Mark Jones writes about the differences between open and closed communion, meaning whether people in your church are allowed to take the Lord’s Supper with you regardless of the mode or theology of baptism.
During a conference last year at SBTS, I was treated to an excellent paper by a young Canadian scholar (Ian Clary) on Andrew Fuller’s communion practice. In the Q. and A. I asked (ipsissima vox):
“If you aren’t baptized by immersion, then you can’t be a called a Christian (in any meaningful ecclesiastical sense). And if you can’t be called a Christian, then you can’t take the Lord’s Supper. Is that the implication of the closed communion view of Fuller?”
The room was silent: here a Presbyterian was asking a Baptist (in a room full of Baptists) to admit they can’t call me a Christian.
My friend admitted that he believed/felt I was a Christian. But I countered: “Fuller’s theology of communion and baptism doesn’t allow you to call me a Christian in any official (ecclesiastical) sense. It is merely a private judgment.” My friend, had to (uncomfortably) concede my point.
This, friends, is one of the ways good doctrine matters. Are Presbyterians actual followers of Christ? Is closed communion a good way to govern your local church?
Among Lutherans, it’s commonly believed (if I understand correctly) that although people who don’t believe as we do about the Real Presence are very often saved, they cannot receive the sacrament properly because they don’t “discern the Body.” So many Lutherans practice closed communion. For the sake of the consciences of the non-Lutherans.
Why is a point of doctrinal disagreement between denominations being brought up in a literature blog? I didn’t realize your were a theologian. I started typing up a defense of the Lutheran view of Baptism as opposed to both the Presbyterian and Baptist views. Then I decided a literature blog is probably not the place for an age old theological debate.
However,since I find the linked article troubling on so many levels I cannot let it pass. Yet, I will limit myself to taking issue with one aspect of Jones’ logic. I believe discussion of rhetoric is appropriate for a literature blog.
As far as I can discern his basic premise it is that his side should be accepted because it is more inclusive. As a pastor, I have been taught to build my theology upon Scripture. In many ways the Bible is very exclusive. It teaches about some being saved and some being lost. It speaks about truth and untruth. It calls for correct doctrine. It warns about false teachers.
Inclusivity is the mantra of postmodern philosophy, not the Bible. Therefore I cannot uphold it as the measure of which church is better.
Well, I thought we’d discuss ideas like this before. That’s why I posted it.
Jones is appealing to the idea of the holy catholic church, as taught in the Apostolic and Nicene creeds, which is more inclusive than one’s particular denomination. My pastors have taught that, though we must understand and teach sound doctrine and never comprise on it, we also understand that many other churches with whom we have some strong disagreements are nonetheless part of the holy catholic church, preaching the gospel and serving as Christ in the world. It’s the idea we celebrated back in 2007 then Anglican Archbishop Orombi spoke at our church. We have more uniting us than dividing us, even though I appreciate the depth of sacramental doctrine. Lutherans understand communion differently than Presbyterians, but what’s being discussed in this post is a difference I think would surprise many evangelicals.
Closed communion is certainly against the spirit of the times, so I’m kind of reflexively in favor of it for that reason if for no other. As with church discipline, most evangelicals are so un-used to the concept of anything even close to telling someone “you may not do this” that it’s jarring.
That said, I’m rather a low-bar Closed-Communion-inst. I would aver that the Table be closed to anyone who is not a baptized believer, but within those limits, the idea of One Body is the guiding principle.
I think that is actually open communion. It isn’t offering the sacrament to anyone at all, but offering it to believers without discrimination. If you claim to believe, you are free to take part, understanding the warnings in 1 Corinthians 11 that to take part unworthily is a serious offense.
As a Lutheran I haven’t given extensive study to the various Baptist practices. Among Lutherans there are a few denominations that practice closed communion, although they prefer to call it close communion. Their reasoning comes from taking the warnings of 1 Corinthians 11 seriously, that those who take communion unworthily are eating and drinking damnation unto themselves.
In order to protect communicants from partaking in an unworthy manner they insist that the pastor must have a reasonable assurance that anyone to whom he gives communion must be a believer and have a proper understanding of what they are doing and receiving. The easiest way to do this is to limit communion to members of their denomination. In some cases they also allow members of other denominations that have official communion fellowship with their denomination. The membership process includes instruction in the doctrine and practice along with a public declaration of agreement. This is usually done through confirmation classes in adolescence or adult membership classes.
My denomination sees the pastor in a slightly different light. His role in communion is a teacher rather than a gatekeeper, instructing communicants in the teachings and warnings of Scripture but leaving it to the individual to determine if they should partake or not. Unfortunately there is also a third class of pastors who see communion as a magic pill that they pop into the mouth of everyone in the nursing home regardless of faith or understanding.
The third class sound like Roman Catholics to me.
Well, the Catholic position is that even actual Catholics can’t always take Communion. There are very substantial restrictions. They don’t deny that non-Catholics are Christians, though. Here’s a useful link:
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/who-can-receive-communion
So, for example, on the sacrament of baptism, the Church completely accepts other Christian sacraments — if you want to become a Catholic having been raised Presbyterian or Baptist, not only will they accept your baptisim in those churches, they’ll refuse to re-baptize you.
But on the subject of who can take Communion, not only do you ordinarily have to be Catholic, you are supposed to be the right kind of Catholic.
Lutherans also accept any baptism “in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit” as valid, regardless of the method or the age when it happened.