Why is the Lord’s Supper reserved for believers only?

In the past Baptists have debated over the restrictions on communion, often using the terms open, close, and closed.[i] A decade ago I wrote about “theoretical unrestricted communion” as the belief that there are absolutely no restrictions placed on who can take communion. In practice, this would mean actively soliciting members of other religions and even the non-religious to participate in the observing of the Lord’s Supper. My understanding at the time was that for Baptists this could only be theoretical, in that they at the least believe the Lord’s Supper is for God’s people and is ideally restricted to them. Probably that was not accurate then, but I am certain that it is not now true. As ecumenism, liberalism, and tolerationism have made their inroads among Baptists, many of these now ask, “Why is it reserved only for born again believers?” The answer, to many, is that there is no limitation or barrier to observing the Lord’s Supper, and all who wish to participate are welcomed.[ii]

The Lord’s Supper is intended for the Lord’s disciples. This can be seen in the following.

1. It is a memorial or remembrance of the Lord’s death (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24-25).
2. It is an expectation of the Lord’s coming (1 Corinthians 11:26; Matthew 26:29).
3. It was observed when the church came together out of the world rather than in the world (Acts 2:42; 20:7ff; 1 Corinthians 11:18).
4. It is the new “Passover feast” of those who observe it in sincerity and truth (1 Corinthians 5:6-8; cf. John 4:24).
5. It is a communion for the partakers of “that one bread,” Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 10:16-17).
6. It is not ecumenical, in the sense of embracing other religions (1 Corinthians 10:20-21).
7. It requires a self-examination and discernment in relation to the body and blood of Jesus Christ, with associated judgment (1 Corinthians 11:27-29).

The points above might be fleshed out for greater edification, but I present them in skeleton form for the time being. The point of this post is not to jettison the idea of closed communion for a more open version for all who believe, but to briefly point out that “all who believe” is the lowest common denominator for communion, and we must begin building on the biblical truth from that foundation.

---

[i] Although these terms don’t always mean the same things to all Baptists.

[ii] John Wesley, for example, believed that communion was a means of grace and that someone invited to the table might be converted to Christ at the table (The The Works of John Wesley, Bicentennial Edition, Richard P. Heitzenrater, editor, Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1984, Volume 19: Journal and Diaries II (1738-1743), p. 159). While I disagree with Wesley, his motivation was not the same as modern ecumenicists. He viewed these as unbelievers in need of being born again. Many ecumenists, on the other hand, believe all religions are valid expressions on the way to God – therefore receiving with open arms and free communion those who reject Jesus as the only way whereby we must be saved.

Muslims, Southern Baptists, Religious Liberty and Spiritual Adultery

Sometimes, some Baptists get out of kilter on religious liberty. Not all Baptists are in as much agreement as some might think we are. A motion and a question at the June 2016 meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention highlight that fact.

Leading up to the Convention, Christian Index Editor Gerald Harris asked Do Muslims Really Qualify for Religious Freedom Benefits? -- illustrating a prominent SBC leader opposing full religious liberty for Muslims. At the Convention on Tuesday, June 14, 2016 an Arkansas pastor moved “that all Southern Baptist officials or officers who support the rights of Muslims to build Islamic mosques in the United States be immediately removed from their position within the Southern Baptist Convention.” (The motion was ruled out of order as exceeding the authority of the messengers.) Then on Wednesday morning, during the question-and-answer segment of the report of the Ethics and  Religious Liberty Commission of the SBC (ERLC), the same pastor asked ERLC President Russell Moore: “I would like to know how in the world someone within the Southern Baptist Convention can support the defending of rights for Muslims to construct mosques in the United States when these people threaten our very way of existence as Christians and Americans. They are murdering Christians, beheading Christians, imprisoning Christians all over the world. Do you actually believe that if Jesus Christ were here today that He would support this and that He would stand up and say, ‘Well, let us protect the rights of those Baal worshipers to erect temples to Baal?’ Do you believe that Dr. Moore?”

