Featured Open membership threatens Baptists’ most central distinctive

Our Pastor reads scripture and then discusses the fact that Communion
is a church ordinance, and only baptized believers should participate. He asks each one to examine their heart, and then the trays are passed around, but noone is stopped from participating - because it is between that person and God.

 

I mentioned the church adding daily in Acts in relation to people who believe there should be a delay in church membership such as a communicant's class, a practice of the RCC.

The fact that the RCC practices closed communion is an automatic red flag with me. As to what our church practices, there is no written policy. A strong majority oppose closed communion. As for close vs open, I can only say what I have observed. There was a Methodist who attended our services regularly and a Presbyterian who was actve in our and a Baptist church who took communion. I have seen family members visit of various members other faiths take communion. It is an issue that will never be dealt with because our church cannot afford another round of division like we had several decades ago over relocation.

I think there would be more merit to close or closed if the local church in fact did keep its rolls clean. Does your church do a good job of keeping people off the rolls that have not darkened the door in months or years, or do not support the church? We have taken some off, but even at that, we have less than 40% attendance on a good Sunday morning.

On your last point, I have never seen the conduct you describe during communion. That would be grounds for immediate disfellowship. Once, we had some visitors get up and dance in the aisle while special music was in progress. We put an immediate stop to that. Brother Tom could tell you more about that. Our church does not tolerate disrespect during a worship service.

One more point, I do not take communion at other churches. That is my choice. I just do not feel it is my right to oppose others taking it at mine.

 

No, they are not red flags. Mormons believe that abortion is murder, marriage is between a man and a moran and that one should help the poor. They also believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in name only. They do not believe He is God and believe He is a created being.

The RCC believes that baptism is required for salvation, that one prays to saints, and one confesses sins to priests. That plus many of their other practices are a red flag. In relation to communion, they believe in transsubstantiation, which is also a red flag.

Are you implying that closed communion is Biblical based on some Catholic beliefs not being red flags?

 

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

An excellent post. In fact, an explanation before the communion is served, either open or closed, would greatly reduce any misunderstanding. It is still hard to understand why so much difference, because, for the fifth time, each church, being autonomous, sets its own communion policy. Anyone who feels strongly enough about communion one way or the other can probably walk to a Baptist church that agrees with them.

It is not that big of an issue to me. If our church voted this morning to switch to closed, I would not leave it, as that is where the Lord has placed me to serve. After the vote, I would never say another word about it.

 

Thanks S/N, a very gracious response.:godisgood:

 

I have always thought that our(baptists) primary "distinctive" was the autonomy of the local church...not how membership is defined.

 

Even though saturneptune and I serve the same church, it may appear that we're talking about two different churches. Let me explain.

First, even those we are "close communion" in practice, we have never voted on a clear position. My preference is that we should take a vote, and before each communion, the pastor should explain our position.

This produced a problem one time when, years ago, our pastor at the time announced that we were going to serve the Lord's Supper, and that it was for members only. He did this on his own. A couple who had regularly attended our church, but were not members (and taken communion), were caught by surprised. Since they were the only non-members present, they felt singled out, and were embarrassed.

Subsequent pastors have never addressed the extent of the Lord's table prior to communion. However, I assure you that if someone shows up who has been dismissed from a church for flagrant sin (and I'm aware of it), I'll make an issue of it.

saturneptune's view of Communion is closer to our church practice than my view. However, we both serve as deacons under the authority of our church. And neither of us would attempt to substitute our personal views for that now practiced by our church. In fact, the only place we discuss this issue is here on this forum. It's certainly not an issue in our church.

And we agree on this: If we can't live with our church's view, we're welcome to find another place of service.

I'm not going anywhere. SN can speak for himself, but I don't think he is, either.

 

Not exactly sure how the author makes the leap that open communion (Lords Supper) leads to open membership, but ... whatever.

On the topic however regarding open membership.. I was going to open a thread on it and ask people their views.

I am the pastor of a church (recently, over last 3 months) that till then we pretty much agreed on most stuff. Till we spoke on membership on night in our Leadership meeting. One of my deacons got fairly hot and bothered over it and stated we need to do away with it. Him and his wife both cited Jesus statement - to love the lord your God with all you heart, soul, and strength and you neighbor as yourself. (paraphrased of course).

This was supposed to clinch the argument for them that we are all the body of Christ and should allow anyone who was saved to start and/or lead any ministry in the Church and we should not oppose them because again, we are all God's church and to deny them was not to love them and God. They hold this view even so much so that they don't believe a person even needs to be committed to coming or being a part of the church (in presence) . example - a person who someone in the church might know who is saved that felt 'led' to do a ministry in the church but never be there more an once a couple months, while they do other things.

