelievers, so I don't mention them. Scripture has alot to say about believers partaking in a unworthy manner because of their broken relationships with one another, and I try to speak to that as well.

-Alan

Brandon said...

Alan,
I agree. You said what I was trying to say...just more effectively. :-) I especially like what you said about keeping the focus where scripture is focused.

Nathan said...

what up again my brotha from da same matha? One other thing I left out of my previous post (because it was so brief). When thinking about the Lord's Supper, I think its important to go right to the source. I think it is significant that Jesus chose to do this with only His disciples (essentially the Church, pre-church by only a matter of days). I know that He didnt say do this only with believers however, I believe that everything about this "supper" was done very deliberately by our Lord. There were many times when he taught things to the disciples while many others were around. There were also several times when he taught only "the inner three". And I would assert that there is a reason He gave this ordinance to just His disciples which were the foundation of the Church.

In Christ The King,

Nathan

Alan Knox said...

Of course, Jesus also served the "Last Supper" to Judas and washed Judas' feet.

By the way, I didn't mention this earlier, the 1 Cor. 10 was written to believers in order to teach believers. I still haven't found anything written in Scripture concerning the "Lord's Supper" and unbelievers. Different people can understand this silence in different ways, but we can't ignore that there is silence.

-Alan

Brandon said...

Nathan-
Since you know me so well you'll appreciate this. I've written about 5 different responses and erased them all before posting...I'm trying not to come across the wrong way and I do want to talk about this. (you know how strong my gift of mercy is!)LOL!

On that last post, I had the same thought Alan mentioned. I was thinking back to Jesus and the disciples and I think it's interesting that Jesus serves Judas The Lord's Supper and reveals who he really was at the same meal...according to Matthew's account He actually confronted Judas before He served him.

That's a pretty big obstacle to overcome. And the context of both the 1Cor 10 and 1Cor 11 references would also fail to (in my opinion) clearly say that unbelievers or the children of believers should not participate in communion.

Also, I do like using other sources and materials, but for this topic I'm mainly wanting to use scripture alone to see what it has to say (or not say) about communion. Not to try to discredit the authors you quoted or criticize you for quoting them. :-)

Speaking of silence Alan-
If we, as believers, are to partake of The Lord's Supper, then obviously this is something our children would be exposed to. If our children partaking of The Lord's Supper prior to their faith in Christ would cause them to be sick or die, wouldn't scripture clearly warn us about that danger? To me, that would be a major omission in the instructions we do have regarding communion. That's another area of silence that cannot be ignored.

Blessings,
Brandon

Lew A said...

If Hammett is correct (and I believe he is) then the Lord's Supper is really a fellowship meal. If that is the case, then Alan's comment, "The act of eating and drinking along does not constitute partaking in the Lord's Supper" applies to more than just this verse. The last time I partook of the Lord's Supper at a Baptist church there was no signs of fellowship, however there were signs of waiting to go home. Perhaps we should move towards actual food and fellowship during the Lord's Supper, and then revisit the topic of allowing unbelievers after we've started to do it properly.

By the way, if we are eating and drinking together to "proclaim the Lord's death until He comes" and an unbeliever wants to participate in that. I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. Then again, I don't know many unbelievers who want to proclaim anything true about Jesus, so this may be a non-issue altogether.

God's Glory,
Lew

Brandon said...

I agree Lew, what we see done in churches today under the name communion is a far cry from what it should be. A flat bread wafer and a thimble of grape juice with basically no fellowship...honestly, how many unbelievers would REALLY want to participate in that? You've brought up some excellent points that I need to think about more.

Blessings,
Brandon