Moore replied, “What it means to be a Baptist is to support soul freedom for everybody. Brothers and sisters, when you have a government that says 'we can decide whether or not a house of worship can be constructed based upon the theological beliefs of that house of worship,' then there are going to be Southern Baptist churches in San Francisco and New York and throughout this country who are not going to be able to build...” Following up in the Arkansas Baptist News on Monday, June 20th Pastor John Wofford complained that this is a 'spiritual issue' -- an issue of unequally yoking together with unbelievers and bidding them God speed -- and that Moore did not answer his question.

Let's back up a moment and see Wofford's issue with Moore and the ERLC (and the IMB of the SBC. [1] On May 11, 2016 the ERLC and IMB with 16 other groups filed an Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs in The Islamic Society of Basking Ridge v. Township of Bernards.[2] This was in support of a suit in a religious land use case. The planning board of Bernards Township, New Jersey denied the building of a mosque, ostensibly in a way they would not or had not denied other religious groups. The thrust of the brief of the 18 parties was that “A Muslim mosque cannot be subjected to a different land-use approval process than a Christian church simply because local protesters oppose the mosque.”

Religious liberty
The situation in New Jersey is broadly a First Amendment case, but specifically The Islamic Society lawsuit accused the planning board of Bernards Township with violating 42 U.S. Code § 2000cc - Protection of land use as religious exercise. This law was passed by Congress unanimously in 2000. It protects all houses of worship from undue burden by land use regulations. I agree with the law and the thrust of the brief. The law affords for a Muslim mosque the same rights as a Christian Church, Jewish Synagogue or other religious body. The planning board of Bernards Township would need to show their decision “is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest” and “is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” From what I have read about the case, the planning board did not show compelling governmental interest and rather made the decision based on their feelings about Muslims and terrorism. If I were on the planning board of Bernards Township, I would decide the law allowed the Islamic Society to build a mosque.[3] They should not have an undue burden different for them from other religious groups. That much seems clear-cut to me, and easy to come down on the side of religious liberty as an American citizen. The state should preserve religious liberty for all, equally.

Spiritual adultery
Now for a Christian (at least some Christians) the “spiritual issue” is where the waters get muddy. In his explanation of his question, Pastor Wofford cited such verses as “Thou shalt have no other gods before me...love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, with all thy mind and with all thy strength....Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and Him only shalt thou serve...have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather to reprove them...be no unequally yoked together with unbelievers.” He mentions that the apostle John warned us that “if someone comes to us who does not bring the doctrine of Christ, we are not to bid him 'God speed'.” I don't know how far I can go in agreeing with Pastor Wofford, but many have misunderstood his main point and have not directly addressed it: “Would Jesus Christ stand in a court of law, defending the rights of a false religion to erect mosques, temples or other places of worship which are clearly in violation of the First and Second Commandments of God?”

Religious liberty v. Spiritual adultery
As I see it, Pastor Wofford is not discussing what the planning board of Bernards Township should do, but rather what his denomination should do. He is a Southern Baptist. The ERLC is commissioned and supported by Southern Baptists. Is their aligning with false religions in support of a false religion a case of spiritual adultery that violates the Christian's separation from unbelievers and direction to serve God only?

As Christians we should faithfully teach and firmly practice that Jesus is the only name under heaven whereby men must be saved. That cautions in choosing with whom to be involved in various endeavors, and whether those endeavors might compromise our faith and practice. Does filing a brief in a case of undue burden regarding land use and zoning regulations yoke us with unbelievers? Certainly the names of the ERLC and IMB stand equally beside the Interfaith Coalition on Mosques, International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Sikh Coalition, and Unitarian Universalists. But does this yoke them with unbelievers? Not necessarily. Does it support “another gospel”? It cannot be refuted that the mosque will teach, proclaim and promote another religion, another guide book and another form of salvation than Jesus Christ as the way, the truth and the life.

