Who Can Take the Lord’s Supper?
— Tuesday, August 23rd, 2011 —
A man walked out of my church in protest. I didn’t notice it as it was happening, but he told me about it, in a note, a few weeks later. He was angered that he had been excluded. At first, I feared that maybe he hadn’t been spoken to. In a church this size, that’s certainly a possibility. Or maybe, I wondered, had one of our elderly church members looked askance at his wearing jeans or shorts? Turns out, he wanted the Lord’s Supper, and I’d turned him away.
That’s the issue I take up in a new article, “Table Manners: The Welcoming Catholicity of Closed Communion” in the 25th anniversary issue of Touchstone Magazine: A Journal of Mere Christianity. The issue is always a hard one, because it’s so personal. Would I really turn C. S. Lewis away from the Lord’s Table just because he was sprinkled instead of immersed?
You can read the article here, and you can subscribe to the magazine here.
The article is excellent. Thank you for your courage and clarity!
Congratulations as well on your election as chairman of the board of Christians for Biblical Manhood & Womanhood.
“This doesn’t mean we don’t receive each other in Christ.”
I disagree. Not being in communion with one another is a very serious matter, and does indeed mean that you don’t receive one another in Christ.
“before we were to this extent washed up in the riptide of parachurch Evangelicalism”
I have an idea of what you mean by this parenthetical phrase, but I was wondering if you might expand on it slightly. Thanks!
Huh? You wouldn’t allow a born-again Presbyterian to participate in the Lord’s Supper at your church? Tim Keller? Ligon Duncan? Do you really believe Jesus Christ has the same view? Totally disagree with your position on this.
Good article. I would ask have you ever taken the position of closed-local church members only- communion? It seems to me that if we are called to corporately examine the body, not just us, this is only possible in a local church context. For instance, what if a immersed believer comes to your church and partakes but is under church discipline somewhere else? Just some things I’m wrestling with as a young pastor.
Wonderful and clear article that understands the difference between “Universal” and “Local” church, and what it means for us to exercise care.
Baptists have historically always made it clear that if you have not been baptized as a believer, then you have not been obedient to Christ.
This a good call to steward well the sacraments. Most people are not thinking hard about this, nor are they making it clear the importance of obedience to Christ in this matter concerning baptism.
Of course Baptists do not accept infant baptism and think it is a sin. Dever has already received the backlash for holding that historic position.
Ligon Duncan by the way understands the consistency of the position and expects Baptists to hold that view and practice. That is why denominations exists. And no, they should not take the in that Baptist gathering, why?
Because the Supper is administered in a community/ a covenant of believers who are in agreement about what it means to live as Christian in accordance with God’s Word. Denominations exists because of this disagreement.
A lack of teaching causes people to be in shock about something that has historically been understood by the mature teachers on both sides.
May the Lord bless our Padeo-Baptist friends, but we draw the line here, but are happy to cooperate other wise.
Brother,
Your position just does not hold Biblical water and Paul’s argument in 1 Cor. 11 addresses just that issue. Remember the context of the epistle that Paul lays out in chapter 1 where he chastises the Corinthian church for being sectarian (”I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am of Cephas…”) and then he picks up again his rebuke in chapter 11. The context of his rebuke concerning their celebration of Communion is found in vs 17-19 (”divisions among you”). Paul’s argument clearly lays out that the Lord’s Supper is the visible testimony before God, one another, and the watching world that we, the entire Church in her entirety, are in union with Christ AND in union with one another. The Supper is the foretaste of the fully realized union we will have in Heaven. So you see, practicing this form of sectarianism in fact denies the very meaning of the Supper and is why Paul’s rebuke is so harsh and why God’s rebuke to the Corinthians was so severe (vs. 30: “and some have died…”). Your position brother, does not rightly discern the Lord’s body (the Church) because by it, you would refuse to recognize the nature of our union to be in Christ alone, and instead you are confessing that our union is in Jesus plus how we view baptism, or Jesus plus . Christ, as He is revealed in the Scriptures must be the basis of our union and therefore the Table must be open to all who are in union with Him.
May God give us all greater light.
Sorry, the previous comment left out a portion because I used angled braces to make a point. I meant to write: “you are confessing that our union is in Jesus plus how we view baptism or Jesus plus (fill in the blank of your pet doctrinal position). Christ, as He is revealed…”
I have to disagree, using your own words, as my source. You say, “The table is not just an individual reminder of the gospel; it is the very locus of church fellowship, the place where we experience Christ present in proclamation and in one another. It is here that we experience a foretaste of the wedding supper to come, and where we announce those we hold accountable to struggle with us until then. The church is “recognizing the body” of Christ (1 Cor. 11:29) by defining the boundaries of communion at the table in terms of those who are in union with Christ and who are able, should they deny him, to be disciplined.”
