A question of Fencing the Table

raekwon · #1 (**permalink**) 10-11-2009, 07:28 PM

Would like some opinions or guidance, folks . . .

There's a woman in our church whose recent pattern of life and lack of repentance after rebuke puts her confession of faith in question in the minds of the elders. (We have informed her of this.) She has continued to take Communion, despite our misgivings and despite the scriptural warnings given before it's administered. She's not yet under formal discipline.

My question is this: are we as elders responsible for actually barring her from taking the Supper unworthily, or are we simply obligated to giving the scriptural warnings?

(From what I see in Scripture, it's not our responsibility to physically withhold the Supper from such a one, but I'm open to correction.)

PointingToChrist · #2 (**permalink**) 10-11-2009, 09:59 PM

Has she been admonished directly not to take communion? If not, she should be. It is up to you (and the BCO) to decide if she needs formal reprimand and the table fenced from her.

It may not be wise to withhold the plate from her if she is, for instance, sitting in the middle of the pew. Such a scene would cause a spectacle and may not be in the best interest of the congregation if it is not yet a public matter. However, if the direct chastisement has taken place, her partaking in the Lord's Supper means she is eating and drinking judgment upon herself.

Jack K · #3 (**permalink**) 10-11-2009, 10:04 PM

Hmmm... I would beware of the idea that the table is for those believers who have, in the past week or so, had their Christian act together. We all ought to approach the table as sinners who are, nevertheless, full of joy over the Savior who invites us to his meal. So my first thought (without knowing details) is that unless this person is under formal discipline, she remains a confessing part of the body and should join you at the table. Perhaps the ministry of the sacrament will even help bring her to repentance.

Paul does warn us to examine ourselves that we "discern the body," in the context of a discussion of body-destroying factions in the church. But I think we get into trouble if we approach the table trying to judge whether we (or others) have recently been acting holy enough to participate.

Now if you elders decide to proceed with discipline, that is another matter...

OPC'n · #4 (**permalink**) 10-11-2009, 10:18 PM

Unrepentant or just struggling with a sin and has a ways to go before fruit is attained? If she is just struggling with her sin, then she belongs at the table. If she is unrepentant and refuses to heed your counsel to turn from her sin and repent, then she needs more than just physical barring from the table. When she became a member she agreed to heed the disciple of the church. By not heeding, she is breaking her vow. How long are you going to wait before you take formal discipline against her since your informal discipline in the manner of a rebuke isn't working? Is it a known fact that she is truly an unrepentant sinner? It's hard to answer this question fully since we don't know the timeline of her actions. In the meantime for the sake of the church's health, you must bar her.

jfschultz · #5 (**permalink**) 10-11-2009, 10:38 PM

I would agree with Jack. She should not be barred from the table without the due process of being brought under discipline.

In fact if the session is of the opinion that she should be barred from the table and have not taken the formal steps of due process, they are not faithfully exercising their responsibilities.

Scott1 · #6 (**permalink**) 10-11-2009, 11:13 PM

My understanding is, as you procede by the constitution, which you have vowed to uphold is that you are at the informal admonition stage.

That might go to other forms of discipline, formal admonition, suspension from the Lord's Supper, ex-communication.

As it stands now, it does not sound like she has been formally suspended for a time from the Lord's Supper so you are proceeding by informal means, including exhortation.

Solus Christus · #7 (**permalink**) 10-12-2009, 12:36 AM

I definitely agree with what others have said here. I also believe the Westminster divines would concur:

The Westminster Confession of Faith

Quote:

Chapter XXX

Of Church Censures

I. The Lord Jesus, as king and head of His Church, has therein appointed a government, in the hand of Church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate.[1]

II. To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed; by virtue whereof, they have power, respectively, to retain, and remit sins; to shut that kingdom against the impenitent, both by the Word, and censures; and to open it unto penitent sinners, by the ministry of the Gospel; and by absolution from censures, as occasion shall require.[2]

III. Church censures are necessary, for the reclaiming and gaining of offending brethres, for deterring of others from the like offenses, for purging out of that leaven which might infect the whole lump, for vindicating the honor of Christ, and the holy profession of the Gospel, and for preventing the wrath of God, which might justly fall upon the Church, if they should suffer His covenant, and the seals thereof, to be profaned by notorious and obstinate offenders.[3]

IV. For the better attaining of these ends, the officers of the Church are to proceed by admonition; suspension from the sacrament of the Lord's Supper for a season; and by excommunication from the Church; according to the nature of the crime, and demerit of the person.[4]

Brian Withnell · #8 (**permalink**) 10-12-2009, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raekwon

Would like some opinions or guidance, folks . . .

There's a woman in our church whose recent pattern of life and lack of repentance after rebuke puts her confession of faith in question in the minds of the elders. (We have informed her of this.) She has continued to take Communion, despite our misgivings and despite the scriptural warnings given before it's administered. She's not yet under formal discipline.

My question is this: are we as elders responsible for actually barring her from taking the Supper unworthily, or are we simply obligated to giving the scriptural warnings?

(From what I see in Scripture, it's not our responsibility to physically withhold the Supper from such a one, but I'm open to correction.)

First, a rebuke is an official sanction of discipline, so unless the rebuke was from someone other than the session, then formal discipline ought to have already started. The real issue is if formal process has started, then the process states if the person is suspended from the table. If the person is, it is up to the elders who serve the meal to exclude that person from the table. If there is no sign of repentance, then another charge would be forthcoming (if they in fact are not struggling with the sin for which they have been rebuked.)

Ultimately, the elders have a responsibility to fence the table.