Who has better table manners? That question once again comes to the forefront in Southern Baptist life following the release of a recent survey on Lord’s Supper practices among SBC churches conducted by Lifeway, an entity of the Southern Baptist Convention. While some found the survey results to be surprising and still others, including Voices’ own Jared Moore (agreeing with the Kentucky Baptist Convention’s Executive Director, Paul Chitwood), passionately circled the wagons around close/closed communion, my own observation is that these results reveal what many believed to have been the practice among a majority of our churches, notwithstanding the Baptist Faith and Message.
When it comes to the Lord’s Supper, does the Baptist Faith and Message mandate that Southern Baptist churches practice close/closed communion? Before you answer my question, you might want to give it some thought. Just to be fair, it is a trick question. You see, Southern Baptists’ confession of faith — unlike a creed — does not mandate any cooperating church to do anything that it does not want to do. The BF&M is not binding on any church. Of course, the Southern Baptist Convention messengers — meeting in annual session — are free to refuse to seat messengers from a particular church which fails to abide by certain doctrinal beliefs. Churches who have affirmed homosexuality or who have called women to serve as senior pastors would fall into that category (although the SBC Constitution’s language only excludes churches “which act to affirm, approve, or endorse homosexual behavior”; it is silent on the issue of membership for churches that have called female pastors).
Apart from these areas, I would be surprised if any church was disfellowshipped from the SBC for failing to follow the “letter of the law” when it comes to partaking of the Lord’s Supper. I’m sure to the consternation of many within the leadership class of the Convention (see Baptist Press’ posting of a previously published article on the Lord’s Supper which failed to include a reflection from anyone arguing for the majority position of modified, open communion), the Lifeway survey in question disclosed that a clear majority (57%) of Southern Baptist churches surveyed practice either open or modified open communion.
According to the survey, the majority of churches open the Lord’s Supper or Communion to ”anyone who has put their faith in Jesus Christ” (52%) or “to anyone who wants to participate (5%).” Only 35% of survey respondents limit participation in the Lord’s Supper to ”anyone who has been baptized as a believer.” However, it was not clear from the BP article whether or not “baptism” was defined in a specifically Baptistic way (i.e., “believer’s baptism by immersion”) or whether “baptism” could also include believers who had been baptized by non-immersion modes (i.e., sprinkling or pouring).
The results would seem to be at odds with the plain language of the Baptist Faith & Message on this point:
VII. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper
Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer’s faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer’s death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper.
The Lord’s Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming.
If one were to abide by a literal reading of the BF&M at this point, there would be little doubt that those churches which allow any believer — regardless of their baptism status — or anyone — regardless of their salvation status — to partake of the Lord’s Supper would be running afoul of Southern Baptists’ adopted confessional statement. For the record, the church I pastor practices a modified, open communion which invites “anyone who is born-again and has placed their faith and trust in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord” to partake. In fact, we observed the Lord’s Supper this past Sunday at the conclusion of a message in which I shared the results of the Lifeway survey and preached from 1 Corinthians 11:17-34. Did I violate the language of the Baptist Faith and Message with my practice? Perhaps, although I could try to make a lawyerly argument which would try to get around the language. But, I don’t even have to make that argument.
You see, the Baptist Faith & Message is a man-made, fallible document. While it can be used as a guide, it can never replace the infallible Scriptures as our final authority for faith and for putting our faith into practice. In fact, the Preamble to both the 1963 and 2000 versions of the BF&M clearly states this historic Baptist principle:
(4) That the sole authority for faith and practice among Baptists is the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Confessions are only guides in interpretation, having no authority over the conscience.
It would appear, at least according to this one Lifeway survey, that a majority of Southern Baptist churches have chosen to ignore the guide provided by the Baptist Faith and Message and have instead chosen to follow the advice of the BF&M Committees (1963 & 2000) by relying upon the sole authority for faith and practice — the Scriptures — in instituting their Lord’s Supper practices. I’m sure there will be those who will try to argue that those churches which practice anything but close/closed communion are in violation of Scripture. That is certainly their prerogative If they so choose to believe that Scripture teaches that the Lord’s Table is only open to baptized believers (of course, the very first Lord’s Supper might be problematic) and want to practice that at their church, then I would defend their right to do so. I often like to come to the aid of those in the minority so that their rights are not trampled on by the majority.
Even though I believe that Article VII of the BF&M states a clear minority position within the SBC, I would not move to amend what it says. I think that we can generally agree on a confession of faith without trying to dictate to autonomous churches how they should practice the Lord’s Supper. It is only when a minority of SBC churches or when leaders of our Cooperative Program-funded entities try to impose their beliefs about the Lord’s Supper on autonomous Southern Baptist churches or accuse the majority of churches of enabling and/or countenancing unrepentant sin that we will experience problems with cooperation. If that were to happen, then at least one prominent church — with an equally prominent pastor — would need to come under censure, for I’m pretty sure the fence around the Lord’s Supper table was quite low when my son and I took communion there this past February.
