;)
Discerning the Body: A Biblical Defense of Modified Open Communion
Posted by David Rogers in Baptist Life, Bible & Theology, Church & Missions
Last week, I got into a bit of a discussion on the comment stream over at SBC Today on the subject of who should be allowed to participate in the Lord’s Supper in a Baptist church, and who should not. Some of my words here are taken from the discussion over there. Some leading views advocated by Baptists are close, closed, open, and, the view I personally take, modified open communion. I do not consider myself, technically, to be an advocate of open communion, since I don’t believe the Lord’s Supper should be offered indiscriminately to anyone and everyone, nor even to all those, without exception, who profess to be Christians. Paul had some pretty serious words to say about taking the bread and the cup in an unworthy manner. And, he relates taking the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner to a failure to “discern (or recognize) the body of the Lord”:
Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world. So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment. (1 Corinthians 11:27-34, NIV).
*other versions translate the phrase “recognizing the body” here “discerning the body.”
Thus, I believe it is very important that we not participate in the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner, and that we encourage those who are participating with us not to participate in an unworthy manner. However, neither do I agree with the close communion position, which requires Baptist churches to only admit to the Lord’s Supper those who have been immersed in water after their profession of faith in Christ. And, I do not agree with the closed communion position, which requires that Baptist churches only admit fellow members of the particular local congregation in which the Lord’s Supper is being served.
Lest, for some reason, anyone think differently, let me make perfectly clear that I do think those who profess faith in Christ should be baptized shortly afterward, and that only truly born-again people should participate in the Lord’s Supper. So, I am in agreement that the normal order would be conversion, baptism, and then, participation in the Lord’s Supper.
However, when we think of the Lord’s Supper, and who should be permitted to participate, we need to think, first of all, about just what it is, and what we are celebrating, when we celebrate the Lord’s Supper. At the core, the Lord’s Supper is a memorial of what Jesus did for us—not of what we have done for Jesus; that is, a memorial of and witness to our salvation won by Jesus on the cross of Calvary—not a witness to our obedience to the command to be baptized, nor of our meeting the requirements for local church membership.
In addition to this, the Lord’s Supper is also a celebration of the unity of the Body of Christ, the Church. Consider the words of Paul in 1 Cor. 10:16-17:
Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.
The Lord’s Supper is not just a celebration of the unity of the local church. Neither is it a celebration of the unity of all of those who have their doctrine right concerning baptism. It is a celebration of the unity of the entire Body of Christ. Paul says clearly, “We, who are many, are one body”—not many different autonomous bodies. And, when we don’t admit folks to the Lord’s Supper, we are, in effect, telling them we don’t believe they belong in the Body of Christ.
Among Baptists, the traditional understanding of the phrase “discerning the body,” in 1 Cor. 11:29, has to do with the responsibility of taking the Lord’s Supper in a respectful manner, realizing that what we are doing, at that moment, is commemorating the death of our Lord Jesus, and that it is a solemn occasion, not one for joking, jesting, or behaving in a flippant manner. Certainly, there is an important element of truth here.
In the overall context of 1 Corinthians, however, I believe that “discerning the body” also has a very important application to our stance in regard to our fellow brothers and sisters in the Body of Christ. In 1 Corinthians 10:16-17, Paul links the two senses of the body of Christ—physical and mystical—and it appears that in 1 Cor. 11:29 he does so again.
The specific sin pointed out by Paul in 1 Corinthians, in relation to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, was a sin against one’s fellow members in the Body of Christ. Notice chapter 11, verses 18-22:
In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!
What was the problem at Corinth? It was primarily a problem of division within the Body of Christ. Specifically, some of the people (presumably the more wealthy) were despising those who had nothing (i.e. the poor). Essentially, what they were doing was treating certain bona fide members of the Body of Christ like second-class citizens.
One chapter later, in ch. 12, Paul develops this same theme further (vv. 12-27):
The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. If they were all one part, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, but one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it. Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.
In the context of the specific abuses taking part in the Lord’s Supper, Paul is pointing out a particular division: that between the rich and the poor within the congregation at Corinth. He makes a special point to show that—whether we be slaves or free; members who are, humanly speaking, “less honorable,” or members who are “more honorable”—we are all part of the same Body. In the overall context of 1 Corinthians, he also decries divisions based on loyalty to certain teachers—i.e. Peter, Apollos, and Paul himself—what we might call today a denominational or sectarian spirit.
Whatever the cause behind it, though, Paul is saying there is nothing that should come between us as brothers and sisters in Christ, if indeed we are truly members of Christ’s Body. Because of this, it is vitally important for us to know, to the degree it is possible to know this side of heaven, who is a part of Christ’s Body, and who is not. And, as I understand it, this is an important part of what it means to correctly discern the Body of Christ.
How do we discern who is truly a part of the Body of Christ, and who is not? Paul, in 1 Cor. 12:13, tells us how: all of us who were baptized by one Spirit, and given the one Spirit to drink, were baptized (by the same Spirit) into one body—that is, the very same group to whom Paul addresses the letter of 1 Corinthians, when he says, in chapter 1, verse 2:
To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours.
Notice that, for Paul, the “church of God in Corinth” is one and the same with all “those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy,” that is to say, every single born-again believer in the city of Corinth. Notice, also, that he does not treat them as an independent group unto themselves, but rather as a local representation, or expression, of a broader group: “all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Along with most Baptist students of Scripture and church history, I agree that, in the context of the NT, it would have likely been very rare, if not impossible, to find individuals who had been baptized by the Spirit yet who had not yet been baptized appropriately in water. However, in the context of today, due to the tragedy of divisions and false teaching within the Body of Christ, sadly, that is no longer the case. There are many paedobaptist brothers and sisters in Christ who, though mistaken (as I understand it) in their understanding and practice of water baptism, have, nonetheless, been baptized by the very same Spirit as we (as Baptists) have. And, when we attempt to discern the Body, and we notice there is not an exact correlation between the group of all those who have been appropriately baptized in water and the group of all those who have been baptized by the Spirit, we come to the conclusion that the group of those who truly comprise the Body of Christ is made up not just of those who have been baptized both by the Spirit and in water, but rather, of all those who have been baptized by the Spirit.
Now, it is true that, if someone has studied out what the Bible teaches on baptism, and has come to the understanding that Jesus has commanded them to be baptized in water, and yet, in spite of this, has not yet followed through with what they understand, then they are living in disobedience, and need to get their baptism on the right side of their salvation. In such a case, we need to warn them about the danger of participating in the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner, which includes allowing any known, unrepented of sin in one’s life, no matter what that sin may be. At the same time, however, an objective consideration of the reality present in Christendom today leads us to the conclusion there are many authentically born-again Christians, who are sincerely endeavoring to be obedient to Jesus in everything, including baptism, yet, for one reason or another, understand baptism differently than we do as Baptists, and, as a result, have not been immersed in water subsequent to their profession of faith in Christ.
Some claim that maintaining a practice of close communion serves as a good opportunity to proclaim to the unbaptized their duty to be obedient to Christ’s command, causing them to reflect on the reason for their exclusion from the Lord’s table. However, while this perspective may have an element of truth to it, two wrongs do not make a right. I personally agree that it is wrong for believers not to be immersed after professing faith in Christ. And, I agree that the celebration of the Lord’s Supper is indeed an opportune moment to remind people of their need to be obedient to the command to be baptized. But, at the same time, on the basis of my understanding of Scripture, I also believe it is wrong to deny true believers—whether they have been biblically baptized or not—access to the Lord’s Supper, which is a celebration of the unity of the entire Body of Christ, not just a part of it. There are other ways to proclaim to the unbaptized their need to be baptized, without, at the same time, despising the unity of the Body of Christ, by denying them a place at the Lord’s table.
