What is “open” or “closed” communion — and why does it matter?

Don,

I completely agree, which is why I do not “fence” the table other than to teach what the scripture says about the ordinance and strongly encourage each one to examine themselves and determine their fitness to participate in the supper.

Paul

First, a methodological issue and then a doctrinal issue.

But, they’re clearly less reliable than didactic, explicit teaching or the necessary implications of that teaching. That’s not too controversial of a statement, is it?

Not too controversial, but I am not sure I would draw the distinction you have between inference and necessary implication. Implication and inference are typically author/receiver distinction. Some inferences can be better than others, to be sure. But the WCF idea of “good and necesssary consequence” seems to play a role here, to me at least. Assuming we have rightly studied the Scripture, inferences are pretty solid. Many are necessary implications.

Basically, the only consistent way to implement a conviction that the Supper is for Christians who are obedient to join a church and undergo believer’s baptism is to adopt CLOSED communion. This makes the Supper more about membership and baptism than the Supper, and seems at odds with Jesus said the point of the ordinance is. This is my primary objection. This is why I use the Supper as an occasion to strongly urge people to consider membership and baptism, but I don’t announce them as prerequisites.

I think this gets to the broader issue, namely, ecclesiology and what is the Table about. Perhaps this is a fundamental difference. We have to determine scripturally what the table is about. Only then can we decide how, when, and who to invite to participate in it.

If the table is about your personal relationship with God and your personal remembrance of the cross, then I you can do it one way. You don’t even need a church for it. Pop the cork on your wine and break open the crackers and go for it. If, however, the table is an ordinance of the church to demonstrate the unity of the church in the gospel, then we do it differently.

1 Cor 10-11 paints a picture of the table as an act of the body to profess their unity in Christ and eating unworthily or improperly is not just about you, but about the body. We see that in the fact that the command was given to a church as the church. It was something they were to do together. In other words, it is not just their unity with Christ and them having an individual moment with God in the midst of others. It is rather their unity with the body of believers who share that Christ. So if, as 1 Cor seems to say, communion is an ordinance of the church to demonstrate the unity of the body in Christ, how can those who are not in unity with the body partake to demonstrate a unity they don’t participate in? And how can one be in unity with the body when they have not yet confessed Christ in the scriptural manner? Or how can one be in unity with the body when they are intentionally not in unity with the body, even if they have reasons of conscience?

To allow unbaptized believers is to make one ordinance optional while the other mandatory. It is to allow those to claim remembrance when they have yet to confess participation and identity with Christ. It is to teach that communion is necessary but baptism isn’t. It is only highly recommended, even encouraged. And what does church discipline mean in open communion? Virtually nothing.

I think closed communion is probably the best form, and the one I would be most comfortable with. But I don’t force that view on others. We don’t police it so we leave it up to people’s conscience, by and large.

But again, I wouldn’t draw the distinction between the Supper being about membership and baptism more than the Supper. Jesus said the point is to remember him by it and to confess the unity of the body in it. How shall one remember something that they have not participated in, and how do we know they have participated in it apart from their public confession of it through baptism?

I think we have minimized ecclesiology to the demise of the ekklesia and to the harm of the people in the ekklesia. While people of equal good conscience can differ, I think we need a more robust ecclesiology, particularly in this day of individualism.

BTW, Hiscox in his Principles and Practices of Baptist Churches addresses this topic in a helpful way. It would be worth reading, even if one doesn’t agree with it .

Thanks, Tyler. A quick rejoinder of sorts.

Many people link open communion (i.e. only for members of the New Covenant) with a slide into ecclesiastical sloppiness. In fact, everyone does. That’s not a valid argument.

I think the slide precedes opening communion. IMO, communion is open because ecclesiology is weak. We don’t have a robust view of the church and the ordinances. We think them personal and optional rather than corporate and mandated. But I admittedly am a bit of a curmudgeon who thinks that ecclesiology is pretty weak generally speaking across evangelicalism and fundamentalism.

I am not sure why you call that invalid, and I am not sure if you mean invalid in an argumentative sense or unconvincing to you. I would be interested. The idea that a slippery slope argument is a bad one seems too easily accepted to me. I don’t think it is invalid. It may be unconvincing and a bad argument. But if X leads to Y, and Y is bad, then X could be judged to be at least an unwise decision in some cases. I don’t think we can make a categorical claim about a whole line of arguments.

