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

The case for fully open communion possibly finds its greatest prevalence in the Methodist tradition. The argument is four-fold, marked by tradition, empirical evidence, and a dearth of Scriptural warrant. First, John Wesley, founder of the Methodist tradition, believed the Eucharist to be a “converting ordinance” (Philips, 29). The experience of conversion is not a prerequisite for communion, as Wesley did not believe every “Christian” to actually be saved. Rather, he believed that the Eucharist was an occasion for repentance and the reception of grace. This belief leads to the second point in the argument, that being that Wesley’s long-time practice was to welcome all comers to communion. Since Wesley in his ministry felt no conviction to bar any person from the table, the modern church should follow suit. Third, the Methodist church has frequently admitted unbaptized infants and children to the Lord’s Supper throughout their history. How can the church admit certain non-believers and prevent others? If children were prevented from participating, however, Methodists fear that they would become less likely to participate in further church rituals, such as baptism (Philips, 31). Finally, similar to Tanner’s argument, Methodist proponents of fully open communion argue that Christ’s ministry was marked by meal fellowship with sinners. To exclude anyone from the Lord’s Supper would be “inhospitable” and would endanger that person ever coming to faith (Philips, 32).