When discussing who are the proper recipients of the Lord’s Supper, three broad views hold: open, close or closed.¹ Open communion advocates say any professing Christian may join in, baptised or unbaptised, member or non-member. Closed communion advocates say the proper recipients are those who are baptised members of this particular local church alone. Close communion advocates say that the proper recipient must be baptised and in membership of a local church, but it needn’t be this particular one.

My point in saying this isn’t to advocate for any given position here. I am comfortable with at least two of them, and I tend towards one in particular. But my view (or any particular view) is not the point. What is the point is that we ought not to import our particular view of the supper onto the other views and assume what is being said about us is what others think they are saying.

I remember having a discussion with an open communion advocate about one of the other positions. They were horrified that a church would not necessarily give them – a professing believer – communion. When I asked why they said, ‘because they’re saying I’m not a believer!’ Which, if you hold to the closed communion position (for instance), is not what you are saying at all. At least, it isn’t necessarily what they are saying.

Closed communion advocates tie communion very tightly to discipleship. They do not view the supper merely as an affirmation that here is a believer. They recognise that people may well be believers whilst not being eligible to partake. Rather, they believe communion is an affirmation on the part of the church that this person is walking in right standing with this local body. They simply do not believe they can make that affirmation of anybody else who does not belong to their church. Indeed, only their own home churches can meaningfully make that estimation. To deny communion isn’t to deny whether this person is a believer or not necessarily; it is to say this local church does not know you and so cannot affirm that you are a member in good standing of your own local church. They also would argue the supper constitutes the local church, which again makes it inappropriate for non-members (even if genuine believers) to partake in this place.

Now, again, the point here is not whether you agree or disagree with that position. Take whatever view you will. The point is, it is unfair to argue – as my open communion friend would – that this church is insisting he is not a believer by refusing him the supper. That is to import his view of what is happening in the supper and reading into an altogether different understanding of what is happening in the supper.

It would similarly be wrong of a close or closed communion advocate to attend an open communion service and reckon the church to be affirming that everyone who partakes is a believer in good standing with the local church. That simply isn’t what open communion folks are saying by giving out the supper. They would be saying, if they actively withheld the supper, we have specific reason to believe you are not a genuine believer, but they are not suggesting everyone who receives the supper from them is necessarily walking rightly with the Lord Jesus. That, they argue, is a matter of personal conscience.

Now, we may all have our views about what is going on in the supper. We may have our views about who should partake and why. This is why (at least in part) different churches with their respective practices spring up. We can’t be all things to all people all the time. We setup in line with what we think the scriptures teach. But what we ought not to do is import our understanding of the supper and what is being said onto other churches who think they are doing and saying something different by whom they allow to partake.

1. There are some nuances that would mean there are other positions, but these are the three broad brush positions. ↩︎