Open or Closed
What should we do at the communion of our Lord's Supper? Is it a time for a very exclusive, local body of believers? Or, is it a time to celebrate the unity of believers in Christ?
I would argue that the Lord's Supper table should be opened to all who have professed in Christ as Lord and Savior and are walking accordingly. There will be only one required at the marriage supper of the Lamb, faith in Christ as Lord and Savior. The Passover was a feast for all those who had faith in God. Closing the communion of believers (who have examined themselves) and God seems to place unnecessary stipulations on salvation. Maybe, I'm wrong. If I am, I'd like to know it.
I would argue that the Lord's Supper table should be opened to all who have professed in Christ as Lord and Savior and are walking accordingly. There will be only one required at the marriage supper of the Lamb, faith in Christ as Lord and Savior. The Passover was a feast for all those who had faith in God. Closing the communion of believers (who have examined themselves) and God seems to place unnecessary stipulations on salvation. Maybe, I'm wrong. If I am, I'd like to know it.
posted by Michael D. Estes at 7:26 PM
9 Comments:
I am in agreement with Michael with his affirmation of "open" communion. Jesus's High Priestly prayer in Acts 17 pleads with the Father that we "would all be one," and advocating a closed communion ideal which excludes non-members seems to undercut the universal unity which genuine believers share in the Lord Jesus Christ. My only caution, which I'm sure that Michael would support, is that the pastor must "fence the table." That is Reformed-speak for making it clear that the sacrament is only for those who have placed their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and are in communion with a local church. I think that the stipulation of being in communion with a local church is warranted for the partaking of the sacrament of the Lord's supper by Christ's charge to "baptize" new believers in Matthew 28:19-20. Baptism is the sacrament of initiation into the covenant community, and so I think that it should be prerequisite to partaking of the Lord's Supper.
I see the pluses and minuses with both open and closed communions. One thing prospective pastors should realize is that when they take a position in a church, the church will obviously already have either a closed or open communion, along with other types of procedures, policies, and traditions.
For instance, if one of us would accept a position with a church that practices open communion, it would be the duty of the pastor to clearly stipulate who can partake in the Supper, and also explain the meaning behind the ceremony and the risks that can come about if the believer does not examine himself before taking the bread and wine.
However, if one goes to a church that practices closed communion, I'm not sure if I see a huge issue. The church may just be looking out for theirselves and their pastor in the spirit of James 3:1 or may just place a high importance of the ceremony. Furthermore, some place closed communion in association with accountability that undergirds the practice of church discipline. I'm not sure we can fault them for that.
With that said, ideally (which hardly ever happens), I would advocate an open communion with explicit explanation at every ceremony about what exactly is taking place. However, something can be said about local church membership. Local church membership is clearly evident in the NT. See Paul's letter to the Corinthians about how they were practicing the Lord's Supper. Did they allow non-Corinthian church members to partake in it? No one knows.
The Church consists of all who are in Christ. Therefore a communion which excludes those who are in Christ, except that they be practising immorality is denying the very meaning of the Lord's Supper.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
"With that said, ideally (which hardly ever happens), I would advocate an open communion with explicit explanation at every ceremony about what exactly is taking place."
I think this is key. Drew and Charlie hit on this point. People have to understand two things. First, this sacrament is only for believers. Second, they need to hear the warning from 1 Corinthians 11.
"However, something can be said about local church membership. Local church membership is clearly evident in the NT. See Paul's letter to the Corinthians about how they were practicing the Lord's Supper. Did they allow non-Corinthian church members to partake in it?"
My only question here (this was the objection of Dr. H) is was Paul's letter directed to a single congregation. There is evidence that many of Paul's letters were sent to all the churches in particular regions (Colossians is to be read to the Laodiceans).
"was Paul's letter directed to a single congregation."
That's going to be debated. However, we must remember that going to the Lord's table is not a time of condemnation or judgment, but should be a time of reflection, adoration, thanksgiving, and grace.
As far as recalcitrant members or even members of other churches, or even unbelievers...as long as the pastor clearly explains what is going on with the Eucharist (simply means to 'give thanks'...not advocating Catholicism), then we should let the judgment belong to God.
"That's going to be debated."
I figured it would be. Everyone say hello to my straw man (straw reluctantly whispers hello). Way to think critically, Charlie.
If 1 Corinthians was only meant for the Corinthians then there are 16 chapters worth of issues that we would have to elimiated.
Hey, straw man...nice shirt.
Ben,
I agree that closed communion does allow for the proper carrying out of church discipline.
I approached Dr. Nelson after class last week as he advocated open communion with the practice of church discipline. His view was interesting and I'm not sure where I stand ideally with this issue. In summation, he stated that the Lord's table should be a place of grace and not of judgment. Therefore, if there is a brother who is steeped in unrepentant sin, he should be advised not to take the Supper. However, it is ultimatley up to him, as well as any other brother from a local church to heed the warning, properly explained by the pastor, in 1 Cor.
Judgment is ultimately God's and not the church's per Dr. Nelson.
I also advocate the one loaf approach and the visual breaking of the bread, as Christ's body was broken for us. Seperate pieces of crackers already packaged are kind of impersonal and miss out on the very meaning of the ceremony but also go very well with our culture's 'independent' mindset. ;-)
However, I think the seperate cups are kind of a sanitary deal.
Post a Comment
<< Home