Why Closed Communion?

The Lord’s Supper is a precious gift to Christ’s church. We come to the table carrying real burdens, grieving real sins, and needing the assurance that our Savior’s sacrifice is sufficient. A conversation about who may participate should begin with that gracious provision and the people Christ intends to nourish through it.

At Twelve 5 Church, we have chosen to practice what we have called a closed table with a close option. Our members participate, along with approved guests whose profession, baptism, and relationship to an accountable church the elders have had an opportunity to consider. We also make pastoral provision for those actively pursuing membership. We believe this is a wise and workable way to carry out the responsibilities Christ has given his church.

I understand why that raises questions. A visiting Christian may wonder whether we doubt his salvation. A member may be concerned that the elders are claiming too much authority. Those concerns deserve a thoughtful answer from Scripture. We want our practice to express the care of Christ for his people, and we want our explanation to do the same.

Reading the whole biblical blueprint

If you have ever built something from blueprints, you know that the plans establish what must be built without specifying every action involved in building it. The dimensions and structural requirements govern the work. The builder still has to determine where to obtain the lumber and how to organize the work faithfully. Those decisions must serve the plan.

Scripture gives us everything God intends us to have for faith and obedience (2 Timothy 3:16–17). Its sufficiency does not mean every doctrine appears in one sentence or every practical question has a verse describing our exact circumstances. We must read particular passages in context, consider how they fit with the rest of Scripture, and reason faithfully from what God has revealed.

The Trinity is a familiar example. Scripture teaches that there is one God (Deuteronomy 6:4), identifies the Father as God (1 Corinthians 8:6), identifies the Son as God (John 1:1; 20:28), and identifies the Holy Spirit as God (Acts 5:3–4). It also distinguishes the Father, Son, and Spirit (Matthew 3:16–17; 28:19). The doctrine of the Trinity faithfully expresses these truths together. We can point to the passages that establish it, even though no single verse presents the whole doctrine in the language of our confessions.

That example establishes the legitimacy of drawing conclusions from Scripture as a whole. It does not place our communion procedure on the same level as the Trinity. The Trinity is a necessary doctrine of the Christian faith. Our particular process for recognizing guests is a judgment of practical wisdom about how to fulfill biblical responsibilities.

The 1689 Baptist Confession makes room for this distinction in chapter 1, paragraph 6. It recognizes truths “expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture,” and it addresses practical circumstances of church government ordered through “Christian prudence” under the general rules of Scripture.4

We need to distinguish what Scripture commands, what necessarily follows from its teaching, and what we judge to be a wise way of carrying it out. Our reasoning remains accountable to the text at every step. The blueprint gives us no permission to add another room to God’s house simply because we would prefer it there.

The Supper nourishes those who belong to Christ

On the night he was betrayed, Jesus gave his disciples bread and wine, identifying them with his body given for them and his blood of the covenant poured out for the forgiveness of sins (Matthew 26:26–28; Luke 22:19–20). The Supper directs our faith to the Savior who gave himself for us. We remember his death, proclaim it until he comes, and receive the nourishment he provides for his people (1 Corinthians 11:23–26).

Christ’s sacrifice is finished. Hebrews 10:10–14 teaches that his people are sanctified through his offering once for all. We do not offer him again at the table, and we do not become justified again each time we eat. We come resting in the sufficiency of what he has already accomplished.

Yet this meal involves real communion with our Savior. Paul calls the cup a participation in Christ’s blood and the bread a participation in his body (1 Corinthians 10:16). Through the work of the Holy Spirit, believers feed upon Christ by faith. The bread and wine remain bread and wine, while Christ uses this ordinance to strengthen our faith in him. Our acceptance rests in his sacrifice, and he graciously nourishes those he has redeemed.

That tells us something about who the Supper is for. It belongs to those who belong to Christ. In the pattern of Acts 2:41–42, those who receive the word are baptized, added to the gathered disciples, and devoted to the apostles’ teaching, fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayers. The meal belongs within that shared life of faith.

This does not mean the Supper is reserved for Christians who had a good enough week. Who would come? The believer who grieves his sin and is looking to Christ needs the nourishment Christ provides. Weak faith still receives a sufficient Savior. There is a difference between fighting sin and defending it, between confessing our need for mercy and refusing to repent.

Paul’s instruction is, “Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup” (1 Corinthians 11:28). The purpose of examination is to bring us honestly before the Lord and to his table in repentant faith. A faithful church must take care that its warnings do not send tender, repentant Christians away from the very provision Christ has given them.

