Update: A good article to read first is: ‘Why every church should practice “open” and “closed” communion’
Last week, Stephen & James had the opportunity to spend time with Drew Gordon. Drew is an elder in the North American RP Church, and edits their denominational magazine, the RP Witness. One of the regular features of the magazine is a Q&A section, where commonly asked questions are answered.
One recent question was as follows:
Noah Bailey (who spent time in Airdrie as part of the ‘Semester in Scotland’ programme before entering the pastorate) sought to answer the question, and here are some of the key points:
“Elders make an effort to hear a credible profession of faith in Jesus. This profession needs three “witnesses”: a verbal statement of belief, baptism into the church, and membership in a Bible-believing church. These three corroborate the session’s belief that this person is in fact united to Christ by faith and thus able to partake of the Father’s feast as beloved and adopted children.
In 1 Corinthians 11:28, the Apostle Paul commands each individual believer to examine himself or herself prior to partaking of the Lord’s supper. Why not just leave it at that? Let each person self-examine and decide. We do not leave individual believers to themselves in self-examination because their partaking of the supper is also communal and public. These two principles require examination by others and not just the individual.
Communion, not surprisingly, is communal. Believers do not partake privately but together, as a body…Because we partake together, publicly declaring our participation in Jesus’ death, someone needs to sort out who partakes, that is, who demonstrates a credible faith in Christ.
Thankfully, Jesus gave such unifying, community-building people to His church (Eph. 4:11–16). The leaders of the church watch over the souls in the church (Heb. 13:7). They check to see if a person’s claim to be united to Christ is being made visible in his or her union with others (John 13:35). They make sure that all who are added to the Lord (Acts 5:14, 11:24) are likewise added to the number (Acts 2:41, 47).
In the end, elders examine professing believers before serving the Supper to them because this is not a feast for strangers. We do not partake anonymously. This is the Supper of God’s children, and only siblings of Jesus Christ have a seat at the table…Elders examine visitors to worship because it is their extraordinary honour to watch over the people of God and say to a guest, “Welcome home, brother/sister. Let us partake together.”
On the broader question of why someone needs to be a member of a church to take communion, Stephen said the following as part of a sermon on the subject a few years ago:
“1st Corinthians 11:28 is a verse that was often printed on communion tokens. ‘Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup’. And someone could say: ‘It says let a man examine himself. So it’s up to the individual! It’s not for someone else to decide for them!’ Clearly, the verse teaches the duty of self-examination. But to say it’s totally up to the individual doesn’t fit in with the rest of the NT’s teaching, particularly in regards to church discipline.
If we turn back a few chapters earlier to 1 Corinthians 5, we have the example of a man being excommunicated. In the words of chapter 5sv12 and 13, of someone inside the church being removed from among the people. Now that doesn’t mean the excommunicated person can’t come to church. If one of the aims of excommunication is to restore someone, then the best place for them to be on a Sunday is in church hearing God’s word. But the clearest sign of someone being removed from the church is that they can’t take the Lord’s Supper. Someone who is excommunicated is no longer in communion, no longer in fellowship, with the rest of the body. And the visible sign of that is that they can no longer be allowed to take the Lord’s Supper.
Matthew 18 gives us a step by step guide to church discipline. And the final step is to regard someone as a Gentile or a tax collector. In other words, as someone who isn’t part of the church and so has no access to its sacraments. The person may protest that they’re a born again Christian. But whatever they say about themselves, they’re not to be treated as one. And so the person in 1 Corinthians 5 can’t appeal to 1 Corinthians 11 and say ‘well it says let a man examine himself, and I’ve examined myself, and I don’t see any problem’. His own personal self-examination isn’t the final authority. The Christ appointed leaders of the church are. 1st Corinthians 11 has to be read in light of 1st Corinthians 5.
…
The sacraments must be tied to church membership, because they’re tied to church discipline. No-one receives the Lord’s Supper in the NT unless they’re under the oversight of the church.
Iain Murray who’s a church historian, explains it like this, when commenting about a Presbyterian minister in New Zealand in the 1920s. He says: ‘It needs to be understood that in Presbyterian churches the Lord’s Supper was only open to communicant members. Only as regard for church discipline declined or disappeared was admission to the Lord’s Table left to the discretion of the individual worshipper. He concludes: ‘Historically the Presbyterian churches never practised ‘open’ communion’.”