A Case for a Closed Communion

Believe it or not, I am in total agreement with you on church discipline. The rolls of our churches are a travisty. There are rolls out there with well over 50% of the people who havent entered the church in years. Another 20% come very sporadically on Sunday morning. Only 5-10% really participate in the minsitry of the local church around here.

Having said that, and would like others to chime in, I am against closed communion. The number one reason would be the shape of our church rolls. You used the example of a Methodist, and asking him after the fact about if he is saved. If in fact the purpose of closed communion is to make sure we know the witness of those participating, then the witness of the 50% who havent darkened the door in years, well, their witness can be well testified to. Closed Communion by defintion uses the church roll as a standard.

The Biblical standard is not a man made, corrupt church roll, it is to "examine yourself." The Bible gives warnings to those who take the Lords Supper lightly. In other words, the responsibility of who takes it is on the believer, not on a man made list of names.

Lets say a traveler stops in your church to worship while on his way to somewhere. Next to him comes in a church member who hasnt darkened the door in 10 years. They are sitting side by side. You are serving the Lords Supper. Which one are you going to exclude? The answer is obvious.

I have seen one closed communion service in 54 years, and it was quite destructive. I have no intention of ever watching another one.

 

"So when it says in Acts 5:13 that no insincere believer "dared join them," the "glue word" used there speaks of such a cohesive, bonding relationship that it must be referring to a recognized church membership. "

Why does that follow? Although, I think you are reading too much into the word, I can glue myself to something without joining it formally in a 21st church membership sense. They simply were always together.

I believe in what is called "close communion". If someone has trusted Christ and Christ alone for salvation, and is in fellowship with Him, we allow them to make the decision to take or not take of the Lord's Supper. We talk about confession of sin and 'partaking in a worthy manner, but we act this way for a couple of reasons.
1. It's the Lord's Supper and he decides who can come and he invites all believers.
2. As was mentioned, the scripture states, "let a man examine himself"...

I believe in church discipline. We have told people that they will not be allowed to partake of the Lord's Supper.

But I do have some questions about when you do the Lord's Supper if you believe in closed communion.

1. Do you have it on sunday night when probably unbelievers will not be present?
2. Do you dismiss people who are not members?

I think this is an important discussion and glad you have brought it up.

 

Confession of sin is not a biblical part of the Lord's supper.

On the subject of confessing one's sin, I wouldn't put it to people in terms of "examine yourselves" but in terms of "ask the Lord to examine you and reveal to you any hidden bitterness, sin, etc., and confess these sins". But IMO this is just good advice at all times, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Lord's supper.

Personally, I wouldn't ever tell people to "examine themselves to see if they are partaking in a worthy manner" in today's church. I suppose someone in the church might be drunk and I don't know it, but I'm not sure that remote possibility calls for telling people to examine themselves.

If there's a problem now, it's probably the opposite of the problem in the Corinthian church. The Lord's supper has become very mechanical ("okay everyone, please synchronize the lifting the little cracker to your mouth like a bunch of good little robots"). If anyone is not properly discerning the significance of the Lord's supper, it's probably because it has become such a mindless ritual that they no longer focus on the meaning.


​

 

BPT and all,

I also practice closed communion. I have always thought the issue was one of 'authority'. As a pastor I do not have any authority to offer communion to one who is not a member of my local congregation.

 

If one accepts the local church as the adminstrator of the Lord's Supper, what does that have to do with who may partake? What gives any pastor the authority to give the Lord's Supper to those on church rolls he knows are not saved, and deny it to those who seek out a place to worship? Why is it so hard to accept the authority of "examine yourself"?

One would think that the denominations of Roman Catholic, Church of Christ, and Mormon which practice closed communion would raise a red flag.

 

BP&T,
The only ones we have told may not participate in the Lord's Supper were those who were involved in open and unrepentent sin. We spoke to them before the service had ever started.

I agree that in this present culture, it is very hard to set a standard and hold to it.

I have a friend who believes in closed communion but still every Christmas eve in a service that is loaded with both unsaved and non-members, he has communion. I keep kidding him that he has sent more people to the hospital and the morgue than anyone I know.

Another question: If someone is a saved, biblically baptized member of another local baptist church, would you ask him to partake?

Mexdeaf:
"As a pastor I do not have any authority to offer communion to one who is not a member of my local congregation."
For me, it is also an authority issue, I would say that I don't have the authority to not offer the Lord's Supper to someone else.

I like the tone of this discussion.

 

Baptist Pastor/Theologian makes the case for closed communion the way I would have made it if I had thought of it. Well done.

Since Saturneptune and I are deacons in the same church, I am familiar with the "closed communion" story. The fact is, that this was the first CC we had observed in the church in more than 40 years, and when the pastor did it, he caught everybody by surprise. A couple who were not members, but had been faithfully attending for a long time were denied the Lord's Supper, although they had taken it regularly before. If memory serves, the pastor asked all members to gather at the front for the ceremony, thus leaving them seated out in the auditorium, pretty much by themselves. They felt publicly embarrassed. They were offended and soon left our congregation.

If our church had had a firm closed communion policy in place, since it would have been well-known by everybody, and the incident could have been avoided. If you're visiting a church and prior to the Lord's Supper, the pastor announces the policy, you might not agree with it but you wouldn't be offended, since you would grant the church the right to set its own policy.

