Litmus tests for various Christian groups

[ken_sylvania]

My experience, in virtually every kind of human relationship, is that close relationships require effort, require time, require understanding, require communication, require trust. Relationships with other Christians are the same. If I've only just met someone, it takes time and communication to begin to understand that person and build a relationship with him. I find it impossible to bring someone I've just met into that close inner circle of trust and mutual understanding. Now, that doesn't mean we can't fellowship together. It doesn't mean we can't encourage one another in following Christ. But we really don't know each other much at all at that point.

Communion, as I believe Jesus intends for it to be practiced, is to be among a group of people who do share a close bond - a group of people committed to washing one another's feet in their spiritual lives, a group of people committed to sharing in Christ's sacrificial blood. It is simply a fact of human existence that I cannot share a close mutual fellowship with twenty thousand people. But I can choose to take time for the brethren in my local congregation, to be there for them, to take the time that it takes to build a close bond with them. Communion is not just a commemoration of Jesus' broken body and shed blood, but also a reminder of how we are in this together.

While the Scriptures don't tell us how communion must be done, I would suggest that the pattern Jesus gave us lends itself more toward "close" communion than toward the idea that sharing the bread and wine should be freely with any person who names the name of Christ.

We know that as Jesus' earthly ministry drew toward its close he had many followers - many who believed in him. Perhaps still a small group in comparison to the crowds gathering in Jerusalem, but certainly more than twelve. And yet, Jesus had a close circle of disciples who were much closer to Him than the rest of His followers. And among those twelve, a smaller group who seem to have been even closer.

When it came time to initiate the first communion, Jesus didn't choose a location where a large group of his disciples could gather. The participants invited to this communion were not random. They were his close friends, those who had demonstrated their dedication to following him. Although Jesus in his perfect knowledge knew that Judas Iscariot was a traitor, yet Judas Iscariot was up to that point demonstrating perfect fidelity as far as human eye could know, and so Judas was included. I would hope that none of us would believe that because Jesus did not invite His remaining followers to this communion service He was therefore judging them as not being His followers.

I'm not sure there is a better way than to follow the pattern Jesus demonstrated.

Thanks for helping me understand your thinking and I can see where you are coming from. It isn't as clear to me that Jesus teaching the 12 communion so they could disciple others is meant as guidance for how the church practices it. Why wouldn't, if we were to follow that pattern, communion be relegated to only 12? Or at least a similar number?

It does also seem like a worthy point, to me, that Jesus didn't exclude Judas. All present were invited to the communion table.

I know some people see a special significance in the number "twelve". I don't think there's anything magical about it.

I would be interested in hearing you explain the Biblical rationale or pattern demonstrating that communion should be shared at a "lowest common denominator" level as opposed to a close group.

It does also seem like a worthy point, to me, that Jesus didn't exclude Judas. All present were invited to the communion table.

I think this framing is inaccurate by it's failure to recognize that the entire event was an "invitation only" event. That point would be more relevant to argue for communion as a private service than to argue that all who attend a public service should be invited to the communion table.

[Soloist]

I had some friends that felt strongly that the Mennonites were excluding believers by their boxes. These friends refused to take communion with me because they didn’t know me well enough.
The longer I’ve seen the debate, the more convinced I am that there needs to be some common agreement in place to reduce conflict and actually counter the box argument. Why would it? Because it’s obvious and specific versus ambiguous language like my friends.

[Southerner]

Would those of you who want broad communion be comfortable communing with someone who doesn't think we should wash each other's feet?

The Swiss Brethren and early Hutterites didn't do it. Is it something you feel is important to practice?

Our Lord told us, "If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet." Early Anabaptists may have missed some things, but that doesn't mean we can't follow scriptural teachings.

Given that our Lord did it right after instituting the Lord's Supper, it seems very appropriate to wash each other's feet after partaking of communion. I consider this as integral a part of the practice as requiring someone to be baptised before they may commune (which is far less clear of a teaching from scripture).

Ok, interesting perspective. It's not practiced by the Hutterites today and I don't know why the Mennonites started doing it...I assume they began doing it after they migrated to America.

[Southerner]

I had some friends that felt strongly that the Mennonites were excluding believers by their boxes.

"By their boxes"?

[Soloist]

I had some friends that felt strongly that the Mennonites were excluding believers by their boxes.

"By their boxes"?

Effectively standards or membership.

[Ernie]

All present were invited to the communion table.

Whether or not this was actually the case has been debated by scholars for nearly 2 millennium.

[MattY]

The first Communion was not a church service; it occurred at a Passover meal, which were normally home-based rituals and not synagogue services; in this case it was a rabbi having a meal with his disciples. It was on the final night before Jesus' death, before the coming of the Holy Spirit and before the founding of the church with its structures and so on. If Judas was there, and I believe he was, that seems relevant. More relevant is how it was done after Pentecost. We see those who had been baptized and added to the faith - thousands of people, including visitors to Jerusalem - fellowshipping and breaking bread together. They did not need to have close personal knowledge of each other's lives (nowhere does the Bible require this - it requires individuals to examine themselves and not others) to accept each other's faith and commune with one another.

[JohnH]

The first Communion was not a church service; it occurred at a Passover meal, which were normally home-based rituals and not synagogue services; in this case it was a rabbi having a meal with his disciples. It was on the final night before Jesus' death, before the coming of the Holy Spirit and before the founding of the church with its structures and so on. If Judas was there, and I believe he was, that seems relevant. More relevant is how it was done after Pentecost. We see those who had been baptized and added to the faith - thousands of people, including visitors to Jerusalem - fellowshipping and breaking bread together. They did not need to have close personal knowledge of each other's lives (nowhere does the Bible require this - it requires individuals to examine themselves and not others) to accept each other's faith and commune with one another.

In other words, the bog-standard evangelical view of communion.

How does the fruit from doing this actually look in actual practice?

[Ernie]

thousands of people, including visitors to Jerusalem - fellowshipping and breaking bread together. They did not need to have close personal knowledge of each other's lives to accept each other's faith and commune with one another.

What proof do we have of this?
How do we know that the thousands all communed together and not in small gatherings?
How do we know that they did not do some sort of questioning of each other or expecting people to give a testimony of walking in faithfulness and holiness with God before communing with each other?
I think your arguments are arguments from silence.

(nowhere does the Bible require this - it requires individuals to examine themselves and not others)

Again, how do we know that they didn't have some sort of accountability before communing with each other. Just because the Bible does not require this doesn't mean that they didn't do it.
We simply do not know.
Paul does say who they were to not eat with and who they should not associate with. That requires some judgment.

[Soloist]

Paul does say who they were to not eat with and who they should not associate with. That requires some judgment.

A classic mistake which muddles this as well is the assumption that it’s referring to communion only