What follows is a brief explanation of my church’s doctrine and practice of communion. I wouldn’t call this an argument—it’s really just a partial explanation. I will need to expand it as time permits.
This topic can get quite technical and emotional, and many pages have been dedicated to fighting over it. I find most Christians are content to trust and follow their leaders in this regard. If that is you, the length of this may seem a bit unnecessary and you may only find it mildly helpful.
This paragraph on “communicant membership” comes from our church’s constitution. We crafted it from other churches’ constitutions in the first year of East River’s life. It reads:
Under the headship of Christ, the responsibility for overseeing the administration of the Sacraments remains with the elders. Sacraments belong to the Church and not to families. All baptized members, including children, are admitted to the table by elders on the basis of a credible profession of faith. The credibility of their faith is to be determined through an elder interview involving at least two session members. Parents are welcome to sit in on the interview. There is no age requirement to be admitted to the table. All baptized children are subject to the nurture and discipline of the Church, along with their parents.
The term communicant refers to those who have been communed, meaning welcomed to the Lord’s Supper by the church. Some scoff at the very idea of “communicant membership” because they claim it creates two classes of members. They argue that the existence of non-communicant members is akin to having a class of partial members. The idea is that if a child is baptized, they automatically receive all the benefits of membership, including access to the Lord’s Supper. The claim then would be that Christian children are being denied something that rightly belongs to them.
All churches that allow infant baptism (also known as paedobaptism) have de facto non-communicant members. The reason for this is simple: infants can’t chew bread or drink wine until they are weaned. Therefore, you will have church members who are baptized but not partaking in the Lord’s Supper due to a lack of ability. With this in mind, I’d argue that non-communicant membership is “baked in” by God into the very nature of the Lord’s Supper. The elements, wine and bread, aren’t incidental. Neither are the means by which they are received. The individual is to “take and eat” and to “take and drink.” Unlike adult converts, children can’t automatically do this. It would be disingenuous to say that the Lord’s Table is being withheld from those who lack the physical ability to partake. Once they are able to commune with the body, they will be welcome to do so.
However, all Christians believe that communing isn’t merely a matter of the individual’s physical ability. That’s because the Lord’s Supper isn’t a mere meal like those we have in our homes. It’s a meal set apart from everyday use as “holy” and is done accordingly in the context of gathered worship. It’s a spiritual meal that provides spiritual nourishment. Consequently, you can’t rightly participate in the meal just because you possess the ability to eat and a desire to consume the elements. This meal requires an inward faith that comprehends the words of institution Christ gave us, and then Paul in 1 Corinthians 11. Just as a physical ability is “baked into” the nature of the elements, so is a spiritual ability “baked into” the words of institution. And, again, once an individual is able to commune with the body, they will be welcome to do so.
It is the nature of children to imitate their parents. Years ago, I recall my three-year-old son coming out to mow the lawn with his toy lawnmower when I mowed the lawn with a real lawnmower. He wanted to be like me, but he wasn’t mature enough to mow the lawn. Naturally, a child will want to eat and drink just as their parents and older siblings do, and the rest of the communicant members do. That ability and desire to eat, however, is only one-half of it due to the spiritual and ecclesiastical nature of the meal. Participation in the Lord’s Supper isn’t merely outward actions. Consequently, merely imitating outward actions isn’t true participation. It requires the individual to be able, by their faith, to also participate in the spiritual component of the meal. This, as it relates to baptized infants, the Lord’s Supper belongs to them but is held in trust until they can reach out in faith and partake of it. Nothing is withheld from. Quite the opposite, it is held for them by the church.
The sacraments, baptism and the Lord's Supper, belong to the household of faith, that is, the Church. So, just as the Lord’s Supper is a spiritual meal, it also belongs to a spiritual family. God, in His wisdom, willed that the visible manifestation of this spiritual family would be overseen by elders and pastors. These men are to be tested, confirmed, and appointed as able to fulfill their central duties. Those duties can be summarized as rightly preaching the Word, administering the sacraments, and practicing church discipline. Through these duties, they, as representatives of the visible church, include and exclude people from the spiritual community and its benefits.
The offices of elders and pastors are representative. Think of our Congress. Only Congress can declare war, and if they do, we, the people, are at war. Declaring war can’t be done by an individual citizen; it would be seen as an act of rebellion or insurrection. It’s a grave matter and, therefore, set aside for capable representatives (theoretically, anyhow) that we as a nation choose.
Similarly, the sacraments belong to the church but are administered by her officers. This isn’t because these men have a different spiritual status in terms of access to God. All Christians have direct access to God through Christ, our sole mediator. This doesn’t mean that all hierarchical distinctions are eliminated. For example, a Christian father and his Christian seven-year-old son have the exact same access to God. However, that equal access doesn’t eliminate the father’s unique headship over his son. Just as there is an order in the natural household, so there is in the household of faith. Hence, “the responsibility for overseeing the administration of the Sacraments remains with the elders.”