Saturneptune and I are close brothers in Christ, serving the same church, but we obviously see this issue differently. Currently, his view prevails in our church. We disagree over it, but we don't fight over it.

 

Does anyone have to have the "authority" to "administer" the Lord's Supper in the first place? I don't see where this is Scripturally mandated. Yes, of course, Jesus broke the bread. How else would He teach the observance unless He actually taught it? This by no means implies that someone must fill the shoes of Jesus in future obervances. In Corinthians 11, there is no mention of an administrator.

 

This is the best tone I have seen on a thread in a long time. Brother Tom and I, as he said, serve in the same church, and unless the issue is a matter that deviates from the Gospel or the inerrancy of the Bible, we value church unity greatly.

 

This may vary from place to place, but all the non-instrumental Church of Christ/Campbellites around here practice open communion.

 

Well, around here the Church of Christ is closed. Baptist churches are a mix. I think Presbyterian and Methodist are pretty much open. Roman Catholic is for sure closed. Again, I want to thank all especially Brother Tom and B/PT for the good spirit of this thread.

 

The authority to baptize was given to the visible assembly in the Great Commission by Jesus himself. Paul, in I Cor 11:2, reminded the visible assembly at Corinth that the ordinances had been committed to it.

So the authority to baptize and administer the Lord's Supper resides in the local church, which may designate who will actually carry out the functions. In my church, the pastor baptizes and presides over the Lord's Supper. On one occasion, the church authorized a former pastor to baptize a new convert because of a close relationship.

In the absence of the pastor, the congregation may designate anyone (usually a deacon) to preside. The preference is for someone ordained to lead the church in the ordinances, but the scripture does not mandate it.

The Baptist debate over the ordinances centers on whether one views them as Christian ordinances or church ordinances. If they are church ordinances, then the congregation is mandated to protect their integrity. So it has the right to determine who are the proper participants. If they are Christian ordinances, then the individual is king.

 

And if a local church determines that it wants to have open communion, it has that right. Yes the ordinances rest in the authority of the church.

 

I also saw someone claim when someone would not be alowed to partake. Where in the Bible does one find authority of one to disallow another to partake of the Lord's Supper. Did not Jesus command us to do it often in remembrance of Him?
Paul criticized the church in Corinth because of their exclusions of people who were not of their social status and some people came there to fill their bellies. Where in the Bible did Jesus say that it must be administered by a church, must be scheduled by the church, and that "administrators" of it have the "power" to exclude people from partaking? Paul tells people to examine themselves and let them partake.

If we want to obey Jesus' command to remember His body and blood, shouldn't we have the privalege to do such freely in a personal heart of worship between ourselves and the Lord instead of being limited to an organized gathering that says "Ok, now we may remember Jesus' body and blood" and "Now, you must examine yourselves in order to partake"?

Think about it...

 

That surprised me...I would have figured almost all of them were closed.

 

When we take communion, are we communing with God, or the people in a church? Our communion with God is just that, closed between He and I, but should we close out others? That will send those not acceptable to us to others in Christ, or force them to have their Supper with Him alone.

I question that the only place to "remember Him" is in a local church, and only when the church decides. Jesus said to do this in remembrance of Him, as oft as we will. He gives no timetable, and no setting one way or the other. Are we to say sorry about all of you folks in the nursing homes, shelters, hospitals, etc? But each member in His Body needs to be fully persuaded in his own mind, for peace of mind.

I can't find your reference will apply to the Body of Christ Church, but a church of "works" gifted with the working Power of the Holy Ghost. These of Israel are justified by faith and were before the "Christian" was known. Christians are justified through faith, and include we Gentiles. Those people are on another foundation of Jesus Christ than we today. They are of another gospel of justification.

The setting is all are of the nation Israel. They were "corporate", to all be of one accord in all things, as this is what will be in the "kingdom". This is that "kingdom that is at hand" as soon as Israel accepts Messiah. They didn't. They sold all their land, homes, jewelry, and everything in that first year before they (Israel) were cut-off. All things were common. This is the reason the Christians had to take up collection for those in Jerusalem. Those you refer to that were killed lied in the Holy Ghost as they were in that "kingdom mode" that will be in the millennium. If we endeavor to equate with "that church", we need to drastically change our ways and our thinking to do what would be expected of us. The first step would to be circumcised and then onto the other required works, and living in a combine.

I personally am for all that believe Jesus Christ for their salvation to be accepted by Christ as worthy to partake, in any place, and in any setting for we are joined with Christ. But not to cause strife, one should endeavor to work in harmony with the majority on this matter, in order to not have any stumble.

 

In 1 Corinthians 5, it was Paul who said that the man was to be treated as unsaved man, that is, to not be allowed to partake in the Lord's Supper. Unsaved people and even some saved people were not allowed to be involved.

The Corinthian church's exclusion of people was based not on spiritual matters but on exterior matters, such as who had baptized them or who was their favorite Bible teacher. This was what Paul condemned.

 

That has always seemed contradictory to me, too.

"The practice is to partake in the Lord's Supper each Sunday (Acts 20:7.) Theologically, members believe in practicing closed communion, but most participate in a form of open communion where it is up to each person to know whether or not they should partake accordingly." -- From Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Christ