Open vs Closed Communion, or "You're Not Worthy!"

(with thanks to Mike Meyers for the Wayne's World allusion)

It is amazing to contemplate the idea that the subjects with which Southern Baptists are now wrestling internally are subjects with which we struggled nearly a hundred years ago.

Evolution
Landmarkism
Open vs Closed Communion
Fundamentalism
Alcohol
Modes of Baptism
Charismatic Gifts

Because so many of the SBC leaders are fundamentalists (bordering on Landmarkists and moving ever so further in that direction) who see fit to force everyone in the SBC to adopt a late 19th century form of Southern Baptist Christianity (no earlier, no later), those who do not believe that Christianity was founded in a small hamlet of Tennessee in 1901 are struggling to find ways of debating SBC leaders and followers who ignorant of the last century of ecclesiastic, theological, ecumenical, and cultural development. It’s like trying to debate the issue of believer’s baptism to Roman Catholics who will not even acknowledge the Reformation of Luther.

Thus, debates that were finalized and won generations ago are now being reargued with people unaware that the debate was over before their grandparents were born. One might as well attempt to explain the sublime poetics of Shakespearean English with a Chinese fish merchant who doesn’t speak English.

Despite the explicit teachings of Scripture, alcohol is banned.
Despite the explicit teachings of Scripture, women are banned from pastorates.
Despite the explicit teachings of Scripture, charismatic gifts are banned.

Despite the fact that Southern Baptists rejected Landmarkism several generations ago, SBC leaders and their Baptist Historical revisionists, soul competency and all its various tenets are being rejected IN THE NAME OF BAPTIST DISTINCTIVES!

For example:

Believer’s Baptism – SBC leaders only except believers that were baptized by a pastor and a church that holds to the same mode and meaning of Baptism as themselves. Blasphemous.

Priesthood of Believers – Nope. Only the SBC leaders get to decide what is and is not Scriptural, women cannot be pastors, and closed communion is preferred. Furthermore, the Scriptural practice of private prayer language is forbidden. In essence, this means that the SBC leaders are forbidding a particular means of Scriptural communication between a believing person and his or her God. Blasphemous.

Local Church Autonomy – Nope. If a church doesn’t agree to the 2000 BFM or adopts a practice contrary to that which is deiced by the SBC leaders, then they are banned.

Separation of Church and State – Nope. The SBC wants the church involved in state politics and wants the state to makes laws to bring in the Kingdom of God.

Freedom of Religion – Are ya kidding?

It is the issue of Open vs Closed Communion that I want to focus on.

The doctrine of soul competency teaches that Man’s creation in the image of God allows him to commune with God. In the pre-fallen world, this communion does not need mediation by any priest. The post-fallen world necessitated the religious practice of a priest mediating such a relationship. However, the entrance of the God-Man Jesus Christ, who is the mediator between God and Man, enable Man to re-commune with God unfettered by priesthood because the believer becomes a part of the body of Christ and God sees the believer through Christ. The communion between God and Man is realized.

Thus the doctrine of the “priesthood of the believer” and the Reformation rejection of the Roman Catholic idea of the priestly mediator. Thus believer’s baptism.

And the Lord’s Supper?

The Lord’s Supper, the Eucharist, or, as I prefer, communion is extremely important to the Christian Faith. It is a symbolic ritual which identifies the sacrifice of Jesus with ALL believers. Believer’s (ALL believers from the first Adam to the “last” Adam) are a part of the Body of Christ. Communion identifies the believer with Christ. It points to Jesus’ earthly ministry and fellowship with believers, it points to the intermediate and contemporary Spirit’s ministry and fellowship with believers, it points to the future eschatological meal where the perfect communion of God and Man will be realized.

Therefore, to prevent another believer from taking part in communion is tantamount to saying that the believer is not a believer. It is to say that his confession of faith is not true. It is to say that he is not equal to other believers. It is to say that he is not a part of the body of Christ. It is to say that he doesn’t have access to God. It is to erect a wall between one set of believers and another. It is to take upon oneself the prerogatives of God and Christ. Truly blasphemous. But how do they justify such behavior?

They often cite this particular passage as their justification:

I Corinthians 11:17-34: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."

Naturally, like most of their proof texts, they get this wrong. This passage is about communion and ecumenicalism. This passage is about bringing believers together. This whole passage is about removing divisions from communion. Leave to fundamentalists to read Paul and come away with the completely opposite interpretation (They also get the first section of this completely wrong (1 Corinthians 11:1-16). I have been amazed about how many believers will read a Pauline pericope and arrive at a conclusion to its meaning which is the very point that Paul is arguing against. This is particularly true among passages dealing with women. See 1 Timothy 2 as well.)

This passage is not talking of incorrect doctrine but of sin. The one who needs to examine himself is the sinner not “right” with God and not a sinner who is “right” with God. The individual needs to examine himself for any sins or divisions he has. However, if the church knows of one singing who fails to repent then they may deny him access to communion as a disciplinary means to bring him to repentance.

But no one in any of these discussions about open and closed communions who advocates closed communion is stating that it be practiced on exiled believing sinners. No, everyone on both side of this issue agrees that exiled believing sinners who do not repent should not be allowed into communion.