If communion is a “foretaste of the wedding supper to come,” and I believe it is, then would you say Jonathan Edwards, C.S. Lewis and many others won’t be attending that wedding supper? I don’t think you would, which means that sprinkled believers will be eating with Christ at the ultimate wedding feast. Therefore the rules of the communion table in heaven are not strict enough for you, which I think are tenuous grounds upon which to stand. Because while I believe baptism should be for believers and by immersion, I also understand baptism not as salvific but symbolic. If the church is recognizing the body of Christ to “those who are in union with Christ” then you could see why the aforementioned man was upset at being outside the recognized body of Christ. He may not be baptized by your standards, but he was saved by your standards, which is what really counts in being included or excluded from the wedding supper.
Dr. Moore, I am deeply disturbed by this, for a couple of reasons.
Before I get started in explaining why this disturbs me, it is not out of disrespect or not valuing your position as a pastor or role at SBTS. Quite the opposite, actually. I had the privilege of hearing you speak at Criswell when I attended a few years ago, and have come to respect and value your insight into Scripture. It is precisely because of this level of respect that I find this article so shocking.
1) “…only baptized Christians in good fellowship with a local congregation were invited to commune.”
2) “First of all, open communion usually rests on the all-too-typical Evangelical presumption that the Lord’s Supper really isn’t that important.”
This first statement is just practically nonsense. I am a member of The Village, and we only have baptism services once a quarter (or at least it seems like that’s the frequency), are we to say that those who legitimately confess and profess Christ as Lord are not allowed to join with us in the Lord’s supper until they have been baptized, possibly three months after they initially confess Christ? Additionally, even if one confesses Christ and is baptized at The Village, how is your congregation supposed to know the person’s relationship to the local church he is part of when he or she visits your church? The only way to really validate any of this is to limit it to being in good fellowship with YOUR local church. Do you really think the gospel lends toward being that exclusive?
The second statement is simply a generalization that may be true, but I feel doesn’t really address the counter-part of the issue. Some churches, and pastors, may indeed say that baptism is merely a “symbol” of an internal work. This is, of course, unbiblical as Paul tells us in Romans 6 that baptism is when we identify with Christ’s death and resurrection. It is not merely a symbol, it is not salvific, it is a mystery, and I feel we do it an injustice in trying to explain further. So, there may be some doctrine that needs to be corrected in that area, but there is a greater point that I feel those who practice open communion embrace: The unifying work of Christ. It is Christ which unifies us as ONE body, though there are many local manifestations of that body. If someone confesses Christ, and He has added them to His body, who are we to tell them they don’t belong at His table?
Additionally, and I may have missed it, but I don’t recall a single story about the disciples ever being baptized. They were given the Lord’s supper before He even gave the command to baptize, which, as you know, took place after Christ’s resurrection. Should Jesus have not served them communion because they hadn’t been Biblically baptized yet?
Lastly, I understand the need to focus on what defines us as Christians. Unfortunately, Baptist Distinctives and Doctrines make a poor substitute for being in Christ. Focusing on what makes us different most often blinds us to what unites us. Focusing on what unites us gives us grace for those who are different. Focus on unity. Focus on Jesus.
@Don Sartain,
re: “Additionally, and I may have missed it, but I don’t recall a single story about the disciples ever being baptized.”
You missed it. They all had the same baptism Jesus had. Might want to consider reading the New Testament before you wade into these discussions ;)
This is a topic worth taking seriously, and in that spirit, a couple of comments.
First, although you would be barred from the table at Orthodox and Catholic churches, I don’t think you would normally be barred in an Anglican church. They would, I think, consider you to be a baptized Christian and thus welcome to the table. So you could go to the altar rail with C. S. Lewis in a way that you couldn’t with, say, Francis Beckwith.
Second, if the possibility of being disciplined is at the heart of the issue, aren’t visiting members of evangelical paedobaptist churches in that category just as much as visiting members of credobaptist churches? If the visiting paedobaptists are by all evidences in saving union with Christ, are living in obedience to Christ as they understand Scripture, and are under the discipline of their churches, would it not be appropriate for them to join with Baptists in signifying their common union with Christ through his atoning work?
I can appreciate the close communion argument, but is it possible that the solution is baptismal reform and not excluding from the table those who clearly affirm what the table is all about? I confess I’m still with Spurgeon on this one.