The question has been raised, how someone who is presiding the celebration of the Lord’s Supper in the context of a Baptist church can follow through with what I am saying here, without, at the same time, being disloyal to the Baptist distinctive of believers baptism by immersion. However, I don’t think this is necessarily a problem.
The following is an example of what I have said, when I have presided the Lord’s Supper:
“The Bible teaches that, before partaking of the bread and the wine, we are to examine our hearts. I believe this includes examining ourselves to see if there is any known sin we have not confessed, or for which we have not repented. Before sharing together with us in the Lord’s Supper today, I ask, and indeed, urge you to examine the condition of your own heart before the Lord. If the Holy Spirit convicts you of any sin, please make it right before Him before partaking in the Lord’s Supper. This is a very serious matter. The Word of God says that some, in the congregation in Corinth, had “fallen asleep” (that is, they died) as a result of not taking this admonition seriously.
I would also add that, in our congregation, we believe that Jesus commanded each believer, after truly repenting of their sin, and placing their faith in Christ, to seal their surrender to Christ by means of believers baptism, or being immersed in water, after having been saved, in obedience to the Lord’s command. If you have not been obedient to Jesus’ command to be baptized, I urge you to not put off any longer doing so.
At the same time, I am aware there are some who have sincerely repented of their sin, and placed their faith in Christ alone for their salvation, and yet, believe, as they have examined Scripture, that their baptism before they were saved is an authentic and biblically condoned baptism. Though, in this congregation, we believe and teach differently on this matter, we consider the Lord’s Supper to be a celebration of the unity of the entire Body of Christ, not just of those who agree with us on this particular matter.
In any case, I urge you to carefully and prayerfully study the Scripture, and examine your own heart on this matter. If you are convicted you need to be biblically baptized, don’t put it off any longer. If you, before the Lord, have a clear conscience about being obedient to the Lord’s command in this area, then follow, before the Lord, the dictates of your conscience.
In any case, if you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and are attempting, to the best of your ability, to serve and obey Him, we warmly embrace you, and accept you as a fellow member of the Body of Christ.”
*What do you believe about who should participate in the Lord’s Supper?
*What is the practice in the churches in which you have been a member, and/or the churches you are aware of?
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Serious question; Have you ever seen the movie Babette’s Feast. I imagine Rick Presley is familiar with it and it’s inflection of this topic.
As this comment line evolves I may share a personal story that goes to the heart of this story that may only be understood if one is a fan of George Singleton or Will Campbell.
But I will have to think about that.
David,
Taking the the same Scripture you used concerning unity. I agree with you to an extent. I believe that the unity one should have is a joint commitment to the aims and goals of the New Testament Church as understood by that Assembly. It is very difficult for those of other denominations to be in harmony with the local assembly in those goals.
An example is Methodism. The typical Methodist would not be in harmony with the beliefs of the typical Baptist church. What we’re doing in that case, in my opinion, is qualifying the doctrinal beliefs of the local assembly in a hierarchical manner, and calling them preferences rather than convictions.
I would also cling closely to the “close” position with some modification. I believe the important thing is the willingness to be baptized by immersion, whether or not the logistical details have been worked out. In other words, if one has committed his life to Christ and there has been no opportunity for the consummation of the act of immersion, but the desire is there, then that one should not feel he is prohibited for participation.
Having said this, We make the position known, then proceed to offer the elements to everyone, except those under discipline who have not repented; trusting God to work through their liberty.
Stephen,
What is the application are you making here with your reference to Babette’s Feast?
Stephen,
Yes, I have seen Babette’s Feast. Very interesting film. And a good illustration of the grace of God, and the way we, as Christians, are called on to lavish that grace on others.
Mike,
You say: “I believe that the unity one should have is a joint commitment to the aims and goals of the New Testament Church as understood by that Assembly.”
To be honest, that seems like a strange description of Christian unity to me. A while back, Bart Barber and I got into a similar discussion on another post here at SBC Impact about the difference between unity and uniformity. From my perspective, it sounds like what you are talking about here is uniformity.
And, as I have thought about all this, I don’t think there is any way to get around a “hierarchy” of beliefs. There are some things, in our system of beliefs and practices, as Christians, that are more essential than others. That is the idea behind Romans 14, for instance. And, Jesus talked about “the weightier matters of the law,” “the first and great commandment,” as well as the “second one.” Paul talked about that which is of “first importance.”
In actual practice, though (as evidenced by your last two paragraphs), it looks like we are not far at all from each other on this point. You could perhaps call your view a “modified close communion” view.
What I am really interested in seeing here, from those who disagree with me on this, is a biblical response to my “biblical defense.” Show me from Scripture how what I present here is wrong, and what you believe and practice is right. I am willing to be convinced, but only if I can be convinced from Scripture.
David,
I don’t have time this morning, but I’ll posit another point to perhaps get your perspective.
I’m not sure “uniformity” is accurate here. At what point does union differ from unity. Dr. A. Rogers was wont to say, “You can tie two tomcats together and throw them across a close line and you have union, but you sure don’t have unity.” Is Unity simply a lack of acrimony, or is it something more tangible? In other words, what are the elements of unity?
Mike,
I would say there is a difference between spiritual unity and practical unity, which is the carrying out of the implications of spiritual unity. As Christians, who share a common experience of receiving the grace of God by way of faith in the substitutionary atonement of Jesus, and who have all been baptized by the same Spirit, we have unity one with another, independent of how good of a job we are doing at carrying out the practical aspects of this unity. We should, however, endeavor to carry out these practical aspects with all who share this same condition of spiritual unity with us. It is like a family. We may sometimes fight amongst ourselves. But, at the end of the day, we are still brothers and sisters. And, no amount of fighting can change that. That doesn’t mean it is a good thing, or even excusable, to fight amongst ourselves, though.
Mike,
I don’t know if this is what you are getting at, when you talk about “union” and “unity.” But, in any case, I see the NT church structure as being interdepedent, but not hierarchical.
One of the first statements in the scripture passage you cite is that a person should examine himself. The specific areas seem to deal with unworthiness to partake, and recognizing the Body of Christ. That’s what our pastor does in our communion services; he challenges people to examine themselves.
The other side of that is that, if we were to insist on discerning everyone’s condition before the service, the church would have to assure itself of the regenerate status of everyone there. And, since we teach that no one can really truly know the status of your salvation but you, I don’t think that’s something the church can do.
So our pastor says to examine yourselves, and gives the parameters for participation.
I recall Jack Hayford saying that they barred no one, at the Church on the Way. He said that if there is anything really Spiritual about partaking communion, that it might just have that same meaning for a seeker as for a believer. He also said that many had been saved in the process of taking the elements .. had come to faith as a result (and yes I know that lots of other things had to take place, Spiritually).
Thoughtful essay, David. However, one question:
How do you “discern” a particular person to be a member of “the body,” if he or she has refused to obey the Head of that body, Who commands new believers to be baptized?
