Last night we touched on an interesting situation in acceptance within church.The scene was of someone from another religion, in this case a Hindu, coming forward for communion at a service. Someone immediately said they would not give communion to someone who was not baptised. My immediate reaction to that was a ‘no’ as that would exclude many Christians I know, not least many in denominations like the Salvation Army.
But what of the situation … should the table be open to all, or should we have rules that people need to meet before they can be included and take part? It’s an interesting question and it was clear we were not easy with the situation and had too little time to talk it through properly.
During the short chat I thought of Cornelius from Acts 10. All the rules said this man should not be included. Peter was breaking the rules and customs by even going into his house! Yet … this man, and others present, were filled with the Holy Spirit when all the rules said they should not have been.
God chose to break the man-made rules in their attempt to box Him into a containable, controllable form! As a result, Peter suggested they should baptise Cornelius and his household and visitors as God had already worked!
Maybe sometimes our ‘rules’ need to be considered in the light of compassion and what God seems to be doing.
The Shiny Headed Prophet 
We have given communion to a Sikh before. We should be inclusive not exclusive. I think a lot of people make too much of communion. Jesus told us to eat and drink (communion) in memory of Him. The new testament church seems to have seen it as sharing a meal together in His Name. The problem comes when we abuse it, when we show clearly un-christlike attitudes – such as greediness! I have more of a problem with people taking communion when their heart isn’t in it – eg. joking around.
Graham, you say that “people make too much of Communion”. You will realise of course that the Canon of the New testament wasn’t finalised til about 400AD, by which time many early Christians had made “too much” of Communion… Ignatius of Antioch (one of the earliest Christian Martyrs, and quite possibly a disciple of the Apostle John)wrote:”Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]). Then how about the following early Christians comments,Justin Martyr”We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]). Irenaeus”If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]). “He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).There are many examples I could give, but these may help to show how seriously those who were only one or two generations away from Jesus took Communion.We also know that the early Church sent the non baptised out of the Church before the Eucharistic prayer…. which is relevent to Rob’s post.. however I accept that sometimes the pastoral situation has to overide doctrine… but that doesn’t make the doctrine wrong.
I agree in part with what you say David, as I do in part with Graham; but I wonder if you both make the underlying assumptions in your comments that the early church was both correct in its practice and uniform in that practice.We are unable to deduce from biblical and historical documents the clear practice of communion in the early church. There is evidence to suggest that it happened every Sunday, and likewiose that it occured just once a year. The liklihood is that some followed one practice and some another – a bit like baptism, with some baptising children regularly and others not.The practice of sending the unbaptised out of the church for communion seems to sit very against the inclusive approach of Jesus who speaks quite harshly on a number of occasions to those who attempt to exclude on the basis of age, sex, social standing or theolgical understanding.I think the assumptions we have made throughout history that there was unity in the church in its uniformity may well be inaccurate. Due to poor communication, and the disatnces involved, diversity is more likely to have been common. Unity in diversity was the reality of the situation.For me, this liturgy sums upsomething of what I am trying to express:Come, not because you are strong,but because you are week.Come, not because any goodness of your own gives you the right to come,But becasue you need mercy and help.Come, because you love the Lord a little,and you would like to love him more.Come because He loves you and gave Himself to you.Communion is a remembrance meal with undoubtedly some mystery (I certainly cannot go as far as Ignatius), and its a meal of remembrance to which all are invited.