Growing up Southern Baptist, I learned about three different positions on who should partake of the Lord's Supper. One view restricted the Lord's Supper strictly to the members of the local church where the Supper was taking place. A second view welcomed any who professed a Christian conversion experience to partake of the Supper. The final view opened the table beyond the membership of the local church, but only to those who were members of another church "of like faith and order." The phrase "of like faith and order" was generally interpreted to signify another Southern Baptist church.
As an adult and a pastor, if I were to classify my view according to this schema, I would place it in the third category: the "like faith and order" viewpoint.
And yet, if you were to be present at FBC Farmersville when we observed the Lord's Supper, you'd never hear me utter the words "like faith and order" and would hear me say very little about church membership. Instead, you would hear me emphasize that those who partake in the Supper must be born-again believers who are free from stubborn, rebellious, unrepentant sin in their lives.
There's no bait-and-switch here: These are precisely the same point of view on the Supper, just expressed in two different ways. I avoid the way that I heard it in my childhood and express it the way that I do today for a number of reasons:
I have substituted biblical language for extra-biblical language. The biblical basis for limitations in the observance of the Lord's Supper comes chiefly from Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians. In the fifth chapter of that letter—a chapter whose main subject is unrepentant sin and the failure of church discipline within the church—Paul commanded the church to restore sound church discipline against unrepentant sin for the sake of the health of the church's observance of the Lord's Supper:
Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed. Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. (1 Corinthians 5:6-8, NASB).
Purification was a central element of the precursor feast of Passover, and Paul reminded the Corinthians church that, in the New Testament, the Lord's Supper calls us not so much to the purification of kitchen utensils and dough, but to the purification of the believers who participate.
A few paragraphs down the letter, in the eleventh chapter, again the Apostle chastises the church for allowing the sins of divisiveness, drunkenness, and arrogance to corrupt the church's observances of the Lord's Supper. Here Paul explicitly warns of the dangers of observing the Supper "in an unworthy manner." Although in 1 Corinthians 5 Paul enjoined the church to "fence the table," in 1 Corinthians 11 Paul commanded each individual believer to examine himself and to purify his own heart in preparation for the Supper.
And so, when I speak of having been born again and of examining oneself to purify one's heart from unrepentant sin, I am speaking New Testament language. This is an important objective, in my opinion, in the execution of a New Testament ordinance. "A Baptist church of like faith and order," on the other hand, is not language found in the New Testament.
I am telling disciples WHY rather than merely WHAT. True, "Baptist church of like faith and order" is what I believe about the Lord's Supper, but it is my observation that merely telling disciples what your church believes without telling them why you believe it is a recipe for the abandonment of your principles within a couple of generations. Indeed, I would suggest that much of the present state of our churches is a symptom of this very disease.
And so, I want people to see that the Bible teaches that born-again believers should purify themselves from unrepentant sin before they partake of the Lord's Supper. I want them further to see that it is unrepentant sin to have refrained from New Testament baptism or to have held oneself aloof from biblical membership in a New Testament church. I'm happy for disciples to hold the same convictions that I hold, but I would rather that they arrive at the same conclusions as those to which Bible study has led me.
I want to show correctly the relationship between church membership and participation in the Lord's Supper. It is false, I believe, to suggest that church membership is the basis of participation in the Lord's Supper. It is a sentiment NOT FAR from the truth, but it is not the same as the truth.
The basis of participation in the Lord's Supper is not membership in a New Testament church; rather, membership in a New Testament church and participation in the Lord's Supper share the same basis: conversion and discipleship. This reality links church membership and the Lord's Supper closely to one another, but they share a peer relationship rather than a cause-effect relationship. To remain aloof from church membership is a sin. No believer should partake of the Lord's Supper while persisting stubbornly in that sin. Also, any sin that would place a believer under the hand of church discipline and would tarnish one's church membership would also jeopardize one's place at the table. Conversely, any persistent sinful rebellion that would make one need to refrain from participation in the Lord's Supper would also be grounds for the exercise of church discipline in relation to one's church membership.