As somebody who comes from a sprinkling church but will be attending a baptist church (with the full intention of betting immersed), I am in the thick of this issue. I am inclined to agree with the commentors that state that if the Lord’s table is in fact a prelude to the wedding supper of the Lamb and a church offers communion to non-members, it should then be open to all who profess faith in Christ. If a church offers communion to members only, I can accept that. However, if they offer to visitors but only to those whom have been immersed, it sends a clear but unintentional message that it is immersion that saves you, as it apparently is the only way to know whether or not someone may partake of the Lord’s supper. If the argument is that lack of immersion is unrepenant sin, then what of the other sins that a person may drag into church with them? Will we say to the one sprinkled that they may not partake but say to the one who is immersed but is cheating on his wife that he may? This seems to be an extremely inconsistant stance on this issue.
I must respectfully disagree here. It seems to me that what brings us together as the body of Christ is not our view of baptism but faith in him. While I disagree with the Presbyterian view of baptism, I see their argument for it, and I do not believe that in holding their view they are living in unrepentant sin, as other leading Baptists have argued.
If this is the case, then I see no Biblical reason to exclude them from communion. While I will continue to preach what I believe to be the Biblical view of baptism, I will also welcome those believers who might disagree to partake in the eucharist with me as a brother or sister in the faith.
I agree with the posters here who have challenged your view. For one thing, Stan (#11) is quite right: you would be quite welcome to receive communion in an Anglican church. Second, the things that bind us together, in Christ, are far more important than our tribal divisions. If you were in a part of the world where to be a Christian is to be part of a rarely-visible minority (I am speaking here of the UK, which is where I am), and not in the Bible Belt, you might see that more clearly. And I write as someone who was baptised, by immersion, in a Pentecostal church - which in the eyes of some Fundamentalists would be enough to exclude me from everything!
Dr. Moore,
Many years ago (1973 to give away my age a little) I was invited to a Bible study given by an SBC pastor in a private home. In order to keep the oneness with those at the study because I considered them to be my brothers and sisters in Christ, I determined before the Lord not to raise any points of contention. The study was on the church as a new community and I found much in it I could affirm. It was easy to keep my determination.
But, at the end of the study, as all eyes turned to me as the new one in the study, the pastor asked me what I thought of the study. I confirmed the main points of the study but asked them to explain to me why, if they believed what was there, they would still practice closed communion, a communion closed according to their denominational affiliation. All present knew me, knew of my salvation, my baptism (by immersion), and my testimony. All acknowledged me as a brother in Christ. But, they admitted that if I came to their service, they would refuse me communion. I raised the point that this practice is divisive.
Quite a conversation ensued including examining many verses related to the Lord’s table and the receiving the believers. The eventual outcome was that the pastor could no longer practice closed communion in good conscience, received a vote of no confidence, and was sent packing by his congregation–all within a week’s time. This was certainly not my intention.
Our receiving of believers should be according to God’s receiving, not out distinctive doctrines or practices. Romans 15 makes this very clear. In that chapter, our receiving of believers is tied to the kingdom of God indicating that when our living before the Lord is examined at the judgement seat of Christ, how we receive believers will be one of the items of how our life and service to the Lord will be evaluated. I strongly think that a more catholic, this is, universal receiving of the believers is the proper standing.
To be clear, the Lord’s table is of great importance and, among other equally wonderful things, it is a declaration to all that we believers, who are so diverse in so many ways, have been made one bread, one Body, though our Lord’s death and resurrection.
For all of you who are disagreeing with Dr. Moore and who are Southern Baptists, I’m assuming that you realize that you are also in disagreement with the Baptist Faith and Message, which is, in many churches, the statement of faith that they recognize as applicable for their church. By the way, this dates back the 1925 Baptist Faith and Message.
Now, you may have a point to say that the local church itself needs to have a closed communion strictly for their own members but Dr. Moore is not saying anything that isn’t embedded in Southern Baptist doctrine or history. Therefore, if you have a problem with his position, you also have a problem with the denomination.
@Nathan Mayfield
I am okay with this. Christian first, then Baptist :) I don’t think having a disagreement with one issue within the denomination entails having a problem with the denomination as a whole.
@Matt McMains
My point was more that if you are a Southern Baptist and your church affirms the Baptist Faith and Message as part of their Statement of Faith, then you are in disagreement with your church. If your church affirms the Baptist Faith and Message as part of their Statement of Faith and then allows communion to anyone, regardless of their baptism, then they are actually breaking their own Statement of Faith.
People may want to check and see if their church actually practices what it preaches.
