Objections to Constant Communion
Uniting Wesleyan Praxis and Doctrine
This is a follow up piece to a previous article featured below.
Previously, I tackled the fragmented and confused sacramentalism that pervades the Methodist movement. I argue that our practice (praxis) is divorced from our theology (doctrine) and is in opposition to John Wesley’s sacramental teaching. Yet, much like in Wesley’s day, there are people who have objections to the practice of constant Communion, and they need to be addressed to clear up the muddied waters that separate praxis from doctrine.
Wesley often anticipated objections (or excuses as he also called them) to what he was teaching and addressed objections directly in his sermons. His sermons on the sacraments are no different. First, let’s see what objections Wesley addressed in his sermon The Duty of Constant Communion, and then we’ll look at a few more more contemporary objections that are often raised.1
Objections Addressed By Wesley
1. “I am unworthy!”
A common objection Wesley would find as a pastor was centered on a person’s feelings of unworthiness. This objection has some basis in Scripture at first glance. The Apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians, “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord (11:27 ESV).”
In the context of this verse, however, the “unworthy manner” Paul is referring to is not the “properly speaking” unworthiness of the recipient as a sinner, but is rather the horrendous abuses some members of the Corinthian Church were committing that caused immense division (v. 18-20). Wesley spends time walking through the proper exegesis of this passage, and we should as well.
Paul specifically mentions these church members, likely the wealthy, are eating the whole meal before the church body is gathered and even are getting drunk! They are causing those who come later (the poor, probably on time!) to not be able to share in the meal (v. 21-22). These divisive members are not partaking in the Lord’s Supper, Paul states, but rather are “eating and drinking judgement on themselves” because they are eating and drinking “without recognizing the body [the Church]” (v. 29 CSB). Confirming this reading of the passage, Paul ends by saying that if you’re hungry just eat before you come to church, it’s not that difficult, don’t destroy the unity of the Church because you’re hungry (v. 34)! But Paul knows it is not because they are hungry, they are doing this because they want the Table for themselves (v. 22). Paul is addressing those who are using the Communion table to destroy the unity of the Church, not sinners coming to the table desiring mercy. His point is a Church where the Lord’s Supper is not observed as one body with all on equal ground before a Holy God is no church at all!2
A person is unworthy to partake of Communion if he brazenly approaches the Lord’s Table after fueling division in the church and despising those who are poor and weak in the body.
- Jonathan Arnold
Now that we have established what Paul meant by partaking in an unworthy manner, we can turn to Wesley’s response. It is God’s mercy, Wesley says, that makes you worthy of His holiness, and He is trying to give you that mercy at the Lord’s Table! Why, then, does the one who claims to be unworthy and recognize it deny the very means of receiving the mercy to make himself worthy? God would not command you to take Communion, thereby eating and drinking judgement on yourselves, if it were for your condemnation. Rather, it is for your healing - to receive His mercy. In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul states in verse 31, “if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged.” We must judge ourselves truly, then, as we come. But we must come.
Wesley says, “we should repent before we come, not neglect to come at all.” If you know yourself to be in sin, participate in the liturgy earnestly and repent of your sins knowing that “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9 ESV). The promises of God do not change at the Communion Table. At that Table, He will communicate mercy to us. “I am unworthy” is no excuse to avoid Communion, rather it is an excuse to flee to it! Wesley says, “[people] are so much afraid of "eating and drinking unworthily," that they never think how much greater the danger is when they do not eat or drink it at all.” Indeed, the benefits of participating in Communion are vast, and this unworthy mindset can be dangerous in keeping us from God’s mercy.
“His body and blood in this sacrament nourish our very bodies and souls. The broken body of Christ heals our brokenness, enabling us to live out our Baptismal calling.” - The Faith Once Delivered ¶1733
2. “There is not enough time to prepare myself for Communion.”
This is not an objection we encounter much in today’s churches, but another objection Wesley anticipated was from people who felt they needed more time to prepare for the momentous act of partaking in the Lord’s Supper. In one sense, this may be a good point from an Old Testament perspective. At the Lord’s Supper, we are coming into contact with the presence of God, His holiness, in some sense the New Covenant equivalent of the Holy of Holies. The Jewish High Priest was only allowed in the original Holy of Holies once a year, after all.