Many errors result from collapsing the spiritual family (the church) into the natural family (the household) and vice versa. These two institutions overlap but have distinct roles. The church helps equip all members to fulfill their special duties, and all church members have a responsibility to admonish one another. However, it is the special responsibility of the father, not the elders and pastors, to raise his children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. I’m not spanking my church members’ kids. Similarly, it is the special responsibility of the elders and pastors to disciple and discipline the visible church, not an individual father. In other words, a father may not commune or excommunicate a church member. This is why we say that the “sacraments belong to the Church and not to families.” Just as it is wrong for church officers to usurp the authority of the home, so it is wrong for fathers to usurp the authority vested in the officers of a church.
Parents raise up their children in the Lord, part of which includes preparing them for the Lord’s table, and elders and pastors welcome those children to the table on the basis of a credible profession of faith. Credibility is always a matter of judgment. In our church, we ask four key questions, often with a few follow-ups:
Who is Jesus?
What did he die on the cross?
What are some sins for which he has forgiven you which you are thankful for?
Why do we take the Lord's supper?
We want children to partake of the Lord’s Supper as soon as they are able to do so by faith. While we judge with a judgment of charity, we are assessing their ability to participate. It’s not a matter of age but a matter of ability. Therefore, we have no age requirements. Essentially, a communicant member must be able to understand and obey these words, which we include in our liturgy every time we take the Lord’s Supper:
There is great benefit if you receive this meal with real repentance and a living faith. It will be to you a source of spiritual nourishment and further growth in Jesus Christ.
And yet there is potential danger if we come to this table in an unworthy manner.
So I must remind you this is a meal only for the covenant family of God.You must profess Christ as Lord to have God as Father.
You must be baptized in His name into the visible church.
And you must be living in line with these two facts.
Practically, that means you aren’t harboring any unrepentant sin in your heart and that you have demonstrated your submission to God by joining or actively seeking to join yourself to a biblical church and submitting yourself to the elders of that church.
Examine your conscience. Is this you? If not, remain seated this time around and please let us know how we can help you partake next time. (Emphasis added)
These words, which are said every week, warn of unworthy taking, require a professed faith, the ability to examine one's conscience, and point to the elders as those who invite (or bar) people to the table. These are the normal components mentioned in all Protestant confessions if they speak to the issue of communion. The Westminster Standards are quite explicit on the matter, which is the standards that guide our officers.
Our church, like most Reformed churches, has a mix of credobaptists and paedobaptists. While we would love to see children baptized as soon as possible, we don’t require families to go against their conscience. Most of the children are baptized while still in the single digits, and our elders’ interview for baptism is nearly identical to our interview for the Lord’s Table. The only difference is that we ask them to explain why we baptize.
Anyhow, all of what I’ve said up to this point informs our church’s particular means of administering the sacraments.
We purposely chose a very open and public manner of distributing the elements for pastoral reasons. After reading the words of institution and giving an exhortation, each individual member—man or woman, adult or child—receives the elements from their elders directly in front of the sanctuary. There is no additional layer. If they are communicant, they have a direct relationship with the church. Neither their husbands nor their fathers stand between them and the church. They are full members. Each member receives the elements in the same manner.
The entire congregation comes to the front, and we meet together at the table. As each individual receives the elements, the elders remind them, looking them directly in the eyes, that both the body and the blood of Jesus were broken and spilled for them. They then take the elements back to their seats. As members united in action, we take the elements as one body.
One reason we have the people come up and take the elements from the elders is to stress the relationship between the congregants and the church. It also allows us to see those who have decided not to take the Lord’s Supper for some personal reason. We can then follow up with them and help them work through whatever issue is troubling their conscience. It is one of the ways we keep an eye on the condition of our people’s hearts.
Again, this is an especially contentious issue because it concerns authority and children, which can get people spun up. Writing takes time. When I write things like this, people ask lots of questions, which requires me to write even more. I’m willing to do that, but it’ll take time. That’s why I often recommend books that someone else has already written. This annoys some people because they don’t really want to resources. They want to argue on social media. That’s not how I like to spend my time. So, I’ll post some recommended resources on this in the coming days.
I remember asking my pastor in college about why the church didn't allow communion to be taken apart from the leadership of the elders. This was while I was seeing many of my friends drawn to the idea of "house churches" and taking communion on your own.
Though he was Baptist, my pastor gave a great explanation that these ordinances (sacraments) should be observed in the context of the church - not just among individual members. I can look back and see how this instruction steered me away from the erroneous messages of the house church movement.
Thank you for this. Just one question to clarify. Do you only allow the membership of your church to participate in communion, regardless of who the visitor is and who may know them?