One bread and one body

The Supper also says something about our relationship with one another. Immediately after describing participation in Christ’s body and blood, Paul writes that “we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Corinthians 10:17). The word translated participation in verse 16 is koinōnia, a word expressing sharing or fellowship. Paul connects our communion with Christ to our communion with his people. Our participation together visibly expresses that fellowship.

This helps explain the seriousness of the problems in Corinth. Their divisions, selfishness, and humiliation of poorer believers contradicted the communion their meal was supposed to express (1 Corinthians 11:17–22). Paul warns that unworthy participation brings guilt concerning Christ’s body and blood and judgment upon the participant (11:27–32). He addresses individual examination, but he also tells the congregation to change how they gather and eat together (11:33–34). They could not honor the meaning of Christ’s self-giving death while despising the people for whom he died.

The wording matters. In 11:27, unworthily describes the manner of eating and drinking. Paul is not demanding that sinners become personally deserving of Christ’s grace. In verse 28, each participant must examine himself. Yet the surrounding instructions repeatedly address what happens when they come together as a church (11:17–18, 20, 33–34). The individual responsibility operates within a congregational responsibility.

Faithful interpreters differ over whether “the body” in verse 29 refers primarily to Christ’s body represented in the bread, to the church, or brings both into view. We understand the passage to include recognizing and caring for Christ’s people. That understanding rests on the context, especially 10:17 and the mistreatment of believers in 11:17–22. The argument does not require forcing every occurrence of body to mean two things at once.

Chapter 12 strengthens the connection. Paul identifies the Corinthians themselves as Christ’s body and calls its members to mutual care, honor, and shared concern (1 Corinthians 12:21–27). The local congregation gives visible expression to our union with Christ. This reaches into the whole life of the church, including love, reconciliation, and discipline. Our handling of the Lord’s Table belongs within that responsibility.

Chapter 11 does not explicitly prescribe a visitor interview. Its immediate correction concerns the conduct of those already participating. The argument for responsible admission emerges as we read these instructions alongside the church’s responsibility for recognition and discipline elsewhere in Scripture.

Of course, a church could carefully oversee admission to the table and still mistreat its own members. A policy cannot make us loving. We must actually live out the fellowship we profess.

Christ entrusts his flock to accountable shepherds

Christ has appointed overseers to care for his people. In Acts 20, Paul summons the elders of the Ephesian church and charges them to pay careful attention to themselves and the flock. These same elders are called overseers and charged to shepherd the church (Acts 20:17, 28). The terms describe the office and its responsibility. Their charge is weighty because the people were purchased through Christ’s blood.

Peter tells elders to “shepherd the flock of God that is among you” (1 Peter 5:2). He forbids domineering leadership and calls them to lead by example under Christ, the chief Shepherd (5:3–4). Elders have no authority to invent a different gospel or bind consciences with their preferences. They do have a responsibility to teach, protect, and oversee the people entrusted to them.

Hebrews 13:17 connects the congregation’s responsibility to obey and submit to its leaders with the leaders’ responsibility to watch over souls. These men are “keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account.” Both sides of that relationship matter. The church needs to know who is watching over it, and the overseers need to know whom they are responsible to shepherd.

Membership makes our responsibilities recognizable

That is part of the biblical foundation for church membership. Membership gives recognizable expression to the relationship Scripture describes. Believers commit themselves to a particular congregation, and that congregation receives them into its fellowship and care. A membership class or written roll is a practical arrangement. The underlying commitment to a known body and its care is the biblical reality those arrangements serve.

The New Testament assumes a distinction between those inside and outside the church (1 Corinthians 5:12–13). Jesus describes a process in which a matter can be brought before the church, and persistent refusal to repent changes how a person is regarded (Matthew 18:15–20). Those instructions require an identifiable body with real relationships and responsibilities. Being added to a church must mean something if being removed from its fellowship means something.

Membership does not save us. Christ saves us. Yet the salvation he gives brings us into a people who are called to live together in accountable fellowship. The one-another commands take concrete shape among people who know one another well enough to obey them. We exhort one another against the deceitfulness of sin, stir one another toward love and good works, and refuse to abandon our gathering together (Hebrews 3:12–13; 10:24–25).