What does this survey mean for Southern Baptist faith and practice? In the whole scheme of things, not much. (Serving as a trustee or employee of an SBC entity is another issue, not the subject of this post). Of course, there are always those in our midst — identifying as Southern Baptists — who have no real understanding of cherished Baptist principles such as autonomy of the local church. For every issue, some folks would like to use the Baptist Faith and Message as a creed with which to ensure doctrinal conformity instead of as a confession to encourage cooperation and fellowship. To some of those folks, I would say, “Be careful what you ask for.” If you want to use the BF&M in such a way, then we can always look at the churches — perhaps your churches — which have strayed from the clear language of the article immediately preceding the one on Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. In case you’re wondering, it’s the one which limits the Scriptural officers to “pastors and deacons.” I’m all for grace, but I still have a little law — and a little fight — left in me!
The first Lord’s Supper would be much more problematic than just having non-baptized disciples present, for it also had a non-believer present (of which the administer, our Lord, knew fully well). That is why some do not really consider the membership or the administration of Jesus’ Last Supper to be normative, giving priority to Paul’s comments to an established church.
“If they so choose to believe that Scripture teaches that the Lord’s Table is only open to baptized believers (of course, the very first Lord’s Supper might be problematic)…”
Like Stephen, I take your meaning that the first Lord’s Supper is problematic to those who limit the Supper to baptized believers. And, like him, I think it is necessary to see that is just as problematic to those who limit the Supper to believers.
Robert and Stephen,
Thanks for the comments. My statement that “the very first Lord’s Supper might be problematic” was not meant to be a definitive statement or argument in favor of an open communion for non-believers (like Judas), but simply to point out that the one who actually instituted the Supper — the Lord Jesus Christ — did so in a way that may not be normative, but certainly is problematic when one tries to get a handle on just how His Supper should be administered.
I really am not bothered by those churches which have chosen to practice close/closed communion. It just seems that at least some of those churches which do — a clear minority according to the Lifeway survey — seem to be bothered that a majority of churches practice the Lord’s Supper a different way. In the end, the BF&M can be our guide, but it cannot be a creed to enforce doctrinal conformity among our autonomous churches. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
RE: “What does this survey mean for Southern Baptist faith and practice? In the whole scheme of things, not much. (Serving as a trustee or employee of an SBC entity is another issue, not the subject of this post).”
First off, thanks for your common sense approach to this. As you are already aware, I am in basic agreement with what you say here.
However, for the person who might otherwise be called upon to be a trustee or employee of an SBC entity, and this is the only “hoop” keeping them from doing so, this may well be a pretty big deal. I believe you may be doing a disservice to such people (and indeed to the convention as a whole) by stating that, in the whole scheme of things, it is not.
David,
Thanks for the comment. I specifically did not address the issue of trustee or employees of our entities because that was not the main thrust of this post. I did add a disclaimer of sorts that I had not included in my original post which acknowledged that how this is addressed at the entity level with trustees and/or employees is a separate matter. In terms of how individual, autonomous churches practice the Lord’s Supper, I would continue to argue that neither the survey nor how the BF&M is interpreted (by the majority or by the minority) matters in the whole scheme of things because the BF&M is not a creed that can mandate any action on the part of a local church. I believe far too many Southern Baptists — both relative newcomers and old-timers — do not understand basic Baptist principles such as autonomy. I do appreciate your take on this and how you have argued for a modified, open communion. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Howell,
As I understand it, the BF&M is not, nor was it meant to be, a guide for local churches anyway, whether on terms of table communion, or any other doctrine. It is, rather, a description of our mutually agreed upon doctrinal distinctives that guide our inter-congregational cooperative efforts as Great Commission Baptists. Some congregations may decide to adhere to the BF&M as their own doctrinal statement, but as you correctly state, that is up to each congregation to decide for themselves.
If the modified open position represents at least a plurality–which is to say maybe a majority of churches don’t practice it but it still is the leading position–then the BF&M, which the Convention expects the entities to adhere to, might need clarification.
This shouldn’t affect the seminaries, LifeWay, or the ERLC. But the NAMB and IMB work intimately in establishing local congregations and their leadership is influential in the setting of direction of the ecclesiology and praxology of those congregations.
Not addressing it might be okay if we could agree that the local missionary is the final authority in mentoring the congregation. But why do I feel that might not be acceptable to the Convention at large?
Just like with the private prayer language, not being specific leaves the field ripe for harvesting of very controversial, extrabiblical positions in the name of specificity.