This peer relationship between the Lord's Supper and church membership is why it is so nonsensical and unbiblical for any church to be both open communion and closed membership. If it is a matter of unrepentant sin to refuse New Testament believer's immersion, then how dare a church set aside 1 Corinthians 5 and open the Lord's Table to the unrepentant?! If it is not a matter of unrepentant sin to refuse New Testament believer's immersion, then how dare a church withhold church membership from a brother or sister over a mere personal preference?!
By using the Lord's Supper to emphasize those things that are also the basis of New Testament church membership, I am able to underscore rightly through this ordinance the themes that lead our church to a better understanding of church membership as well.
I'm pretty sure that "Baptist church of like faith and order" no longer means what it once did and is, due to contemporary circumstances, a more complicated position than the one that I am now articulating. The one big advantage one might offer for just using the phrase "Baptist church of like faith and order" is simplicity. It only takes seven words to say it. Jargon is popular for a reason—it always represents a shorter, simpler way to communicate complex ideas among people who share common inside information.
But are we all really confident which are the "Baptist churches of like faith and order" any longer? The rise of the crypto-Baptists and the rise of the pseudo-Baptists have changed our Southern Baptist reality, greatly complicating the idea of "like faith and order."
Crypto-Baptists are all of the churches out there that eschew public identification as Baptist churches. Some of these are genuinely Baptist. Not a few, having the benefit of being early church plants with little institutional history, are more solidly Baptist in their ecclesiology than are some of our established churches. So, when somebody in your congregation hails from something like "Alive Fellowship of the Cross," how do you know whether that is or is not a "Baptist church of like faith and order"?
Pseudo-Baptists are all of the churches out there that are affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention (and may even have the word "Baptist" on their signs), but are not Baptist ideologically or ecclesiologically. Indeed, even without quibbling over where a church ceases to be Baptist, we can agree that the diversity with regard to church membership alone has completely destroyed any possibility of our regarding membership in another Southern Baptist church as a basis for participation in the Lord's Supper. Imagine that the Jacobs family visits your church and you refuse church membership to them because they are sprinkled Methodists. Now, imagine that the very next week they go to a Southern Baptist church across town and obtain membership in that church without being baptized. They visit your church the third week and find you observing the Lord's Supper. Are they members of a "Baptist church of like faith and order"? If they are, does that really mean ANYTHING?
Any Southern Baptist consensus that may once have existed on matters of ecclesiology is broken. Presuming upon it for something as significant as participation in the Lord's Supper is foolhardy, in my opinion.
It is so much simpler and more understandable, I believe, simply to state that only those who have been born again and are, as far as they know, not in open rebellion against any command of Christ should partake of the Supper.
I want to avoid giving my church members a free pass. I have long believed that the great weakness of tying participation in the Lord's Supper to membership in a "Baptist church of like faith and order" is the suggestion it places into the minds of my members that, being members of our congregation, they need not give their participation in the Lord's Supper a second thought. Heavens no! The command of scripture is for self-examination, and this command appeared in a letter sent explicitly to the members of a local congregation.
Even in a context of robust church discipline, church members are vulnerable to secret, hidden sins. It is my responsibility in preparing the flock for the Lord's Supper to call upon every person in the room to entertain the possibility that she or he may not be ready to receive the Lord's Supper. Are they estranged from a brother or sister? Are they fighting with the Lord over some sin in the recesses of their hearts? Have they refused New Testament believer's immersion? Are they church-hoppers who remain aloof from and uncommitted to the disciplined commitments of biblical church membership? For all of those for whom any of these things are the case, they should get their hearts right with the Lord immediately and obey, or else they should abstain from the Supper.
I want to preach before the observance of the Lord's Supper in a way that causes every disciple to ask "Is it I?" of the Lord before they sup with Him.
Simply saying, "Those who are not members of Baptist churches of like faith and order should not partake," is insufficient, in my opinion, to accomplish these objectives. It is an inferior approach, I believe. And so, I would encourage all of you who are pastors to say more rather than less when you prepare a congregation to come to the Table.
29 comments:
"concerning the broken bread:
We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever..
