In a day and time of the church in which people cry “no creed, no confession but Jesus”, doctrinal purity and understanding has been largely abandoned by the bulk of so-called “professing Christians”. By ignoring “doctrine” and focusing only on limited understandings of the truths of Scripture, many have advocated for more of an ecumenical approach to church ecclesiology. However, this post is not intended to highlight all the ill effects of such abandonment of doctrine for what is often championed as “unity” but rather is intended to help you, the reader, understand why we as a church have chosen to embrace a closed communion approach to the Lord’s Table and thus reject the notion of an “open” communion stance.
Understanding of Terms
For many within the church they have never heard of the terms “open, close or closed” communion. The term “open” communion refers to the practice in which a church allows all people, regardless of denomination, church membership, doctrinal beliefs, etc. to come to the Lord’s table, as long as they profess belief in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. We will examine some of the issues with this particular view in a moment but I do want to point out that no “true” church of the Lord Jesus Christ is completely open. For all true churches will at least limit the table of our Lord to those who profess faith in Jesus Christ and restrict the table to those who do not. For example, a Hindu or Muslim would be restricted from coming to partake in the elements of the table but all who profess Christ would be admitted. The next term to consider is what is call “close” communion. Now to be fair, the understanding of this term can take on different meanings depending on the church or denomination. Yet, it usually applies to churches who allow for the communion table to be extended to those who profess Christ as Lord and all who are members in good standing of a like-minded church. Those who hold this view would restrict the table to anyone who is either not a member of their own church or a member of a church that is either doctrinally or denominationally aligned with their own. The final view is what is known as “closed” communion. Like close communion, closed communion can mean different things to different churches, however for our purposes it will be defined as communion that is “closed” or restricted to anyone other than members, in good standing, within your own church body.
The Practical Issues With “Open” and “Close” Communion
I have to admit that I have always been a little bothered by “open” communion, yet because it was the standard for most Southern Baptist Churches that I have either been a member of or pastored, I just accepted it and moved on. Yet, my spirit has always given me pause when people would come forward for communion and I would internally ask questions to myself, “who is this person?” , “are they truly a believer or do they just think they are?” , “are they involved in unrepentant sin and running from church discipline?”, “have they been obedient to our Lord and are they following His commands with joy?”. The truth is, with open communion, I have no way of pastorally “guarding” the table from those who would seek to partake in the Lord’s table in an unworthy manner, because I often don’t know the people and thus I can’t ascertain whether they are true believers of not. On more than one occasion, even recently before moving our church to closed communion, I have found out after communion, to my horror, that people have come and partaken in the communion table who were not “worthy” to partake in this Holy ordinance. I have found out that I have inadvertently served communion to those who hold to things like “gay marriage”, to Mormons, to those in the Roman Catholic Church, and even those who have denied the Trinity. This, my friends, is the fundamental problem with open communion. As a church and as the Pastor of that church, we must seek to protect the Lord’s Table from being profaned by those who do not have true saving faith or by those who deny the truths of God’s Word. Like “open” communion, when a church holds “close” communion, they often encounter many of the same issues, as we as a church can’t truly know if someone is a member in good standing of another like-minded church, thus again, we could unknowingly serve the Lord’s Table to someone who seeks to profane it, instead of honor it.
Scriptural Basis For Closed Communion
“When it was evening, he reclined at table with the twelve.[b] 21 And as they were eating, he said, “Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me.” 22 And they were very sorrowful and began to say to him one after another, “Is it I, Lord?” 23 He answered, “He who has dipped his hand in the dish with me will betray me. 24 The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.” 25 Judas, who would betray him, answered, “Is it I, Rabbi?” He said to him, “You have said so.”26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” 27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, 28 for this is my blood of the[c] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” (Matthew 26:20-29 ESV).
From this verse we can learn many things about the institution of the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper. We learn how to perform it, the word’s that the pastor is to say while administering the elements, what the elements are to be (unleavened bread and fermented grape juice (wine)), how the ordinance points forward to the beautiful reality that we will be united with Christ again in Heaven, etc. However, what is often missed from this verse is the understanding of “who” he is communing with. We know from various other Scriptures that Jesus had followers that were at least numbering seventy-two (Luke 10:1-23) to upwards of one-hundred-twenty according to Acts 1:15. Yet, we do not see Jesus “communing” with all of them but rather only those whom he knew, who he did life with, who were an integral part of His inner circle. For those who would hold to an “open or close” communion view they must wrestle with the fact that Jesus himself did not commune with all who followed Him during His earthly ministry but again only those whom He knew well. We also see from the verses 20-25, in Matthew 26 in addition to John 13:21-30 that Jesus, because He knew what sheep was His and which were not, excluded Judas from the table before commencing with the institution of the ordinance, by telling him to leave to complete the betrayal that he was destined for. This only further proves the need for under-shepherds (pastors) to know their flock, so that those who are in unrepentant sin, may be excluded from the table for their own good and for the protection of the rest of the sheep.
