LifeWay has just released a fascinating study on Southern Baptist practices as it relates to the celebration of the Lord’s supper. Two things are clear about this topic:
- The Baptist Faith and Message is pretty clear that only biblically baptized believers (by immersion after salvation – if that was necessary for anyone) should receive the Lord’s Supper.
- Most Baptists are ignoring the BF&M on the topic.
Look at the graphic here.
The SBC Practices OPEN Communion
Fairly shocking to me. I must give an admission here. Our church practices with the majority on this one, but I am surprised the stats are this strong in that direction. We are with the 52% that ask only that people have placed their faith in Christ. We do not bring up baptism as a prerequisite. Another 5% don’t even require someone to have professed faith in Christ. Only 35% make a requirement of baptism at the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. I was actually surprised (pleasantly so) that only 4% practice the strictest form of closed communion that used to be common.
The SBC Practices QUARTERLY Communion
That, unfortunately, did not surprise me. I’ve heard the reasoning a thousand times. “If you have communion weekly, it will become an empty celebration.” I do not think that such needs to be the case. In fact, a reasonable argument can be made the early Christians busted out the Welch’s and wafers every time they got together. But, in my judgment, 4 times a year just is not enough to honor the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. At our church, we do it around 10 times a year. I still think that is probably not enough, but it’s all we are doing right now.
So, lots of interesting information here. What do you think?
We are in the 35%… though I think my invitation to the Lord’s Supper is a bit more specific (at times). I usually say, “If you are a baptized believer in the Lord Jesus Christ you are welcome to join us.” At times I have specified that “believers baptism” is what I am talking about. One time I added the phrase “…and in good standing with your home church.” I had just preached a series exploring biblical church membership and tied that into our observance. I’m with you on frequency. Though we only go once a quarter, I wish it… Read more »
I am with the 52% here, and monthly commemoration. I have always thought that the BF&M goes beyond the Scriptural requirements by requiring baptism as a prerequisite.
One other thing. I stress the importance of trusting in Christ alone for salvation and the 1 Cor 11 “examination”. I ask people to refrain if they are harboring unconfessed sin or have a broken relationship that they are not willing to repair.
Jerry,
“Harboring unconfessed sin” = refusing to submit to New Testament baptism.
Though Bart brings up an important historical point: neither the very early English general or particular Baptists are believed to have practices immersion. So one could argue our primary concern is with paedobaptism. I know most Southern Baptists would disagree with me on that distinction, but I think it’s a point worth considering. We would also exclude, traditionally, Church of Christ immersions sense they view adult baptism by immersion as salvic. But if you do that, then you’re in an odd paradox of treating both one form of baptism and one form of lack of baptism as being equally disqualifying.… Read more »
Greg, I agree that the polling itself is a different subject. But I thought of a church in town that, were they polled, would answer “anyone who has put their faith in Christ”. But their actual practice might be described as either “no specifications” or “anyone who wants to”. I have been in their congregation when the Supper was observed and it was given to anyone, even small children of church members. I suspect that there are many more who don’t really have any specifications in actual practice, but would answer theoretically that it is only for those who have… Read more »
Our church is also in the 52%. But, we are in the South and observe it monthly, which apparently only 17% of SBC churches in the South do. I find that strange. Why do it quarterly? That seems much too infrequent to me.
I wonder if we will change our confession or call for change among the churches? Surely, this is too big of an inconsistency to not speak to in some way, right?
While I found the results of this survey very disappointing, I must say the results will vary tremendously from state to state. I have pastored three Southern Baptist churches in Kentucky and all three of them, along with my home church practice closed communion. I can’t speak for other states, but in Kentucky a lot more than 4% of the churches practice closed communion. Also if you go to this website: http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/western.recdr.survey.1948.html you will see what the percentages looked like in 1948. What you are seeing today is the results of the liberals being in change of our Southern Baptist… Read more »
I do not know of a single one in Iowa. I may be corrected, but I would guess that closed communion is not something you see much of in new work states.
I’m not sure about today, but a generation ago there were numerous closed communion Southern Baptist churches in such new work states as Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, etc.
The states with the greatest amount of open communion (no restrictions or all Christians regardless of baptism are invited) Southern Baptist churches would be those old line state conventions along the Atlantic coast, ranging from Maryland down to Georgia. As a matter of fact, a number of Southern Baptist churches in these states also practice open membership.