In closeing: closed and close communion are consistent with the (traditional Baptist) concept of a local congregation with no external authority. Paul very notably imposed the Lord’s Supper praxology as an external authority from a distance (with the benefit of the Holy Spirit certifying his authority) or we wouldn’t have any rules to administer on observance of the Lord’s Supper. Irony much?
Meant to include quotes leading into the final paragraph: In “close”ing…
A question that might perhaps be a little more relevant in our day of relaxed ecclesiology and flattening distinctions between church and parachurch (I don’t honestly think there is much controversy about who a local church allows to take communion in their local worship service) would be asking pastors about their opinion/approval of communion taking place outside of the normal, regular corporate worship of a local church. What about small groups/men’s ministries/youth groups that only contain a select portion of the congregation, should they take communion (as a Baptist I don’t think the answer should change much whether a pastor is present at these small group meetings or not)? What about a parachurch like a campus ministry? What about a one-time conference where most of the attendants don’t even know each other?
Maybe these aren’t the questions Lifeway should be going around asking, but I’d love to know where the general consensus lies on this issue.
Here’s a question for all those who believe in open communion:
Why don’t you allow unimmersied believers to join your church???
Please share the scriptures you use to deny pedobaptists membership in your church.
After all, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
I don’t believe in “open communion,” just “modified open communion,” but I’ll give it a try.
First off, my comment to Jared in the other thread will give some context:
https://sbcvoices.com/agreeing-with-paul-chitwood-on-close-communion-disagreeing/#comment-128274
Next, I believe that in a local church there are certain decisions that must be made regarding procedure and joint commitment to certain ministry projects that de facto exclude certain people. For instance, you cannot have a woman pastor and disagree with the biblical validity of women pastors all at the same time. But just because someone believes it is okay for a woman to be a pastor does not necessarily mean they are not an authentic brother/sister in Christ. We can (and, in my opinion, must) have fellowship with each other, but it may well be unproductive for us to try to work together in the same local congregation, as our discrepancy on this issue will continually get in the way of moving forward together. It is thus more fruitful to agree to work separately in separate congregations (and, in many cases, separate denominations), while, at the same time, continuing to recognize each other as brothers/sisters in Christ. To me, that implies opening the Lord’s table, and it also implies seeing them as fellow participants in the various “one anothers” of the NT.
David, I followed your link on the other thread and read your position on modified open communion. I am not sure I am following your point thoroughly. You seem to be defining “open communion” as one in which there are absolutely no restrictions. I agree that is what the term actually implies, but the common meaning is communion made available to any Christian believer (and therefore restricted from unbelievers) — which is what you seemed to advocate. Could you clarify how that differs from your position? Thanks.
Sure, Robert.
I would say the church (after explaining in its day-in, day-out teaching and preaching the biblical basis of believers baptism by immersion) should welcome all to communion in the Lord’s Supper who, after searching their own heart, give a testimony (it doesn’t have to be verbal, or open, but is often implicit) that they have a clear conscience with regard to total submission to the Lordship of Christ — no unconfessed, unrepented of, sin, including in the matter of baptism. Thus, it throws this decision back into the hands of the one partaking. The only exception would be when the potential partaker is known to be under the ex-communicatory discipline of that church, or the ex-communicatory discipline of another church that is recognized as legitimate by that church. In this case, the church itself must take the initiative to appropriately “fence” the table.
I might add that actually my view is somewhat more restricted than that of some close and closed communion advocates, inasmuch as I don’t even recommend encouraging baptized church members to partake — if they have unconfessed, unrepented of, sin in their lives.
Thanks, David. I think I now understand. The idea of “fencing” the table in the case of disciplined members of other churches does seem to go beyond the standard practice of open communionists, at least as far as I am aware of it.
Is that a correct understanding of what you see as the difference?
That is one difference. The other difference is, I do not advocate saying, “Come one, come all. If you believe in Jesus, you are welcome.” I say, rather, “Search your heart. Confess your sin to God. If you can with a clean conscience say you are a truly penitent sinner, we invite you to share the Lord’s Supper with the rest of us penitent sinners.”
David, I appreciate your clarifications. They were helpful in understanding your position.
We seem to freely refer to it as the “Lord’s table” and the “Lord’s supper”, but then place restrictions which our church has formulated on the partaking thereof. I don’t mind a church doing that, as long as they call it what it is. The church’s supper or the church’s table.
The Bible says to let each man examine himself. If the church undertakes to do that, we’re going to have to get some clairvoyants involved to examine their hearts, and last I heard, there weren’t really any of those around. The last one with that power served Judas Iscariot, Himself, and here we’d go about denying someone the elements based on the lack of, or the circumstances of, his baptism.