Bob,
I agree that is a good model: encouraging people to examine themselves, and giving the parameters for participation. And, the parameters, as I understand them, are being a bona fide member of the Body of Christ, and confessing, and repenting of, any known sin in one’s life.
Regarding what you say about Hayford, I can see how someone, while meditating on the message conveyed through the Lord’s Supper, might, at that moment, be transformed from a seeker to a believer. No doubt, this has happened on numerous occasions. I do think, however, it is our responsibility to warn people, as Paul did to the Corinthians, of the danger of partaking unworthily.
Malcolm,
I seem to recall us going over this particular point previously. In any case, I don’t think someone who is sincerely submissive in their heart to the Lordship of Jesus, and, who, as a result of following a different hermeneutical process, has come to a different conclusion than we have related to what constitutes authentic water baptism, is, in fact, “refusing to obey the Head of the body.” On the other hand, though, I think we do have warrant to ask ourselves if, when we refuse to admit fellow brothers and sisters in Christ to the Lord’s table, it is we who are “refusing to obey the Head of the body.”
David,
1) I’m not sure about the Baptist view, but in my studies, most I read seemed to agree with your position that “recognizing the body” referred to examining one’s relationship within the Body of Christ. You are right on.
2) In my studies, it seems that the word “church” is used for the local gathered church at times, and the “geographical” church (church in Jerusalem, church in Judea, etc). But most of the times when “The Body of Christ” is used, it seems to refer to that larger group, the entire company of the redeemed. So, on that basis, there is a danger in sectarian celebration of the supper.
Well written and well-argued.
Dr. Yarnell, are you interpreting that phrase “discerning the body” to refer to a duty to decide who is and is not a part of the body of Christ? In other words, the command goes to the administration of the supper, not to those who are participating in it?
Dave,
Thanks for the affirmation.
Who’s that in the picture with you?
Out of curiosity, how does one effectively administer a closed communion? Does saying, “We ask that only those who were baptized by immersion as believers partake of the Lord’s Supper,” count as closed communion, or do the servers have to skip people when they serve the elements?
Also, In any case, I don’t think someone who is sincerely submissive in their heart to the Lordship of Jesus, and, who, as a result of following a different hermeneutical process, has come to a different conclusion than we have related to not admitting fellow brothers and sisters in Christ to the Lord’s table, is, in fact, “refusing to obey the Head of the body.”
Is this an inappropriate reformulation of your comment #10?
Barbara Brown Taylor had a great sermon at Duke chapel in Feb on Abraham as the Father of Three faiths; Judaism, Muslim and Christianity.
Abraham Lived by Faith.
I once had a deacon vote against me cause I refused the bread as he was passing it, but got it from another deacon. Lost a vote right there during Communion.
So you never know what’s at stake.
Glad to know D Rogers has seen Babette’s Feast. Hope Mike Rasberry will join us on some occasion; and for further discussion, DAvid Rogers, make an effort to watch online the panel discussion of last night in the 10 pm hour on http://www.booktv.org on Muslim and dialogue with the Secular West. Fascinating exchange about where Rights derive; from Revealed Truth or Reason.
With your time in Spain, and the inflection of the Moors there; would think you would want to give the program strong consideration.
As further aside had the opportunity just today to discuss it with Israeli Muslim Robotics Team who were in the states for ten days in Robotics competition at Ga. Tech.
Is my Babe Ruth picture showing up? It doesn’t show up on my computer. Babe and I are old friends!
Andrew,
First off, I need to make sure you are referring to “closed communion” and not “close communion.” If that is indeed the case, it is fairly simple to administer, at least, in a church that is small enough to know who is a member and who is not. You just serve it to everyone who is a member, and don’t to everyone who is not. Sometimes, non-members are asked to leave the premises. Sometimes, all the members stand, and non-members remain seated.
In the case of “close communion,” you can do something similar. Though, there are varieties of administering a “close communion” Lord’s Supper, some more strict than others in their actual application. For instance, you can just tell people from the pulpit that, if they have not been appropriately baptized, they are asked to kindly refrain from participating. Or, you can ask all those who are baptized believers to stand, and those who are not to remain seated. Once again, if the church is small enough, those passing out the elements may already know who is baptized and who is not, and just pass by those who are not baptized. In one church I visited one time, the elders stood at the entrance to the church, and as visitors came in, they pulled them aside, and had a brief interrogation, asking about their church background, and status of their baptism. That is a particularly strict form of administering “close communion.”
As far as your “reformulation” is concerned, I agree that turn-about is fair play. And, I do not assume that those who believe in and/or practice “close” or “closed communion” are necessarily disobedient to the Lord’s command. Just as in the case of believers baptism/paedobaptism, I believe many take their position based upon their sincere understanding of Scripture, even though they may be mistaken. But, if one comes to see that Scripture teaches something, and then, does not follow through with their understanding of Scripture, then that “mistake” or “error” becomes “disobedience.” For this reason, I think it is valid to challenge people in regard to this to examine their own heart before the Lord.
Also, I think verses like Romans 14:4, 10, 12 & 22 are very applicable in this case.
David, maybe you can answer the question that I asked to Dr. Yarnell above.
Is the “BI”/closed/close communion position on the phrase “recognize” or “discern” the body that the phrase refers to the administration of the supper? I got that from the way he phrased his question.
Its not a view I’ve found in the commentaries I’ve read, but perhaps none of them has been a specifically Baptist/closed communion viewpoint.
Is he saying that “discerning the body” means overseeing the process of communion to make sure only the proper “body” participates? Or am I misreading him?
David,
Believe it or not, I’ve never been present at a closed communion service. My wife has though. From the desciption, it all seems kind of strange. I don’t know which is more awkward, asking all visitors to raise their hand so they can be recognized, or asking all heathen to remain seated.
Stephen Fox,
I’ve seen Babette’s Feast. I agree with David. My question, is what particular application are you making in this discussion with that allusion.
David,
I think administrative authority is important to this issue. I’ve come full circle to once again believing that baptism and The Lord’s Supper are church ordinances and should be administered under the authority of a local church.
While I don’t agree with the practice, as a matter of preference, numerous churches authorize cell groups and spiritual leaders to administer The Lord’s Supper in small group settings. I do not have a conviction on this matter, but I do have a conviction that The Lord’s Supper should not be administered on the steps of the State Capitol Building to those gathered to hear an Independence Day Discourse by some State Denominational executive.
I believe the ordinance is fellowshipal and therefore should not be administered to the public at large, with a “Y’all Come” approach.
What are your thoughts on this?
Dave,
As I wrote in my post, my understanding of the “traditional” Baptist position on “discerning the body” is as follows:
“Among Baptists, the traditional understanding of the phrase ‘discerning the body,’ in 1 Cor. 11:29, has to do with the responsibility of taking the Lord’s Supper in a respectful manner, realizing that what we are doing, at that moment, is commemorating the death of our Lord Jesus, and that it is a solemn occasion, not one for joking, jesting, or behaving in a flippant manner.”
I am not sure if, beyond this, there is any official (or unofficial) BI/closed/close communion position on this. Maybe Malcolm will get back with us, and, at least, let us know his personal view on the matter.
I have been a Southern Baptist all my life. I don’t know how many churches I have celebrated communion in, but its not a small number. I have never been in a church that practices closed or even close communion. I don’t ever remember being told that baptism was essential to partake, or anything like that.