The government should/must recognize the same kind of religious rights for Muslims as everyone else. I support them being treated equally, but I would not go on a personal crusade to help them build mosques. If the Jehovah's Witnesses set up a bake sale to raise money for their Kingdom Hall, I support their freedom to do so — but I won’t be buying any of their bread.

Quotes
“All external things including life and limb are subjected to external authority. But no one may coerce of compel true faith in Christ, for it is concerned not with temporal but eternal life.” — Pilgram Marpeck, 1531

“...Christ hath not commanded any king, bishop, or minister to persecute the people for difference of judgment in matters of religion...the king and parliament may please to permit all sorts of Christians; yea, Jews, Turks, and pagans, so long as they are peaceable, and no malefactors, as is above mentioned; which, if they be found to be, under two or three witnesses, let them be punished...persecution for religion is to force the conscience; and to force and constrain men and women's consciences to a religion against their wills, is to tyrannize over the soul, as well as over the body...persecution for difference in religion is a monstrous and cruel beast...No king nor bishop can, or is able to command faith; That is the gift of God, who worketh in us both the will and the deed of his own good pleasure.” — Leonard Busher, 1614

“This spiritual administration of Christ's power is in and over the spirits and consciences of man. It extends to all the inward and hidden motions and acting of the mind. It also extends to all the outward manifestations of its powerful commands in the outward man, in reference unto God, and especially unto such as pertains to the visible worship and service of God. God has declared Himself to be a spirit, and will be worshipped in spirit and in truth, and seeks such, and only such, to worship him.

“This spiritual administration, as it is concerned with the outward man, is to managed not by a sword of steel which cannot come near or touch the spirit or mind of man, but by the sword that proceeds out of the mouth of his servants, the word of truth. This is especially so as to the efficacy, and to the inward man, by the two edge sword of the spirit. But that spiritual law and light by which these candle are enlightened, by Himself, Who is that light that lights every man who comes into the world.” — John Clarke, 1652

“Government should protect every man in thinking and speaking freely, and see that one does not abuse another. The liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above the rest to grant indulgence, whereas all should be equally free, Jews, Turks, Pagans and Christians.” — John Leland, 1790

[1] Some might question whether this is in the purview of their Mission Statement -- “The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission exists to assist the churches by helping them understand the moral demands of the gospel, apply Christian principles to moral and social problems and questions of public policy, and to promote religious liberty in cooperation with the churches and other Southern Baptist entities.”
[2] The 18 groups named on the brief are: American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Center for Islam and Religious Freedom, Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, Interfaith Coalition on Mosques, International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Muslim Bar Association of New York, National Asian Pacific American Bar Association, National Association of Evangelicals, New Jersey Muslim Lawyers Association, Queens Federation of Churches, Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Sikh Coalition, South Asian Bar Association of New Jersey, South Asian Bar Association of New York, and Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry of New Jersey.
[3] From the viewpoint of a New Jersey pastor and former president of the Baptist Convention of New York, the Islamic Society of Basking Ridge was not treated differently than Christian churches. He told Baptist Press that the mosque “received the same treatment from our local planning boards that many of our churches do...I have seen how difficult it can be for area churches to receive building and expansion permits from the local planning board. A few years back I sadly watched as a local Baptist church attempted to relocate within our township only to be voted down by the planning board. The church spent hundreds of thousands of dollars only to be told that their site plan did not, and probably would never, meet all the requirements. Local residents raised even more money to defeat them...The same scenario played out for the Islamic Society of Basking Ridge, Inc...The majority of residents in Bernards Township seem dead set against any [emp. mine, rlv] new religious facility being built in their backyards.” This does not prove that the planning board did not violate Congress's Religious Land Use Act, but suggests that they did not act differently toward Muslims than they have acted toward any other religious group.

The threat of ecumenism

On a recent blog one brother wrote, "I think anything organized with participation by different religious groups or individuals of different religious groups is ecumenical." Is anything organized with participation by different religious groups ecumenical? Does presence and organization define ecumenical? What part does intent play?