And while this gentlemen and wife are in the minority, (the only ones who hold this view), there are many others in the church leadership that see nothing wrong with allowing none menbers to take part in leading a ministry if a person can't be there over a short period of time (a day or so), especially if they have been attending for over a couple of years, but don't desire to become members of the church... and this too is now beginning to cause waves.

I am going to be bringing a study on what Church membership actually is (it isn't club med, but is also not understood in our culture biblically and thus properly). The first part of the study will be on the historical / Cultural understanding of religious groups from the OT both Jews and Gentiles... that being a Covenant Relationship not only with God but with each other.

The second study will be the Historical Church view and how it is based off of the idea of a Covenant people, and that even the first century church and early church fathers understood the commitment to one another as a local body, while sharing the work of the ministry with other churches.

The third study will bring up scripture and how this understanding is not some 'mis-interpretation' as some have concocted regarding church membership, but that the scriptural view of membership is not only a true understanding but that it is proven via early historical views of the church and the way church functioned, but even further back and into the cultural views on how they understood it. Commitment is something most do not comprehend.

 

As far as going anywhere on my part, I could compare Tom to Paul. Paul had a thorn in his side, well, anyway, one gets the picture. On a serious note, communion is not an issue that would be allowed to bring division, nor would KJVO, God's sovereignty, end times, etc.

As far as how we would handle the Lord's Supper for flagrant sin of someone who showed up, that is a new one on me since I have never experienced it. It seems it would be denied regardless of open or closed. It is really a seperate issue. It would be really a bad situation if someone brought it up after the service had started. If I knew beforehand, the best thing to do would be to get the member aside and explain the situation and ask him or her to leave.

Old Regular brought up a point in one of his posts similar to this. Two teenage boys toasted with the communion cups during the service. That would be addressed right away in our church. First, during the service someone would have walked over and put a stop to it, then afterwards, no doubt some type of church action would have been taken.

 

They also hold to them being ONLY true church, and that salvation is God grace in and through the Sacraments, so that we 'co assist/co operate' with God in order to get us saved!

They also hold to Apostolic succession, and to church tradition same as the bible...They hold that the RCC has 'real understanding" in interpreting the bible...

THOSE are real 'red Flags!"

 

disreard, posted in the wrong thread, and was reposted to the correct/appropiate thread!

 

Allan, you are wise to do this. Too often we take for granted that our folks understand things just as we do.

I'll admit that those views held by some of your folks did surprise me. Actually amazed me that anybody thought like that. If the truth be known, we probably have some folks like that in my congregation.

So, we need to be alert for "teachable moments," and you obviously have one or two to work with.

 

Tom, you seem like a sensible person whose heart is in the right place. I may not agree with you on everything, but I sense you are a true Christian brother.

 

Michael, it might be useful for me to explain why saturneptune and I go out of our way to be charitable towards each other in those areas where we may not see eye to eye. And, in fact, to be charitable to anyone with whom we may disagree.

Our church voted to re-locate in 1977. It was not unanimous. It took us nine years to get to the point where we could move to the new location.

Those who opposed re-location eventually relocated to other churches. Needless to say, those were tense years, and when we finally relocated, the rest of the opponents left us. It was a painful experience in many ways.

There was one positive result. Although our numbers were diminished a lot, those of us remaining had a remarkable unity, which has continued for 25 years. We are acutely sensitive to this day, and most of us have vowed that we'd never go through another church fight unless it involved heresy. Certainly not over just getting our way.

We have also learned to handle any differences of opinion in a redemptive way, although those occurrences are rare, and never divisive.

Much credit goes to our pastor and his leadership. And our deacons have adopted a servant mentality instead of a "board" mentality. And our members reflect the same attitude.

We are not self-satisfied about our unity. We are all too aware that Satan lurks, ready to undercut us at the first opportunity, so we work hard at it. And we have learned that it is possible to have unity, even if we are not always unanimous.

I just realized that this post basically derails the thread. Forgive, please, but I felt Michael Wrenn needed to know what makes SN and me tick.

 

I agree with you that the local church has the authority to authorize a new ministry, and that it should not be an "at will, free for all." They should be members in good standing with a commitment beyond question before the church approves it. I totally disagree with your deacon in the minority.

The point I was trying to make was not on that aspect, but on the subject of initial membership. In the book of Acts, they were added daily. There is nothing Scrpitural about a communicant's class, indoctrination, memorizing a church covenant or a six week waiting period. If the new member proves to be a non attender, non supporting pew sitter, then use church discipline to solve the problem. Holding a communicant's class does not assure a good member and is not Biblical. It is also a common RCC practice, in fact, some of the mainline Protestant denominations practice this.

 

Thanks, Tom; I appreciate the explanation.