Litmus tests for various Christian groups

[Ernie]

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

Regardless of whether it was meals or the eucharist or both, they were supposed to make a judgment.

My point was that Paul did not say that each person should decide whether or not the group should "censor" them.

[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.

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

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

I'm not in favor of fully open communion either. I was just poking against a rigid structure of closed communion and "counsel meetings" as being the scriptural model, not endorsing the polar opposite.

[ohio jones]

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.

To summarize the GAMEO article, the washing of feet was practiced generally in Holland, North Germany, Prussia, and Russia, and among the Marpeck Network of Churches. In some contexts it was used as a means of hospitality for travelers or visiting ministers, rather than among all members at a formal service. It was not practiced generally in Switzerland, South Germany, and among the Hutterites. The Amish adopted it because they adopted Dordrecht, and some of the non-Amish immigrants to America picked it up along the way through their interactions with the Dutch. Mennonites who weren't practicing this ~150 years ago were influenced to do so by the Amish-Mennonites who merged with them.

[MattY]

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.

The Bible doesn't say they *did* do those things either. That's exactly my point. I concede that I used arguments from silence. But my intention was not making arguments *for* open communion, but against a rigid structure of closed communion as a necessity, as if closed communion (where the only people you can commune with are those in your "inner circle of trust and mutual understanding") is held to be Scriptural. That seems to be adding to the demands of Scripture.

Sometimes when I poke at traditional practices my arguments might sound more extreme than my actual position. (I think that's an INTP thing).

But also, think about what Acts 2 represents spiritually. Thematically and spiritually, Acts 2 is a reversal of Babel. In Babel, the nations were divided and couldn't understand each other due to their sin and rebellion. In Acts 2, this is reversed: Due to the power of the Holy Spirit, walls of division are broken down. In Christ, they are united and have fellowship with each other despite having different backgrounds, languages, ways of thinking and so on. If they can then only have communion with each other on the basis of being very familiar with each other's struggles and having that knowledge and friendship with each other, thus dividing into many smaller cliques for the purpose of communion, that would seem to be throwing back up the barriers that Jesus broke down. It doesn't fit with the narrative. I'm not arguing for open communion (where it is passed around and anyone in attendance can take the elements if desired), but for a form of close communion that is broader than just the people you know personally. The bonds of our union in Christ are greater than that and unite us to people who are quite different from us with a deeper union than we may even know.

[Ernie]

I'm not arguing for open communion (where it is passed around and anyone in attendance can take the elements if desired), but for a form of close communion that is broader than just the people you know personally. The bonds of our union in Christ are greater than that and unite us to people who are quite different from us with a deeper union than we may even know.

I am in agreement. If I know that people are in accountable church situations and if they testify of walking in faithfulness, holiness and love, I am glad to commune with them.

[joshuabgood]

I'm not arguing for open communion (where it is passed around and anyone in attendance can take the elements if desired), but for a form of close communion that is broader than just the people you know personally. The bonds of our union in Christ are greater than that and unite us to people who are quite different from us with a deeper union than we may even know.

I am in agreement. If I know that people are in accountable church situations and if they testify of walking in faithfulness, holiness and love, I am glad to commune with them.

I am basically in agreement with this also.

[barnhart]

I'm not arguing for open communion (where it is passed around and anyone in attendance can take the elements if desired), but for a form of close communion that is broader than just the people you know personally. The bonds of our union in Christ are greater than that and unite us to people who are quite different from us with a deeper union than we may even know.

I am in agreement. If I know that people are in accountable church situations and if they testify of walking in faithfulness, holiness and love, I am glad to commune with them.

I am basically in agreement with this also.

I think there are multiple areas in ecclesiology that are not entirely clear from scripture. When we fill in these areas with humility, careful tradition and are open to reconsideration, I think some difference is not a tragedy. When those traditions ossify to stone, we fall pragmatically into the position of the Catholics or Orthodox where established practice becomes ongoing revelation.