It seems like from the beginning you were determined to rule out arguments of various kinds, but the net result of that would be to eliminate an awful lot of orthodox theology and depends on making connections based on the study of the Scriptures as they relate to each other.

I am reminded of an old line I used to hear in administering communion that “This is the Lord’s table, not ours.” I find that now to be a disturbing and weak statement, particularly coming from a Baptist church.

who here actually practices closed communion, or even close communion by specifically warning folks that only folks baptized by immersion can partake of the Supper?

We do. I tell people that to participate they need to be trusting in Christ alone for salvation, have publicly confessed that by baptism (which is immersion), and formally committed to a local church, preferably this one. I say, “If that is not you, we would ask you to let the plate pass by you and then talk to me afterward.” My guess is that most churches of “our stripe” at least say that.

I am reminded of an old line I used to hear in administering communion that “This is the Lord’s table, not ours.” I think that

It’s either because most folks don’t care about ecclesiology

I think this is true. I think a great many people today are focused on the individual rather than the corporate. It has fostered the consumer mentality in church.

As I said, I think we go to the Bible to determine what the Lord’s Supper is, and then build our practice on that. And that is what I find deficient here. Where have you used the Scripture to establish what communion is, and who the Bible pictures as partaking in it?

Perhaps that a longer thing than you want to do, and that is fine. I would suggest, however, than until you do that, I don’t think have made an argument.

It’s been my experience that almost all churches practice open communion in spite of their stated doctrinal positions.

At Communion they’ll say:

-This is only for believers in Christ who have been baptized (possibly adding by immersion, and/or into the fellowship of this local church.

-Perhaps adding not under the discipline of a local church

-Perhaps even adding a warning that partaking in an unworthy manner can bring illness or death.

Then they make the Table available to everyone with the caveat that each individual must examine himself before he participates.

Say what one will, in the end close or closed communion “looks” like open communion.

[Ron Bean] Say what one will, in the end it [close communion] “looks” like open communion.

^^^^

I agree with Ron on this!

I can see the value and find closed communion a defensible position. It would work for a small church.

https://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2017/11/church-autonomy-pastoral-a…

Closed allows for separation. Separation is intended for purity. Purity is purity in the belief and practice of the truth, including the gospel. If you are not protecting your church from a false gospel, but you do protect your church from close and open communion, then you are missing the point of being closed.
I know people who are close in their communion, whose church is far more pure than those who are closed communion. I know those with closed communion with false worship. Communion with God is more important than communion with other church members. If you are not aligned with God in worship, the qualities of your worship are ungodly, then you’ve got a bigger problem the wrong practice of communion. I know those with closed communion, who allow in those who preach another gospel. They won’t allow someone outside of their church to join them in communion, but they have communion with someone who preaches a false gospel. In as simple terms as possible, that’s messed up.
Church autonomy, pastoral authority, and closed communion are the truth. However, I would rather fellowship with someone who emphasizes the truth, all of it, except for those three, than the one who treats those three like they are more important than the truth and the gospel.

Tyler, Thanks for the response. This is quick and then I will move on.

I think the “open communion = fruit of a cheap ecclesiology” argument is bad, because it imputes bad motives to folks who hold it.

I don’t think it is about motives at all. I think it is about doctrine. The practice, I am sure, is held with the best of motives (as expressed even here).

I don’t have time to write much here and now, but you can find my views on the Supper sketched out in my sermon notes from a recent message on the topic, here.

Fair enough.

There is an assumption that open communion = jettisoning of church membership and baptism.

I don’t think it is a jettisoning of it. I think is to make optional and the other mandatory and to miss the point of the ordinances (to go back to the doctrinal issue).

Say what one will, in the end close or closed communion “looks” like open communion.

But it doesn’t sound like it, and it actually isn’t, particularly in cases of church discipline where you exclude someone from the table.

What we do speaks louder than what we say.

Tyler,

You make a very strong case against the necessity of baptism, church membership, and even active participation in the church. After all, we’ll all drink with Jesus in the kingdom. Why do we need the church at all?

Seriously, your arguments are the exact ones used by those who routinely spurn the church and oppose any spiritual accountability. I’m sure that’s not your position, but you’re making a good case, imo.

Paul

Tyler has a point when he noted:

at the inauguration of the Supper, what did Jesus say the Supper was about, and who it was for?

I suppose if one were a hyper-dispensationalist (and I knew one) who would say that Jesus’ instructions, being before His death burial and resurrection and the establishment of the local church were given before the Church Dispensation. SMILE