I have thought about this matter for years. Same principle as when church of Christ signs say, "Come worship with us," or "Everyone is welcome." Are false teachers welcome? Come on, what has happened to us?
Something interesting happened to me the other day. I have had many religious discussions with a young man that I know. He goes to a small community church, not a church of Christ. I recently invited him to services because there was an event we were both going to in the afternoon. He said he would think about it and then he asked me a question, he said "hey you guys do the Lord's supper every week don't you? I miss doing the Lord supper." I believe where he goes they only do it every few months. I simply answered yes we do. I am curious, in light of this article, what should've been my response?
That would have been my response, too. That’s all he was asking, and if push came to shove it would be up to church leadership to set the church’s practice for who does/doesn’t take if the church were to apply what I advocate here.
I'm glad to read someone who shares a similar perspective on the Table. Everywhere I have ever worshiped practiced open communion. For the exact same reasons you describe above, I think closed communion is the best practice. However, I'm not yet considering it as a point worthy causing division over if that is the long held local practice (open). When the topic comes up, either from members or from outsiders about communion, I always answer closed seems to best. This is definitely a topic worth sharing and studying more!
Jack, I look forward to you writing more about this. I'm glad that I've never attended a congregation that encouraged everyone present to participate in the Lord's Supper, but I've also never attended one in the U.S. that 'closed' communion to any but, maybe, folks that they had disciplined (which seems absolutely appropriate in light of I Cor 5). Much of your article rings true to me, but I'm not clear about what you are advocating on a practical level. Are you urging that congregations "close" communion merely by declaring that it is "closed" or do you want them to somehow police the taking of the emblems? How do we practice this while avoiding its devolving into judgmental sectarianism?
I have also wondered for years about the baptizing of children. Can they understand what really is involved in conversion? It certainly involves much more than having one's sins removed.
I read your article with great interest. I certainly understand your position, and I do believe we need to dig deeper into the subject. I do not believe there are varying degrees of being lost or saved, so in reference to I Corinthians 11:27, I don’t believe a non-Christian who partakes of the Lord’s Supper is getting anymore lost. I do believe that Paul was addressing Christians who should understand the purpose of the Lord’s Supper and the true meaning of it. I don’t disagree with your article, you have opened a subject for discussion that we truly need to investigate.
It's not possible to be any more "unsaved," but I do think it's possible to be more lost if a person is moved farther from the truth. I think that is one of the negative consequences of open service.
Ah! Thank you for this article, I recently wrote an examination of the song We sing called "come share the Lord", (and the large amount of denominational beliefs included in that song) and the verses that say "no one is a stranger here, everyone belongs" I could not find any information on what that means or why it was put in that song, in spite of extensive research, and now I understand I think that that song is referring to "open communion". I now look forward to going back and adding this information and reference to your article, thank you for sharing! Here is my article on the song: https://alw6541.wixsite.com/findagooduse/post/come-share-the-lord-a-scriptural-song
Glad that I am not the only one who favors "Closed" communion. Like the term Christian, we seem to think that unless you are Jewish or Muslim, you must be a Christian...
I am very opposed to closed communion. How would this be, as someone else has said, policed? Not all sins are visible to all eyes. How would I, also a sinner, determine if someone sitting near me is worthy enough to take communion? What if I am visiting from out of town, a faithful Christian? Would I have to begin carrying letters from my home congregation saying that I should be allowed to take communion? What if I am a first time visitor to the church and I have had no teaching? How would you tactfully and lovingly tell someone they 'aren't good enough' yet to take communion? Only God can see my heart. If I take communion and I am not worthy, I can be forgiven when I have better understanding. If I am not a Christian, am I actually doing more than eating a tiny cracker and drinking a small swallow of juice?
I am a christian in the church of Christ, is that how you would've responded to me in person had I shared this scripture with you in regards to elements of your article? I am confused by your tone because the scripture has direct relevance to the discussion.
Brother, I'm exasperated by responses like this. You did not ask "1 Corinthians 11:28 doesn't seem to fit your view - could you explain where you think it does?"
You quoted a verse as if it was all that's needed to end a long, detailed discussion, as if on this topic that has been studied in depth by Christians for two thousand years that all of us accidentally missed the key verse that unravels the whole thing. I'm happy to explain how closed communion accounts for self-examination, and I will.
The article seems to be written from an exasperated viewpoint. You blame me for your exasperation rather than admitting you treated me poorly. If you are going to put your ideas out there you have to be willing to "take the heat". You knew why I quoted that verse, in your article you quoted the verse just before it. You want to police members of the church and deny them the Lord's Supper by your own criterion. You have already conceded by saying "You’re not going to find a “thou shalt not” on this one". On April 17th Jim made some great points to which you answered very poorly. A visitor that is searching for truth may very well feel comfortable in attending which may lead to them wanting to become part of the family. You then say this "Notice the contradiction in this statement: "Communion is a personal act." But isn't that why I posted 1 Cor. 11:28. The 2 are not mutually exclusive. Taking communion is an individual choice. I have gone to those who were shut in on Sunday afternoon and helped them to take the Lord's supper, are they not partaking correctly? Who are we communing with, is it not Jesus Himself. Jesus says in Matthew 26 "I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom." The kingdom is the church. Paul says in his letter to the Corinthians chapter 10 verse 17: For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.” Paul was not with the Corinthians when they partook yet they are one. No two Christian's are at the same place in their walk with Christ, we are all at different stages in our Christianity. We have to be very careful and not bind where God has not bound.
