--------------------------
The author considers communion only in terms of his tradition, that it is a somber, introspective church ceremony. So the debate for him is who is eligible to partake of the ritual.
This completely misses the teaching of the passage. The early church was actually gathering together to eat a meal, a "commun"-ity practice:
Acts 2:42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.
The Lord’s Supper was a potluck, not a ceremony. It was likely a joyous event, with lots of laughing. But the problem was, certain people were eating all the food and getting drunk while others were left hungry. This dishonored the Body of Christ, that is, the community of believers:
1 Cor. 11:22 ...do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing?
The self-examination Paul commanded was to consider one's attitude toward the brothers:
1 Cor. 11:29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.
This thought continues into chapter 12:
1 Cor 12:13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free, and we were all given one Spirit to drink.
One might say that Paul’s discussion about the Lord’s Supper continues all the way to chapter 14, because it is all regarding how the Body ought to conduct itself when it gathers together.
Clearly we are not dealing with a ritual here. Given this, it almost seems nonsensical to discuss categories of participation in a community meal. In fact, to exclude anyone would be ironic, since that's what Paul was correcting.
“Presiding over the Communion service,” write R. Kent Hughes and Douglas Sean O’Donnell, “is one of the pastor’s most precious and profound privileges and ministries.” Yet sadly, communion—both in its practice and its theology—has been increasingly neglected in the contemporary church. This truth struck me during my seminary studies. When preparing to teach at my church’s communion service, I realized I didn’t have a theology of the Lord’s supper. In fact, I hadn’t thought about it in any concentrated fashion.
I was devouring books on preaching, pastoring, prayer, and theology, along with numerous commentaries. But I didn’t turn my hand to any resources on communion—no sermons, no books, no articles. I knew Paul talked about the Lord’s table in 1 Corinthians 11 and that it was something I should practice as a Christian, but that was about it. I’d neglected to think deeply about this “precious and profound” privilege.
Today, the table is celebrated less frequently and more languidly by many. It shouldn’t be so—everyone (but especially church leaders) needs to consider the supper’s frequency, significance, and benefits. I want to help you think more deeply about who should be admitted to the supper. If communion is a precious and profound privilege, who participates is important.
Common Approaches to Communion
There are four common answers to this question.
1. Unfenced Open Communion
Proponents of unfenced open communion take 1 Corinthians 11:28 seriously: “Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.”
No one except God can peer into another’s heart and see what’s there (1 Sam. 16:7). Therefore, those who hold to unfenced open communion argue they have no right to prevent anyone else from partaking of the emblems when the supper is celebrated. Communion is open to anyone who wishes to participate.
3. Close Communion
Proponents of close communion add that the church doesn’t merely have a responsibility to fence communion, but that participants have a responsibility to the church. Participating in an unworthy manner is being “guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord” (v. 27).
This “body” language, which in verse 27 refers to Jesus, is picked up again in verse 29: “For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.” Paul is most likely thinking of the church as Christ’s body in verse 29.
Proponents of close communion conclude that to participate in the supper, one must be a member in good standing of a like-minded local church. For many Baptists, this entails that participants be baptized as believers.
Baptists see believers’ baptism as the starting gun for the Christian life—the public announcement that Jesus has saved an individual who now lives for Jesus. The supper, by contrast, is the ongoing sign of salvation. It’s the church’s covenant-renewal ceremony—renewing our trust in Jesus and our allegiance to him. For this reason, close-communion Baptists argue that only those who have partaken of the initiation sign (believer’s baptism) should be permitted to partake of the ongoing sign (communion).
Why It Matters
I’m convinced that a nuanced closed communion position—with some exceptions for visiting pastors and members-in-process—is most faithful to Scripture. But what matters isn’t necessarily that you or your church arrive at the same conclusion as me. What matters is thinking deeply about communion.
We can do so by pausing and asking a simple question: Who should be admitted to the Lord’s supper? Such questions, as we’ve seen, introduce a range of related theological and practical considerations that force us to wrestle seriously with what we’re actually doing when we celebrate the supper. Such wrestling convicts us that neglecting this precious means of grace—in practice and theology—is wrong and needs to be corrected.
When you reflect more deeply on the supper, you’ll find it a precious and profound privilege, not just for those who preside but for those who partake.
I was devouring books on preaching, pastoring, prayer, and theology, along with numerous commentaries. But I didn’t turn my hand to any resources on communion—no sermons, no books, no articles. I knew Paul talked about the Lord’s table in 1 Corinthians 11 and that it was something I should practice as a Christian, but that was about it. I’d neglected to think deeply about this “precious and profound” privilege.
Today, the table is celebrated less frequently and more languidly by many. It shouldn’t be so—everyone (but especially church leaders) needs to consider the supper’s frequency, significance, and benefits. I want to help you think more deeply about who should be admitted to the supper. If communion is a precious and profound privilege, who participates is important.
Common Approaches to Communion
There are four common answers to this question.
1. Unfenced Open Communion
Proponents of unfenced open communion take 1 Corinthians 11:28 seriously: “Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.”
No one except God can peer into another’s heart and see what’s there (1 Sam. 16:7). Therefore, those who hold to unfenced open communion argue they have no right to prevent anyone else from partaking of the emblems when the supper is celebrated. Communion is open to anyone who wishes to participate.