But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord
. . . "
From the Didache
Brother Bart,
Great piece. those who partake in the Supper must be born-again believers who are free from stubborn, rebellious, unrepentant sin in their lives. I give pretty much the same charge. However, it is in the words of "the table is open to those following our Lord Jesus Christ in obedience to his commands and free from stubborn pride and rebellious acts in both mind and statements."
It may be just here in NC but I honestly have never heard anyone use the "of faith and practice" statement before the Lord's Supper. I have heard the preparation of the table that it was open to all, open to only church members, and open to baptized believers.
Last week I used:
Those who have followed Christ in obedience through baptism after surrendering to Him as Lord and who follow the Word of God in examining their hearts--- (and followed that up with considering patterns of sin, sinful attitudes).
That, of course, let the Methodist by heritage guy in the back row, who was baptized by immersion as a teen but has been Methodist because of Grandma, participate. That doesn't bother me too much, though.
Bart,
I appreciate this article. It helps me to understand your position better. Really, as I see it, the only difference between our views on this is that I believe it is possible for someone to fail to be biblically baptized and yet not be guilty of "stubborn, rebellious, unrepentant sin in their lives." Many paedobaptists love the Lord as much as I do, and hold to their position, not as a result of stubborn, rebellious, unrepentant sin, but rather as a result of mistaken hermeneutics. If we regarded mistaken hermeneutics on other questions as "stubborn, rebellious, unrepentant sin," who among us should partake in the Lord's Supper?
David,
I'm glad that you enjoyed the article. It's always nice to encounter another fellow used-to-blogger. ;-)
I agree that you have hit upon the key difference between us. If a third party had asked me where our difference lay, I might have replied in precisely the same words.
I do, as I have stated in the article, wonder how one can cling to Baptist closed membership while embracing your point of view. Both my view of the Lord's Supper and my view of church membership arise from my conviction that it is sin not to receive New Testament believer's immersion if one has been born again.
As to the question of hermeneutics, I assert that hermeneutics is not the driving force behind paedobaptism. No new Christian group has chosen paedobaptism as their viewpoint in more than a century. Pentecostals are credobaptists. Bible churches are credobaptist. Most nondenominational churches are credobaptist.
Paedobaptism only survives where tradition shields it against hermeneutical attack.
Thank you Brother.
I appreciate your clarity. I also appreciate your linking Chapter Five's teaching to the observance of the Lord's Supper. I had never considered it in depth, and will now do so at length. It rings true.
I respect your insight and interpretation. So I state the following looking forward to your opinion and/or correction.
In 1 Corinthians 10:16, 17 the text clearly begins the direct reference to the blood and body of the Lord. It seems that the "body of the Lord" could be a direct reference to the disciples, not the resurrected body of Christ (which is not present). Then chapter 12 continues in addressing the disciples as "the body of Christ".
Would it then follow that "For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body" (11:29) is referencing the body of disciples, and not the physical body of Christ at all? How does one sin against the physical, resurrected, body of the Lord which is not present? I can certainly see how the disciples can sin against one another!
Matthew 25:31-46 and 1 John 4:20, 21 lend strong support that the way we treat other Christians is the way we treat Him.
Whose table is it, and who begs us partake?
Jerry,
Thanks for reading and commenting. Your analysis of 11:29 is intriguing to me, and I could not reject it out of hand.
Nevertheless, I prefer to give greater weight to the immediate context than to the distant context. Although 11:29 is the only use of the word "body" in this immediate context, the hyper-abundance of forms of dokimazo and krino (words for judgment and testing, for the non-Greek folks following along at home) in the paragraph engulfing 11:29 all have to do with the judgement of oneself.
It is plausible linguistically and rhetorically that soma could refer here to the body of the individual believer rather than to the body of Christ (whether meant corporeally or as the body of believers). Since that understanding would seem to connect krina in 11:29 with the multiple uses of related words in 11:31-32, at the moment I prefer to understand 11:29 to work in agreement with these verses about self-judgment and self-purification in conjunction with the Lord's Supper.
