On what basis do we deny the Lord's Supper to one another?
Many of us love the story of John Calvin in Geneva, throwing himself bodily over the table containing the Lord’s Supper, blocking the heretics with his own body from eating and drinking. Someone recounted it at last weekend’s conference on John Calvin and it was met with approval. Keeping people away from the Lord’s Supper seems like a pious and proper thing to do.
But is that Biblical? In other words, do we have a Biblical mandate to deny the Supper to people by some sort of qualification process?
The subject came up last night via instant messenger with James Lee, not the best method for working something like this out so I wanted to throw it out here in blogland and raise the question. I do so with a caution that before you form a decision, you give it some thought and try to look at it from the standpoint of what the Bible says (or doesn’t say), and not what our traditions and personal feelings think. The Lord’s Supper is an emotional issue like baptism, so it needs careful examination.
Probably the clearest instruction concerning the Lord’s Supper is in 1 Corinthians 11, a chapter just chock full of useful information! The only other places we see much about the Lord’s Supper is at the Last Supper when Christ institutes the new covenant observation, and in a few vague references to the church breaking bread when gathering (i.e. Acts 2:42). So we really need to turn to 1 Cor 11: 17-34 to see what is being portrayed. Paul finishes his exhortation for men to pray and prophecy with uncovered heads and women to pray and prophecy with covered heads, and then he says something that is a rebuke to the church at Corinth:
17 But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. 18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, 19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. 20 When you come together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat. 21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.
Paul is refusing to commend the church for the way they are observing the Supper, in fact it is not even a proper observation of the Supper. There are social distinctions when the church gathers, some going hungry from lack and others eating gluttonously and others are even using the Supper as an opportunity for getting drunk! In doing this, Paul says that they are improperly observing the Supper. From the ESV Study Bible notes: “Because of their selfish elitism, when the Corinthians observe the Lord's Supper they are not rightly representing the sacrificial death of Christ (vv. 24, 26) and the true character of the Lord.”. The Supper is a humble observance, a solemn event and not a place (if there is ever a place, for social separation among the church or debauched drinking) Paul goes on to then describe the proper practice of the church coming together for the Supper:
23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
Paul here recognizes that for the believer, the Lord’s Supper is both memorial and declarative. It is not a passive act of sitting in a pew and eating what is put before you. When we partake of the Supper, we remember His cross but we also declare (“proclaim”)
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.
What we are to do is examine ourselves. Those who fail to discern their own heart and improperly approach the table eat and drink judgment on themselves. I have refrained from eating and drinking for a season when I had a serious sin issue in my life for this precise reason. The key here is the self-examination one is exhorted to go through before partaking, because quite frankly it is virtually impossible for anyone else to discern the heart of someone. The same applies with baptism. We cannot ever be sure about someone’s state and it is not hard to say the right things, so outside of gross, unrepentant sin when should we deny the waters of baptism to a professing believer?
What is missing here is anything about denial of the Supper by the body to an individual. Can we rightly imply from this that some people are denied the Supper? If someone is a professing believer, what standard do we establish for them to partake or not partake of the supper? That is a two-part question.
The first are those who are under discipline who have gotten to the point of being out of fellowship. Those who are in sin and are unrepentant of it and not restored through church discipline are put out of the fellowship, becoming as gentiles and tax collectors, so they would not be in a position to take the Supper anyway. Those who are under church discipline but are still in fellowship should be exhorted to examine themselves before they ate and drank.
The second concerns those who come into the fellowship, the assembly and seek to partake. Is there a Scriptural mandate to put them through a formal process, an examination so to speak or to require membership before they break bread with the local assembly? I have already announced my denial of the whole institution of formal “church membership”. What then is the standard? A simple affirmation of oneself as being born-again, a committed follower of Christ? A requirement for “membership”? An examination of one’s spiritual state by the elders? Certainly the above verses are made in context of the assembly of the saints, the local fellowship of believers and there are provisions and commands made for church discipline and discernment. Would those apply to the Lord’s Supper?
We must be very careful here that we are not imposing manmade constrictions on something that the Bible is silent about. What is the standard? A common confession? If so, which one? Should Lutherans only break bread with other like-minded Lutherans? Baptists only with Baptists? Presbyterians only with Presbyterians? A year or two ago I would have heartily affirmed denying the table to someone who was baptized as an infant as having not been properly baptized and thereby disqualified from the Supper. I fear that we have made a Roman Catholic control mechanism into a Biblical command.