I’d be interested in hearing how closed or close communion is done. Do they actually refuse to serve certain people, or is it left up to the individual to police himself?
How actually does one practice this form of communion?
Dave,
If you read my post earlier, you’ll see how the majority of those who believe in “Close” Communion do it in Southern Baptists Churches. Rick Warren advocates having the Lord’s Supper at a time when the fewest number of non-family members are present. I think that is why it is done primarily in their small groups.
Most Presbyterian Church of America churches practice “close” communion, I believe.
We tell the people who we believe should participate and then tell them that we will not refuse their participation as we offer the elements, but trust God to lead them in their decision.
We do not have an age requirement, as some assemblies do, however we caution parents that it is for born again Believers who have been immersed, or who are awaiting immersion. We also ask them to monitor their children.
It is not unusual for an active church member to forego the elements because we ask for the individual to allow the Holy Spirit to reveal attitudes and unconfessed sin and while I always explain that the purpose of such conviction is to confess and claim 1 John 1:9, then trust God to forgive, some inevitably feel they are harboring sin and are thereby ineligible to partake of the elements.
Mike,
There are several passages/principles of Scripture that play into the question you ask, as I understand it.
First of all, the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, as I argue above, is a celebration of the unity of the Body of Christ, and thus, its proper context is with a representative group of that same Body (i.e. truly born-again people), and not “the public at large.”
Matthew 18:20 says, “For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.” Though the Body of Christ is evidently larger than two or three, it seems that, whenever two or three true believers gather together in Jesus’ name, that is an adequate and appropriate expression of the larger Body of Christ for purposes such as the Lord’s Supper. I agree that the evidence here is not conclusive, though.
Also, Acts 2:46 says, in regard to the believers at Jerusalem, “Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts.”
As I understand it, the meaning of “broke bread” here is a bit ambiguous, perhaps referring to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, or perhaps just to regular fellowship meals. But, many interpreters do understand this to refer to the Lord’s Supper, which would speak, in some way, to your question about celebrating it in cell groups. I suppose, then, you have to sort out the whole thing about “cell groups” vis-a-vis “house churches,” and whether the Church in Jerusalem was one central organization that met in separate home meetings, much like a modern-day “cell church,” or whether it was made up of many different “autonomous” house churches. Personally, I have no problem with celebrating the Lord’s Supper in either cell groups or house churches.
Then, you also have 1 Cor. 11:18-22, which talks about “when you come together as a church,” seemingly insinuating that is the appropriate context for celebrating the Lord’s Supper, and then saying, “Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink?” evidently referring to eating your normal meal at home, before going to church, where you would then celebrate the Lord’s Supper.
This is all a bit confusing, especially considering the fact that the original model for the Lord’s Supper was taken from the Last Supper, which was the traditional Passover Seder, which involved a full meal, consisting of various courses, and which normally took place in Jewish homes. Did Paul perhaps change the format of the celebration of the Lord’s Supper in Corinth, due to the abuses that were happening there? I think it is difficult to know for sure.
Do you have any Scripture to add to this (or other perspectives on these same passages) that support the view you take?
David,
Not sure I agree with your “discerning the body” as relating to seriousness/flippancy.
I’ve never been a southern Baptist Church where “discerning the body” did not relate to recognition of theological oneness.
An aside to the issue, when I was doing mission evangelism with the HMB back in the 80′s I went to several different churches in the upper mid-west, the Dakotas, and Colorado where it seemed nearly every service was a celebration of the Lord’s Supper. I think back then everyone thought it had to be celebrated on some sort of schedule. I’m glad that it is more spontaneous now, or at least I perceive it as such.
Mike,
Are you saying you don’t agree that is a valid interpretation, or you don’t agree that is the traditional Baptist position? Or, both?
David,
I’m saying that I do not believe that posit is the general understanding of the man in the pew, or the preacher in the pulpit. I could be wrong. I’ve been in maybe 150-200 churches over the last forty plus years where The Lord’s Supper was either celebrated or discussed.
I do not recall what you stated as being the traditional understanding as ever being a stated issue. Now, certainly, the celebration has been traditionally approached with great caution and warnings. If that is what you mean, then I agree.
Mike,
I don’t have any empirical evidence for my assertion about the “traditional” understanding. It is more an impression on my part than anything else. Perhaps I am wrong on this. If I am, it only helps to strengthen my overall argument here on this post, though, unless I am misunderstanding what you are saying.
David,
My remonstrance in the last post was not intended as an argument against the thesis of your post, rather it was simply an attempt at clarifying what I perceive as faulty reasoning on a singular and particular aspect of it.
While you and I are pretty close in our understanding the administration of the ordinance. We have significant differences. I tend perhaps more toward the “close” position with a bit of modification, while you tend toward the “open” position with a bit of modification. Neither of us could be rightly identified as “close” or “open” if I understand your position correctly.
I do hold to an immersion position as the only legitimate baptism, and I hold that such participants be immersed prior to the celebration if logistically possible.
I can not quote chapter and verse for my reasoning, it is rather a philosophical position based upon my understanding of the New Testament as a whole, and the unique relationship I see the Lord’s Supper and Immersion holding in the life of the body.
Mike,
Okay, fair enough. Although I haven’t specifically mentioned it here, underlying this whole post is the idea that the BF&M does not make room for the position I have articulated here. Some have even suggested that someone with the beliefs I have articulated here should not be permitted to serve in any official denominational capacity, including that of IMB missionary. That was a big point behind the post over at SBC Today, and the ensuing comment stream. I am not sure if the same folks would be more accommodating for your “modified close communion” position. It is my contention, however, that among SBC churches today, it is likely that an “open” or some version or another of a “modified open communion” position is more common than a “close” or “closed” position. Thus, we have an anomaly in that the BF&M does not truly reflect the majority position of SBC churches. Up to now, this has not been the end of the world, since there seems to have been a tacit recognition of this anomaly on the part of those in charge of making decisions, and this point has not been strictly enforced as a requirement for denominational service. However, in recent years, a few of the so-called “BI” folks have begun to be vocal about the need for consistently enforcing the BF&M, including this point. That is a big part of my motivation in posting this. Before we as Southern Baptists go further in this direction, I think we need to think through the biblical implications. We profess to be a people of the book. And, for the most part, I believe we are. But, on a few specific items, such as this one, there are those among us who seem willing to let tradition trump Scripture. That is why I insist, if someone does not agree with what I am saying here, please use Scripture to demonstrate where I am wrong.
In any case, it sounds like your view is close enough to mine that it should not cause any problem for both of us cooperating together in denominational service. My hope is that there would be room in the SBC for full participation of those with a view similar to what I have presented here. I believe that most Southern Baptists, if they took the time to think through the issues, and study the relevant Bible passages, would agree.
David,
I agree with you. I imagine the greatest number of churches practice some sort of celebration of the Lord’s Supper in that tween range where you and I reside.
The way one celebrates the Lord’s Supper in the local assembly is not nearly as important as the doctrinal position behind the Lord’s Supper. There can be myriads of applications, but the purpose of the BF&M is to codify the theological basis of the celebration.
I do think that the celebration should flow out of a church and not a denominational office. A state convention, an association, or the IMB/NAMB are NOT churches. They are organizations established by the churches to augment the work of the churches in a united way. They have no church authority, and they should not exercise the work of the church.