@Nathan Mayfield, I am an ordained SBC minister, born into and raised by an SBC family, where my father was a pastor for over half of his life. I agree with the comments of those who disagree with Moore. I am no less Baptist because I do believe there are some points about which Baptists are wrong today and some they have been wrong about historically. I even came to this conclusion while a young teen who read and studied the Bible regularly. When I visit a Lutheran church, as I do a few times a year, I do take the supper with them even though I do not agree with their beliefs about that supper. I have an agreement with that pastor that I am saved just as he is, and that we can share in communion without relinquishing our sincerely held convictions. We do agree on the essentials even though on the important subjects of baptism and communion, we do not.
Couple of thoughts:
1) I find it interesting that most examples of people on here that folks claim would be crazy to not allow to take communion are all academics. Seems like they would be the only ones that really cared about this issue. I can’t imagine serving the Lords Supper in a Ugandan Village with a Catholic Missionary who has been serving HIV victims for 30 years and look him in the eye and say “not you.” The list of examples here could go on and on.
2) In Luke 22 we see that Jesus during “the last supper” allows Judas to partake along with Peter whom he then say’s will deny him 3 times!
3) I just read an interesting article in the Huffington Post by David Dunn (you can google it) about the Death Penalty. To paraphrase him he say’s “i just can’t imagine Jesus pulling the lever down or Saint Paul sticking the needle in.” For me I can’t imagine Jesus looking someone in the eye and saying “Oh, your not Baptist? Sorry.”
4) When I come face to face with Jesus I would much rather be accountable for including too many people vs. excluding one.
Looking past the man-made membership rules, how dare anyone deny the body of Christ to his flock.
If Southern Baptists wish to have a smaller fence around communion than they do around the Kingdom itself, I may suggest limiting communion to members of the particular local church only. There could be a good argument made as “good standing in the local church” can only be affirmed by the local church itself. If I was visiting a church that only permitted members to partake, I would not feel any pain of exclusion. However, if I was denied based on denomination, I would likely feel differently about it. Perhaps the local church should not extend communion to anybody it would not welcome to serve in formal ministry. Seems reasonable and biblical to me.
@Nathan,
I understand what you are saying. In this case I would simply disagree with the BF&M. And if my opinion counted, which it really doesn’t, I would push for a revision of the Statement of Faith in this regard.
Interesting essay. A few points…
1) Don’t Baptists believe that communion is “a wonderful symbol, but that’s about it”? This is what the Baptist Faith and Message says. So on what basis would a Baptist have the extremely high view of communion described here? It is certainly a commandment of Christ, but so are lots of other things. What is the difference if it isn’t the one Flannery O’Connor means?
2) While it is true that the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches have closed communion, it is not because they do not recognize the baptism of those outside of their churches. A Baptist could convert to Catholicism or Orthodoxy without being re-baptized because the original baptism would be recognized as valid. So while Dr. Moore is correct that he is standing in a little-c catholic tradition in his endorsement of closed communion, he is doing so for different reasons than the catholic tradition. Of course, he is standing in a *Baptist* tradition in his definition of Baptism, but Baptists have a more “narrow” view of Baptism than pretty much any other denomination. Catholics are narrow on communion and broad on baptism, and Baptists are narrow on communion *because* they’re narrow on baptism.
“If C. S. Lewis were alive today, I hope he’d invite me for a cup of tea at the Eagle and Child pub in Oxford (as a Southern Baptist, I’m afraid I’d have to decline anything stronger).”
As a Southern Baptist, or as a Christian?
Our salvation is by grace through Christ. Why should we prevent the saved from receiving an ordinance that Christ himself set up?
When Christ took the bread and said “This is my body given for you. Do this in remembrance of me”, he didn’t say “except for those who are not baptised” or “except for those who are not members of your church” or “except those who currently don’t have a church”.
Preventing such people from celebrating the Lord’s Supper means that a person saved by grace is unable to publicly celebrate with others saved by grace the means by which they are saved.
“I will celebrate Christ’s atoning death on the cross… but not with you”.
It’s akin to saying that the other person is not saved. So I guess that all those non-Baptist Christians have gone / are going to hell.
I hope you stop singing “Amazing Grace”. John Newton wrote it and he wouldn’t have been able to celebrate the Lord’s Supper in your church.
I hope you don’t sing “And can it be” either - another non-baptised so called Christian named John Wesley wrote that one.
And what about Martin Luther? That guy was baptised as a child and *GASP* didn’t get re-baptised when he converted as an adult. So there’s the guy God used to start the Reformation that wouldn’t have been able to celebrate the Lord’s Supper in your church.
And what about Augustine? He was okay since he got baptised as an adult! But he taught that infants should be baptised too. AND he was baptised as an adult into a church that baptised kids! There’s another guy who wouldn’t be welcome to take the Lord’s Supper in your church.