FBC Pelham had communion this past Sunday and did what you described, Howell. Invited all believers, cautioned against unworthily partaking, had a prayer time first to allow folks time to set things straight with God … including trusting Him for salvation … and then had a wonderful Lord’s supper.
Bob, not directed just at you, but worth thinking about since you brought it up…
It seems to me that those who hold that communion is for all believers want to co-opt the terminology “the LORD’S Supper.” Yet all churches autonomously “decide” who will participate at the table in their own church, and to that degree at least it is “the CHURCH’S Supper.” Only to the degree that our decision aligns with the Lord’s word is it ideally “the LORD’S Supper.” (And that is truly the rub, isn’t it?) We should not invite anyone the Lord has not invited and not exclude anyone the Lord has not excluded. Hopefully it is the goal of each one of us to find what that prototype is (or if there is one). So I don’t think it is helpful for one side to appropriate the terminology “the Lord’s Supper” to define its position. (And perhaps I am misunderstanding you and you intend that we all are observing “the church’s table.”)
One of the questions we need to examine is just how democratic the BF&M should be. We have a situation in which a solid majority of Baptist churches are not practicing what the BF&M dictates.
Do we change the document when a majority of Baptists are not conforming to it, since our confession is a statement of commonly held belief?
Ought we not, perhaps, leave the fencing of the table as a local church option instead of dictating?
Dave,
As to your first question, I’m not sure that we should change it just yet. However, if the Lord’s Supper has become an issue which is being used in a legalistic (meaning letter of the law) way to exclude those from service as trustees or employees of our entities who practice or belief other than close/closed commuion, then I would say that the messengers of the convention need to give guidance to the entities and the Nominating Committee that the majority position is acceptable for service.
As to your second question, that would be an emphatic yes. There can be no dictating to autonomous churches as to how they practice the Lord’s Supper. I am not bothered by churches (like Jared’s) who practice close or closed communion. It doesn’t really matter to me. However, it seems that some who practice close/closed communion are bothered by churches which choose to practice a modified, open communion which invites anyone who has placed their faith and trust in Jesus Christ to partake. The main point of this post was to remind people (or inform them as the case may be) that the BF&M cannot dictate practice to any SBC church because it is a confession of faith and not a creed. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
I guess that my point is that the BF&M should define the meaning of the celebration of the supper without defining the fence for the local church.
I think what we have done as a convention is turn a blind eye to this. No one (to my knowledge) has been excluded from service in any way because of practicing open or modified open communion.
It would cause a huge ruckus to change the BF&M, but if it starts being used as an exclusionary tool against a majority of churches, then we likely have to seek a change.
Some seminaries make a big deal about faculty signing the BF&M without caveat (or the Abstract in Principles).
I would not be in favor of an amendment that stipulates open or modified open as the officially approved model, just one that opens the door for churches to be flexible on the various options. I don’t think I would even be in a favor of allowing for a pure “open” model, unless it can be demonstrated this is indeed the conviction and practice of the majority.
The BF&M pointedly states that any group of Baptists has the right to formulate and publish their own statement of beliefs, presumably as Baptists. Couple that with the autonomy which is explicit in the definition of the local church, and of course the local church is free to practice communion as it sees to be Biblical.
It seems that when the BFM 2000 was written, certain statements in the BFM ’63 were loosened (e.g. Sabbath observance), others were tightened (e.g. women pastors), and others (e.g. Lord’s Supper) remained the same. As I see it, the major change in the BFM 2000 was in rewriting the preamble, giving much more force to the document. The preamble to the BFM ’63 described a statement “which shall serve as information to the churches, and which may serve as guidelines to the various agencies of the SBC,” never “regarded as complete, infallible statements of faith, nor as official creeds carrying mandatory authority.” The BFM 2000 describes a statement that can be used as an “instrument[s] of doctrinal accountability,” listing doctrines that are “precious” and “essential to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice.” The verbage used in the BFM 2000 doesn’t seem to leave much wiggle room for a hierarchy of values, since they are all “precious” and “essential.” Maybe, in light of the statistics of Baptist practice, the “essential” statement on the Lord’s Supper needs to be loosened (as they did to the statement on Sabbath activity) to be a more accurate descriptor of what Southern Baptists as a whole actually believe and practice.
Again, it depends on how narrowly people are going to try to enforce it.
As it is, it seems to be something of a dormant issue (though David raised the issue of seminaries’ use). If people begin to be excluded from places of service because they do not conform to a minority view in the SBC, we probably have some trouble.
This seems like a local issue to me – autonomy and all.
Also, I once had to explain my position on this to my Area Director with the IMB because a trustee asked him about it–though I was never asked to resign or retract.
And back in 2007 when I was nominated for VP of the SBC, the fact that I signed the BF&M with a caveat on this point was used as a talking point against my candidacy by some in public discussions.