In his 1890 article defending the practice of close communion, Richard Dudley argued that the Bible imposes three standards on all who would participate in the Lord’s supper. These are: genuine conversion, baptism1, and membership in a church of like faith2. But are there any plausible objections to these principles or to the practice of close communion as their logical application? Dudley identifies and addresses several.
Objection #1. “It is the Lord’s Table; you have no right to prevent the Lord’s people from approaching it.” In response Dudley notes that since it is the Lord’s table, we do not have a say in who may partake. Jesus left instructions in the New Testament; it is these we must follow and not our own opinions, no matter how wise or reasonable they may seem.
While we may be right to question and even defy tradition, we are not at liberty to set aside the commands of Christ.
Here Dudley points out what he considers to be a fallacy hidden within the objection itself, namely, that there are Christian churches which allow an unbaptized person to take the supper. He says that such a body does not exist anywhere in the world, and that baptism is “almost universally conceded…[as] a qualification for the Supper.” Whether that was true in the late 19th century I cannot say, but it certainly seems that there are many churches and possibly whole denominations which have no problem with unbaptized persons taking the supper.3
This practice not only contradicts the historical traditions of the church, it is directly contrary to the plain teaching and expectation of our Lord. And while we may be right to question and even defy tradition, we are not at liberty to set aside the commands of Christ.4 As the practice of offering communion to the unbaptized continues and becomes more common in modern American Christianity, it will lead to disastrous consequences.
Objection #2. “The Scriptures say: ‘Let a man examine himself;’ from which it is inferred that, if he is satisfied with his own fitness and right to the Supper, we have no right to interpose a barrier.” I would almost say that this needs no refutation, as it would allow an adulterer or some other unrepentant sinner to partake, as long as he deems himself worthy. But Dudley offers another defense, noting that not only would this sharing the supper with other evangelicals, whether Presbyterians, Anglicans, Methodists, Baptists, Reformed, etc., but it would also mean we ought to join with Roman Catholics, Unitarians5, and Universalists6, because each one examines himself and claims he is fit to partake in the supper.
“But who, among evangelical Christians, believes in carrying intercommunion that far?” asks Dudley. And he answers, “Nobody!” Sadly, this too may no longer be the case, but Dudley reminds us that Paul’s command for each one to examine himself was not given in the context of the whole host of denominations and sects which today make up Christianity, but to the members of one church, and it was designed to prevent the very thing this objection would endorse. Self-examination and self-judgment are not a license for anyone to join in the supper without regard for Scripture. Dudley is correct when he states, “That the communicant should be a converted man, a baptized man, a church member, is as plainly declared in the Scriptures as that he should be a moral man and just in his deportment.”
Objection #3. “I do not believe that it is right to separate Christian people. I think they ought to meet together at the Lord’s Table.” First, if this is true, then why have denominations or separate churches at all? If the various churches can and should join together in observing the Lord’s supper, then we are all being sinfully divisive to maintain our separate congregations. But if it is legitimate for us to maintain diverse churches, then it is certainly right to make a distinction about who can rightly share in the Lord’s table.
“Should principle yield to preference, or preference to principle?”
R. M. Dudley
Are we as Baptists responsible for the divisions that we see among Christians? Some would say so, because we hold convictions which prevent us from accepting the baptism, membership, and governing structure of other denominations. But Baptists are not the cause of this separation.
We often hear about churches which are more inclusive in the matter of baptism: they accept those who are sprinkled as well as those who are immersed, and infants as well as professing adults. These churches readily admit that immersion is valid baptism, but they have no objection to sprinkling as a substitute. In their minds, the mode of baptism and its proper subjects are a matter of opinion rather than obedience. If this is so, then why is it the Baptist who ought to compromise in order to maintain unity? Dudley asks, “Should conscience yield to convenience, or convenience yield to conscience? Should principle yield to preference, or preference to principle?”
These are serious questions. If we could yield to our Christian brothers without violating biblical convictions, we would do so, and gladly, in order to maintain fellowship. “But while our brethren are in this position to yield without the sacrifice of principle,” says Dudley, “we are not. Which of us is more responsible for the separation?” If the matter of baptism is a biblical one, and we believe it is, then so is the matter of the Lord’s supper. Matters of conscience should always be placed above those of mere convenience, so it is not Baptists who should yield. We who have convictions are not the cause of separation, rather it is those who downplay doctrine and preach inclusivity in these matters who perpetuate division, and needlessly so. Why should they not yield and become like us in order that all of God’s people may be one? When we examine it more closely, this objection becomes an argument for us to continue to hold high standards of who may be invited to share in the Lord’s supper.
All that remains is a single objection and Dudley’s conclusion, which we will examine in the next post.
1 Dudley, like all Baptists, understood baptism to be immersion in water and limited to believers only.
2 A church of like faith is one in which your membership would qualify you to join the church with which you wished to share the supper.
3 I recall a conversation a few years ago with an unsaved friend who attended a large non-denominational church nearby where she was offered the bread and cup of the Lord’s supper without explanation and certainly without any limitation. Not only was this a missed opportunity to preach the gospel to the lost in attendance, it showed a shameful disregard for the words of the Lord Jesus.
4 Too many modern Christians are either ignorant of church history or look on it with disdain. This is unwise, and we should be very careful if we find ourselves at odds with long-established traditions, especially those which cross cultural, denominational, and historical boundaries.
5 Those who deny the Tri-unity of God.
6 Those who believe that all faiths lead to God and all will eventually be saved.