The question of whether communion should be open to all or closed to only baptized believers is an important one for the church. There are good arguments on both sides of this issue, and Christians of good faith can disagree. Looking at what the Bible says can help provide wisdom and perspective, even if Scripture does not give a definitive answer.
Those who advocate for closed communion point to passages that speak of the importance of properly discerning the body and blood of Christ in communion (1 Cor 11:27-29) and of having unity of faith and doctrine (1 Cor 10:17). They argue that fencing the table helps protect the sacrament from being abused or approached lightly. Restricting communion also reinforces the high value and meaning of church membership, where believers commit to walk together in Christ.
On the other side, advocates of open communion emphasize the inclusive welcome Christ gives to all who come to him (John 6:37). They point to Christ’s call to remember and proclaim his death until he comes (1 Cor 11:26), which implies an evangelistic purpose in celebrating communion. An open table bears witness to God’s grace and gives unbelievers an opportunity to respond to the gospel. It also displays the unity all Christians have through Christ, even across denominations.
Looking at the example of Jesus, we see him welcoming and eating with all sorts of people (Luke 15:2). Yet Jesus also shared some teachings privately with his disciples rather than the whole crowd (Mark 4:34). At the Last Supper, Jesus instituted communion with the twelve apostles, not the general public.
In the early church, we get glimpses of communion practices in Acts 2:42, 46 and 20:7. But details are sparse, and there is no direct mention of who could or could not participate. 1 Corinthians 11 indicates that the Corinthian church included communion as part of a larger fellowship meal, but it is not clear whether unbelievers were present or excluded.
Based on such biblical evidence, there are a few key considerations to keep in mind when deciding between open or closed communion:
- The high spiritual importance of properly discerning Christ’s body and blood (1 Cor 11:29)
- The value of church membership and likeminded unity of faith (1 Cor 10:17; Acts 2:42)
- The evangelistic purpose of proclaiming Christ’s death (1 Cor 11:26)
- The inclusive, gracious welcome of Jesus to all who come to him (John 6:37)
Sincere, Bible-believing churches end up landing in different places on this issue. Some denominations practice closed communion, admitting only members or like-minded believers to the Lord’s table. Others have open communion, welcoming all who love Christ without barriers. And some are somewhere in between, such as requiring baptism but not full church membership.
For churches that practice closed communion, it is important that they do so with gracious pastoral care, explaining the biblical reasons for their policy rather than communicating exclusion. Extending Christ’s welcome and gospel invitation should be a priority, even if non-members cannot participate in the sacrament itself. Churches with differing practices can still show fellowship and cooperation with one another.
For churches that practice open communion, it is equally important they take seriously the spiritual preparation needed to partake worthily, so that unbelievers or casual participants do not eat or drink judgment on themselves (1 Cor 11:28-29). Warnings against unworthy participation should be combined with gospel invitations calling all to repentance and faith in Christ.
No matter what policy a church has, the most important thing is approaching the Lord’s Table with hearts prepared by reflection, confession, unity of faith, and discernment of Christ’s body and blood (1 Cor 11:27-29). This necessitates ongoing teaching and pastoral guidance for members and visitors so all grasp the deep meaning of this sacrament.
Beyond the stated policy or fence around a church’s communion table, what matters most is the heart posture of those coming to receive the elements. Whether communion is open or closed in a particular church context, the crucial question is whether participants properly understand what the bread and cup represent and approach it in a worthy manner.
All baptized believers acknowledging their common faith in Christ can partake together, crossing barriers of denomination and tradition. Yet at the same time, not everyone professing to be a Christian necessarily demonstrates the faith, repentance, and spiritual maturity needed to rightly receive communion.
So policies on open or closed communion should aim for the right balance – on the one hand, not denying genuine believers who understand communion’s meaning, while on the other hand, preserving the integrity and serious intent of the sacrament from those who would abuse or misunderstand it. Discerning this balance requires much wisdom, prayer, and knowledge of individuals involved.
In conclusion, there are good motivations on both sides of the open vs. closed communion debate. Faithful Christians disagree, prioritizing different biblical principles such as protecting the sacrament versus displaying grace and welcome to all. Most churches land somewhere in the middle – communing with like-minded believers, but allowing some exceptions pastorally.
The best approach is to show grace and patience with Christians of differing views on this secondary issue, while pursuing the unity and love made possible by Christ’s death. Whether communion is open or closed, the goal should be helping all believers properly discern Christ’s body and blood as they partake.
Rather than divisive debate over policy details, the central focus must remain proclaiming the Lord’s death until He comes (1 Cor 11:26). Then communicant members and visitors alike will partake in a worthy manner for the right reasons – remembering Christ’s sacrifice for them and proclaiming the gospel to one another.
