In general terms the essay argues for open communion but this needs significantly more work: There is quite a lot of material that is about communion more generally but you need to focus more on the specific question all the way through. It is too much an essay on communion, rather than one that really addresses the question throughout. There is quite a lot of descriptive material here which makes statements and assumptions without really arguing carefully enough for the points you make. If the essay wants to argue for open communion there is the need a much more detailed critical engagement with the theological tradition that argues otherwise. The essay touches on important issues but the essay needs much greater theological engagement. For example, whether baptism is required for communion – it is a meal for sinners in the church – needs much greater and careful discussion. The essay try and cover all different churches, but it would help if you could locate the essay in one tradition. If for example you are arguing for open communion for all in a Baptist context or a Catholic context you need to tackle quite different theologies and argue in quite different ways. The essay is too generic and so doesn’t really touch on any clear theological tradition. The essay make some assumptions about the theology of communion as if everyone agreed them; but the theology of communion and what is happening shapes who might be welcome to come to the table. The essay needs a much more careful discussion of how the theology of communion shapes the question.