Unity in the Meal: The Case Against Open Communion in the Methodist Tradition

Philips makes a strong rebuttal within the Methodist tradition as well against open communion. He argues concerning “converting ordinance” that Wesley’s practice and writings demonstrate that the table must be disciplined to whom is allowed to participate. Wesley did not believe that Christians must be certain of their justification, rather that they be repentant and seeking of forgiveness. In other words, to receive the sacrament a person must be cognizant of their depravity (Philips, 30). To be self-aware requires potential participants commit themselves to genuine self-assessment and repentance. Holy Communion requires participation in the body of Christ, which includes baptism. Philips also disregards the notion that by allowing non-believers to take the Supper they become more likely to come to faith (Philips, 32). He concludes with this analogy:

Eucharist before baptism is like premarital sex. Does postponing sexual intercourse
make couples more anxious to marry? Probably! Is that the reason the church gives
for postponing? No. The reason is that sexual intercourse is sacramentally unitive.
It makes of the two one flesh, and regular intercourse in the context of a shared life
continues to enact this union. Therefore, sexual intercourse presupposes sacramental
union of the man and woman, which is what marriage does (Philips, 32).