Fencing the Lord's Table

sastark · #1 (**permalink**) 06-21-2004, 02:00 PM

Has this topic been discussed?

If not, here's my question: Should only those persons who are members in good standing of a church be admitted to the Lord's Table?

I understand not admitting those under church discipline. I am more curious about Christians who are not members of a church. Should they be allowed to partke? This is assuming they have been baptized, and are capable of self-examination. In other words, they meet every other requirement needed. They just aren't members anywhere.

What say ye?

alwaysreforming · #2 (**permalink**) 06-21-2004, 03:23 PM

I say me that they SHOULD be admitted to the Lord's table. As long as they make a credible profession of faith in Christ Jesus then the Church should not deny them the sacrament. As important as I think church membership is, its not the defining element (no pun intended) of a Christian and therefore shouldn't keep one from acting in obedience to, and receiving the blessings of, the Lord's Supper.

blhowes · #3 (**permalink**) 06-21-2004, 03:25 PM

All the churches I've been a member of practiced open communion, where it was the responsibility of the individual to examine themselves before taking the elements. Those who didn't feel like they were prepared just passed the bread or grape juice along.

Until recently, I've always thought this was the best way to do it. I can see now how it might be a good thing to require membership.

The thing that changed my thinking was something I witnessed at a church I visited a year or so ago. During the Sunday School class, the pastor was talking about cults and how they differ from orthodox Christianity. He talked about the "moonies" and mentioned that two of them, Chinese ladies, had dropped by his office. He talked with them for a while and invited them to church.

Well, they ended up coming to church on that day of the month when communion was served. I was shocked that these ladies were allowed to participate. Perhaps having membership requirements may have avoided something like this happening.

Bob

[Edited on 6-21-2004 by blhowes]

tcalbrecht · #4 (**permalink**) 06-21-2004, 03:47 PM

[quote:d0d486f06c][i:d0d486f06c]Originally posted by alwaysreforming[/i:d0d486f06c]
I say me that they SHOULD be admitted to the Lord's table. As long as they make a credible profession of faith in Christ Jesus then the Church should not deny them the sacrament. As important as I think church membership is, its not the defining element (no pun intended) of a Christian and therefore shouldn't keep one from acting in obedience to, and receiving the blessings of, the Lord's Supper. [/quote:d0d486f06c]

Since the Lord's Table is a sacrament of the church, it should be only open to church members in good standing. It represents the fellowship of Christ and His people.

Anyone willing to make a public profession should be willing to join with the visible church to be under her teaching, oversight, and discipline.

There are no lone ranger Christians. A members-optional sacrament supports the lone ranger mentality.

wsw201 · #5 (**permalink**) 06-21-2004, 04:08 PM

sastark · #6 (**permalink**) 06-21-2004, 04:13 PM

Ok, let's try this scenario:

Jane Doe is a Christian. Her parents (who she still lives with) attend an Assemblies of God church. They are not members, therefore, she is not a member. Jane begins reading the Bible and is introduced to Reformed theology. She completely agrees with it. One Sunday, she decides to visit her local reformed church. They have Communion that Sunday.

Since Jane is not a member of any church, yet still a Christian, how do you justify barring her from the Lord's Table? (that is an honest question, not a rhetorical one)

Can you show me something in Scripture and/or the confessions that support barring her from the Lord's Table? (again, an honest question, not rhetorical. I could not find anything in Scripture or the confessions. As a matter of fact, I believe the confessions support permitting Jane Doe to partake, rather than barring her. But, I'd love to hear all of your opinions.)

Thanks all!

raderag · #7 (**permalink**) 06-21-2004, 04:54 PM

[quote:eccbc7cdf4][i:eccbc7cdf4]Originally posted by tcalbrecht[/i:eccbc7cdf4]
[quote:eccbc7cdf4][i:eccbc7cdf4]Originally posted by alwaysreforming[/i:eccbc7cdf4]
I say me that they SHOULD be admitted to the Lord's table. As long as they make a credible profession of faith in Christ Jesus then the Church should not deny them the sacrament. As important as I think church membership is, its not the defining element (no pun intended) of a Christian and therefore shouldn't keep one from acting in obedience to, and receiving the blessings of, the Lord's Supper. [/quote:eccbc7cdf4]

Since the Lord's Table is a sacrament of the church, it should be only open to church members in good standing. It represents the fellowship of Christ and His people.