I know the “…where two or three are gathered…” phrase is utilized to justify many actions delegated to the church. However, here I disagree with Dave. He earlier said the preponderance of references concerning the church referred to the entire body of believers, I think the great preponderance of references to the word church refer to the local assembly. Certainly Christ is in the midst of His people when they meet to pray, to fellowship, play, study, or what ever they do. However, His presence does not equate to the church which is an organized functioning body with responsibilities and authority.
The problem, I’ve found with opening the door to participation is that it becomes a “where do you stop” scenario. For years, my wife and I could not go to the FMB/IMB because my children were always the wrong age after I had the necessary education. I didn’t agree with the policy, but I understood that not everybody would agree with every policy. I never held any animus toward the FMB/IMB for that policy. I did try to change it and get around it. I believe it is a noble thing to attempt to change what one doesn’t agree with, however, when that change becomes an obsession, it is counter productive.
The criteria for seeking change is integrity. Thirty-five years ago a group of professors acknowledged their disagreement with the doctrinal statement they had signed, but they rationalized their continued work under that document with the caveat that it is not dishonest if one is working to change the document. Their rationale was faulty.
A close friend of mine went to England with an independent Baptist Missions sending organization. While in England he became a 5-point Calvinist. After examining the doctrinal statement of the missions organization through which he served, he concluded that he should resign and find another venue through which to serve. That is integrity, in my opinion.
Every close communion service that I’ve been a part of has never asked members to stand, or hold up their hands. lol.
I’ve never seen any close Communion Church ever tell the Deacons to “skip” people that arent properly baptised. lol.
I have seen it mentioned before taking the Lord’s Supper that only baptised Believers should participate in this sacred, special observance. Then, the plates holding the wine and the bread are just passed around…with no LS police action taken. lol
Just for yall’s info.
David
David,
Without posting a lengthy response here, if you are interested in a brief article on why communion is to be closed, you can look at changeworthmaking.wordpress.com.
Mike,
I think you may have read Dave wrong. Here is what he said:
“In my studies, it seems that the word ‘church’ is used for the local gathered church at times, and the ‘geographical’ church (church in Jerusalem, church in Judea, etc). But most of the times when ‘The Body of Christ’ is used, it seems to refer to that larger group, the entire company of the redeemed.”
Personally, I think we must think of a local church not as a separate entity all to itself, but rather as a local expression of the Universal Church. The NT never gives us an indication that the term “ekklesia” has two different meanings, according to the context. In my understanding, though, there is no escaping the fact that there are indeed different expressions or applications of “ekklesia” according to context, and we cannot limit “ekklesia” to strictly a local body, with a defined membership, elder body, and organizational structure. That is indeed one expression or application of “ekklesia,” and, even, in day-to-day practice, perhaps, the most important, and the most frequently referenced in the NT. But, it is not a separate entity, but rather a local expression or application of a larger reality.
Regarding caveats, whenever I have been asked about my doctrinal beliefs, and agreement with documents such as the BF&M, I have tried to be as open as possible, and not hide anything. My guess is that many in SBC denominational service have not read and analyzed the BF&M as closely as I have, and thus, when faced with this particular point, have not seen a problem, and, perhaps, not signed with caveats. But, when you really get down to it, I would not be surprised if the majority of denominational servants have the same caveat (at least, in their personal beliefs and practice, if not outwardly expressed) here as I do.
If I were convinced my view here was in the minority, or that the majority of Southern Baptists would really prefer that someone with my views on this subject not represent them, then I would agree with you: the most honorable thing to do would be to resign and seek a different organization with which to cooperate.
The issue I see here, though, is that this particular point in the BF&M is an anomaly, and does not truly represent the beliefs and practice of the majority. And, even if it were to represent the majority, it is practically certain that the majority would not wish someone with the views I have expressed here to be excluded from denominational service, just because they hold to this particular view.
In such a situation, I have come to the conclusion that the position of greatest integrity is to remain within the system and work to have it changed, in order to better reflect more accurately the views of the majority. To do otherwise, I believe, would be to cede to the wishes of a vocal, and often intransigent, minority.
Jeff,
Welcome to SBC Impact!
The problem with your article, and with the Landmark position, in general, is a tendency to take descriptive passages of the NT and turn them into prescriptions for all churches and Christians today. If you were consistent with the idea that just because Jesus celebrated the Last Supper with the 12 apostles, we today must celebrate it only with our particular local church, you must also follow a number of other practices, such as, literally greeting one another with a holy kiss, speaking in tongues as a requirement for baptism (Acts 10:45-48), etc., etc.
I would also be interested to see your exegesis of the various passages in 1 Corinthians I have referenced here in my post, especially 10:16-17, and 1:2. Is there one body, or many bodies? Is the Lord’s Supper a celebration of the unity of the one body, or a celebration of the separate unity of many different bodies?
David Worley,
Yes, I believe your impression is probably correct here. A “modified close communion” approach, as you describe here, is probably much more common in SBC churches than a strict “close” or “closed communion” approach. However, I believe, an “open” or “modified open” approach is more common than “modified close,” “close,” and “closed” put together. Also, I think there is some question as to what degree a “modified close communion” approach is in strict compliance with the BF&M. If something is a “prerequisite,” there must be some way to enforce it, right?
Brother David R.,
Thank you for clarifying your thoughts on this subject of the Lord’s Table. I believe that participating in the Lord’s Supper is “closed” to the body of Christ. It is the express privilege of the body to obey Christ in his command concerning Himself to his disciples. The Lord’s Table is a sacred and blessed event….so those in Christ are commanded to take it seriously and joyfully, reflecting an attitude of service to anyone that has believed on Christ by faith.
As we take the Lord’s Table, we are discerning His resurrected body in the presence and fellowship of His earthly body, in order that we learn to serve one another in love (1 Corinthians 11ff). That is why we are commanded not to observe this command as some litmus test for anything…because we participate with Him alone,… moving to action to serve others (1 Corinthians 10).
The observance to this command is unto Christ alone, with an attitude of service to the body (entire body of Christ), whether immediate to the local assembly or those of the body of Christ that are passing through …as the Apostles and others did on many occasions. “Closed” to the Apostles is interpreted by the Apostles as identifying and including all believers. “Closed” as demonstrated by some Baptists is interpreted as only those of experiential trust. The Apostles were not in the habit of installing moratoriums on other believers, nor managing litmus tests,…those types of things are not found in the scriptures. On the other hand,…The Apostles encouraged the observance of the Table,…immediately as to the Corinthians in the midst of horrible sin (their encouragement was immediate)…. The Apostle Paul simply exhorted the assembly to change and then to joyfully partake of this joyous command.
Blessings,
Chris
David,
I agree that I mis-read Dave, I apologize for the careless way I handled his missive.
As long as the caveat is expressed, I too, see no problem with the situation. If of course, the candidate is accepted with the caveat.
I still don’t agree with you that the unity of the wider body is intended in the passages you affirm. I think your predispositions have lead you to your conclusions, just as mine have to those I hold. It is a matter I will agree to disagree with you on, while holding you dear as fellow servant in His cause. It certainly is not a matter of fellowship with me. However, I’m cognizant of the fact that many do hold such as a matter of fellowship.
I believe, further, that the discourse here is serving what I perceive as its intended purpose of causing us to investigate the basis of our own belief structure, while discovering those differences which should and should not be fellowshipal matters.