What is ecumenical? According to The Merriam Webster Dictionary, ecumenical means "promoting or tending toward worldwide Christian unity." The Random House Unabridged Dictionary gives a further refinement of it as "of or pertaining to a movement (ecumenical movement), esp. among Protestant groups since the 1800s, aimed at achieving universal Christian unity and church union through international interdenominational organizations that cooperate on matters of mutual concern." According to American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, this could also include "promoting worldwide unity among religions through greater cooperation and improved understanding." So ecumenism might be something as innocuous as promoting Christian unity, or as dangerous as uniting the world’s religions in one organization.

In dealing with the concept of ecumenism, perhaps it’s hard for Baptists to strike a happy medium. One sees something scurrying out from every rock he turns over, and every stick looks like a snake. Another needs prescription glasses so badly he couldn’t see ecumenical compromise if it were staring him in the face. There is a real threat of ecumenism as some attempt to unite the denominations by abandoning the faith once delivered to the saints. "Let’s ignore the Bible & truth and just be one big happy family." Then there is a trivialization of ecumenism which fears a Baptist and a person of another denomination standing in close proximity are engaged in "an ecumenical movement". The challenge is to walk the path in the center, without falling into the ditch on the right or left; to pursue unity of the faith and love of the brethren without dispensing the Scripture and its truth.

The threat of ecumenism – the attempt to falsely unite
Christian unity is not wrong. The modern ecumenical manner of achieving it is. The ecumenical movement seeks to break down denominational barriers and just worship together as "Christians". The movement is alive and well. A worldwide promoter among Christian denominations is the World Council of Churches, whose aim is to proclaim the oneness of the church of Jesus Christ and to call the churches to the goal of visible unity. By methods such as dialogue, study documents, common prayer and worship, churches from the Anglican Church to the Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church to the Waldensian Church (yes, you read that correctly) unite in the WCC and seek for unity. Again, unity is not wrong. But abandoning the faith once delivered to the saints is! It seems clear to me that the methodology of the WCC, Evangelicals and Catholics Together, and all such movements do not hold a high view of the Scriptures or the once-delivered faith.

The trivialization of ecumenism – seeing ecumenism under every rock
Like Chicken Little who believes the sky is falling or the Little Boy Who Cried Wolf, the “ecumenist-behind-every-non-denominational-gathering” mentality trivializes real ecumenism. When the sky really is falling and when the wolf really comes, no one believes us because we have lost our credibility.

There are some gatherings that are not ecumenical that attract various brands of Christians. One obvious example is pro-life rallies. Because of agreement on the sanctity of life, these rallies attract Baptists, Protestants, Catholics, Jews and others. But the intent is not to unite all these people in one denomination. The intent is to unite in a social and political way to rally support for the sanctity of life. Is working in a Rescue Mission "ecumenical"? Many churches seem to work together to supply food and service for the homeless, etc., without compromising any of their standards or seeking organizational union.

Realize also that something does not have to be ecumenical to be wrong. Some Baptists I know seem to struggle to find the proper way to frame an argument against certain things they believe are unscriptural and/or inadvisable. If they can’t define it clearly some other way, they frame it under the specter of ecumenism. Surely everyone will shy away from it then! Yet something can be wrong for reasons other than ecumenism. False worship can be just that, without any ecumenical trappings. For example, a friend might want you to attend church and worship with him. He has no intention of ecumenism. He intends rather to convert you to his belief.

The challenge – the pursuit of unity and love without disposing of scripture and truth
Unity is a command, a privilege, and a goal. The pursuit of unity is not an evil, but rather a good. The pursuit and proclamation of unity on a false basis is an evil. Is it too simple to ask that we simply be Christians?