(Just to establish identity, I am an IMB worker and personally as well as contracturally adhere to the BFM.)
I teach that striving, obedient Christians can participate. We do not engage in a vote as to who is a Christian, but I happen to emphasize that obedience and identification with Christ is necessary in order to claim the label “Christian.” Since baptism serves as both forms of obedience and identification, anyone who is not baptized should refrain.
Jeremy,
Good explanation of why baptism is a prerequisite.
I wonder what form Jesus practiced? He did, after all, serve Judas, but I doubt any SBC church would, if we knew what Jesus knew.
Looks like an awful lot of churches have made it “the table of our church” rather than “the table of the Lord”.
When I first saw the title, I WAS hopeful that there would be some information about HOW the Lord’s Supper was celebrated in Southern Baptist Churches . . .
is there something approaching a ‘liturgy’ or certain biblical readings read consistently,
plainly speaking:
what is said, what is prayed, what is done, what Bible verses are read
IF there is a consistent way of doing the Lord’s Supper among Southern Baptists, where can I find information about it?
Thanks for any help.
I wonder how many of our church plants do it differently? We do it as a meal. It seems like the added time of reflection is huge. I have been in far to many churches where it is scheduled and tacked onto the service just like a bad choir special.
Thankful to be a part of an SBC church that takes the Supper weekly and invites all who have placed their faith in Jesus, have been baptized as a believer, and who are walking consistently with that profession to join in the ‘meal”.
“…and who are walking consistently with that profession to join in the ‘meal”.
That would disqualify everyone in our congregation…and everyone that I know.
STEVE,
what you said recalls something in sacred Scripture, this:
“The centurion answered and said,
Lord, I am not worthy
that Thou shouldest come under my roof:
but speak the word only,
and my servant shall be healed. ”
(from the Gospel of St. Matthew 8:8)
this passage expresses the humility of someone needing Christ’s help but acknowledging their own unworthiniess,
and yet it expresses complete trust in Our Lord to help
humility is a good way to approach the Lord’s Table, I think
are they broken and repentant about that?
We fall into the 35% of only inviting those who are Baptized Believers to participate. We celebrate it quarterly abut are also moving towards celebrating it after each Baptism service as well. I remember speaking to a new pastor last year who was trying to move his church from a fully open table to closed, his church challenged him each time by purposefully bringing in either non believers or those sprinkled as children and trying to goad him into stopping them.
I’d say this pastor has more problems than how to observe the Lord’s Supper.
If this is anything like a “prevailing” attitude in the church, the game is already over for the “new” pastor, soon to be, “former” pastor.
I, personally, would not serve the Lord’s Supper in a church with these types of rebellious hearts. I’d move on — before they moved me on.
Agreed, this is symptomatic of deeper problems.
Actually, my modified open communion view does not technically fit any of the categories of the study. It is somewhere in between the 52% and 35% view. If you were to add those with my view to the 52%, I suspect it would be a fair bit higher.
http://sbcimpact.org/2010/04/19/discerning-the-body-a-biblical-defense-of-modified-open-communion/
Steve,
Surely you realize consistently doesn’t mean perfectly. That said, I hope and pray (and trust) you and many others are indeed walking consistently with your profession (i.e. with integrity). But to the point, it is a way for the church to ‘fence” the supper from being a meal for someone whose life is fruitless or who shows no evidence of having been born again.
Thanks,
Adam
Jesus said that “you must be perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect”.
We get nothing for a nice try.
I think we all are pretty inconsistent. For us, those who are invited to come are those who are baptized, who believe He is in it (somehow) for them, and who are in need of it.
Anywho, my 2 cents.
Bob,
This is an interesting comment: “Looks like an awful lot of churches have made it “the table of our church” rather than “the table of the Lord”.
Can you briefly elaborate?
Thanks,
Adam
We have asked to have the Lord’s Supper in our Sunday School Class, and did. The pastor was there and it gave it the closeness we needed for the lesson that was taught. We have done it in our home as well among our family.
“A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. ”
As our pastor says, it’s not the local church’s job to examine the individual. It’s the individual’s. It’s the church’s job to be explicit about the requirements to the individual can do that.
As far as I’m concerned, when a local church says someone has to belong to that church to take communion, that’s their table, not the Lord’s.
Amen!
