Expert: Rev. Andrew Smith - 3/11/2009

Question
I've attended Christian churches all my adult life(36 yrs). Recently married a Baptist, and attended and joined his church, because his pastor was also his best friend.   Then, it was announced from the pulpit that "at this chuch, only members of this church can take communion".  I was not aware of this prior to joining, or would not have.  But this issue is now causing major havoc in the church, and in my marriage.  I brought it up at a Bible study class, and most attendees agreed with me that it should be for all believers, but the pastor took a strong stand against change.  So it has gotten out around town that I'm stirring up trouble, which was not my intent.  And my husband is questioning whether or not we should've gotten married.    Also, I was used to more frequent observance of communion, and believe that if Christians are truly taught the deeply significant doctrine of Communion, it would only inhance our worship, not become commonplace. For me, its a time of soul-searching and honoring the One who died in my place.  I see some "religious" folks take it like its their Sunday morning vitamin.   The very action that should be uniting us is instead dividing us.  Please advise me - am I way off base?

Answer
  Linda,

  Thanks for asking this question. It's a good one.

  When you say that you have attended "Christian" churches your whole adult life, I presume that you mean a "Christian" church in the sense of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), or an Independent Christian Church that comes from the same Stone/Campbell tradition. If I am right about that, then you observed the Lord's Supper every Sunday, and it was explicitly offered to all Christians. That's one of the hallmarks of the Christian/Disciples tradition - open communion.

  Practice among Baptists is more diverse. In the South, at least (I don't know where you are located) Baptists often observed communion at association and convention meetings until the middle of the 19th century. At that time, a movement called "Landmarkism" appeared, and heavily influenced Southern Baptist life. The Landmarkers emphasized that only Baptist churches were churches, because they had descended directly from John the Baptist and Jesus, and had a whole 2,000 year old pedigree that had nothing to do with the Protestant Reformation. Now, that wasn't a new idea for Baptists. It had been pretty common for Baptists to make that claim, but the Landmarkers turned it into an issue that almost split the Southern Baptist Convention right before the Civil War. Now, through examination of historical documents, we know that this was all just wishful thinking - Baptists emerged from the English Reformation during the 17th century - but this idea that only Baptist churches are real churches has irrevocably affected our practices.

  In the wake of Landmarkism, Southern Baptists stopped observing communion at associational and convention meetings, restricting it to the local church, on the grounds that it was an ordinance, and ordinances are only to be offered by churches, all other organizations outside the local church having no right to represent churches. Also, relevant to your question, they solidified the practice of only allowing members of a particular church to take communion in a church. Even visiting Baptists from churches in the same association couldn't share in communion!

  So, there is some warrant for saying that only members of a particular Baptist church can take communion in that Baptist church. Unfortunately, this is based on bad history (which, incidentally, was framed to counter the claims of Christians/Disciples to have restored a lost gospel. I can tell you more about that if you care to hear.)

  On the other hand, Baptist churches vary widely in their actual practice of communion. Some churches restrict it only to Baptists. Some restrict it only to Christians. There are probably a few very liberal Baptist churches that open it to everyone present, whether Christian or not. As a Christian and Baptist minister, I think that opening communion to all Christians present is legitimate and healthy, because the practice belongs to the whole church, and not just to us. Problem is, by Landmarkist logic, Baptist churches ARE the whole church! This is really why Baptists have such an issue with who should be allowed to take communion.

  So, I can sum it up this way: 1) There is a historical reason why many Baptists restrict communion only to members. 2) That is not the only legitimate Baptist way to think about the Lord's Supper. Congregational practice ought to be set though a process of conversation and discernment. 3) For what it's worth, you are right, Baptists tend to take the observance of the Lord's Supper pretty lightly. I wish we didn't do that, but I don't even know where to begin educating people about it!

  I hope that this is helpful. If I didn't really get to the heart of your concern, follow up and I'll try again.

  Thanks,

  Andrew

  PS - Did you join this congregation on a non-Baptist baptism? Did you have to be rebaptized upon joining? It strikes me as strange that a church that would accept an "alien immersion" (Non-Baptist immersion baptism) as acceptable baptism would also hold such conservative opinions on the Lord's Supper.