Is it not true that a perfunctory, rote ceremony of eating oyster crackers and drinking Welch’s grape juice on a quarterly basis and doing so just to fulfill a requirement is a greater profaning of the Supper among the Body than someone who is an unbeliever being given the elements? In other words, where do we do greater harm: denial of a genuine believer from the table or allowing a false believer to heap condemnation on themselves? For those who eat the bread unworthily, the elements bring judgment upon themselves. For those who don’t believe at all, it is merely bread and wine.
Despite my impulse to guard the table jealously, I don’t see a Biblical mandate to do so. I have always been a closed communion guy, but I am starting to question it. Is this wrong, am I missing something?
Many of us love the story of John Calvin in Geneva, throwing himself bodily over the table containing the Lord’s Supper, blocking the heretics with his own body from eating and drinking. Someone recounted it at last weekend’s conference on John Calvin and it was met with approval. Keeping people away from the Lord’s Supper seems like a pious and proper thing to do.
But is that Biblical? In other words, do we have a Biblical mandate to deny the Supper to people by some sort of qualification process?
The subject came up last night via instant messenger with James Lee, not the best method for working something like this out so I wanted to throw it out here in blogland and raise the question. I do so with a caution that before you form a decision, you give it some thought and try to look at it from the standpoint of what the Bible says (or doesn’t say), and not what our traditions and personal feelings think. The Lord’s Supper is an emotional issue like baptism, so it needs careful examination.
Probably the clearest instruction concerning the Lord’s Supper is in 1 Corinthians 11, a chapter just chock full of useful information! The only other places we see much about the Lord’s Supper is at the Last Supper when Christ institutes the new covenant observation, and in a few vague references to the church breaking bread when gathering (i.e. Acts 2:42). So we really need to turn to 1 Cor 11: 17-34 to see what is being portrayed. Paul finishes his exhortation for men to pray and prophecy with uncovered heads and women to pray and prophecy with covered heads, and then he says something that is a rebuke to the church at Corinth:
17 But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. 18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, 19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. 20 When you come together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat. 21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.
Paul is refusing to commend the church for the way they are observing the Supper, in fact it is not even a proper observation of the Supper. There are social distinctions when the church gathers, some going hungry from lack and others eating gluttonously and others are even using the Supper as an opportunity for getting drunk! In doing this, Paul says that they are improperly observing the Supper. From the ESV Study Bible notes: “Because of their selfish elitism, when the Corinthians observe the Lord's Supper they are not rightly representing the sacrificial death of Christ (vv. 24, 26) and the true character of the Lord.”. The Supper is a humble observance, a solemn event and not a place (if there is ever a place, for social separation among the church or debauched drinking) Paul goes on to then describe the proper practice of the church coming together for the Supper:
23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
Paul here recognizes that for the believer, the Lord’s Supper is both memorial and declarative. It is not a passive act of sitting in a pew and eating what is put before you. When we partake of the Supper, we remember His cross but we also declare (“proclaim”)
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.
What we are to do is examine ourselves. Those who fail to discern their own heart and improperly approach the table eat and drink judgment on themselves. I have refrained from eating and drinking for a season when I had a serious sin issue in my life for this precise reason. The key here is the self-examination one is exhorted to go through before partaking, because quite frankly it is virtually impossible for anyone else to discern the heart of someone. The same applies with baptism. We cannot ever be sure about someone’s state and it is not hard to say the right things, so outside of gross, unrepentant sin when should we deny the waters of baptism to a professing believer?
What is missing here is anything about denial of the Supper by the body to an individual. Can we rightly imply from this that some people are denied the Supper? If someone is a professing believer, what standard do we establish for them to partake or not partake of the supper? That is a two-part question.
The first are those who are under discipline who have gotten to the point of being out of fellowship. Those who are in sin and are unrepentant of it and not restored through church discipline are put out of the fellowship, becoming as gentiles and tax collectors, so they would not be in a position to take the Supper anyway. Those who are under church discipline but are still in fellowship should be exhorted to examine themselves before they ate and drank.