Bob,
I would remind your pastor of 1 Corinthians 11:2 where Paul told the Church at Corinth to “keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.” It is the Lord’s Table given to the local church to protect and guard.
Also when closed communion Baptist churches observe the ordinance they do exactly what you said – they are “explicit about the requirements to the individual.”
The ordinance of instructing each man to examine himself as a prerequisite to taking the elements? Or the church now deciding who can and cannot?
Bob, How, precisely, does a church “be explicit about the requirements” without “now deciding who can and cannot”? Are you talking about a situation in which the church says, “Now we want to be explicit about this, people: Only you can decide whether you want to participate in the Lord’s Supper or not. We’re not going to tell you any standards by which you would make that decision. Whatever works for you, works for us! If you think having attended a bar mitzvah once in ’83 qualifies you to partake…well…we’re not here to judge. You’ll have to answer to the… Read more »
Bart: It seems to me you are going to extremes. According to you we have people who sell drugs actually calling themselves Christians, probably have been baptized and coming to church, then it’s the guy who does pornography, now it’s the guy who goes to bar mitvah’s. Have you actually encountered these people in your church? The pornography I give you as this has been reality, but the rest? How about the new born again Christian who has not been baptized yet? That is closer to reality. Should he/she not take communion? Baptism isn’t something all leap to as they… Read more »
Debbie, Extremes are often helpful rhetorical instruments for understanding the underlying principles that guide our decisions. Especially in an age when, rather than think and make decisions according to principles, so many would rather just make personal exceptions according to the feeling of the moment. Not that that’s necessarily the case with everyone on this topic, but just in general, I’ve found that extreme cases are helpful to change the FEELING of a question so as to see whether someone is actually committed to a principle or is just looking to do what feels good to them. Now, as to… Read more »
Ben’s summary of the Lord’s Supper gets to the heart of the issue. While I am not a Landmarker, I do acknowledge that the NT is clear on the Communion; it is limited to those who are under the discipline of that local congregation.
And I might add that the church has the right to do that, under the provisions of the Preamble to the Baptist Faith & Message.
We are proudly in the 52 percent. We also dont hold to congregationalism as stated in the BFM.
We are SBC, not because we agree with every thing, but we line up best with the SBC and because of the IMB.
If you’re not congregational, then are you really Baptist? Maybe yall would fit better with the Presbyterians.
David
David,
You are an idiot. I am tired of your nonsense. We believe Believer’s Baptism and autonomy of the local church. We couldnt possibly be Presbyterian.
Go take a Bible course…. or 12.
Wow, Matt…..”idiot,” “nonsense,” “Go take a Bible course?????” You sound like such a nice fella.
Baptist Churches are congregational. They are not Elder ruled. I’m glad that yall believe in Believers Baptism by immersion only, and the autonomy of the local Church. Amen. But, to be Elder ruled doesnt sound Baptist….it sounds Presbyterian.
I’m sorry if that makes you angry.
David
Matt, You need to stand down on that. There have been and are idiots who comment here and some who have posted here. David Worley is not one of them. Maybe you have had a bad day. It happens. But you are wrong to state that Vol is an idiot. He is far from an idiot. He is a fine and well loved pastor of a Southern Baptist church that is not dead or dying. He is theologically sound. He did extremely well in a seminary that was, during his time there, a cut above most others. No Matt, Vol… Read more »
Thanks, CB.
David
Roll Tide, Vol.
Matt: I suggest you need to do the research on ekklesia in the GNT and in the literature of the First Century. The ekklesia is a self governing body, and its officers are elected from and by the ekklesia. In the 1600s the Congregationalists arose in England due to the study of the ekklesia which was made by so many of the Pilgrim Separatists and even by the Puritans. The Baptists were Congregationalists from the gitgo….only when they wondered into the presbyterian version of how the church works or functions or is governed did they commit the egregious error of… Read more »
I admit to an open communion practice, though my church (where I am a member) is modified on the issue as I understand it. The truth be told, the only defensible position, the one scriptural proven position, is that of closed communion…where communion is limited to members under the discipline of the local church. That point can be proven from scripture beyond a shadow of a doubt. What produces the problems is the inconsistency of practice with those who have closed communion. Having been a Landmarker, I have seen the terrible inconsistencies of those who practice communion. The result has… Read more »
“”””That point can be proven from scripture beyond a shadow of a doubt”””
That’s a bold statement.