And yet, your point about our treatment of brothers amounting to our treatment of Christ is unassailably true regardless of how one understandings 1 Corinthians 11:29.
Bob,
Great question!
The table belongs to and the invitation comes from the Author of 1 Corinthians 5 and 1 Corinthians 11.
Bart,
I believe mistaken hermeneutics may often arise out of tradition. I believe that the mistaken views of many Baptists on certain (tertiary) issues arise out of a mistaken Baptist tradition. But as far as many paedobaptist individuals are concerned, they are sincerely mistaken, not necessarily stubborn, rebellious, or unrepentant.
Do you regard mistaken hermeneutics with regard to one's views of eschatology "stubborn, rebellious, unrepentant sin"? Should we, for instance, ban people from participating in the Lord's Supper for being postmillennialists? Why or why not?
I've noticed, since I've started occasionally posting and commenting with my iPhone, how many more nonsensical typographical errors I spew out onto the web. Autocorrect is both a gift and a curse.
David,
I really can't think of a commandment from Christ that a postmillennialist would be guilty of disobeying. Perhaps I am wrong to do so, but I think mostly of behaviors—things done or not done—as those things which rise to the level of unrepentant sinful disobedience.
And yet, although I would not make of postmillennialism the Eucharistic quandary that you seek, I do indeed desire to move the conversation far beyond baptism. It is a weakness to be avoided to make the question of baptism the sole or extraordinarily primary commandment to evaluate in one's preparation for the Supper. Soul-searching is called for.
"And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me."
St. Luke's Gospel
I'm reading this and wondering about the interpretation of
"For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body" referencing the body of disciples, and not the physical body of Christ.
Seems that Christ has spoken the words of blessing: 'This is my Body which is given up for you.'
Another thought is that St. John the Baptist saw Our Lord as 'the Lamb of God' . . . the Paschal Lamb.
I understand how most of Christianity does cling to the concept of the 'elements' as 'my flesh is food indeed'.
Perhaps another look at all the sacred Scriptures centering around the Words of Our Lord may give more clarification for some? I think it would help.
Bart, Thanks for your thoughtful response. Again, you teach me what I had not already known. Thanks.
My concern peaks with the words in 1 Corinthians 11:29, “For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself”. Therefore, it would appear that the actual discernment of ‘the body’ is of special importance. Discernment of the body certainly involves some definition of the body. I note that both 11:27 and 11:28 speak of both the bread (body) and the cup (blood). Yet 11:29 speaks of just the ‘body’. Certainly this is an emphasis within the immediate context. And I am certainly not seeking to make less of the blood of our Lord.
It would seem that the individual is to take responsibility for personal judgment as to their personal part of the body of Christ, while at the same time, judging their relationship with the rest (others) within the body of Christ. We can recognize that we are a part of the body of Christ, and that everyone else who is born again is equally part of the body of Christ. We need not maintain an attitude that offends the Spirit of Christ within us, nor offends the Spirit of Christ who is in our brothers and sisters. So it would be a matter of ‘both/and’ and not a matter of ‘either/or’.
Two points that are not directly related to the above. First, when I speak of the body of Christ, I am speaking of the local assembly. Secondly, do not overestimate my abilities and knowledge. While I occasionally think deeply, I am entirely capable of shocking shallowness.
Bart,
It seems to me that in order to find an analogy that meets the criteria you are suggesting, we would have to find some clear command of Christ that has historically been interpreted and carried out in different manners by different groups of sincere professing Christians.
If we really think hard on this, we can probably come up with more examples, but the one that comes to my mind is one I have used as an example on previous occasions in the blogging world, that of the use of one single loaf of bread in the celebration of the Lord's Supper itself. The celebration of the Lord's Supper is clearly a command of Christ: "This do in remembrance of me." Similar to baptism, the mode of the Lord's Supper has symbolic significance. Also, similar to the Lord's Supper, we have some specific references in Scripture indicating what mode was used in the NT church.