However, as Wesley points out, we have a new commandment from God: participate in the Lord’s Supper. Because this is what God commands, it does not require incredibly long periods of preparation in prayer and solitude. It requires only this, to earnestly repent of your sins and have faith! Examination and prayer are good things to do before taking the Eucharist, Wesley says, but obedience to God’s command is more important.
3. “If we partake too often it will lose its meaning.”
This is one of the most common critiques I have heard today. To this Wesley essentially says: so what? If God says “do this,” we do it. There are no other commands of God we handle so recklessly. For example, no one would dare claim that they couldn’t love their neighbor because it would lose its meaning if they did it constantly. Likewise, no one would say they must stop reading the Scriptures to preserve their reverence for it. We understand that God intends for His commands to stand whether we feel like it has true meaning or not. Even more so we sing weekly and hear preaching, do they lose their meaning? Must we regulate these practices to infrequency as well to preserve their richness? Either way, we need not worry. Communion, Wesley says, increases our faith, love, and fear of God, it does not diminish it.
Additionally, by not participating constantly, we are (whether intentionally or not) diminishing the value of the Lord’s Supper. When it is not seen as an indispensable part of a service, it is therefore less valuable than what is taking its place, which is more times than not the sermon and music. It is labeled expendable.
4. “I have practiced constant Communion for a long time and have received less benefit than expected.”
Wesley, always the pastoral preacher, reckons this objection merits special consideration. Wesley reinforces that even if there is no discernable personal benefit, we must follow the commands of God. By being obedient in the regular participation in the sacrament, the act of obedience itself makes us more fit for service to God and stronger. If nothing else, we are not backsliding and are being kept from temptation, and we can credit that to the God’s grace.
We also need to be careful not to measure against what others have experienced, if it seems they are receiving benefit we are not. I have often talked with those who struggle with “not having a impressive testimony” and this seems like a similar issue of comparison.
5. “The Church of England only commands that it be taken three times a year!”
This objection was popular in Wesley’s day. It was the canon law of the Church of England that every parishioner must partake at least three times a year. Wesley begins his rebuttal with another ‘so what?’
“What, if the Church had not [prescribed] it at all? Is it not enough that God [prescribes] it? We obey the Church only for God's sake. And shall we not obey God himself? If, then, you receive three times a year because the Church commands it, receive every time you can because God commands it.”
Wesley’s response here is clear: we do not partake the minimum amount of times the Church commands it, we partake whenever the Church offers it, for we “we must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29 ESV). Wesley also points out the provision of the Church requiring thrice-yearly participation is not a positive command to follow, but a minimum to observe so to not be “cast out of the Church.” That does not excuse us from not communing constantly, he says, especially because many churches were already practicing weekly Communion in Wesley’s day.
This objection has modern parallels to our present-day Wesleyan denominations, particularly the Wesleyan Church and the Church of the Nazarene. Both of these denominations require that churches participate in Communion at least once a quarter (four times a year). Unfortunately, many of these churches take it in the positive sense: this is how often we are supposed to do it. But, like in the Church of England of Wesley’s day, we would do well to remember this is a minimum to be kept to not come under discipline, not a guideline for frequency. Indeed, no better words are available for those claiming Wesley’s heritage than his words in the sermon we are citing: commune constantly.
Some Other Objections Addressed
1. “Weekly Communion is Too (Roman) Catholic.”
A popular cop-out to any good argument is simply to label it as “too Roman Catholic” or “Papist.” Usually this is an attempt to link what evangelical Christians see as the superstition or excess of Roman Catholicism with a practice to nullify it. This argument is historically absent. Many of the Reformers’ objections to the Roman Catholic Church were how infrequent the Lord’s Supper was taking place, and especially how the laity were restricted in participating in it (check out Martin Luther’s The Babylonian Captivity of the Church). To have all of the laity taking Communion every Lord’s Day is peak Protestantism, historically speaking.
Additionally, the objection is not grounded in reality. We don’t simply not participate in things because Roman Catholics do as well. Catholics also have weekly homilies, should we do away with the sermon as well? Even more so than weekly sermons, Communion is commanded in Scripture, which serves as a nice transition to our last objection.
