What Is Open vs Closed Communion?
Question 9009
When a church gathers for the Lord’s Supper, who is welcome at the table? This question has led to different practices among churches, often described as “open communion,” “closed communion,” and “close communion.” Understanding these different approaches will help you navigate the variety of practices you may encounter and think through what your own church should do.
Defining the Terms
Open communion is the practice of inviting all professing Christians to partake of the Lord’s Supper, regardless of their church membership. If you are a believer in Jesus, you are welcome at the table, whether or not you belong to that particular church or even to a church at all.
Closed communion (sometimes spelled “close communion”) restricts the Supper to members of that particular local church or, in some cases, to members of churches in their denomination or fellowship of churches. Visitors and non-members, even if they are believers, are not invited to partake.
Close communion (some distinguish this from “closed”) is a middle position. It opens the table to all baptised believers who are members in good standing of a church of like faith and practice. This allows Christians from other similar churches to partake while excluding those who have not been baptised, are not church members, or belong to churches with significantly different beliefs.
These terms are used differently in different traditions, so it is important to ask what a church means when they use these labels.
The Case for Open Communion
Those who practise open communion argue as follows. First, the Lord’s Table belongs to the Lord, not to any local church. Christ is the host; we are all guests. If Christ welcomes someone, who are we to exclude them? To bar a believer from the table is to claim an authority that does not belong to us.
Second, the New Testament does not restrict communion to members of a single local church. Paul’s instructions in 1 Corinthians 11 address problems within the Corinthian church but do not suggest that visiting believers from other places should be excluded. The one body of Christ is universal, not merely local.
Third, the requirement for self-examination (1 Corinthians 11:28) places the responsibility on the individual, not on the church. We are to examine ourselves and partake. We cannot ultimately know another person’s heart, so we should trust each person to obey this instruction and let them decide whether to partake.
Fourth, closed communion can lead to unhealthy sectarianism, where churches become exclusive clubs rather than families of brothers and sisters who share the same Lord. Open communion promotes the unity of the body of Christ across denominational and local church lines.
The Case for Closed or Close Communion
Those who restrict communion to members (or to like-minded believers) offer these arguments. First, the Lord’s Supper is a function of the local church. It was given to the church, observed by local assemblies, and connected with church discipline. When someone is excommunicated (removed from the church), part of what this means is exclusion from the table (1 Corinthians 5:11; Matthew 18:17). If the Supper can be restricted as an act of discipline, then it follows that the Supper is connected to membership in a local body.
Second, the church has responsibility to “fence the table,” that is, to protect the Supper from being profaned. We have a responsibility to ensure, as far as possible, that those partaking are genuine believers who are walking in obedience. We cannot know every visitor’s spiritual state. By limiting the Supper to those we know and can shepherd, we are exercising biblical care.
Third, the Supper expresses unity, but it should express true unity, not a false unity. When believers from churches with significantly different doctrines partake together, what unity are they expressing? A church that denies essential doctrines may call itself Christian, but sharing communion with them suggests a partnership in the gospel that may not actually exist.
Fourth, requiring baptism before communion makes theological sense. Baptism is the initiatory ordinance; the Supper is the continuing ordinance. Just as Israel had to be circumcised before they could partake of Passover (Exodus 12:48), so believers should be baptised before they partake of communion. This preserves the proper order of the ordinances.
A Balanced Approach
My own view is somewhere in the middle, and I suspect this is where most Baptist churches find themselves in practice. The table belongs to the Lord, and we should not be more restrictive than Scripture requires. At the same time, the Supper is a function of the local church, and churches do have some responsibility to ensure it is observed properly.
A reasonable approach might look like this. Before communion, the pastor explains what the Supper is and who it is for. He might say something like: “This table is for all who have trusted in Jesus as Saviour and Lord, who have been baptised as believers, and who are seeking to walk in obedience to Him. If you are a believer in good standing with a Bible-believing church, you are welcome to partake with us. If you have not yet trusted in Christ, we encourage you to observe and to consider the gospel this meal proclaims. If there is unconfessed sin in your life, take a moment to confess it to the Lord before partaking.”
This approach welcomes all genuine believers while gently excluding unbelievers. It maintains the connection between baptism and communion. It reminds everyone of the need for self-examination. And it trusts individuals to respond honestly to the invitation.
Where I would draw a firmer line is with those under church discipline. If our own church has placed someone under discipline for unrepentant sin, they should not partake until they have repented and been restored. This is part of what discipline means. And if we know that a visitor is under discipline from another church, we should likewise not invite them to partake. To do so would undermine the discipline process and potentially encourage the person in their sin.
Pastoral Considerations
Whatever approach a church takes, pastoral care and clear communication are essential. If visitors are present, they need to know what to expect. If children are present, parents need to guide them. If communion is closed, this should be explained graciously so that visitors understand they are not being personally rejected but that the church is seeking to follow its convictions.
Above all, we must remember that the Lord’s Supper is meant to strengthen fellowship with Christ and with one another. It is a gospel ordinance, pointing us to the cross and to the coming kingdom. Let us not allow arguments about who may partake to overshadow the glory of what we are remembering when we partake.
Conclusion
Open, closed, and close communion represent different ways churches have sought to be faithful stewards of the Lord’s Table. Open communion emphasises the universal body of Christ and the individual’s responsibility to self-examine. Closed communion emphasises the local church’s responsibility to guard the ordinance. Most churches fall somewhere in between, welcoming all professing believers while maintaining some standards. What matters most is that we honour Christ, proclaim His death, and commune with Him and with one another in faith and love.
“Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.” 1 Corinthians 10:17
Bibliography
- Ryrie, Charles C. Basic Theology. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1999.
- Saucy, Robert L. The Church in God’s Program. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1972.
- MacArthur, John. 1 Corinthians. MacArthur New Testament Commentary. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1984.
- Dever, Mark. Nine Marks of a Healthy Church. Wheaton: Crossway, 2004.
- Leeman, Jonathan. Church Membership. Wheaton: Crossway, 2012.
- Hammett, John S. Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005.
- Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.
- Enns, Paul. The Moody Handbook of Theology. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2014.
- Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology, Vol. 7. Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948.
- Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.