Further verses to consider is Acts 2:38 in which after Peter preached on the Day of Pentecost, many were pricked in their heart and compellingly inquired, “What shall we do?” Peter responded:“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” You may be asking what this has to do with communion, as it doesn’t seem to address it in this verse. However, as stated earlier in this post, “doctrine matters”. From this verse we see that those who are supposed to come to the table of the Lord are those who; first repent of their sins and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ for forgiveness and second for those who are “baptized” which comes from the Greek word “baptizo (βαπτίζω)” which means to “be immersed in water”. So therefore, one who is to properly come to the table of the Lord is one who is truly saved by grace through faith and one who has been baptized by immersion, as commanded by the Holy Scriptures. This again highlights the necessity of a closed communion, as we as a church are unable to ascertain the validity of one’s profession of faith, if they are unknown to us, and whether they have been obedient to the Scriptures by being baptized as a believer by immersion or not. If we are to be true Baptist who reject infant baptism as being inconsistent with the ordinance of baptism given in the New Testament, then we recognize that our own doctrine excludes someone who is not baptized as a believer from partaking in the table of the Lord, as we would see their infant baptism as disobedience to God’s Word.
Yet another verse to consider is the Apostle Paul’s warnings in 1 Corinthians 10:21, “ You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.” While there is much discussion in the New Testament about unity, it is never at the expense of purity. This verse is a clear reminder that we, as the bride of Christ, must keep ourselves pure for Him. Now before moving on, this is not an attempt to say that our church is the only pure church, in fact our own confession of faith, the 1689 2nd London Baptist Confession in Chapter 26:3, says “The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error.” So therefore we must concede that we are not perfect, our members are not perfect, your pastor, and I would know, is certainly not perfect and so we must be careful that we do not see ourselves as greater than or more pure than those brothers in sisters in other churches that are truly of the faith. However, what Paul is speaking of here is partaking in communion with those who reject or pervert God and His Word. This would be those so called churches who deny God’s word on crucial and clear Scriptural issues, like transgenderism, gay marriage, female pastors, denial of the Trinity, denial of the deity of Christ, denial of the Word of God as innerant, denial of heaven/hell, denial of faith by grace through faith alone, denial that Christ is our once and for all sufficient sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins, churches that engage in syncretism, etc. To commune with those who embrace these things is to truly commune with demonic ideologies. Again in Chapter 26:3 of our confession it says, “Some (churches*) have degenerated so much that they have ceased to be churches of Christ and have become synagogues of Satan.” Again, the warning that we get from Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:21 and from our own confession of faith highlights the importance of being diligent in “guarding” the table from those who would seek to commune with God’s elect, yet are children of Satan.
The last verse that I want to bring forth is the command that Pastors have to “protect” the doctrinal purity of the church in what the Apostle Paul calls “stewarding the mysteries of the faith”. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 4:1, “This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.” While the context of this particular text is speaking to the role of the Apostles during the Apostolic period, this task has now been entrusted to the elders and the pastors of local congregations. A faithful minister of the gospel will be a man who “stewards the mysteries of God ” in a way that is aligned with the Word of God, for the good of God’s people, and ultimately for the glory of God alone! Therefore, if I am to be a “faithful steward” then I am bound to protect the mysteries of God in such a way that they will not be profaned by others.
What Have Others Said Historically About Closed Communion
While we can’t trust every tradition, the truth is that if the church has held to something historically, then it’s at least wise to consider why they did. John Calvin wrote on the matter, “For everyone to be admitted to the Lord’s Supper, without distinction or selection, is a sign of contempt that the Lord cannot endure. The Lord himself distributed the supper to his disciples only. Therefore anyone not instructed in the doctrine of the gospel ought not to approach what the Lord has instituted. No one should be distressed when his Christianity is examined even down to the finest point when he is to be admitted to the Lord’s Supper. It should be established as part of the total state and system of discipline that ought to flourish in the church that those who are judged unworthy should not be admitted.” The English Baptist Pastor John Gill in Chapter 2 his work called Practical Divinity lays forth the basis for his call for closed communion among churches. While there are many other voices that could be referenced here, the truth is that, at least among particular baptist and our other reformed brethren, there was an understanding historically that closed communion was and is the most biblical model for communion in order to protect the sheep from wolves and to protect those who would seek to profane God’s table from incurring His wrath (1 Corinthians 11:27-30).
Conclusion
Doctrine is important, as is unity, yet one must not be forsaken for the other. In closed communion we are still declaring our unity with all brothers and sisters who hold to the orthodox tenets of our faith while also simultaneously protecting the doctrinal purity of our own local church. Closed communion is not a popular view, especially in light of an ever increasing ecumenical landscape, yet we as a church must not worry about what man says and instead we must concern ourselves with pleasing God. I again must reiterate that our adherence to a closed communion is in no way trying to promote a holier attitude than others nor are we attempting to pass judgment on other churches or individuals. We simply adhere to the closed communion view in order that we can protect the table from any who would willingly or unwillingly desire to profane it. Additionally, we hold to closed communion in order to properly practice church discipline upon members who find themselves in unrepentant sin. Church discipline is the responsibility of the local church, yet to perform this function properly, we must know who is truly part of that local church. May the Lord use this post as a means of clarification of the subject of closed communion and why we have chosen to embrace that particular model.
Leave a Reply