2. “Communion Will Take Time From The Sermon”
This objection has the potential to launch into a larger discussion about the place of the sermon in modern worship services.
Questioning whether the sermon should be the dominant element of a service is a valid question to be raised. A sermon-centric worship service inevitably makes the sermon the central reason for the worship gathering, and that idea deserves to be questioned. Many argue that we need solid biblical preaching, and I agree, but at what cost are we emphasizing preaching?
It is fair to ask: why would Communion detract from having biblical sermons? Is a 45-minute sermon worth surrendering participating in the presence of Christ and participating in the visible unity of the Church in all time and all places? Is your pastor’s preaching more life-transforming than Jesus Himself? Why can’t we have both preaching and Holy Communion? There is no real answer to these questions other than, ironically, tradition - we’ve always done it this way. ‘Always’ being the last 20-150 years, though. In the grand scheme of Church history, this is actually the innovation.
Additionally, many people with this objection have unreasonable expectations of how long Communion takes. Many churches have added or extemporaneously add space for an altar call. Communion, however, is a God-instituted altar call for your services. Isn’t that better than some quiet time with soft guitar music?
I would argue that doing what Jesus commanded is more important than your pastor getting an extra ten minutes to round off their sermon, it is more important than your long-held 100 year old tradition of Communion only on the First Sunday, and it is a better liturgical device to bring the focus of worship to Christ than a sermon & altar call. Ultimately, this may come down to an issue of pride for some pastors and churches, and I understand that is a hard pill to swallow. But it is worth it if Communion really is what we say it is in our doctrine.
Lastly, I’ll raise this point: what if your pastor’s preaching is just not that good? Let’s assume the best and say they’re having an off week. Now, let’s assume the worst and say they preached a less-than-ideal message. In both cases, Communion is the act that firmly grounds us with Jesus every week, no matter how the sermon went, and our pastor’s purity doesn’t change it. A primary error of the Donatists, an early Christian sect deemed heretical, was they claimed a priest had to be pure for a valid sacrament to take place. Three early councils declared this position heretical, and the Church as a whole has understood this since. So no matter what is going on with your priest or pastor, we can trust that God is at work, offering grace to sinners and redeeming His creation through the Eucharist.
Final Thoughts
Ultimately, Wesley found the objections to constant Communion odd saying, “it is strange that [Communion] should be neglected by any that do fear God, and desire to save their souls.” It is strange when it comes down to it to have a biblical command clearly instituted by Jesus in the Scriptures, upheld by the Apostles and Early Church, and observed weekly in most churches worldwide, yet noticeably absent in many Protestant churches. Even stranger is the absence in churches claiming the heritage of John Wesley, an Anglican cleric committed to constant Communion, which he saw as a vital part of the Methodist movement, essential to growing in holiness, and one of the most vital acts of piety. Constant Communion is the Wesleyan way and it is the Methodist method. We shouldn’t accept that merely because it is what Wesley said, but because as Wesley clearly demonstrates in biblically defeating every objection it is what God commanded and ignoring the benefits is to our great detriment.
This is the food of our souls: this gives strength to perform our duty, and leads us on to perfection. If, therefore, we have any regard for the plain command of Christ, if we desire the pardon of our sins, if we wish for strength to believe, to love and obey God, then we should neglect no opportunity of receiving the Lord's Supper; we must never turn our backs on the feast which our Lord has prepared for us. We must neglect no occasion which the good providence of God affords us for this purpose. This is the true rule: So often are we to receive as God gives us opportunity. Whoever, therefore, does not receive, but goes from the holy table, when all things are prepared, either does not understand his duty, or does not care for the dying command of his Saviour, the forgiveness of his sins, the strengthening of his soul, and the refreshing it with the hope of glory. Let every one, therefore, who has either any desire to please God, or any love of his own soul, obey God, and consult the good of his own soul, by communicating every time he can; like the first Christians, with whom the Christian sacrifice was a constant part of the Lord's day service.
- John Wesley, The Duty of Constant Communion
http://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-sermons-of-john-wesley-1872-edition/sermon-101-the-duty-of-constant-communion/
https://holyjoys.org/communion-unworthily-damnation/
https://nextmethodism.org/summit-document/