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?
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.
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...
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.
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?
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.
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.
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...
1 Cor. 11:28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
So how do we "enforce" such a practice as "closed communion" when we have visitors even from the community?
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.