A discussion that rolls around periodically for strict baptists concerns whom we would admit to the table. Particularly, Anglicans and Presbyterians – with whom we would otherwise have great fellowship and gladly have to preach in our churches – cannot join our churches as unbaptised people (as we judge it) nor partake of communion. The question is, are we being a bit inconsistent letting them preach but not admitting them to the table?

The answer here depends on your view of what communion is and what it does. If you believe communion is a meal for anybody who knows and loves the Lord Jesus, and only those who are not Christian are to be barred from partaking, then thereis a gross inconsistency here. We are saying that the person is an unbeliever by not allowing them to join with us whilst simultaneously allowing them to preach in our church. But this isn’t the strict baptist position.

The strict baptist would argue communion is more than a simple declaration of belief in Jesus. It certainly isn’t less than that, but it something more. It is a meal that constitutes the church. It is the meal that permits us to say something more than ‘there are some Christians’ and instead allows us to say ‘there is a church’. Communion is a matter of an individual declaring their ongoing belief in Christ and the church affirming their ongoing belief in Christ whilst also serving to bind the church together as a church of members committed to one another.

This strict baptist view means that we are not necessarily saying that a person is not a believer when we withhold communion. What we are saying is this person is not a member and we are, therefore, in no position to affirm their ongoing walk in Christ. We are, in effect, tying communion quite tightly to discipleship. It is for this reason that removal of communion is one of the steps of church discipline – the church can affirm or deny a profession of faith. The church have the keys of the kingdom and they exercise them (in part) through the giving of communion,

There are then two essential strict baptist positions. Namely, close and closed communion. Close communion advocates would permit members of other like-minded churches in good standing to partake of communion. They would argue that they are willing to accept the affirmation of another church when dealing with visitors and trust that discipleship is effectively taken care of in the other church. Close communion advocates would lean hard on catholicity and welcoming brothers and sisters from other churches.

Closed communion advocates, by contrast, would limit communion only to the members of the local church. If communion is intended to be a discipleship tool, and is tightly linked to an ongoing walk and to church discipline, it can only be exercised meaningfully amongst the actual members of the church. Even those visiting from like-minded churches ought not to partake because they do not belong to this local church who cannot affirm or deny anything about their walk. Closed communion advocates would land hard on local church discipleship and encourage people to partake of communion in their own local churches.

On either view, however, there need not be a wedge put between the invite to preach and the restricton at the table. Strict baptists of either stripe are not arguing that you can preach but you are not a believer. They are arguing that you are not baptised (as they judge it) or that they cannot take responsibility for your discipleship as a visitor from another church, and therefore are not sanctioned to give you communion. It is less a statement of belief and more a statement of God-given authority and responsibility. The question at the heart of it is this: who is sanctioned to give whom communion? The strict baptist, at some level, argues the church responsible for affirming the ongoing walk of particular disciples.