2. Fenced Open Communion
Proponents of fenced open communion recognize that while we can’t peer into other people’s hearts, Scripture makes clear that communion is reserved for believers. To some extent, this is common sense; only believers can partake of a meal clearly intended as a celebration of the gospel (Matt. 26:26–28; Mark 14:22–24; Luke 22:19–20).
Restricting communion to believers is also supported by reading 1 Corinthians 11:28’s call to examine oneself in the context of verse 27: “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord.”
Additionally, proponents of fenced open communion appeal to the fact that communion is a church ordinance. Consider the corporate language in 1 Corinthians 11: “come together” (vv. 17, 18, 20, 33, 34). Given this truth, the church must make clear that only believers are permitted to participate in the supper.
The Presbyterian Church in America’s book of church order, for example, defines open communion not as an invitation to the general public but as an invitation to communicants in good standing from any evangelical church.
Proponents of fenced open communion recognize that while we can’t peer into other people’s hearts, Scripture makes clear that communion is reserved for believers. To some extent, this is common sense; only believers can partake of a meal clearly intended as a celebration of the gospel (Matt. 26:26–28; Mark 14:22–24; Luke 22:19–20).
Restricting communion to believers is also supported by reading 1 Corinthians 11:28’s call to examine oneself in the context of verse 27: “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord.”
Additionally, proponents of fenced open communion appeal to the fact that communion is a church ordinance. Consider the corporate language in 1 Corinthians 11: “come together” (vv. 17, 18, 20, 33, 34). Given this truth, the church must make clear that only believers are permitted to participate in the supper.
The Presbyterian Church in America’s book of church order, for example, defines open communion not as an invitation to the general public but as an invitation to communicants in good standing from any evangelical church.
3. Close Communion
Proponents of close communion add that the church doesn’t merely have a responsibility to fence communion, but that participants have a responsibility to the church. Participating in an unworthy manner is being “guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord” (v. 27).
This “body” language, which in verse 27 refers to Jesus, is picked up again in verse 29: “For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.” Paul is most likely thinking of the church as Christ’s body in verse 29.
Proponents of close communion conclude that to participate in the supper, one must be a member in good standing of a like-minded local church. For many Baptists, this entails that participants be baptized as believers.
Baptists see believers’ baptism as the starting gun for the Christian life—the public announcement that Jesus has saved an individual who now lives for Jesus. The supper, by contrast, is the ongoing sign of salvation. It’s the church’s covenant-renewal ceremony—renewing our trust in Jesus and our allegiance to him. For this reason, close-communion Baptists argue that only those who have partaken of the initiation sign (believer’s baptism) should be permitted to partake of the ongoing sign (communion).
4. Closed Communion
These two ordinances, as discussed above, belong not to individual Christians but to the church; they shouldn’t be enjoyed apart from a local church. For this reason, proponents of closed communion hold that only formal members of the church in which communion is being celebrated can participate in the ordinance. If baptism is the door into God’s family, membership is living in God’s family, and the supper is the family meal within the household.
Two broader considerations also nudge closed communion proponents in this direction.
First, the connection between communion and church discipline. An independent local church can’t discipline a member of another independent local church. But if this isn’t possible, then it also shouldn’t be possible to admit members of another church to the table. Moreover, if the supper isn’t reserved for members of a local church, then there’s no way of identifying the converted and the unconverted at the table. And if everyone is responsible for deciding his or her own worthiness to participate in communion, church discipline is redundant.
Second, a local church that practices regenerate church membership does so with the goal of accurately reflecting the universal church that will gather at the marriage supper of the Lamb (Rev. 19:6–10). Only members possess the church’s validation that they’re true believers, and thus only they should be admitted to the supper in that locale.
These two ordinances, as discussed above, belong not to individual Christians but to the church; they shouldn’t be enjoyed apart from a local church. For this reason, proponents of closed communion hold that only formal members of the church in which communion is being celebrated can participate in the ordinance. If baptism is the door into God’s family, membership is living in God’s family, and the supper is the family meal within the household.
Two broader considerations also nudge closed communion proponents in this direction.
First, the connection between communion and church discipline. An independent local church can’t discipline a member of another independent local church. But if this isn’t possible, then it also shouldn’t be possible to admit members of another church to the table. Moreover, if the supper isn’t reserved for members of a local church, then there’s no way of identifying the converted and the unconverted at the table. And if everyone is responsible for deciding his or her own worthiness to participate in communion, church discipline is redundant.
Second, a local church that practices regenerate church membership does so with the goal of accurately reflecting the universal church that will gather at the marriage supper of the Lamb (Rev. 19:6–10). Only members possess the church’s validation that they’re true believers, and thus only they should be admitted to the supper in that locale.
Why It Matters
I’m convinced that a nuanced closed communion position—with some exceptions for visiting pastors and members-in-process—is most faithful to Scripture. But what matters isn’t necessarily that you or your church arrive at the same conclusion as me. What matters is thinking deeply about communion.
We can do so by pausing and asking a simple question: Who should be admitted to the Lord’s supper? Such questions, as we’ve seen, introduce a range of related theological and practical considerations that force us to wrestle seriously with what we’re actually doing when we celebrate the supper. Such wrestling convicts us that neglecting this precious means of grace—in practice and theology—is wrong and needs to be corrected.
When you reflect more deeply on the supper, you’ll find it a precious and profound privilege, not just for those who preside but for those who partake.
No comments:
Post a Comment