Jesus knew Judas's heart and what he was going to do, but still allowed him to participate in that supper. I think it is presumptive and very pharisaical of us who do not have divine knowledge of people other than ourselves to decide who is going to be served the Lords Supper and who is not. So we're going to withhold communion from the absentee family, what about the members who continue in their secret sin. At least those absentee members are showing themselves as being a "cold" Christians. When we decide to play God and make judgements on others we put ourselves in a very dangerous situation. I agree that Church discipline should be practiced but Communion is a personal act and when we decide who can and can't take we are taking on God's role. This sounds very similar to the actions taken by the anti congregations and once that begins where does it stop? Not least of all this action would severely hamper our efforts to save walk ins off the street. Are we going to question them and tell them they need to be sure and sit away from the communion takers. If this is our stance we should take our welcome sign off the door or say members only.
He knew Judas' heart, but the betrayal was yet to be completed. We don't (and can't) discipline invisible sin, but if we won't discipline open sin then what's the point of church leadership?
If the elders don't have authority to make clear distinctions as to who's in the church and who isn't, why call them shepherds? It's not playing God to use the authority He delegated.
The issue of visitors comfort is the #1 disagreement I've received. I've written for months that the church's assembly is not for visitors. It is a blessing if they feel uncomfortable - that might motivate them to become part of the family. If they're already perfectly comfortable, they have little motivation to commit.
Notice the contradiction in this statement: "Communion is a personal act." By definition, the word "communion" is not personal. It demands participation by a group or else it can't be called communion. Which group, then? The one for whom the ritual was created.
I have thought about this matter for years. Same principle as when church of Christ signs say, "Come worship with us," or "Everyone is welcome." Are false teachers welcome? Come on, what has happened to us?
Something interesting happened to me the other day. I have had many religious discussions with a young man that I know. He goes to a small community church, not a church of Christ. I recently invited him to services because there was an event we were both going to in the afternoon. He said he would think about it and then he asked me a question, he said "hey you guys do the Lord's supper every week don't you? I miss doing the Lord supper." I believe where he goes they only do it every few months. I simply answered yes we do. I am curious, in light of this article, what should've been my response?
That would have been my response, too. That’s all he was asking, and if push came to shove it would be up to church leadership to set the church’s practice for who does/doesn’t take if the church were to apply what I advocate here.
I'm glad to read someone who shares a similar perspective on the Table. Everywhere I have ever worshiped practiced open communion. For the exact same reasons you describe above, I think closed communion is the best practice. However, I'm not yet considering it as a point worthy causing division over if that is the long held local practice (open). When the topic comes up, either from members or from outsiders about communion, I always answer closed seems to best. This is definitely a topic worth sharing and studying more!
Jack, I look forward to you writing more about this. I'm glad that I've never attended a congregation that encouraged everyone present to participate in the Lord's Supper, but I've also never attended one in the U.S. that 'closed' communion to any but, maybe, folks that they had disciplined (which seems absolutely appropriate in light of I Cor 5). Much of your article rings true to me, but I'm not clear about what you are advocating on a practical level. Are you urging that congregations "close" communion merely by declaring that it is "closed" or do you want them to somehow police the taking of the emblems? How do we practice this while avoiding its devolving into judgmental sectarianism?
Well said. I appreciate your tone of the article as well.
I have also wondered for years about the baptizing of children. Can they understand what really is involved in conversion? It certainly involves much more than having one's sins removed.
Amen Gary. I obeyed the Gospel at age 12 and again at age 40.
If a child is to young to understand marriage I would question if they really can understand the commitment of being “in Christ”.
Forgiveness of sins is only a part of the Gospel and we must teach and obey the whole Gospel.
You guys might enjoy our Think Deeper Podcast episode on The Age of Accountability
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thfpAmstd-k
I read your article with great interest. I certainly understand your position, and I do believe we need to dig deeper into the subject. I do not believe there are varying degrees of being lost or saved, so in reference to I Corinthians 11:27, I don’t believe a non-Christian who partakes of the Lord’s Supper is getting anymore lost. I do believe that Paul was addressing Christians who should understand the purpose of the Lord’s Supper and the true meaning of it. I don’t disagree with your article, you have opened a subject for discussion that we truly need to investigate.
It's not possible to be any more "unsaved," but I do think it's possible to be more lost if a person is moved farther from the truth. I think that is one of the negative consequences of open service.
Can I ask your thoughts on Christians who allow their young children, who are not baptized, to take the Lord’s Supper?
Personally, I don't see how that practice fits our theology whatsoever.
I have always felt that parents who allow this are not teaching their children the true sanctity of the memorial.
