One question that has recently come to my attention is how our church practices the Lord’s supper, and specifically how we decide whom to invite to share in the supper. Some churches practice what is called “closed communion,” by which they mean that only those who are members of that particular congregation are allowed to participate. Others practice “open communion,” where everyone present is freely invited to the supper without question or judgment. Our church practices neither, but follows what has been called “close communion,” which we believe to be the practical application of the conditions the Bible imposes on anyone who would take part in the Lord’s table.
An 1890 book of essays by various Baptist pastors entitled Baptist Doctrines contains a chapter on the subject of close communion, which I have found very helpful. It was written by Professor R. M. Dudley of Georgetown College in Georgetown, Kentucky. He notes that the Bible teaches three conditions which must be met in order for a person to partake in the Lord’s supper:
- Conversion
- Baptism
- Church Membership
Dr. Dudley addresses each of these in turn, then explains how these principles lead to the position of close communion.
Conversion. “By this we mean,” says Dudley, “that the individual must be, so far as we can judge, a true disciple of Jesus Christ.” This flows out of the fact that in the Great Commission Jesus commanded to make disciples of all nations and that his disciples set out to practice this immediately upon receiving the promised Holy Spirit. Peter preached at Pentecost and the men were convicted by the truth, and those who “gladly received his word” were baptized and added to the church. When the NT epistles address local churches, they stress the simple fact that they are made up of those who are converted – called “saints” ? and not of the lost. In short, conversion is necessary because the church is to be made up of only those who have been born again.
Baptism. Again the Great Commission reveals that baptism is to be the first step of a lifetime of obedience to the commands of Christ, our Savior and Lord. And this is precisely what we observe in the practice of the apostles themselves as recorded in Acts, for example, “Then those who gladly received his word were baptized” (Acts 2:41). To invite to the Lord’s supper those who are knowingly disobedient to the Christ is both foolish and dangerous, in short, it is to treat his commands as though they were mere suggestions. But if we do so, we deny Scripture’s authority and by it the authority of Jesus himself.
The ordinance of the Lord’s supper is not given to the individual, the family, or any other social body, but to the church.
Church membership. When we look once more at the results of Peter’s sermon at Pentecost we read, “Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added.” Dudley asks the obvious question, “Added unto whom?” And notes that the answer is found just a few verses later, “the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved” (Acts 2:47). And what did those first Christian converts do regularly? “They continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers” (v.42).
The ordinance of the Lord’s supper is not given to the individual, the family, or any other social body, but to the church. This, Dudley notes, is one of the key points of 1 Corinthians 11, “that the Supper is not a social ordinance, in which a few might join as a social repast, but that they should wait one for another; and with the whole church assembled, they should partake of the Supper.”
Communion is intended to reinforce and symbolize the unity of the church and the fellowship of its members. While the NT is silent about members of one church sharing in communion with another congregation, I believe Dudley is right when he says, “it seems reasonable to infer that there may be consistent intercommunion between those churches whose doctrine and order so agree that membership in the one church may justly entitle an individual to membership in the others; but between such churches only.”
Close Communion. How do these conditions lead us to the practice of close communion? Dudley notes that “Baptists are compelled to refuse an invitation to all those who deny or practically ignore conversion as…a qualification.” Not only are rank unbelievers excluded, but also those who call themselves Christians yet do not demand a credible profession of faith to partake in the table. To do anything else is to remove the first restriction placed on the table by the Lord to whom it belongs.
This is true also with respect to baptism. If baptism is required in Scripture, and if baptism is understood to be the immersion of one who has been born again, then only those who have been so baptized may be invited to join us in the supper. “We do not admit those who have been sprinkled to membership in our churches without baptism,” says Dudley, “neither can we admit them to the Lord’s Table without baptism.”
Dudley concludes with this powerful statement: “If [the Baptists’] principles are wrong, they should abandon them, by all means. If their principles are of little worth, why, let them go along with their failure to practice them. But if their principles are right and important, let them have the manliness and fidelity to stand by them, and God and good men will approve their course. In these days of religious latitudinarianism1, when, under the cloak of charity, men are crying down creeds and formulas of faith, and calling upon their fellow Christians to give up, or submerge from view, this or that Bible doctrine, that all the Lord’s people may appear to be one, is it not worth while that Baptists should stand firm, as the representatives of the grander principle that the Word of God is the supreme rule of life; that to do just what God says is of far greater importance than the exercise of charity that vaunts itself over the Bible, while professing to revere and love it?”
1Latitudinarianism means, “holding or expressing broad or tolerant views, especially in religious matters.” The original purpose of this view was to end religious controversy in 17th century England by making the state church as inclusive as possible and minimize the importance of doctrine and specific forms of worship.