Many, if not all, Christian churches believe communion is to be strictly for Christians only. My church is one that agrees with the teaching that non-Christians should not take the bread and cup. When I asked a friend and tried to tell him there wasn't a Bible passage to support the church's beliefs toward communion, he said there is, and pointed me to 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 in order to back himself up:
"So anyone who eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord unworthily is guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. That is why you should examine yourself before eating the bread and drinking the cup. For if you eat the bread or drink the cup without honoring the body of Christ, you are eating and drinking God’s judgment upon yourself."
-- 1 Corinthians 11:27-29, NLT
I took communion almost every month from December 2007 through December 2009 as a non-Christian, and my friend told me I shouldn't have been taking it. I didn't take it for several years before then, as I did not feel comfortable in taking it.
What does your church believe? Is it okay for non-Christians to take communion?
Recommend
Comments (30)
I'm pretty much Atheist but if I go to church I take communion or else my dad would be like wtf. It's just a piece of bread so whatever.
I know a lot of churches offer communion only to those who have been baptized. However, they also offer blessings to those who do not wish to (or do not feel comfortable enough to) partake in communion. My SO is unbaptized but gladly accepts blessings.
Communion is only for believers. Does not matter if you are not baptized or a member of the church, if you are a Christian you can partake in communion.
we pass out the elements of the Lord's Supper, but we leave it up to the person. We have never policed it and whoever takes it takes it. Come to think of it, the only time I have worked as an usher, and been told to police it, was when I passed out voting slips when the church was voting to hire a new pastor. Then I was told who was not a member, and told not to give them a vote slip as only church members can vote.
My local church breaks with our denomination in that we serve the elements of Communion to everyone, just as ProudToBeAChristianFruitcake said. We believe it is Jesus who invites us to the table, so I am unwilling to play the role of Jesus' bouncer. More personally, when I rejected God (after being a Christian), I still ate and drank during Communion. God used Communion to bring me back to him.
The "unworthy manner" mentioned in 1 Cor 11 is not regarding being a Christian or not. It is more about social and economic division within the church. Some go without while the others are satisfied.at my church it was left up to the individual. but as a non-Christian, i refuse to take Communion. why would one participate in a ritual that is meaningless to them?
I think we also need to define terms. Please correct me if I am mistaken.
Communion = Mass. Participating in mass, conveys Grace to you from God. It gives you more of God's grace than you had before.
Lord's Supper = memorial service. It is the bread and the wine (grape juice) of the passover meal. We do not take it to get grace, but we take it to remeber Christ and the body and blood that He shed for us.
The reason we need to define terms is simple. of Communion gives grace, than only Christians can and should partake. If it is a memorial meal and no more, than it does not matter who partakes. anyone can remember anyone.
it seems to me that not letting someone partake of communion who wants it/is there for it, is just more of the same: Christians telling others what they can and cannot do...acting like they are the police of others. Just my view....but I say the decision should be G-d, not a person. And if that person is not a true follower, they can bring G-d's judgement upon themselves by doing so.
To Catholics, the Eucharist is reserved only for baptized Catholics who are of the age of reason and have confessed any grave sins prior to receiving the Lord. The reason for this is not to exclude anyone, but--in keeping with the concept of only receiving worthily--those who receive the Eucharist should not receive if they do not accept transubstantiation or do not accept the the priest can consecrate the host and turn it to the body and blood of Christ. One who disagrees with this position needs to honestly ask themselves why would I want to receive when I don't actually believe in what I am participating?
Now, that being said, the priest is not checking credentials. It is up to us to receive honestly. Maybe some are not honest, but that's between them and God.
In addition to my sister @scrambledmegsntoast@xanga, I would also add that the Catholic teaching of only permitting those in communion with the Church to receive the Eucharist is rooted also in covenant. Those baptized in the Catholic Church, whether of their own choice or the choice of their parents when they were infants, confess the Catholic faith and what Catholics have believed (and suffered death for) for two thousand years. Of particular relevance here is the belief that the Eucharist becomes the actual, living Body and Blood of Christ. By their baptism, and thus by Christ's own Blood the Catholic enters into a covenant with God and also into the Body of Christ, the Church, His Bride, the communion.
