Unity in the Meal: The Case for Open Communion in Anglican and Reformed Theology

The foundations of the debate within Protestantism begin with how “open” the Table should be. Various denominations today debate among themselves over whether or not non-believers should be invited to and accepted for the Lord’s Supper. In order to answer how denominations should interact between each other, one must first answer this pressing issue, otherwise churches must begin allowing Muslims, Buddhists, and atheists to feast at the Table alongside the body of Christ. Within the Anglican community, Kathryn Tanner has championed fully open communion. Her argument begins with examining Christ’s ministry on earth. Against which few would argue, Tanner writes that Christ’s ministry was to sinners in all aspects of life. She claims that Jesus established a long tradition of meal fellowship, dining with sinners and inviting all to eat with Him (Tanner, 476). Jesus shared the Last Supper with Judas, the man whom He knew would betray Him, as well as Peter, whom He knew would deny Him. Against the notion that those participating in the Eucharist should be aware of its gravity and meaning, Tanner proposes that the disciples were unaware of the profundity of the supper and thus were not proper participants as the modern Anglican Church would require.
The Supper, Tanner believes, is intended to show the inclusive character of the banqueting of the kingdom. To restrict the Eucharist to the baptized believer does not fall in line with tradition and history (Tanner, 480). Rather she cites a certain history of the Church to show that the Supper is a means of preparatory grace. Salvation is about Christ’s gift to the sinner; therefore, one needs to receive that gift before he can commit to it. In other words communion actually precedes baptism and a person’s commitment to faith. The Eucharist acts as an event that helps the non-believer come to faith and receive God’s grace.
One finds similar beliefs within the Reformed tradition. Thorogood of the Presbyterian Church argues that the church does not have the authority to restrict access to the Table. He argues that it is Christ who calls persons, not the Church (Thorogood, 11). While certainly not advocating the invitation to unbelievers to partake in the Supper, he asserts that pastors should not restrict anyone who comes. There is no need to police the Table since errors will naturally happen within the church. In abandonment for the quest for church purity, Thorogood writes, “we should recognize all our approaches to the mystery of God as interim and fallible” (Thorogood, 12).