The second concerns those who come into the fellowship, the assembly and seek to partake. Is there a Scriptural mandate to put them through a formal process, an examination so to speak or to require membership before they break bread with the local assembly? I have already announced my denial of the whole institution of formal “church membership”. What then is the standard? A simple affirmation of oneself as being born-again, a committed follower of Christ? A requirement for “membership”? An examination of one’s spiritual state by the elders? Certainly the above verses are made in context of the assembly of the saints, the local fellowship of believers and there are provisions and commands made for church discipline and discernment. Would those apply to the Lord’s Supper?
We must be very careful here that we are not imposing manmade constrictions on something that the Bible is silent about. What is the standard? A common confession? If so, which one? Should Lutherans only break bread with other like-minded Lutherans? Baptists only with Baptists? Presbyterians only with Presbyterians? A year or two ago I would have heartily affirmed denying the table to someone who was baptized as an infant as having not been properly baptized and thereby disqualified from the Supper. I fear that we have made a Roman Catholic control mechanism into a Biblical command.
Is it not true that a perfunctory, rote ceremony of eating oyster crackers and drinking Welch’s grape juice on a quarterly basis and doing so just to fulfill a requirement is a greater profaning of the Supper among the Body than someone who is an unbeliever being given the elements? In other words, where do we do greater harm: denial of a genuine believer from the table or allowing a false believer to heap condemnation on themselves? For those who eat the bread unworthily, the elements bring judgment upon themselves. For those who don’t believe at all, it is merely bread and wine.
Despite my impulse to guard the table jealously, I don’t see a Biblical mandate to do so. I have always been a closed communion guy, but I am starting to question it. Is this wrong, am I missing something?
14 comments:
In light of the conversation and the defense of a close, or even closed communion, I would like to treat each one of your points. And also, I expect that if your tossing my name out there like that I could at least get a hyperlink?
-In Christ of course...
of course
Churches need formal membership Arthur. That's who takes communion.
So what if nobody does it right and sin has polluted it all.
1 Corinthians 5 is crystal clear that a distinction needs to be made of who to eat with and who not to.
As to your church discipline example, you will NEVER discipline someone out of the church for sin who is not a member. They will just leave your church to go somewhere they aren't "Judged"
And there are plenty of churches ready to "love" them by serving them the bread and wine under the guise that they can just judge themselves.
I like it where Paul says, "I am not even there and I have judged already - Kick him out!"
Joe,
"Churches need formal membership Arthur. That's who takes communion."
So if I were in vanderbilt and came to Sunday morning services at your church, would you deny me the Supper?
The way our church currently practices it, no, you would not be denied. Nor would Jimmy Swaggert, Father Michael Manning, or the guy on the sexual predators website who figures this could help him with God. We can warn that you must be saved, but who doesn't think they are saved and that they don't 'deserve' communion? Self-examination yes, but there is also examination that takes place from the preaching of the word and by those who watch for your souls as they that must give an account.
If I had my druthers, I would have it on a Sunday evening, and I would announce that if you are not a member, we respectfully ask you to enter into the spirit of the Supper, to examine yourself in light of the body and blood of the Lord but that we believe this to be a local church ordinance to be observed by members in good standing.
If someone were offended by this, it would demonstrate their heart and prove moreover why it should be done.
And you are always saying, "What does the Bible say..." Which is good and right- but why don't you answer my question about 1 Corinthians 5?
I don't think 1 Cor 5 is speaking explicitly about the Lord's Supper but is instead speaking on general fellowship. In other words, don't even eat with one who is immoral or greedy who bears the name brother. That does have a bearing on the Supper as a general fellowship rule, but not directly speaking of the Supper. Not every example of eating is necessarily a reference to the Supper.
Again, I am not dogmatically asserting that we should have open or closed communion, but I am questioning what we are basing the decision on one way or the other. The only examination we see directly referring to the Supper is self-examination.
So, in 1 Cor 5 where it says,
"When you are assembled in the name of the Lord and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, " vs 4
and
"Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?
and
Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover Lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth."
judging those 'inside the church"
and "Purge the evil person from among you," that this isn't explicitly concerning Communion?
So Paul is telling these people "If he comes to communion Sunday, let him eat the bread and drink the cup of Christ, (God will judge him) but whatever you do, don't you dare meet the guy at Little Caesar's for pizza because that is a lot more intimate and important and I will punish you for that... " ??