Dr. James–If closed communion is the only scriptural position, and that position can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, would you mind proving it scripturally? Thanks!
Simple. Just look at the cases of discipline in the N.T. Discipline is exercised by the local church over its members and its members only. Members of other communions must be disciplined by those members. A fellow later on in this blog discussion mentioned about being present without participation in a closed communion in South America as one of the most meaningful things he had ever witnessed. Just what one would expect, if such is the case. An ekklesia can only discipline the members of that particular ekklesia.
Sorry, but that comes up a little short in the “scriptural proof” I asked for. Maybe some specific examples of the discipline issues you referenced and their direct correlation to closed communion as the only defensible scriptural position would be in order?
I think another interesting poll would show that a majority of Southern Baptist congregants do not even know what the BF&M 2000 is.
I would not be at all surprised if that were true.
I think the majority of SB churches know of the 1963 BF&M. Leadership in most know of the BF&M2K and know whether they agree with the family section which took steps towards locking in a full complementarian view of Scripture in a Convention that in one Annual Meeting voted for a resolution in support of the Equal Rights Amendment. It should not be surprising that some self-identifying SB churches–some still affiliated with the SBC– prefer an egalitarian view of Scripture and therefore reject the BFM2K. Most churches that reject the BFM2K simplify their “what we believe” statements past the BFM”63″… Read more »
Given that no Baptist church is required to adhere to the BFM2K (unless, somewhere in the past, that church contracted to be committed to it), it does not actually bother me that most churches take their own direction on the Lord’s Supper. We are quarterly because I haven’t fought that tradition yet, but will spend part of next year preaching/teaching on church membership and ordinances and encourage the church to be more frequent. The invitation to the Lord’s Supper is phrased in this manner around here: baptized believers in Jesus are welcome to the Table. Before hand, all are challenged… Read more »
100% in agreement here, except that if we had someone in the congregation who was under church discipline from OUR congregation, then, although I wouldn’t make a fuss during the service, I’d probably approach that person privately outside of the service to make clear to them the implications of church discipline. If they persisted in partaking, I still don’t think we would intervene to force them not to partake. Ultimately, they’re going to have to answer to God.
I know of a Brethren Assembly in Spain where every visitor is met by an elder at the door and on the spot given an interview with the purpose of ascertaining whether they are qualified to partake of the Lord’s Supper, so they can know whether to pass the plate to them or not. At Brethren Assemblies, the Lord’s Supper is also an every Sunday thing.
We are with the 52%, and observe monthly. I invite everyone who has put their faith in Christ to partake, and do not ask them to judge their relative sinfulness in order to decide whether to partake. I pretty much assume we’re all sinful. And disobedience in one area (whether baptism or something else) does not excuse disobedience in another.
I personally would place myself in the 35% category of allowing baptized believers to participate, with one exception, I do not believe that those who are currently under discipline should be allowed to partake.
Concerning the hardcore closed position, or what I would call the Landmark position, I would say this, the elitism that is manifest in those churches is sickening. I was once was a Landmarker and I never met a church who really practised closed communion to protect people but rather to protect the purity of their church or so they thought.
Exactly John.
I guess not every Baptist is a Baptist.
Or, not every baptist is a borg drone.
Or not every Baptist obeys the Bible.
Or not every baptist interprets the bible the same way. Nor does every baptist demand adherence to his or her personal interpretation.
As I said (without being smart), . . .Not every Baptist is a Baptist.
I have lived and served in the former Soviet Union for more than 12 years. Most Baptist churches celebrate the Lord’s Supper on the first Sunday of every month. Most of them use a common cup and real bread and real wine.
Whenever someone ask me how often we observe the Lord’s Supper in the US and I answer them 4 times a year, they are often shocked to hear that news.
I appreciate their desire to do it monthly and miss it whenever I am in America on stateside assignment.
We are in the 52%. We practice open communion.
I suspect if the BFM were sought to be amended in this regard that the amendment would pass.
Not to diminish the significance of this discussion, but the picture of the bread in this post looked like a biscuit to me.
I do believe the bread for the Lord’s Supper should be unleavened.