David,
On the landmark position of closed communion, the example of Christ was not the only point of reference. Acts 2:41-42, serves as the pattern or “protocol” for the supper. Then what you also find is that there is a the burden on the local body to be careful as to who they take the supper with. Closed communion is the only practice that allows that.
If you are familiar at all with the Landmark position, I think you would agree that the real issue goes back to the true nature of the church.
The landmark baptist position is that “all of the saved” do not make up a “spiritual invisitible, body.” That the body of Christ is the “visible local church” only. The “assembly itself” of properly baptized believers in proper covenant attempting to carry out the great commission.
Which as I understand it, (which may be an incomplete understanding) was the historic position of the SBC, or those churches that constituted the beginning of the SBC, for many, many years.
Now the landmark position is clear that “all of the saved” DO constitute the Family of God, and all the saved are brothers and sisters, and we constitute His offspring family. Yet that is not a “church” or “assembly.”
True discussion of the Lord’s Supper rests squarely upon a true discussion of the nature of the church (called out assembly).
One other thing, David. I held your Father in such high esteem, that you come to me with a higher level of acceptance than most people. For that reason, I’m probably more careful with my responses because I believe some of him must have rubbed off on you.
That very high esteem, however, can also work against you in my eyes because consequently I probably, rightly or wrongly, expect of you a higher level of integrity and scholarship. The same doors which your name opens are often more difficult to keep open.
A very personal aside, your father and I had very few directly personal interactions, but in the times of some of my greatest difficulties in ministry, he gave encouragement and help. I shall never forget that.
I don’t know your age, but were you with the Youth group when the bus broke down on the way to Flagstaff about 1990? I’m just wondering if I’ve met you somewhere?
Jeff,
As I see it, your use of Acts 2:41-42 repeats the pattern of using a descriptive passage and making it prescriptive. And, it is not even totally clear that what is being described is a “closed communion” type of celebration of the Lord’s Supper. As I mentioned in my post, some even question whether or not “breaking bread” refers to the Lord’s Supper here. Personally, I tend to agree it does refer to the Lord’s Supper. But, beyond that, to use this passage as a guideline for a “closed communion” approach to the Lord’s Supper throughout church history seems to me to be extremely shaky, from a hermeneutical perspective.
As far as the nature of the church, I would be interested to hear what you do with 1 Cor. 1:2. The term “invisible church” can be somewhat of a red herring, I believe. There are many passages (practically every one in Ephesians, for example) in which “ekklesia” is used in a way that makes no sense, if applied only to refer to a “local church,” as understood by landmarkers.
Also, it seems you are distinguishing here between the Family of God and the Body of Christ. I would be interested to hear your biblical justification for this.
While it is true that landmark ecclesiology has had a much greater influence within the SBC in the past than now, I, for one, am very thankful that those days are largely in the past. I am concerned, at the same time, that, in the past 5 years or so, it seems to be making a comeback in some circles.
Mike,
I am grateful for the high esteem in which you hold my father, which I also share. And, I won’t begrudge the extra margin of acceptance or credibility you give me, as a result.
However, the only thing I ask for (at least, when I am presenting points like this) is that we all try our best to look objectively at what Scripture really says, and be open to learn from one another, and admit when we may be wrong.
I am 49. In 1990, my wife and I left for Spain to begin our missionary career there. So, no, I was not on the bus headed to Flagstaff. I take it you were?
David,
I will give an explanation of the local church doctrine in a few days on my blog. (I was planning on that before I came across this stream.)
But you’ve said something that I cannot help but be interested in.
(Before I go on, I have named one of my daughters after your father. He had a PROFOUND impact on me during some dark days of my life several years ago. I wept when he went on to glory. He meant much to our family personally.)
Aside from the doctrinal issue, you made the statement that while Landmark Ecclesiology had a profound impact on the Baptists of yesterday, you’re glad that it doesn’t now.
Why?
If the forefathers of generations gone by, recognized the local nature of the church alone from the scriptures, as being the truth why then, (just humor me for a second) why do you not want that ecclesiology to be the truth?
Right now I’m not arguing whether it is, or isn’t, but why do you not want it to be?
You have intrigued me.
David Rogers,
I really do feel that a modified close communion does go along with the BFM2K. I really dont see that anything has to be “enforced” in order to be in agreement with the BFM2K, or to have close communion. I think it’s sufficient to tell people, who can participate, then leave it between them and the Lord, if they feel that they can, or cannot participate in the LS with our Church.
David
Jeff,
First off, as I said to Mike, I am very happy for the blessing my father has been to you and your family, and grateful to hear about that. That is a blessing for me.
Also, please don’t confuse any disagreement I may have with you over matters of ecclesiology as personal animosity, or lack of acceptance and esteem for you as a brother in Christ.
Having said that, for me, it is not a question of “wanting” something to be the truth. It is a question of searching God’s Word, and wanting to submit to what I understand it to teach. As I have done my best to exegete and understand Scripture, I have found the Landmark position to be lacking.
As I also said to Mike above, however, I would hope to be objective in my study of Scripture, be willing to learn from others (including you), and admit where I may be wrong.
David,
I understand your statement now much clearer.
Thanks for your gracious answer.
I too have no animosity whatsoever toward those who disagree concerning their ecclesiology.
I do look forward to future discussions concerning these issues.
(I listened this morning to your father’s message on Malachi 3. again. I listen to him every day. That message would be a good message for a large number of people right now criticizing pastors who preach and teach tithing. – interestingly enough they were silent while he was present on earth.
Like Ken Whitten said, I felt “safe” as a pastor with him here. That “safety” is no more.)
Has anyone mentioned that Jesus Himself .. Who I guess would be an authority on this .. served Communion to Judas Iscariot? One to whom He referred as “not one of us?”
Wonder why He did that? Chance to repent and believe? Opportunity for restoration?
Do they mention that in College or Seminary?
Bob,
I think that is a good point in regard to not taking every detail from events described in Scripture and using them as prescriptions for us in the church today. If, as Jeff says, the fact that Jesus invited only the 12 to the Last Supper, and that was “His local church,” applies to us today, then, by the same token, we ought to invite those we know are not truly saved.
I do not believe we should invite those we know are not truly saved. But, neither do I believe we should only invite those of our local church.
bob, that was a really interesting thought. Don’t know exactly what to make of it, but it is something to chew on.
Hi DAVID ROGERS,
I am sharing from Jean Vanier’s ‘The Body Broken’, an insight into connections seen between Our Lord and the unity of His Body to be found in Him through communion:
“So Jesus begins to make the passage
from the one who is healer
to the one who is wounded;
from the man of compassion
to the man in need of compassion;
from the man who cries out:
‘If anyone thirsts let him come to me to drink,’
to the man who cries out:
‘I thirst.’
From announcing the good news to the poor,
Jesus becomes the poor.
He crosses over the boundary line of humanity
which separates those whose needs are satisfied
from those who are broken and cry out in need.
The Call to Wholeness in the Body of Christ
He came to transform fear into trust,
so that the walls separating people into enemies
would disappear,
and we could join together in a covenant of love,
‘So shall we fully grow up into Christ,
who is the head,
and by whom the whole body
is bonded and knit together,
every joint adding its own strength
for each individual part to work according to its
function,
so the whole body grows until it has built itself up in
love.’
Yes, this is the vision of Jesus for our world
announced by St Paul:
one body –
with the poorest and weakest among us at the heart,
those that we judge the most despicable, honoured;
where each person is important
because all are necessary.