Ah! Thank you for this article, I recently wrote an examination of the song We sing called "come share the Lord", (and the large amount of denominational beliefs included in that song) and the verses that say "no one is a stranger here, everyone belongs" I could not find any information on what that means or why it was put in that song, in spite of extensive research, and now I understand I think that that song is referring to "open communion". I now look forward to going back and adding this information and reference to your article, thank you for sharing! Here is my article on the song: https://alw6541.wixsite.com/findagooduse/post/come-share-the-lord-a-scriptural-song
Interesting thought, I hadn't considered that song as part of this but you're right in that it does seem to indicate that.
Glad that I am not the only one who favors "Closed" communion. Like the term Christian, we seem to think that unless you are Jewish or Muslim, you must be a Christian...
That might be a residual effect from a widespread culture of Christianity that we're going to have to reconsider as it goes away
I am very opposed to closed communion. How would this be, as someone else has said, policed? Not all sins are visible to all eyes. How would I, also a sinner, determine if someone sitting near me is worthy enough to take communion? What if I am visiting from out of town, a faithful Christian? Would I have to begin carrying letters from my home congregation saying that I should be allowed to take communion? What if I am a first time visitor to the church and I have had no teaching? How would you tactfully and lovingly tell someone they 'aren't good enough' yet to take communion? Only God can see my heart. If I take communion and I am not worthy, I can be forgiven when I have better understanding. If I am not a Christian, am I actually doing more than eating a tiny cracker and drinking a small swallow of juice?
Answered all of these in the follow up, be sure to check it out!
https://jackwilkie.co/p/mailbag-closed-communion-questions
1 Cor. 11:28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
Oh, I had never read that verse. I now retract the entire article.
Is that how you think this works?
I am a christian in the church of Christ, is that how you would've responded to me in person had I shared this scripture with you in regards to elements of your article? I am confused by your tone because the scripture has direct relevance to the discussion.
Brother, I'm exasperated by responses like this. You did not ask "1 Corinthians 11:28 doesn't seem to fit your view - could you explain where you think it does?"
You quoted a verse as if it was all that's needed to end a long, detailed discussion, as if on this topic that has been studied in depth by Christians for two thousand years that all of us accidentally missed the key verse that unravels the whole thing. I'm happy to explain how closed communion accounts for self-examination, and I will.
The article seems to be written from an exasperated viewpoint. You blame me for your exasperation rather than admitting you treated me poorly. If you are going to put your ideas out there you have to be willing to "take the heat". You knew why I quoted that verse, in your article you quoted the verse just before it. You want to police members of the church and deny them the Lord's Supper by your own criterion. You have already conceded by saying "You’re not going to find a “thou shalt not” on this one". On April 17th Jim made some great points to which you answered very poorly. A visitor that is searching for truth may very well feel comfortable in attending which may lead to them wanting to become part of the family. You then say this "Notice the contradiction in this statement: "Communion is a personal act." But isn't that why I posted 1 Cor. 11:28. The 2 are not mutually exclusive. Taking communion is an individual choice. I have gone to those who were shut in on Sunday afternoon and helped them to take the Lord's supper, are they not partaking correctly? Who are we communing with, is it not Jesus Himself. Jesus says in Matthew 26 "I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom." The kingdom is the church. Paul says in his letter to the Corinthians chapter 10 verse 17: For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.” Paul was not with the Corinthians when they partook yet they are one. No two Christian's are at the same place in their walk with Christ, we are all at different stages in our Christianity. We have to be very careful and not bind where God has not bound.
So how do we "enforce" such a practice as "closed communion" when we have visitors even from the community?
There are numerous ways it is and has been done. Once a congregation agrees to it the logistics wouldn’t be too difficult.
Jesus knew Judas's heart and what he was going to do, but still allowed him to participate in that supper. I think it is presumptive and very pharisaical of us who do not have divine knowledge of people other than ourselves to decide who is going to be served the Lords Supper and who is not. So we're going to withhold communion from the absentee family, what about the members who continue in their secret sin. At least those absentee members are showing themselves as being a "cold" Christians. When we decide to play God and make judgements on others we put ourselves in a very dangerous situation. I agree that Church discipline should be practiced but Communion is a personal act and when we decide who can and can't take we are taking on God's role. This sounds very similar to the actions taken by the anti congregations and once that begins where does it stop? Not least of all this action would severely hamper our efforts to save walk ins off the street. Are we going to question them and tell them they need to be sure and sit away from the communion takers. If this is our stance we should take our welcome sign off the door or say members only.
He knew Judas' heart, but the betrayal was yet to be completed. We don't (and can't) discipline invisible sin, but if we won't discipline open sin then what's the point of church leadership?
If the elders don't have authority to make clear distinctions as to who's in the church and who isn't, why call them shepherds? It's not playing God to use the authority He delegated.
The issue of visitors comfort is the #1 disagreement I've received. I've written for months that the church's assembly is not for visitors. It is a blessing if they feel uncomfortable - that might motivate them to become part of the family. If they're already perfectly comfortable, they have little motivation to commit.
Notice the contradiction in this statement: "Communion is a personal act." By definition, the word "communion" is not personal. It demands participation by a group or else it can't be called communion. Which group, then? The one for whom the ritual was created.