With the multitudinous clamoring voices claiming to be Christianity, many declare unity impossible. But the Jerusalem church exhibits the possibility of unity. The divine voice pronounces they were "with one accord in prayer and supplication" and "of one heart and of one soul." We might say that the accord has been broken and cannot be recovered. Nay, rather amidst the discord in Corinth, Paul beseeched his brethren in the name of the Lord Jesus, "that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment."

"With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; [Endeavour] to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace," remembering "they that worship [God] must worship him in spirit and in truth."

Levels of fellowship

Related to the next post I will be making on ecumenism, I have been thinking about the different types of fellowship Christians might have with their fellow men. Here are a few thoughts, and I would appreciate your input on the correctness (or not) of this.

Human fellowship (our commonness as fellow creatures in God's creation)
Social fellowship (those with whom we interact on a regular basis)
Political fellowship (those with whom we share in a political cause)
Familial fellowship (those with whom we share a family bond; perhaps a natural family, a spiritual family, etc.)
Ecclesial fellowship (those with whom we share a common church bond)

We should be careful to not go to seed on this, recognizing that a Christian is one person in whom all these must coincide and not result in confusion. But, for example, if there is such as thing as a spiritual familial relationship, wouldn't that suggest that we could have some fellowship with a person who is a part of this same family even though he or she might differ on church matters, making it unlikely or impossible for us to have ecclesial fellowship?

Should Holmes have been more tolerant?

Rev. Obadiah Holmes by Sam Behling
The Persecution of Obadiah Holmes in America by J. M. Cramp
Our Baptist Heritage Obadiah Holmes: A Baptist at His Best by Barry W. Jones

"Obadiah Holmes remained adamant that his worship of Christ should not be under the control of a priest or bishop, or a magistrate or government. He and his Baptist contemporaries in Rhode Island opposed any government interference in religion and vice versa. Holmes believed this so strongly that he once took 30 lashes at the hands of magistrates and clergy in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, rather than be denied his right to worship as he saw fit."

At the above links you can read a little about Obadiah Holmes, an early American Baptist who felt so strongly about freedom of religion that he was willing to suffer for it. Men and women of that caliber were the forerunners of obtaining legal freedom of religion in the United States of America.

Today freedom of religion is often confused with tolerance. The modern tolerance seems to hold that all religion is equally valid, and for that reason folks ought to "tolerate" all sorts of beliefs.

Holmes was not "tolerant". He stood for freedom of religion, not tolerance. Tolerance implies someone is superior and in a position to tolerate an inferior. Holmes wanted equality of religion before the governmental authorities. This idea is not based on the equality of all religions, but on religion being between God and man -- not God, man and his government.

Holmes was not ecumenical. He would not be forced to worship with the Puritan Congregationalists, and so signaled by keeping his hat on when hauled into their sanctuary. His freedom of religion required him to believe others should be free to consort with other beliefs if they so wished, but it also meant those who did not so wish should not be forced to.

Union, by Trott

"Does union consist in being mingled together as the opposite parties of a controversy? For my own part I am free to acknowledge that I admire the spirit manifested and the course proposed by Abraham, when he said to Lot, "Let there be no strife between me and thee and between my herdmen and thy herdman; for we are brethren. Is not the whole land before thee? Separate thyself I pray thee, from me." Genesis 23:2-9. This example I would recommend to my brethren in Virginia and elsewhere, so far as the strife has extended; not for the purpose of of disunion, but to prevent strife.

"Let us say to those whom we have called 'brethren', but who are only our brethren's children, let us not remain together to keep up controversy, let us separate.

"I certainly think with the wise man that; "It is better to dwell in a corner of the house top, than with a brawling woman and in a wide house." - Proverbs 21:9. Whether this course is not more congenial with the spirit of the Gospel than to continue together in strife, judge ye.

"We urge upon our brethren to take the Bible as their only standard both of faith and practice, to turn to it for instruction, and to practice what and as the Master has said. We go to no higher antiquity than Christ and His apostles for authority, neither stop we short of that." -- Samuel Trott in Does Union consist in being mingled together? 1833