When we eat his flesh and drink his blood (John 6:31-68), the Church/Bride becomes one flesh with the Bridegroom, coming into full participation in His Mystical Body. It is the source and summit of our whole faith, and it is a foretaste (literally!) of that referred to in Revelations 19:7-8 "For the wedding day of the Lamb has begun, his bride has made herself ready. She was allowed to wear a bright, clean linen garment." (The linen represents the righteous deeds of the holy ones.)" The Eucharist, when the Bride and Bridegroom become one flesh in a mystical way, is the renewal of the covenant made at baptism (hence the bright linen garment which we clothe the newly baptized with, and which is stained by sin and is washed in the blood of the Lamb, as @scrambledmegsntoast@xanga was getting at), and thus if there is someone who is not in this communion, who has not entered into this covenant, they should not receive.
This is not to say that we exclude people; certainly that is the technical function, but that is not the intention. When the Catholic Church restricts reception of the Eucharist it is doing so to prevent anyone who is not a part of that covenant, who is not "wed," or even those wed who, by grave sin, have in a sense committed spiritual "adultery," from making a terrible mistake (1 Cor. 11:27).
As in marriage, where there is first a covenant established, and then union, the same can be seen in the Catholic Church's Eucharistic teaching (which marriage, in one sense, is intended to emulate and symbolize). So those who are asked not to receive the Eucharist in the Catholic Church would be those who have not entered (at least fully) into that covenant, or those who have seriously broken it by committing a grave sin and not seeking forgiveness for it (hence the tradition of offering confession before every Mass, to provide the opportunity).
I hope that helps; this is a way I've found it helpful to articulate it for some, since the concept of marriage is fairly understood. If anyone wants to read a terrific book on the subject, Scott Hahn does a brilliant job in "The Lamb's Supper," taking the Mass and analyzing it Biblically through the lens of Revelations.
i don't think the issue of non-believers participating in the Communion was ever raised at our Church, but i do not think it would be a problem.
after all... why WOULD a non-believer partake Communion? if he doesn't believe in Christ, then he's just eating bread and drinking wine / juice; if he does believe in Christ... well, then he's a Christian.
**shrug**
my 2 cents.
@zenichka@xanga - I suppose in some places it wouldn't be a problem, whereas in the Catholic Church (and denominations with a similar Eucharistic theology) it is never just bread and wine, whether you believe in it or not.
@Ancient_Scribe@xanga - even if i don't believe in Christ and transubstantiation?
(i do believe in Him and although my Church doesn't support the idea of literal transubstantiation, we consider the "non-literal" one to take place every time we share the bread and wine / juice)
Since the church is supposed to be Christ-based, we should also be Word/Bible-based because the Bible is the Word of God, & Jesus is God. So if any church is telling you anything that is not of God's Word, they are not truly following God & are leading you astray. I agree with your friends words, BECAUSE he based it on the Word of God in 1 Corinthians. As Christians, we can't listen to people just because they say something is right or wrong, even in the church; we must take every advice given & weigh it with the Word of God.
@zenichka@xanga - Even if you don't believe in what the Church has articulated as transubstantiation, that does not change the reality of what appears to be bread and wine being the actual Body and Blood of Christ. Since it is Christ's Word, by the power of the Holy Spirit, that achieves this transformation, and not the priest and not the belief of the receiving Christian, our own personal beliefs, sins, shortcomings, etc. do not affect it at all. It is, after all, the same Word and Spirit that spoke creation into existence, transforming the vast "nothingness" into "everything," so bread and wine into His own Body and Blood are not that much more difficult, I'd say! So even if, say (God-forbid!) a Eucharistic Host fell to the ground and a dog ate it, even though that dog does not believe in Christ or any Eucharistic theology whatsoever, it doesn't change the fact that it consumed the Body of Christ. That is why when, after everyone at Mass has received the Eucharist, we take what remains and reserve it, locked, in a tabernacle, not only to protect Him (since He has deigned to become so vulnerable) but also to reverence Him.
@Ancient_Scribe@xanga - hmm, interesting thoughts. thanks Jacob.
@zenichka@xanga - You are welcome! I'm more than happy to share what I can of the Church's two-thousand year-old treasury.
The Eucharist in particular is cherished, especially since so many of my brothers and sisters were martyred and persecuted for their belief in Him, even by other Christians in more recent times.