This is why membership matters when we come to the table. There is an established basis for the congregation to recognize a member’s profession, baptism, and participation in the life of the body. That recognition is never infallible. We cannot see a member’s heart any more than we can see a visitor’s. We can hear a profession of faith and observe a life lived among the saints.

Personal examination belongs within corporate accountability

First Corinthians 5 prevents us from making participation entirely a matter of private judgment. Paul holds the sexually immoral man responsible for his sin, and he holds the congregation responsible for tolerating it. He commands the assembled church to act and remove the unrepentant offender (1 Corinthians 5:1–7, 11–13).

An individual’s claim to be a brother did not remove the church’s responsibility to evaluate what was plainly before it. The command not even to eat with such a person in 5:11 need not refer exclusively to the Supper for the implication to follow. Continuing to affirm Christian fellowship at the table would contradict the church’s exclusion of the unrepentant person from its fellowship. Self-examination in chapter 11 cannot cancel the responsibility chapter 5 assigns to the congregation.

The church must exercise faithful judgment according to what can be known. It cannot guarantee the genuineness of every profession, and it does not become guilty of every hidden sin committed by someone who participates. The goal of discipline is also restoration. When repentance comes, the church must be ready to forgive, comfort, and reaffirm its love (2 Corinthians 2:6–8).

I believe an overly individual understanding of Christianity makes this responsibility especially difficult for many of us to receive. If we have learned to think of the church primarily as a place where individuals receive spiritual help, any corporate judgment about participation can feel like interference in something that belongs only to the individual. But Paul describes members who belong to one another (Romans 12:4–5). Our faith is personal, and Christ gives that faith a shared life within his body.

That observation should first cause us to examine ourselves. It does not explain every objection to our policy. Faithful Christians can value membership and accountability deeply while disagreeing with our application.

What our participation communicates

There is another concern here. When someone takes the bread and the cup before the congregation, that participation communicates something. Paul says our sharing in the one bread expresses that we are one body (1 Corinthians 10:16–17). Those watching have reason to understand the meal as an expression of recognized fellowship in Christ.

Suppose a man visits who is living in a sexual relationship with his girlfriend and openly pursuing a life of drunkenness and immorality, with no intention of repenting. The elders have never met him, but some members or other guests know how he lives. If he participates, those watching may reasonably conclude that the church recognizes his profession and receives him into the fellowship the meal expresses. They may even understand our reception of him as assurance that his unrepentant life is compatible with that profession. Our ignorance of his circumstances does not prevent that confusion.

The same concern applies when an unbeliever participates. Eating the bread and drinking the cup cannot create union with Christ where there is no faith. Yet the visible act can portray a fellowship that does not exist. The church should care about whether its administration of the ordinance gives a truthful expression of the body and the communion Christ has established.

This is where we believe the concern connects to discerning the body. First Corinthians 11:29 must be read within Paul’s correction of a congregation whose conduct contradicted the fellowship it professed. Chapter 10:17 identifies the shared meal with the one body, and chapter 5 requires the church to withdraw its recognition of someone whose open, unrepentant conduct contradicts his claim to be a brother. Reading those passages together, we believe that knowingly admitting such a person, or neglecting reasonable care in recognizing those we receive, can itself be a corporate failure to discern the body. We would be allowing the ordinance to express an affirmation that the church has no biblical grounds to give.

That is an application of Paul’s teaching across these passages. It does not mean verse 29 directly describes an unknown visitor, or that an elder becomes guilty whenever someone successfully conceals unbelief or sin. The distinction matters. God calls us to faithful oversight according to what we can reasonably know. He has not given us the ability to see every heart. Nor does another person’s mistaken assumption, by itself, establish that the church has sinned.

This concern gives us another reason to seek a credible profession and recognizable accountability before receiving a guest at the table. We want to protect the congregation from confusion, the guest from false assurance, and the public expression of fellowship from being contradicted by what we carelessly affirm. We can do that while warmly welcoming guests and gladly receiving repentant sinners who need the grace this meal proclaims.

But what about guests who love Christ and belong to another faithful church?

We are grateful for them. Our union with Christ extends far beyond the membership of our congregation. Every true believer is our brother or sister, and we rejoice in the grace God has given them. Their salvation does not depend on our recognition, and their belonging to Christ does not begin when one of our elders meets them.

When we ask to speak with a guest before communion, we are not assuming the worst about that person. We are acknowledging the limits of what we know. We may have every reason to enjoy their company and receive their profession warmly while still knowing very little about their life, baptism, or relationship to a local church.