The problem is it is difficult to ban someone from celebrating the Lord's Supper because they believe in celebrating the Lord's Supper with more than one loaf (or wafer, or cracker) of bread. But if you follow out your argument on this one, you could refuse to admit someone to membership in a local church for a steadfast belief in and practice of celebrating the Lord's Supper with more than one loaf.
Personally, I believe a better solution is to continue to argue in favor of "one loaf," pointing to the biblical support for this position, while at the same time showing tolerance to those who continue to believe in or accept the practice of celebrating the Lord's Supper with more than one loaf, since their belief and practice is much more likely due to mistaken hermeneutics and misguided tradition than to stubborn, rebellious, unrepentant sin on this point.
Also, with regard to Jerry's questions, I wrote a rather lengthy post defending my view of "modified open communion" basing my position largely on a contextual understanding of the implications of 1 Cor. 11:29.
http://sbcimpact.org/2010/04/19/discerning-the-body-a-biblical-defense-of-modified-open-communion/
I think it is hard to say that the Body of Christ in Paul's writings refers exclusively to a local congregation, when you take into account the way he uses the term "body" in other writings (Ephesians especially). Discerning the "body" must refer, if it refers to a group of believers, to the same group theologians have called the Universal Church.
The last sentence of my second paragraph should read:
"Also, similar to baptism, we have some specific references in Scripture indicating what mode was used to celebrate the Lord's Supper in the NT church."
Luke 22:3 says that Satan entered into Judas.
Luke 22:19-20 is Luke’s account of the Last Supper.
And following that is:
Luke 22:21 “But behold, the hand of the one betraying Me is with Mine on the table.”
Luke’s telling of the Last Supper account strongly implies that Judas partook of the Last Supper (and no other Gospel account contradicts that; Matthew and Mark do not speak of Judas’ leaving and John does not speak of the Last Supper). Mark 14:23 says, ” they all drank from it.”
What impact does this information have on the issue of open communion?
If Jesus permitted Judas Iscariot of all people to participate in the Last Supper, how should Baptists deal with those paedobaptizers?
Bart, you've set forth much to think about. I'm going to mull over most of it without commenting, but wanted to add a bit about "like faith and order".
That was once a common statement here in this area. I'm not sure how much, or if, it is used anymore. Most of the BMA & ABA churches moved to "church members only" communion many years ago, and the SBC churches with which I am most familiar practice open communion.
While there may be areas and people for whom it is still meaningful, "like faith and order" has long since outlived its usefulness in the average Baptist church. It is meaningless jargon to them. From what I can tell, this probably originated before state associations and national conventions, giving a method to identify churches/associations that were "in correspondence" with one another. Later it was transferred to mean only folks who were part of the SBC, or only folks in the ABA, and so forth.
I am also looking forward to your take on David's comparison on the mode of baptism to the mode of the Lord's Supper.
Take care and God bless.
Bart,
Great post, with which I agree. As a pastor in my own church, I attempt to make a similar verbal appeal and explanation that you have laid out. But, I do wrestle with some practical details. Mostly, enforcement. How do you administer the elements? And what do you do if you know someone is not qualified to participate? How do you exclude them? Any practical advice would be a great help to this pastor.
Thanks
David,
I'm taking a moment today to address your point in a separate post.
Jerry,
I don't disagree with any of the conclusions that you draw, I don't think, even if I would read that particular sentence differently. Here's where I think we are with regard to the sentence.
I'm interpreting the noun "body" based upon the local context of the verb διακρίνω and the presence of other words in its word family in the context of that paragraph. For this reason, I am interpreting the word "body" to mean "one's own body."
As I understand you, your interpretation of the sentence is being governed not by the verb but by the noun, based upon the broader context of the use of that noun across several chapters.
Although respectful of your position and, I think, in agreement with the implications that you draw from your interpretation (because I draw the same conclusions from other passages and their implications), I remain persuaded of my position because, all other factors being the same, I prefer to give greater weight to local context and, generally, to verbs as the weightiest words in clauses. This is a general principle, and other factors certainly influence translation and hermeneutics.
Thanks for some good grist for the mill!