His body, to which we all belong
joined in love, filled with the Spirit.
This is the Kingdom.
Brother David R.,
I never did get this straight in my mind over at SBC Today. Is the instructions that you give concerning those who are not baptized by immersion but believe their baptism is a valid baptism, the part that makes your position as “modified close communion”?
Brother Dave Miller,
Because you have never been in a church that practices close/closed communion, I am a little apprehensive in answering this question, as I have never been part of a church that practices open communion. I remember that we had a pastor come to the church I grew up in that tried to bring in open communion but it did not go over very well. The purpose for him starting it was that was what they were teaching at SEBTS in the 70′s. However, the way that I serve close communion is I warn the congregation of the biblical consequence of taking of the supper in an unworthy manner. I express the fact that disobedience is what makes to our Lord’s command is what makes one partake in an unworthy manner. Thus, baptism by immersion is a command of our Lord and to not follow our Lord’s command means one is living in disobedience. I move on to tell the congregation that if they have spoken ill of a Brother/Sister in Christ or they have ought against another Brother/Sister they are also living in disobedience. All of this can be forgiven by simply expressing this to our Lord and asking forgiveness.
After that instruction I give the congregation a time of reflection and commitment then we pass out the elements. That, as I understand it, is close communion.
In a closed communion setting the Pastor would inform the congregation that the activity is only for those who are a member of the local body. In the churches I have been in that practiced closed communion allows for a time for those that are not members to leave. Then the elements are passed out.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Dave Miller,
I am sorry. The sentence that reads: I express the fact that disobedience is what makes to our Lord’s command is what makes one partake in an unworthy manner.
Should read; I express the fact that disobedience to our Lords command is what makes one partake in an unworthy manner. Sorry for the confusion.
Blessings,
Tim
I was working with a New Church Start in Flagstaff and they were trying to give us a helping hand. But the break down delayed their arrival and subsequently the time they could stay with us.
Christiane,
Very beautiful poem. Thanks for sharing that.
Tim,
I never said I believed in “modified close communion.” I believe in “modified open communion.” Mike Rasberry’s position, and that of David Worley, as I understand it, is what I would call “modified close communion.”
Tim,
I just realized maybe you meant to say “modified open communion.” If that is the case, it is “modified,” because it is not pure “open communion,” which, as I understand it, allows for any and all who profess to be Christians to partake. The difference in my position is that I believe those in the congregation should be warned about taking the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner, and discouraged from taking it without first confessing any known sin, and repenting of it, including the refusal to obey the Lord’s command to be baptized. It is not “close communion,” though, because I recognize the possibility that some paedobaptists may not technically be disobedient, just mistaken, or in error, in their view of baptism. Thus, I would encourage them to participate according to the dictates of their own conscience before the Lord.
Brother David R.,
You know if we keep going back and forth on this we can write a book with a bunch of new terms.
This is what is throwing me a curve ball. When you use the term “open” communion I am understanding it from a perspective as anyone is given the elements regardless of their salvation experiences because everyone is invited to partake of God’s bountiful fruit. The following terminology is used in a Q&A on the UMC website;
That is my understanding of “open” communion. When you use the term “open” I understand it more as being open/confined. IOW, it is open to all within the body of Christ. Thus, that is what I hear you say when you give the instructions you do. You fall, for me, more into a “open/confined” communion position.
However, what I keep hearing you say about close communion is that the administrator ‘guards’ the elements and only allows those that have been baptized by immersion to partake. I have never seen the pastor ‘not allow’ anyone to receive the elements. Is that what you are saying? In a close communion setting people are actually told not to take, and kept from taking the elements?
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
When I use the terms “close,” “closed,” and “open,” I am using them in a Baptist context. If you are looking at a United Methodist definition of “open communion,” that could well be an explanation behind a good part of your confusion on this. The term “modified open communion” I have borrowed from Nathan Finn. I think it fits quite well. The term “modified close communion” is one that we have begun to use here on this post, in relation to Mike Rasberry’s description of his belief and practice. I am not aware of anyone else using it before now, though that is entirely possible.
In some ways, the difference between the “modified open” position and the “modified close” position, as I understand it, is one of nuance. According to both positions, no one acts as the “Lord’s Supper police.” But, in the “modified open” position, recognition is given to the fact that many paedobaptists are walking in daily communion with the Lord, and do not need to repent of their “sin of paedobaptism” before partaking in the Lord’s Supper, unless specifically convicted by the Lord and by Scripture that they are indeed living in disobedience. In the “modified close” position, as I understand it, paedobaptists would be admonished (if not directly, at least, in so many words) that, even though no one is going to “police” them, if they choose to take the Lord’s Supper in a Baptist church, they are violating Baptist polity, and choosing of their own accord to go against what we, as Baptists, are instructing them to do.
David,
So, I am to understand by your answer that you don’t think obedience is affiliated with a command but with a person’s perception of a command? In that case, logically, my obedience to God is whatever I want it to be.
Dave,
You are introducing a distinction where I find none.
Thanks,
Malcolm
Malcolm,
I believe obedience is an attitude of the heart that leads to concrete actions (see Matthew 5:17-28; 22:35-40, Romans 13:8, Romans 14, Galatians 5:14). I also believe we are judged according to the amount of light we have. We must also judge others according to same measure we are judged (Matthew 7:2). Though there is a place for redemptive church discipline, and “banning” (1 Corinthians 5), I believe the Lord’s Supper is a time for self-examination (1 Corinthians 11:28).
If someone has come to the point of such obstinate unrepentance that the only recourse left is to “ban” them, then I believe that also carries along with it the admonition to treat such a one as “a heathen and a publican” (Matthew 18:17).
Are you suggesting we should treat Ligon Duncan, for instance, as a “heathen and a publican”?
In other words, I believe there is a difference between persistent theological error, in and of itself, and unrepentant sin.
At the same time, I would agree that persistent theological error may well involve unrepentant sin, if the root of it is obstinance and arrogance. However, this is often hard to discern (1 Corinthians 4:1-5, 1 Timothy 5:24).
David Rogers: If you could risk reading a sermon by an Episcopalian Woman I think you will resonate with a lot in this one.
I read it again last night. Phenom of a sermon. Addresses the matter of open communion in an anecdote.
Should be of special interest to you as it does great praise to the son of your Dad’s classmate at NOBTS; Robert Marsh’s son Robert in reference to one of the more remarkable books I have ever read.
Mike Raspberry should read as well as it goes to the heart of Mississippi.
Be sure you get the anecdotes of Will Campbell about Grace.
Very strong.
Let me know what you think.
Quite frankly I think you will be in strong agreement with much of the doctrine beautifully oozing from this great sermon:
If something gets lost in transition here, the sermon on Hamer, Durr and Will starts about page 78 or 79 if you need to scrool around once you click.
http://books.google.com/books?id=0GDhSbruWXEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=fleming+rutledge+help+my+unbelief&source=bl&ots=zu1IZxg4tk&sig=SM4xER_4_U-6-5ArsUu1UGWmkZE&hl=en&ei=aLzQS6ygDoKI8wSRvPU5&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Stephen,
Pages 78, 79, and following are not included in the link you gave me.