They may be faithfully accountable to godly overseers who know and love them. We simply have not yet had the opportunity to affirm that relationship. A conversation helps us move from unfamiliarity to recognition. Sometimes a trusted relationship with their church already supplies much of what we need to know.

Scripture gives us examples of believers being received through the commendation of others. In Romans 16:1–2, Paul writes, “I commend to you our sister Phoebe.” He identifies her connection to the church at Cenchreae, speaks of her service, and asks the Roman believers to welcome and help her. He supplies them with grounds for recognizing a sister they may not personally know.

Phoebe already belonged to Christ before Paul wrote that commendation. His words helped other believers recognize and welcome her. That is a helpful distinction for this discussion.

We see something similar when Apollos travels to Achaia. The brothers write to the disciples there to welcome him (Acts 18:27). In Acts 9:26–28, the Jerusalem disciples are initially afraid of Saul, and Barnabas speaks on his behalf, recounting his encounter with the Lord and his bold preaching. Saul’s circumstances were unusual, but the passage still shows the value of credible testimony in receiving someone into fellowship.

Paul also refers to letters of recommendation in 2 Corinthians 3:1–3. He does not need a fresh letter to establish a relationship the Corinthians already know. Recognition can come through existing relationships as well as through a new introduction.

These passages do not prescribe a communion interview or a particular form to fill out. They show that commendation and responsible recognition are familiar parts of New Testament church life. Such recognition serves fellowship. It helps believers welcome one another with understanding.

The same principle applies when we administer baptism

We already recognize a similar responsibility with baptism. If someone walks in off the street and asks to be baptized, we want to hear what that person believes. Do they understand the gospel? Are they professing repentance and faith in Jesus Christ? What do they understand baptism to mean?

Asking those questions does not mean we assume they are lying. We are taking their profession and Christ’s ordinance seriously. Jesus commands us to make disciples and baptize them (Matthew 28:19–20). In Acts 8:12, those who believe Philip’s preaching are baptized. In Acts 16:30–34, Paul and Silas proclaim the word of the Lord to the jailer and his household before baptism follows.

Scripture often shows baptism taking place promptly. We should not turn careful recognition into a mandatory waiting period that the text does not require. The point is that baptism follows the reception and profession of the gospel. It is not administered without regard for what a person believes.

We cannot see the heart of the person being baptized. We can hear a credible profession. We exercise that same kind of judgment when receiving someone into church membership. We believe it is consistent to exercise responsible recognition when administering the Supper, which expresses our shared communion in Christ.

The scope and limits of pastoral authority

The concern about overreach is legitimate. Especially when we see so many wolves parading as shepherds trying to obtain power and control. A pastoral title does not make every pastoral decision right. First Peter 5:3 forbids domineering leadership. Paul refuses to lord it over the Corinthians’ faith (2 Corinthians 1:24), and he describes his authority as given for building them up (13:10). The greater authority of an apostle did not give him permission to use Christ’s people for his own purposes. Elders certainly have no such permission.

Our authority is ministerial and declarative. We serve under Christ and administer what he has commanded. We do not create the conditions of salvation or make our approval the basis of someone’s union with him. We are answerable to his Word for what we teach and how we lead.

The reformed position on the roles of overseer can be summarized with;

• Preaching and teaching the Word: explaining Scripture, defending sound doctrine, correcting error, and applying the gospel to the congregation. 2 Timothy 4:1–2; Titus 1:9.

• Administering the sacraments: overseeing baptism and the Lord’s Supper according to Christ’s institution. Matthew 28:19–20; 1 Corinthians 11:23–26.

• Shepherding and governing the flock: knowing the people, caring for their souls, leading by example, and overseeing discipline and restoration. Acts 20:28; Hebrews 13:17; 1 Peter 5:1–4.

• Prayer: praying for and with the congregation, alongside the ministry of the Word. Acts 6:4.

As Baptist we also acknowledge that responsibility also belongs to the church as a body. Jesus directs the final stage of discipline to the church in Matthew 18:17, and Paul directs the congregation to act in 1 Corinthians 5:4–5. Elders lead in carrying out that responsibility. They do not privately own the table or replace the congregation’s accountability to Christ.