@Ancient_Scribe@xanga -
At my church it is always up the the believer whether or not they feel they can participate in the breaking of bread and drinking of wine. The Pastor always asks each individual to examine himself in several minutes of silent prayer first before partaking of communion, and they even offer elder prayer if needed.
There have been a few Sundays I have not felt right in my relationship with the Lord and the sturggles personally I go endure and anger/resentment I have held and knew enough to hold back on communion that Sunday until I was in a right place with Jesus. It is never something to be ashamed of and no one looks down on me. It is between me and God.
Not even all Christians should partake of the elements. The Christian must recognize the significance of the elements, what it means about his or her relationship with Christ, before partaking of the elements. Anybody who eats of the bread or drinks of the cup not being in right relationship with Him dishonors what the sacrifice they symbolize.
Furthermore, this relationship with Christ binds all believers, who are the body of Christ. We cannot fail to love our brothers and sisters and also be in right relationship with God; this is clear in 1 John.
Misunderstanding of it. If you're doing it to just get something to eat and drink or are against Christianity, etc, THEN you are taking the judgment into yourself, NOT simply "I haven't made the pledge to a church and therefore, cannot receive communion."
My dad took communion at a wedding once, although he referred to it as prashad, the blessed food (usually nuts, fruit, or sweets) Hindus offer to God before they eat it themselves.
When I mentioned this to my one friend in passing though, she freaked out on me, going on about how it's a sin, yadda yadda, blah blah, something about hell. I told her that I thought that though to a Christian it is/symbolizes the blood and body of Christ, we all saw it nothing more than prashad. And under no condition are you supposed to turn down prashad. (though I do it quite a bit...)
@zenichka@xanga - @Always_Thinking - @Pcgecko85@xanga - @ELIZerson@xanga - @soy_esteban@xanga - @too_pretty_to_die@xanga - @NotWhereIThought@xanga - @Faerie_In_Combat_Boots@xanga -
According to the Bible, taking communion is remembrance of Jesus' death in our place, and must be remembered in the taking of the bread and juice/wine. "This do in remembrance of me."
Also, according to the Bible, many people took the communion incorrectly, and many were sick, and some have fallen asleep. (Paul) sleep = death for those not in the know about Jesus-isms.
Human nature: if everybody else is doing it, most people will naturally follow course (hence peer pressure effects and specifically the candid camera type show that had all the actors in a room supposedly interviewing for a job with their outside clothes off and wearing boxers and T.V. friendly underwear, and having people off the street come in and feel uncomfortable in their clothes, and some of them start to wonder if they should strip. Nobody said they should, or why, but that's what seemed the expected thing, so... and no, I don't remember if anybody actually undressed... that ep was in the 80's, I think.)
Our church allows anyone to partake, but we tell what the bread and juice (not wine for us) is symbolic for, and view it as: If you know it's right, do it, and if you don't know it's wrong for you, it shouldn't have a bad effect. I sometimes wonder about this last assumption based on Paul's writing.
As to Christians not feeling 'right' in taking communion, we had an elder whose wife would regularly go this route. My personal view is that the only reason not to take communion as ORDERED by Jesus is sin, and the only thing to do with sin is ask forgiveness and repent. Then there is no sin, and the order stands, so take communion.
@ELIZerson@xanga - Well, I think it that way too, but most Catholic churches do not allow members of other branches to receive Communion, and Orthodox churches too.
@MDrabing83@xanga - I completely agree that the Church should be based on the Word of God, I feel the need to note two things.
First of all, her friend's argument was based on the Word of God, yes, but there are multiple interpretations of that passage, for starters, there is the interpretation of "unworthy" as "non-Christian" (as her friend holds, and you by proxy) and there is the interpretation of "unworthy" as regarding "social and economic division within the church" (thank you@soy_esteban@xanga). Which view is correct is not within the scope of this reply, but my point remains: there are multiple interpretations of any given passage and to accept outright the first one you hear because a Bible passage was cited is dangerous.
Secondly, complicating the first issue is the fact that "the Bible is the Word of God, but not the words of God" (Howard Van Til, The Fourth Day). It's been copied and translated and paraphrased enough that even if you believe the doctrine of the inerrancy of scripture, which only applies to the original manuscripts, what we read is clearly not word-for-word what God said, and should not be read as though it is.