You say, "The only examination we see directly referring to the Supper is self-examination."
Paul says, "Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?- Purge that evil person from among you."
Paul says to the church:
Judge those who are evil
Judge those who profess to be Christians but are perverts, greedy, swindlers, and idolators, call for them to repent. If they won't - forbid them the table.
Ummmmm....Arthur, Joe's response warrants examination and consideration. I agree with him on his comments. Not because I've initiated this conversation taking this stance, but because it is a logical answer from the Analogy of Scripture. Plain and clear. Its the same with HC's, they are representative of the creation order and therefore justified by analogy, so too is the doctrine we see in a "close" or "closed" communion. I don't see how a true believer would be offended by being told to not participate under these principles and purpose. To cry it is unjust is a result of Americanized inclusivism and how dare you tell me noism....
I'd say that while I do not entirely adopt this view either, It is slowly becoming prevalent through the purpose and result it would serve to render these elements in this manner.
Joe,
Purging the evil person from within you, judge those in fellowship, church discipline, etc. all presume an existing fellowship relationship. “Purge the evil person from among you.” How are you to know anything about a person outside of fellowship? In other words, how can we apply the verses on church discipline to those who we are not in fellowship with? We have a hard enough time applying meaningful church discipline on those who are in fellowship with us.
My read is that we ought to accept as brothers in fellowship those who claim the name of Christ, but then within the context of the local gathering rebuke, exhort, disciple, teach, fellowship with one another. When issues of sin or false teaching arise in the church, they should be dealt with Biblically. When I first was saved, I showed up at the local Baptist church in a dark suit, with my wife and kids wearing their Sunday best. No one blinked at receiving us in fellowship. If I recall correctly, when James was first saved he had just gotten out of prison, had recently been detoxed for drug addiction and probably didn’t look or dress like a proper American Christian.
I have another post I am working on to further clarify this issue.
James,
First the headcovering comparison is irrelevant because there is an explicit exhortation for women to cover their hair, a positive command. Denying the table or examination by an ecclesiastical authority prior to allowing the communion of a fellow believer has no corresponding explicit command. You are comparing an explicit exhortation with an inference. Paul appeals to the creation order after making his command for men to not cover and for women to cover. I am not saying a woman should cover her head strictly based on an inference from the creation order, I am saying a woman should cover her head based on an explicit command in Scripture that is further clarified and supported by the creation order.
Second, patriot and rugged individualist that I am, the argument that closed communion is a violation of American individualism is a strawman. Being denied the table as a believer tells me that the local organization and their rules trump Christian fellowship. I have submitted to Christian baptism and have been born again and am a part of the Body of Christ, formal membership vows and covenants with a local gathering aside. Far from an invention of American individualism, I would say the converse is true: closed communion, like membership, is a construct of the organizational, institutional church and is likely a hold-over from Rome. There is no command to deny the Table. There is no example of anyone being denied the Table.
Again, which is the greater error: denying the Supper to a fellow believer in Christ or allowing someone to partake unworthily?
Church membership alone is meaningless in determining whether or not someone should be allowed to remain a part of a fellowship. Church membership alone is meaningless when it comes to any type of discipline. Churches are filled with people who have membership with one another but with no relationship with one another. We do not know one another, so how can we know whether we should fellowship or discipline one another?
Relationship, on the other hand, is the only basis for deciding fellowship or discipline. Relationship provides the foundation for fellowship or discipline with or without church membership. So, church membership becomes unnecessary.
Unfortunately, today, we live as if church membership is necessary and relationship is unnecessary. Yes, everyone will say that we believe relationship is necessary, but we don't LIVE that way.
By the way, in this comment, I used the term "church membership" in the traditional sense of someone associated with a church organization. I'm not using church membership in the sense of the NT where everyone who is a believer is a member of the body of Christ, and therefore a member of the church in whatever locale they are in.
-Alan
How FAR we are from true relationship in Christ. Our spirit bearing witness with His Spirit that we are children.
Wow, good point Alan.
Man Joe, you go silent for a month and now you are Sir Blogs-A-Lot! In all that extra time you need to come down for the PCRT...
I would love to man, but I have so much to do at home and church that getting away, while necessary, needs to be chosen wisely. I want to go to conferences where there is expositional preaching, not the presentation of position papers.
Post a Comment