The question, then, is whether asking for a credible profession and recognizable accountability serves the responsibilities Christ has given us. We believe it does. We are seeking a reasonable basis for administering an ordinance that expresses fellowship. Asking who a guest’s shepherds are does not transfer that person’s whole life into our jurisdiction. It helps us recognize the fellowship in which the person already stands. Because, if that individual is refusing to place themselves under the authority of a local church with qualified overseers, then they have absolutely no business coming to the table. For, they would be coming to the table in an unworthy manner.

That judgment has limits. Requiring someone to agree with every secondary conviction of our church before we can recognize him as a Christian would go beyond what a credible gospel profession requires. So would treating questions about our process as rebellion, demanding disclosure of every private struggle, or allowing a temporary delay to become an unexplained and indefinite barrier. Our procedures must be proportionate to their purpose and open to correction from Scripture.

Elders must be able to explain how a policy serves a biblical responsibility. First Corinthians 14:40 calls for orderly church life, but it is no blank check for any rule we find convenient. If our process becomes needlessly burdensome or fails to serve the people it is intended to help, we should correct it. Faithful oversight includes listening.

A historic practice with room for faithful differences

This concern has a long history. Charles Spurgeon welcomed visiting Christians to the table. Historically, that is why his practice was called open communion. Yet visitors were examined by church officers, and participation was connected to church membership and accountability. His welcome involved meaningful pastoral care.1

Spurgeon also understood the limits of that care. In his sermon “Preparation Necessary for the Communion,” he explains that the church must exercise diligence while the individual remains responsible for personal examination. Church approval cannot make a false profession true, and a person who deceives the church remains responsible for that deception.

One of the arguments that I have heard recently is that this will hinder the growth of our church. Visitors will not want to attend if they feel left out. I think the example of Spurgeon certainly contradicts that. They could hardly fit everyone in on the Lord‘s Day, running upwards of 5000+ people. Not to mention, that most of that culture was accustomed to fully open communion.

Many Reformed churches continue to practice accountable admission today, with different procedures for recognizing visiting believers. The terminology varies, and their policies are not identical. Our particular arrangement belongs within that broader practice of seeking to administer the Supper faithfully.3

Our practice and our welcome

For us, this means members and approved guests. We seek to affirm a credible profession of faith, baptism, and membership in good standing with a Bible-believing church. We also make room for baptized believers who are actively pursuing membership with us or another faithful church, as the elders consider their circumstances and recognize that they are moving toward accountable fellowship. Seeking membership is a pastoral circumstance to consider, not a new biblical category of Christian.

We believe this is a practical and efficient way to oversee the flock while receiving visiting brothers and sisters responsibly. Efficiency here means a clear, workable process that helps us give people proper care. We want guests to understand how they can participate without confusion or unnecessary embarrassment.

We do not claim that Scripture commands our exact process. The responsibilities are biblical. The procedure is our effort to carry them out wisely.

And we need to say this plainly: we do not believe a church sins simply because it uses a fenced table, giving biblical instruction and warning while leaving participation to the hearer’s response, instead of requiring our process of prior approval. Faithful churches and faithful elders differ on how best to administer the same ordinance. They may share our convictions about the Supper, membership, and discipline while reaching a different practical conclusion. However, we do believe that a church who practices fully open communion is most certainly in sin. Meaning, that these elements are for the believer and unbeliever alike. Scripture is to blatantly clear on the matter that these elements are only for professing believers.

These other differences should not divide us. Ephesians 4:2–3 calls us to humility, patience, and eagerness to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. We can explain our convictions, answer questions, and carry out our responsibilities without treating brothers who differ as careless or disobedient. The Lord has entrusted his people to other faithful shepherds too.

To our guests, please hear the heart behind this practice. We are glad you are with us. We are grateful for the Savior we share with every believer. We want to hear how he has worked in your life and learn about the church family that cares for you. Asking to know you is an expression of the fellowship we hope to enjoy with you.

The table continually brings us back to the grace that made us family. None of us earned a place in Christ. All of us come needing his mercy. As overseers and as a congregation, we want to handle his gift with the care it deserves and receive his people with the love he commands.

Sources

1. Geoff Chang, “How Did Spurgeon Fence the Lord’s Table?” The Spurgeon Library, September 7, 2021. Read source

2. C. H. Spurgeon, “Preparation Necessary for the Communion,” on 1 Corinthians 11:28, September 9, 1857. The Spurgeon Library. Read source

3. Examples of contemporary practice: published communion policy; published visitor policy.

4. Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689), chapter 1, paragraph 6. Read source

Scripture quotations are from the ESV.