David R. Brumbelow
I disagree, David. The Passover observance would have been the only time of the year that Jews were commanded to rid the house of leaven. So unless you’re suggesting they tried to replicate Passover every time the Lord’s Supper was observed, it’s unlikely early Christians always–or even usually–observed with unleavened bread. I observed with a non-Baptist group in college at A&M and was surprised to be served actual wine. I had not had wine prior to that and it struck be as astringent and I noticed a girl who was probably seven across the auditorium reject it because of the… Read more »
Greg, And I disagree with you. We use unleavened bread for the Lord’s Supper for several reasons. Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper at the Passover when the bread was to be unleavened. We are never commanded to do otherwise with Communion. You don’t have to go through all the rituals of the Passover; just see that the bread is unleavened. In Scripture leaven was often a symbol of sin. This is another reason to use unleavened bread to symbolize Jesus who was without sin. 1 Corinthians 5:6-8 assumes the bread at the Lord’s Supper is to be unleavened. Baptists and… Read more »
My Jewish friend pointed out that the cup in the Passover feast was wine. Wine is where the leaven has worked out, leaving an alcoholic drink. Baptist Churches use to appoint individuals whose responsibility it was to secure the wine. The Mt. Pisgah Baptist Church (where the first missionary to China came from) is an example. I was a member of a Sunday School class of Senior men who could recall when the church use to do so. They could even remember the names of some of the men who fulfilled the responsibility. Grape juice came about after the temperance… Read more »
Dr. James, They knew how to make and preserve grape juice (unfermented wine) for thousands of years before Welch’s came along. All Welch’s did was to preserve grape juice by a new method, that of pasteurization. Of course, they also had alcoholic wine in ancient times; they had both. http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2010/10/preserving-unfermented-wine-in-bible.html You said, “Wine is where the leaven has worked out, leaving an alcoholic drink.” Using that same argument, you could argue the bread at Passover had to be leavened, since through the leavening process the leaven is worked out. The point was the leavening process was not to be allowed… Read more »
David, Paul told Timothy to “drink a little.” Are you suggesting it was “grape juice.” Also, if the Jews never used alcoholic wine as a beverage why are there so many verses that speak about “drinking to excess?” Also, the admonitions are never: don’t drink; but don’t drink to excess. ARe you suggesting that too much grape juice was the problem? I don’t drink at all. I advocate abstaining. However, I do it for moral and ethical reasons that are “permissable, not mandated.” Your argument, if I understand it correctly, would be that the Bible mandates abstaining. Yet, there is… Read more »
Dave, I have a post up on this today at From Law to Grace. As Bob Cleveland rightly notes, the BF&M is a guide in interpretation. The final authority for our faith and for putting our faith into practice is the Bible. I’m perfectly fine being in the 52% which ignores the BF&M, but which uses the Bible as our guide. As to the language of the BF&M being ignored, that happens all the time. If you want a glaring example, just look at the article before the one in question and you’ll quickly notice that there are many churches… Read more »
I’ve always thought that closed communion was a bit legalistic until this summer. Perhaps some groups do it legalistically. I don’t know. I’ve never sat in on closed communion until this summer, and legalism wasn’t the issue with that church. It was a church we were working with in Venezuela. I don’t know that everyone who was a member of the church took the Lord’s Supper. There was some instruction and admonition on examination of the people who took it. We were not given the Lord’s Supper because we were not members there although we were their special guests. However,… Read more »
I think a plain reading of the passage in 1 Corinthians 11 shows us that God holds both the individual and the church responsible for the manner in which the Lord’s Supper is taken. Because of this both are involved concerning who should be allowed to partake. As an individual there are some things only you can know, thus the requirement to examine yourself. But also, communion is a form of fellowship with one another and Christ, therefore the church is held responsible for the manner in which the supper is taken. I was the most concerned with the 5%… Read more »
John,
Email me, we need to talk.
Jake
Sorry John,
email addy jakebarker@sbcglobal.net
I sent you an email a few minutes ago brother.
I think the issue is not so much that people go contrary to the BFM2000 but that they do so without really thinking through the issue(s). In my experience many churches and pastors go with what seems “natural” or “right” and don’t consider deeply the biblical teaching. We practice “close” communion but I wouldn’t have a beef with an open communion pastor if we gave me a well-reasoned argument for his belief and practice.
Kind of related to what I just posted — the poll says that 4% “have no specifications.” I wonder what that means? Anything in particular, or is that just a sort of “none of the above” category? To me that would seem to be much the same in practice as “anyone who wants.” Or am I looking at it incorrectly?