Anonymous,
The question of "enforcement" is the strongest argument in favor of the practice that Bro. Vaughn has attributed to the BMA churches. The great appeal of "church members only" communion is that a local church, supposedly, is able to know which of its members should or should not partake.
I respect both the problem and the attempt at a solution, and mine is not far from it. But I will take a moment to rebut it. Because of the phenomenon of secret sin, the fact remains that a local church cannot count upon church membership and church discipline to accomplish the rightful "enforcement" of the table. In non-church-intercommunion (or "church member only" communion), a church excludes from the table those who are under its discipline, admits to the table those who are within its membership in good standing, and excludes from the table those who are not members (ostensibly on the grounds that the church cannot know whether they are or are not worthy to partake).
I'm asserting that, because the church truly does not know whether its members in good standing are worthy to partake (and real-life incidents show this to be true), it should give members of other sister churches the same benefit of the doubt that it extends to its own members in good standing.
And so, we exclude from the Supper those who are under the discipline of this church (and so far, none under discipline have attempted to partake, so I haven't had to develop mechanics). We ask those who know themselves to be unworthy to partake to refrain. Among our members as well as among our visitors there are likely people who, knowing that they should not partake, do so anyway. I do not know any practical way to prevent this from happening.
To receive the Supper unworthily here, you have to disobey God's proclaimed word and misrepresent yourself to His congregation. I'm willing to believe that the person who does so will answer to God for that rather than our congregation answering to Him for that. But if we fail to exercise discipline where we know that we must, then we will indeed answer for that.
I hope that helps. We've never yet had the occasion where we had to knock the elements out of somebody's hand and drag them out of the sanctuary. ;-)
Brother Vaughn,
In my reply to anonymous I referenced your post. Although I don't see much of a question in there (except for your eagerness to hear my reply to David), I did want to address you separately to remind you that your posts here are always a blessing to us all.
Another David Rogers,
My apologies for overlooking your comment. I have given a more explanatory apology elsewhere.
You have a good point and a good question. It is the most forceful scriptural argument that I know of against closed communion. Of course, it is also an equally forceful argument against open communion, and close communion, and every other major system of communion that I know. As far as I know, no widespread view of the Lord's Supper argues in favor of the inclusion of lost people possessed by Satan and in open betrayal of and hostility toward Christ.
I'd say this: Judas had not yet committed any behavioral sin (Jesus just knew that he was GOING to do so in the near future), and he did still profess to be one of Jesus' disciples. I am not in favor of excluding people from the Lord's Table over sins that we think they are going to commit in the near future.
Nevertheless, the story does make it difficult to understand why a Lord who makes purification a priority for the Supper when He speaks in 1 Corinthians 5 and 1 Corinthians 11 would be the same Lord who, although He knew what was in Judas's heart on that night in Jerusalem, put forth no effort to chase Judas away from the table that night. That's a good question. I don't have an answer.
And yet, I don't have to understand all of the background of one of Jesus' commandments in order to understand that I need to obey it. Understanding will come later, I believe.
Could it be that the Supper is a ordinance, an invitation, for renewal, reconciliation, reaffirmation of one's relationship with one's professed Lord?
Could Jesus have been intentionally offering "Satanized" Judas one more opportunity to become reconciled to Himself?
Yes, the partaker must examine himself but the fellowship meal is one of God's gracious offers of reconciliation. It is also so serious that it can be also an act of judgment at the same time if one refuses to be reconciled. But the offer is still there and open for participation.
I believe that non-immersion or paedobaptizing views of baptism (which should however include confirmation as the completion of the profession of faith, as most paedobaptizing groups agree) can be mistakes of hermeneutics that can be addressed and corrected through a process of instruction but need not be a "fence" that disrupts the weightier issue of fellowship (Matt. 23:23).
Brother Bart, I hope you won't mind my copying and pasting I reply I once made on Judas and the Lord's Supper. I hope it might be helpful to the readers.
It is my opinion that Judas partook of the Last Supper with Jesus and the other apostles. If he did, does that teach anything about either the open and closed communion positions? NO (or at least not what we might think it teaches). Both open and closed communionists believe that the Supper is only for believers. On that prerequisite Judas comes up short -- for either position. Only by Christ was his inner character known. The other disciples did not see or know it. Unbelievers today also partake of the Lord’s Supper -- unknown to the church -- without any initial intervention by the Lord.