David: Try again and give it 15 seoonds or so. I’ve clicked on it several time and pages 78-81 come up every time. 82 and the next 7 or so pages are not available but even the first three are very strong and give you a taste of where she is going with Romans chapter 5 and 10 and the Stout magisterial assertion of Paul “Christ Died for the Ungodly.”
She incarnates that masterfully with all her tapestry here, and the Will Campbell episode is one that hadn’t registered with me to date, though I am quite a fan of his.
Make an effort to get a used print edition of this collection of sermons. Her challenge to the Jesus Seminar will warm your heart, and her sermon doubting and believing goes to my gut as I attended one of the funerals of the victim of the 94 Goshen UMC Tornado outside Piedmont, Alabama.
Strong stuff; hope you will give it another try.
Stephen,
On my screen, it skips from page 72 directly to the back cover.
David: Thanks for trying, no kidding.
Great mystery why it shows up here in Bama but not in Tn.
Used copies start at 1.99; magnificent sermons
Good stuff, no kidding; sorry it didn’t work out with the online preview.
Hope maybe you can try again in a few days to see if luck changes with this site.
Sfox
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Help-My-Unbelief/Fleming-Rutledge/e/9780802838957
Time for a History lesson: Keach, Knollys, and Kiffin (Sp?) were all closed/close communionists. John Bunyan was open communion. His church eventually wound up in the Presbyterian camp. The closed/close communion camp was the one that blossomed in the colonies and became the main denomination in the South. Landmarkism pushed the local church idea as the only true church…no universal element to the church. J.R. Graves, B.H. Carroll, George W. Truett, R.G. Lee, were all acually closed/close communionists and Landmarkers. Interestingly enough I found a reference in John Gano’s Memoirs that he celebrated communion with George Whitefield. This was in South Carolina, I think, but he never said at what church. The only view that is clearly justifiable in Scripture is the closed communion position, where only the local members are admitted to communion or denied access due to church discipline. They are the only people under the discipline of the local church. One can’t be disciplined who is not a member. I use to be a Landmarker, but the force of Scripture on te Universal Spiritual side cause me to change. THe one contribution of the Landmarkers to ecclesiology is that they proved that the local church is a democratic body under the leadership of Christ. In fact Kittell’s, TDNT, article on ekklesia by K Schmidt is actually lacking, because he never read J.R. Graves’ Intercommunion, one of the most insightful and incisive discussions on the use of ekklesia in Acts 19 and the relationship of the mob (ocklos) to it (the ocklos was in disorder – not the ekklesia). That said, Graves could not think his way out of a paper bag, when it came to I Cos.12:13 and neither could B.H. Carroll nor John R. Gilpin. Landmarkism grinds to pieces on that verse seen in the light of I Cors.1:2. Have fun with this info, fellows. It cost years of grief and anxiety to learn it.
David Rogers,
This is a dumb question I have asked Tim Rogers before and never had anyone show me where the Bible Verses are that say the Disciples were Baptized before or after receiving the First Lord’s Supper given by Jesus.
Any help of reference would be much appreciated from anyone.
Thank you
Wayne Smith
Wayne,
You kind of have to connect the dots on this one. But, I think it is a pretty fair assumption that the 12 apostles were baptized, either by John the Baptist, by Jesus, or by both. Another possibility in the case of some is that they were baptized by another one of Jesus’ disciples.
The verses we have to go on for this are:
John 3:22-26
“After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized. Now John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was plenty of water, and people were constantly coming to be baptized. (This was before John was put in prison.) An argument developed between some of John’s disciples and a certain Jew over the matter of ceremonial washing. They came to John and said to him, ‘Rabbi, that man who was with you on the other side of the Jordan—the one you testified about—well, he is baptizing, and everyone is going to him.’”
John 4:1-2
“The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John, although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples.”
Some questions we have to think through regarding this, however, are, if Jesus’ disciples were baptized first by John, were they baptized another time by Jesus, or by another one of Jesus’s disciples? The relevance of this question comes from considering Acts 18:25, in which it says Apollos “taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John,” and Acts 19:1-7, in which it talks about 12 men (or “about 12 men”) who had received John’s baptism, but did not know anything about the Holy Spirit. In v. 4, it says, “Paul said, ‘John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.’” It seems to me that the implication here is that John’s baptism alone was defective. Thus, we might be tempted to jump to the conclusion that Christian disciples who had been baptized by John were also baptized again, either by Jesus Himself (in the case of a few), or by one of Jesus’ disciples (in the case of the majority). But, then again, the main problem with the baptism of these “disciples,” according to the context in Acts 19 is that they had not received the Holy Spirit. Yet, if the apostles (and other Christian disciples) had received baptism at the hand of Jesus (or one of His disciples) prior to the Last Supper, the Holy Spirit had not yet descended upon them. This would not be until afterwards, at Pentecost. I suppose the best explanation for all of this is that the normal order for these things is only established afterwards, once the Holy Spirit had already come. Acts, however, is transitional in nature. In Acts, for instance, we see occasions on which people were first baptized in water, and then, afterwards, received the Holy Spirit, and/or spoke in tongues (Acts 8:4-19; 19:5-6), and another occasion in which they received the Holy Spirit, spoke in tongues, and then were baptized in water afterwards (Acts 10:44-48). The NT norm appears, however, to be that presented in Acts 18:8: “Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized.”
In all of this, there is no clear answer to your question. But, I think the biblical data on which an answer may be formulated must be taken from these references.
Dr Willingham,
I have visited Bunyan’s church numerous times. It is dually aligned with the Congregationalists and Baptists, not the Presbyterians. As for the Universal Church, Carroll most definitely affirmed the Universal Church, but (correctly) questioned when it was, not whether it was.
David,
Am I to infer that you would, then, affirm someone in their error in your communion rather than challenge them to come closer to fulfilling Christ’s will? As for Ligon Duncan, as a pastor, I would have withheld him from preaching in my pulpit, even as I would today invite him to the classroom to discuss other issues, though he would not leave without a corrective of some type. It is a matter to me of always keeping the truth in the pulpit clear even as I encourage broad-ranging discussions in the academic setting.
Thanks,
Malcolm
Malcolm,
I believe my post is clear in that I would affirm someone who was a paedobaptist, and yet a true believer (i.e. Ligon Duncan), in our joint communion in the Lord and in the gospel, and, at the same time, do my best to “challenge them to come closer to fulfilling Christ’s will.” To present these as mutually exclusive, I believe, is a false dichotomy.
David:
I do wish you would try the
Durr, Will and Fannie Lou Hamer again linked about.
I have clicked in two states and the first three pages come right up.
Christ died for the Ungodly; strong stuff
Dr. Yarnell: I stand corrected on Bunyan’s church. My information was from reading materials 40 years ago and that was not recent. At the time the matrials had been written, Bunyan’s church had a Presbyterian pastor, and the writer, if memory serves correctly, made the claim that it was. Having never been there, I was dependent on my source, always a hazard, especially when one acks the means to cross check it. Neer occurred to me to try the ne, enI madeth statement. That Carroll accepted the universal church is a surprise, but then I have not read all of his works. Thank you for the information altho I would like to know where his view accepting the universal church is to be found. Iwould be interested in reading it,
Carroll’s view is expressed in his Interpretation of the English Bible in comments on Ephesians (and I think other places). Carroll (like J. M. Pendleton) believed the NT taught a sense of the church as composed of all the saved and would one day actually be gathered together as a local congregation (in heaven!).