A Biblical Defense of Modified Open Communion
http://sbcimpact.org/2010/04/19/discerning-the-body-a-biblical-defense-of-modified-open-communion/
The fact is, the “lord’s table” is a covenant meal between God and the houses of Israel and Judah only; gentiles need not apply. Read the terms of the new covenant!
Also, to partake in a sect (denomination) is also damning, as Paul says it destroys the lord’s body.
Dr. Moore,
Once again, thank you for your clarity and conviction. Having quite recently been confronted with this painful reality in my own local context, I can appreciate your endeavor to demonstrate the catholicity of the Baptistic tradition.
Of course, at the end of the discussion, the issue is not really one about being Baptistic at all. This is not (contrary to the general tenor of the comment thread) an issue of denominations. Rather, the issue is one of definition, as your article rightly articulates.
The issue at root seems to be the definition of “Baptize.” All denominations agree that followers of Christ must profess faith and must be baptized. In fact, all agree that both prerequisites are necessary for taking the Lord’s Supper. So, that being the case, the demand to offer the Lord’s Supper to those who have not been baptized is a demand that no denomination would meet–baptist or otherwise.
The demand here is more acute with baptists simply because Baptists have sought to define more precisely than other denomination what the nature of Baptism is, Biblically speaking. My point is to say that Baptists would need a wholesale surrender of the Biblical concept of baptism in order to meet the demands of those never having fulfilled the simple Petrine admonition at Pentecost: “Repent and be baptized…”
Must Baptists under the pressures of inclusiveness surrender what they believe is a biblical definition of baptism? Didn’t Luther teach us that it is not safe to go against conscience on such matters of great importance?
@Greg,
Amen!
I’ve been looking for discussion of how the following would affect the matter of coming to conclusion about the “open-closed-ness” of the Lord’s Supper.
Luke 22:19-21 (NASB)
19 And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.
21 “But behold, the hand of the one betraying Me is with Mine on the table.
Looking at this sequence here in Luke it seems very clear that Judas Iscariot partook of the Last Supper. The other Gospels have other sequences but none of the others indicate that Judas did not partake of this portion. Matt. 26:27 has Jesus saying “Drink from it, all of you.” Could this be a subtle indication that Judas was included? (Note: John 13:26-27, 30 does not explicitly mention the New Covenant statements and do not contradict a conclusion that Judas partook.)
Judas would have been “baptized” but the tone of the rest of Scripture seems to indicate that he was not “saved.” And Jesus gives indication of his own awareness of the condition of Judas’ heart and yet he presents the elements of the Supper to Judas.
So we have a situation where Jesus “tolerated” an “unsaved” person partaking of this covenant meal, and yet those who teach an absolute “closed” or “close” communion “fence” the meal from those whom otherwise would be recognized as true believers.
An interesting situation in my eyes.
Fascinating article, even if I quibble with a few things.
1. As already noted, isn’t this an awful high view of Communiion for a group of people who deny the Sacraments? And doesn’t it create problems for other Baptist churches down the street who don’t put such restrictions on the practice?
2. Plenty of PCA churches practice open communion, as do most orthodox Anglican churches. My ECUSA church (which is very, very orthodox) also states that “all baptized Christians” are invited to the table.
In any event, respect to Dr. Moore, but this is being theologically strident in a way that many Baptists would not recognize.
@MRS,
Many Baptist churches have the same statement that “all baptized Christians” are invited to the Lord’s Supper. We simply do not believe that those who have been sprinkled as infants (or at any point prior to conversion) are baptized.
And when Baptists say that Communion is not a sacrament, we simply mean that it does not confer grace upon us as we receive it, not that it is not sacred, holy, and important.
I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this, and while I lean toward Bunyan, “Differences in Judgment About Water Baptism no Bar to Communion”, I am still unable to form a settled conviction either way.
My ideal solution would be for every denomination to accept the Baptist understanding of baptism, then we could stop worrying about it. But that seems unlikely.
Stan:
Fortunately Spurgeon knows better today! I’m with Moore and Paul! And the bulk of our historic Baptist brethren!
Dr. Moore,
I disagree, based on the same principle; that of exclusion. Communion is to be accomplished by the true believer; an individual “in” Christ. The true believer has not just knocked on Christ, the Door, but has entered in. Surely, you do not suggest everyone who claims faith, and has taken the plunge, is a true believer.
The question then becomes: Why welcome a false believer but exclude a true believer merely because they have not taken the dip. Doing so asserts Jesus will have unbeliever’s at the heavenly dinner table but not those who actually follow Him.
Dangerous stuff Dr. Moore.