David Rogers II, The Sequel ;-),
I think that your interpretation of the Judas passage and of the role of the Lord's Supper requires imagination beyond that text and beyond any other text dealing with the Lord's Supper.
Does my position have some speculative elements? Yes, but the word "speculative" also derives from the Latin speculari which means "to observe." The negative connotations are not the only sense of the term.
We have a narrative which strongly connects the Old Covenant Passover with the New Covenant. What purpose did the Passover meal serve for Jews? Was it mere command, just do it because I said so? Was it not a "renewal, reconciliation, reaffirmation" of their identity with God's promised redemption from Egypt (past physical and spiritual present and future) and upcoming covenant at Sinai? The feast reaffirmed for each generation their identity of who they are.
The Last Supper rode the wave of identity formation and renewal and presented a bette covenant. It is to be observed time and again to remind believers of who they are, with whom is their covenant. It is a speech act.
Jesus invited a "Satanized" professing "disciple" to partake of it. He informed him what the bread and wine meant.
But we as Southern Baptists are to say to those whom on any other occasion we would agree are born-again disciples that we do not fellowship with you in this covenant identity formation meal. ???
I think consistency would require us to declare that non-immersing and/or paedo-baptizers are not fully Christian due to their disobedience.
We call it the "Lord's Supper" but we will in this way not emulate what He actually did.
What up wi dat?
P.S. We would need to determine how old each of the David Rogers are to determine who gets the "sequel or II" tag. Or, is fame the determiner? I am 48.
;)
I want to show correctly the relationship between church membership and participation in the Lord's Supper. It is false, I believe, to suggest that church membership is the basis of participation in the Lord's Supper. It is a sentiment NOT FAR from the truth, but it is not the same as the truth.
The basis of participation in the Lord's Supper is not membership in a New Testament church; rather, membership in a New Testament church and participation in the Lord's Supper share the same basis: conversion and discipleship. This reality links church membership and the Lord's Supper closely to one another, but they share a peer relationship rather than a cause-effect relationship. To remain aloof from church membership is a sin. No believer should partake of the Lord's Supper while persisting stubbornly in that sin. Also, any sin that would place a believer under the hand of church discipline and would tarnish one's church membership would also jeopardize one's place at the table. Conversely, any persistent sinful rebellion that would make one need to refrain from participation in the Lord's Supper would also be grounds for the exercise of church discipline in relation to one's church membership.
This peer relationship between the Lord's Supper and church membership is why it is so nonsensical and unbiblical for any church to be both open communion and closed membership. If it is a matter of unrepentant sin to refuse New Testament believer's immersion, then how dare a church set aside 1 Corinthians 5 and open the Lord's Table to the unrepentant?! If it is not a matter of unrepentant sin to refuse New Testament believer's immersion, then how dare a church withhold church membership from a brother or sister over a mere personal preference?!
By using the Lord's Supper to emphasize those things that are also the basis of New Testament church membership, I am able to underscore rightly through this ordinance the themes that lead our church to a better understanding of church membership as well.
Then how do you explain such verses as 1 Corinthians 11:18: "For first of all, when ye come together IN THE CHURCH..." 11:20: "When ye therefore come together INTO ONE PLACE..." or 5:11: "But now I have written unto you not to KEEP COMPANY...with such a one NO NOT TO EAT..."
Even if you take the broader interpretation of chapter 5 to refer to social association as did the Anabaptists (because today our practice of discipline is atrocious), then it must necessarily refer also to church privileges.
Church membership is not the ONLY basis for participation, but those who are IN GOOD STANDING. While Paul was admonishing the church at Corinth for her lax of discipline, he was not for OPEN COMMUNION. That is ONE of the reasons why there can be no reunion between the ABA and the SBC: the SBC's acceptance of the universal church and their destruction (not all but a majority of their churches) destruction of the local church related doctrines.
Post a Comment