Now, for those not fully familiar with the terms, let me give a brief explanation. The question here is "Who can take Communion? Who can participate in the Lord's Supper?" Both closed and open versions have their own version subsets. For closed communion, it might be 1) only members in good standing of this local body, 2) only members in good standing of this denomination or class (like "baptized evangelicals"), or 3) only members in good standing of some congregation. (That last one is sometimes referred to as "close communion.") For open communion, it is generally only believers with the further stipulation, "It's your responsibility that you are not taking the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner." A second and less common version would be anyone can participate without distinction or qualification. There are certainly some agreements from all sides on the question. First, Communion is for believers and not unbelievers. (So that last group of "anyone without distinction or qualification" does have distinction or qualification; they just leave it up to the individual to determine if he meets them.) The other is that Communion must not be taken lightly. That much is clear.
So, what's it all about? What is the text in question?
For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 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." In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep. But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged. (1 Cor 11:23-31)I highlighted the key part, but the whole text is necessary to understand the point and the context. As the story goes (1 Cor 11:17-22), the Corinthian Christians were meeting for "the Lord's Supper" but were actually eating and drinking and getting drunk. (It was more of a "love feast" rather than today's version.) "In this," Paul says, "I will not praise you." (1 Cor 11:22) So he explained the Lord's Supper as he received it and passed it on with the clear explanation, "As often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes." (1 Cor 11:26) The Corinthians weren't doing that. They were taking it "in an unworthy manner" (1 Cor 11:27) to the point that some of them were "weak and sick, and a number sleep" (1 Cor 11:30), meaning some had died. This, then, was a serious problem. Paul's essential solution is highlighted: "A man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup." (1 Cor 11:28)
So let's reapply that to the question of "open" or "closed communion." Which does this text call for? The "Closed Communion" folk would say closed communion, obviously. "This is serious. We don't want people, believers or not, taking the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner. We need to be responsible shepherds and insure that no one does that. We need to hold our people accountable." That's what they say and I'm sure it's true ... to a point. But the text says that each person must examine himself. It does not say the church leadership does that. Now, it is true that the local body is responsible to hold the local body accountable as believers and followers of Christ (e.g., Rom 16:17-18; 1 Cor 5:6-8; 2 Thess 3:16; 2 Thess 3:14-15) and I will even stipulate that we don't do that very well in most cases. I'm not suggesting that the local faith family is not responsible for that. But it appears according to the text in question that this particular point -- participating in the Lord's Supper with the local body of believers -- is a matter of individual concern and responsibility. Yes, the leadership must keep track of its people and be responsible for them, but in this case Paul appears to call the individual and not the church leadership to "examine himself."
Let's be clear. The Lord's Supper is important. It is a communion of saints with the body and blood of Christ. It declares His death until He comes. Vital! The Lord's Supper is so important that the Scriptures say taking it in an unworthy manner can be harmful, even fatal. Surely we can all see the gravity of this. That is not in question and those who argue that it's "just a symbol" and take it lightly are absolutely missing the point. I'm agreeing with all of that. Where I fall short here is with those who argue that the responsibility for insuring that fellow believers don't take it in an unworthy manner is on the leadership of the local fellowship. I just don't find it in the text. Perhaps we're making the Lord's Supper too solemn by harping on "Take some time to confess your sins" to the exclusion of "This is a celebration of Christ's sacrifice on our behalf." Perhaps we're not stressing enough that it is more important than, frankly, most of us realize. I'm not suggesting we're doing everything right here. I'm just questioning the idea that the local church leadership should decide who takes Communion. (And, in my experience, those that do believe that are pretty lax about enforcing it, leaving it, in the end, to the individual to decide if they meet the closed communion guidelines. But, hey, that's just me.)
2 comments:
Not an answer for you, but a question I've always had about that "sleep" bit. Why the euphemism? I mean, it's obvious that it has to mean something other than what it seems, but why sugarcoat it?
Two reasons, I think. First, death has never been a pleasant subject. I'd guess that all cultures have developed euphemisms for death. Ours certainly has. Second, biblically it served the purpose of indicating that death was not the end. This is clearly illustrated in John 11 when Jesus told His disciples that Lazarus was sleeping. They misunderstood. So He explained that Lazarus was dead and then went and resurrected him.
Post a Comment