Anyone willing to make a public profession should be willing to join with the visible church to be under her teaching, oversight, and discipline.

There are no lone ranger Christians. A members-optional sacrament supports the lone ranger mentality. [/quote:eccbc7cdf4]

I assume you would give an exception for those seeking membership in that church? What about those looking for a church?

pastorway · #8 (**permalink**) 06-21-2004, 05:37 PM

Yeah...I think I remember that verse...though I can't recall the chapter and verse: "Thou shalt only partake of the Lord's Supper if thou art a member of a local congregation."

:P

I agree with Bunyan that baptism is not even required for partaking of the Supper!!! Confessing your faith in Christ as Lord and Savior and examing yourself prior to partaking is sufficient. 1 Cor 11:23-32

Differences in Judgment about Water Baptism - No Bar to Communion by John Bunyan

Phillip

[Edited on 6-21-04 by pastorway]

Ianterrell · #9 (**permalink**) 06-21-2004, 09:44 PM

I'm all for a closed table.

luvroftheWord · #10 (**permalink**) 06-21-2004, 09:46 PM

My position is that the supper is only for those who are members of the church (i.e., baptized) and should ONLY be fenced from those who are not members in good standing with the church.

Puritan Sailor · #11 (**permalink**) 06-21-2004, 09:53 PM

Well, I've seen the table "fenced" in two ways in the reformed churches I've been a member in. One was to have only those whom the session approved to be allowed to partake (which didn't necessarily require membership in our particular church, but membership in another reformed church or someone in the process of membership at our church was also allowed.) The second was to fence the table only verbally from the pulpit with a warning not to partake unworthily. I still hesitate to decide either way which one is the right mode.

Craig · #12 (**permalink**) 06-21-2004, 10:06 PM

I think a good warning to those present before the supper is good. Perhaps if there are visitors and it's communion day, the elders or pastors might seek out the "visitors" to see if they are believer's...I don't know, though. I don't like the idea of a "closed" table.

Case in point: my wife and I moved to K-zoo over 2 years ago. The first church we visited had closed communion. They passed us by when it was time for participation...what they didn't pass us by with later on was the offering plate! I probably would respond differently than I did then: I laughed, shook my head and passed the plate back to the offering attendant (who also had helped pass out the elements)

C. Matthew McMahon · #13 (**permalink**) 06-22-2004, 12:59 AM

Does anyone have any quotes of what the Historic chruch has done based on the Elder's rule, his oversight of the flock, and church government?

BrianLanier · #14 (**permalink**) 06-22-2004, 02:25 AM

[quote:487a927f74][i:487a927f74]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:487a927f74]
I agree with Bunyan that baptism is not even required for partaking of the Supper!!! Confessing your faith in Christ as Lord and Savior and [b:487a927f74]examing yourself prior to partaking[/b:487a927f74] is sufficient. 1 Cor 11:23-32

Phillip

[Edited on 6-21-04 by pastorway] [/quote:487a927f74]

Phillip,

If, as you say, that examining yourself prior to partaking is required, would it be permissible for one to partake and be living habitually in known sin? If the answer is no, then wouldn't that prevent someone from partaking who isn't baptized since we are commanded to be baptized. Isn't someone who is not baptized and is a believer (not including those that are seeking to be baptized) living disobediently? Honest question here.

Brian

tcalbrecht · #15 (**permalink**) 06-22-2004, 09:55 AM

[quote:e845b1cfc0][i:e845b1cfc0]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:e845b1cfc0]
Yeah...I think I remember that verse...though I can't recall the chapter and verse: "Thou shalt only partake of the Lord's Supper if thou art a member of a local congregation."

