TEXT:

SUBJECT: A CRITIQUE OF CLOSE COMMUNION

"Close communion" has been this church's practice since its founding 30 years ago. In this scheme, the Lord's Table is open to members of this church--and no one else. I trust this was not a product of bigotry. At no time did I or my predecessor think ourselves "more worthy" of the Lord's Supper than other believers. We practiced "close communion" because we thought it most Biblical. My brother may still think that way; I don't.

The arguments for "close communion" are ably set forth by my friend, Dr. Bill Downing, in his book, New Testament Church: Nature, Characteristics, Perpetuity, pp.115-116.

Under the sub-heading, The Partakers, Pastor Downing writes: "Who should partake of the Lord's Supper? Some churches practice `open communion', anyone who happens to be in attendance at the time of the observance is served the elements. Others restrict the participation. Some hold that the rite is only for believers; others, that it is for all believers of like faith and practice who are members in good standing of sister churches (i.e., closed communion). Still others admit only those in good standing who are members of that local assembly (i.e., close communion). Consider the following four biblical principles:

My friend's first argument proves too much. He says, "The Lord's Supper is a church ordinance, given to the church as an institution in the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20). If this is true, then "discipling and teaching" can only take place in the context of the local church, too. But this presents a very real problem: those to be "discipled" are unsaved--and so outside the assembly. They cannot be discipled until they come into the church and they cannot come into the church until they are discipled. Moreover, the Apostles taught many people who were outside the church.

With his second argument, I am in agreement. The Lord's Supper is public, not a private ordinance.

His third argument is the most impressive--and specious. He says, "This rite is under the discipline of the local assembly". What he means--I believe--is this: The Lord's Supper must be co-extensive with church discipline. But we cannot discipline Christians who are not members of the church. Therefore, they cannot take the Lord's Supper with us. His minor premise is wrong. We can discipline those outside of the church. Titus 3:10: "Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition." Or III John 10: "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him". If a heretic or a troublemaker begins visiting the church and causing trouble, must we wait until he joins the assembly to put him out? Or can we tell him to leave now? And if we expel him, shun him, and don't even wish him "godspeed", what have we done but put him--though not a member--under church discipline?

His last argument is hard to prove. He says, "According to the command of the Lord and the pattern of the apostolic churches, the Lord's Supper was observed in the context of the local assembly (Matthew 28:18-20, Acts 2:41-42).

In summary: "Close communion" is not a sin. At its best, it is an attempt to guard the Lord's table and maintain the purity of the church. But it is also not a command. Thus, unless we can find a clear Scripture to that effect, we are not obliged to practice it.