The real problem is that those communions who advocate closed communion are stating that communion should be closed to 1) other non-Baptist believers, 2) Baptists who do not believe as others do, and 3) non-members of a particular local church.

In fact, some are even advocating closed communion to any believer who does not get baptized in the right order or mode or with the right meaning. Of course, this completely disregards the Scriptural evidence and traditional Baptist belief that Baptism is symbolic and designates belief. If we truly believed this then we would not mind if one is poured or sprinkled or performed by a pastor or a church that does not believe as SBC leaders do.

I have fellowshipped with Roman Catholics, refrained from the Eucharist in their worship and kept silent because 1) I am not a Roman Catholic, 2) I was their guest, and 3) I respect their right to closed communion. In fact, I even respect the traditions of those SBC churches which practice closed communion though I would never be a part of such a local church.

However, in the realm of SBC discourse where SBC presidents, agencies, trustees, professors, administrators, and commentators promote the adoption of closed communion by churches, I must spring out and label such an idea as reprehensible, unscriptural and blasphemous.

To deny communion to other believers is to state the following:

“Anyone who doesn’t agree with me is a sinner and not worthy and needs to be exiled. Your beliefs about the Faith are not simply wrong; they are sins. You’re not just wrong; you are a sinner. You are not worthy. We are, your not.”

Thus, the massive firings over the past quarter century.

Yes, only Southern Baptists who agree with Southern Baptist leaders are worthy to accept communion. But who else is not worthy?

- Women (cannot be deacons or pastors, despite Scriptural mandates)
- Divorcees (cannot be deacons or pastors, despite Scriptural mandates)
- Alcohol drinkers (cannot do anything, despite Scriptural mandates)

I want to focus on this last one: alcohol drinkers.

Alcohol drinkers are not worthy to be trustees. They are not worthy to be pastors. They are not worthy to be deacons or elders. They are not worthy to be seminary professors, seminary students, missionaries, church-planters, SBC employees or members of most SBC churches.

The SBC leaders state that they are right about the alcohol issue and everyone who disagrees with them is not worthy.

Who else is not worthy? Jesus, Timothy, the disciples, the apostles, including Paul, and pretty much every believer in the NT and first century down until the 19th century. Everyone except John the Baptist. Yes, oddly enough, the only NT person worthy to be a Baptist is John the Baptist.

I throw my hands up in disbelief that our SBC leaders are not only ignorant of 1 Corinthians and the Pastoral epistles, but that they are completely ignorant on the books of Luke-Acts and Galatians. In short, there are SBC leaders who want to deny table-fellowship to “Gentiles”. In fact, they go so far as to deny table fellowship to those who practice table-fellowship with “Gentiles”. In the Gospels and Acts, this is called “eating with sinners.” In fundamentalist circles, this is called second-degree separation (separation from people who do not themselves practice strict separation). In the SBC, this is called standard practice.

The SBC removed “liberal” from the SBC. Then the SBC removed moderates from the SBC who didn’t remove themselves from liberals. Then the SBC removed conservative from the SBC who didn’t remove themselves from moderates who didn’t remove themselves from liberals. Then they just removed anyone who disagreed with their tactics. Then they removed anyone who they suspected disagreed with their tactics. Then they removed anyone who they didn’t like personally.

Now they are removing anyone who is charismatic, who drinks alcohol, or isn’t baptized the right way by the right people, or cooperates with non-Baptists or the CBF.

Concerning the CBF and ecumenical cooperation, someone said:

"That is why the CBF is willing to support a hodgepodge of theological institutions representing multiple traditions and denominations, including many non-Baptist traditions. It is interesting, one might argue hypocritical, that in the name of Baptist distinctives, the CBF encourages Baptist students to attend non-Baptist institutions."

Allow me to be tangentially within my academic freedom: No, it’s not hypocritical – it’s ironic. It’s ironic that Baptists with traditional Baptist beliefs have to go among non-Baptist Christians to practice traditional Baptist beliefs because other Baptists won’t let them.

Similarly, it’s not hypocritical that first century Christians who proclaimed to be part of true Israel were forced to go among the Gentile Christians to practice their faith. It’s ironic that first century Christians who proclaim to be a part of true Israel have to go among the Gentile Christians because Jews and many Jewish Christians won’t let them practice the true Israel Christian faith.

A Southern Baptist advocating closed communion recently wrote this:

“Historic Baptists, true Baptists, have believed in and still believe in closed communion. Baptists impose upon themselves the same restrictions that they impose on others concerning the Lord’s Supper. Baptists insist that it is the Lord’s table, not theirs; and He alone has the right to say who shall sit at His table. No amount of so called brotherly love, or ecumenical spirit, should cause us to invite to His table those who have not complied with the requirements laid down plainly in His inspired Word.”

Yes, this person completely misunderstands I Corinthians 11:17-34. But he is right in so far as he states that communion is Christ’s table and not ours. Thankfully, what this person believes are the criteria to be a part of the communion of the body of Christ. If he was correct, then he and all those now advocating closed communion would be banned from it.