COMMUNION

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · May 22, 1879

MEANING by this term the act of coming around the Lord's table, and partaking of the sacred emblems of the broken body and spilt blood of our Saviour, the queries arise, Who are proper guests at the Lord's table? Assuming ourselves to be such, with whom is it proper for us to commune? Is it proper for us to invite other people to commune with us? Should we practise what is called close communion? If so, do we thereby say to others that we are better than they? Does not the act signify that we fellowship those with whom we thus commune?

The subject opens an extensive field of investigation upon which volumes have already been written. The aim of these lines is simply to inquire if there are not some plain truisms which underlie the whole question, and to try to ascertain what they are.

1. The statements of the Bible on the subject of communion presuppose a definite organization of the church; and organization supposes order. Without these to draw some lines, and establish some boundaries, there could be no restriction nor discrimination. The Christian pasture would be like the boundless prairies of the West, over which all classes at all times may roam at pleasure. But it is not so set forth in the word of God. The church is a well-defined body, distinguished from all others, and to which, by complying with the distinguishing characteristics, others may be “added;” things are “set in order” therein; “elders” and “deacons” are “appointed” and “ordained;” some are said to “have rule,” and others to “obey;” and provision is made whereby those who “walk disorderly” may be “marked” and set aside. All this is too clearly set forth in the Scriptures to be questioned for a moment. But this cannot be done without organization, proper officers, a list of membership, and a complete record of the reception, dismissal, or expulsion of members, and all other proceedings.

2. The church being thus set in order, some have a right there, others have not. Paul speaks of an altar of which some have no right to eat, and of a cup of which some cannot drink; he speaks of being unequally yoked with unbelievers, and of the fact that no agreement, concord, or fellowship, can exist between righteousness and unrighteousness, light and darkness, Christ and Belial, the believer and the infidel, the temple of God and idols; and he adds, “Ye are the temple of the living God.” 2 Cor. 6: 14–18. Whether all these expressions refer to the subject of communion or not, they lay down the principle that should govern us in this matter.

3. Who, then, may come to the Lord's table? We inquire for those in reference to whom there can be no question. And all will agree in the answer that those may come who have sought to come to God through our Lord Jesus Christ. But this involves the steps of repentance toward God, and faith in Christ; and repentance embraces a knowledge of God's law, conviction by the law, a turning away from transgression of the law, to a compliance with its precepts; then the acceptance of Christ as our sacrifice, mediator, and only Saviour, and an earnest and sincere prayer to God for the pardon of our sins through this gracious provision of his dear Son. In short, he is entitled to Christ's table, who is returning to God by the path of obedience, looking to Christ to atone for, and cancel, his past acts of rebellion and transgression; or, as expressed in the precious message going forth at this time, he who keeps “the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.” And all this is to be, of course, in accordance with the best knowledge we have of what the law requires. But every S. D. Adventist well knows that the fourth commandment requires the observance of the seventh day; and that he who does not keep that day is either consciously, or unconsciously breaking the law of God. There is no question, then, on this point but that all Christian commandment-keepers may properly commune with one another.

4. We now come to the real question, How far may we deviate from this rule? There are all gradations of character between the two extreme points, one of which is represented by the most hardened sinner, and the other by the most exemplary Christian. There are some whom we cannot fellowship. Where is the dividing line between the two classes? How far up must the wicked man come to be within the pale of Christian communion? and how far down from his standpoint may the Christian extend the hand of fellowship? Is there here a sliding scale, the upper grades of which are preferable, but the lower admissible? We have spoken of the unquestionable platform of Christian communion; namely, an intelligent observance of the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. Why should there be any deviation from that? Communion is an act by which we show that we fellowship those with whom we commune. Can we fellowship those who are not keeping the commandments of God, that is to say, declare to them that we are satisfied with their course and approve of their position? If so, we say that the commandments of God are of no account, and that it is to us a matter of indifference whether they keep them or not. And if God has intrusted to us a work of trying to defend his Sabbath, and to carry on a work of reform among our fellow-men in this respect, preparatory to the coming of his Son, there is no way in which we could more effectually betray that trust.

It is not saying to others, I am better than thou; it is paying due deference to God's law as he has made it known. But it may be said that many who keep the first day are as yet uninformed on the subject of the Sabbath. Would it not then be well to wait till they are informed? But they are good, honest, devoted people, and would be saved should their probation end where they now are. In very many cases this is undoubtedly true. Can we not then fellowship a person whom the Lord would save? Let us extend the thought a little further. If the person is so good a Christian, and would be saved in his present uninformed and hence unconsciously-disobedient state, why not leave him there? Why try to show him any further truth? No one would consider this right. If God has given us clearer light, it is our duty to make it known, and try to lead others to it, however good Christians they may have been before. And though, before the light comes to them, God could save them, this does not release us from our duty. And does not this work properly, with us, come in first of all? But suppose the person makes application to partake with us of the emblems? A due sense of propriety should restrain him from this till further acquaintance. But if he has not been baptized, but designs and engages to be the first opportunity, and has never kept the Sabbath, but promises henceforward to do so, should he be excluded? In such a case, there would seem to be but little, if any, objection, the determination being accepted for the act itself.

We would not be understood in this as sanctioning the course of those who refuse to come to the Lord's table, because some one has said something or done something which they do not like. Our personal likes and dislikes are not the test in this matter. Nor is it left to the feelings of those who in little things and in non-essential matters would be conscience for all others, and who, unless their standard is adopted, draw off and neglect this important Christian ordinance to their own loss. We speak of those great features of conduct which determine Christian character, touching our duty to God, the great law-giver, and Christ our Saviour. What other standard can there be?