:P

[/quote:e845b1cfc0]

I think this comment indicates the significance of the problem the modern church faces. Individual preference has become the standard by which such things are measured.

Up until the 20th century being an "independent" Christian shopping from from church to church was unthinkable. Being a Christian was defined by public profession AND baptism. The two were inseparable. Baptism was the initiation rite of the visible church. Once you were baptized you were, by defintion, a member of the local congregation. The individual did not have veto power over membership.

But times have changed and now the church faces such issues. We don't want to "offend" those who are "sincere" in their erroneous beliefs.

[quote:e845b1cfc0]

I agree with Bunyan that baptism is not even required for partaking of the Supper!!! Confessing your faith in Christ as Lord and Savior and examing yourself prior to partaking is sufficient. 1 Cor 11:23-32

Differences in Judgment about Water Baptism - No Bar to Communion by John Bunyan

Phillip

[Edited on 6-21-04 by pastorway] [/quote:e845b1cfc0]

With all due respect to Bunyan, I think he's wrong. The biblical pattern is pretty clear. Under the older covenant circumcision was required of those who wished to partake of the passover. Under the new covenant baptism IMMEDIATELY followed profession. There was no lag or delay such as the modern church has imposed. (Weeks of "new member" classes and other such artificial measures.) The biblical pattern was an acknowledgement of faith and repentance. The discipleship process came AFTER baptism, not before (Matt. 28:19-21).

If a person is unsure of their salvation their should be taught what it means and when profession is made they should THEN be baptized and admitted to the Table. Not before.

[Edited on 6-22-2004 by tcalbrecht]

Irishcat922 · #16 (**permalink**) 06-22-2004, 10:46 AM

WLC Q-173. May any who profess the faith, and desire to come to the Lord's supper, be kept from it?
A-173. Such as are found to be ignorant or scandalous, notwithstanding their profession of the faith, and desire to come to the Lord's supper, may and ought to be kept from that sacrament, by the power which Christ hath left in his church,(1) until they receive instruction, and manifest their reformation.(2)

Scripture Proof (1)
EAV 1Co 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
EAV 1Co 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
EAV 1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation1 to himself, not discerning2 the Lord's body.
EAV 1Co 11:30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.1
EAV 1Co 11:31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
EAV Mat 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend1 you.
EAV 1Co 5:1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.
EAV 1Co 5:2 And ye are puffed up,1 and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.
EAV 1Co 5:3 For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged1 already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,
EAV 1Co 5:4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
EAV 1Co 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
EAV 1Co 5:6 Your glorying1 is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
EAV 1Co 5:7 Purge1 out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed2 for us:
EAV 1Co 5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
EAV 1Co 5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company1 with fornicators:
EAV 1Co 5:10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
EAV 1Co 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.1
EAV 1Co 5:12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
EAV 1Co 5:13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
EAV 1Ti 5:22 Lay hands1 suddenly on no man, neither be partaker2 of other men's sins: keep thyself pure.

Scripture Proof (2)
EAV 2Co 2:7 So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up1 with overmuch sorrow.

In my opinion I think it would be very difficult to judge exactly where a person may be in thier relationship with Christ just walking in off the street. I think it is important that the Elders be able to, in the very least, talk to the person. Ideally though, I think they should be members if they want to participate in the Sacrament.:wr50:

sastark · #17 (**permalink**) 06-22-2004, 11:28 AM

I'm reposting this, becuase I think it may have gotten passed over. Although I have changed the name (obviously), the following is a very real situation, and would really like to hear some opinions on it. Thanks all!

[quote:a032d83279][i:a032d83279]Originally posted by sastark[/i:a032d83279]
Ok, let's try this scenario:

Jane Doe is a Christian. Her parents (who she still lives with) attend an Assemblies of God church. They are not members, therefore, she is not a member. Jane begins reading the Bible and is introduced to Reformed theology. She completely agrees with it. One Sunday, she decides to visit her local reformed church. They have Communion that Sunday.

Since Jane is not a member of any church, yet still a Christian, how do you justify barring her from the Lord's Table? (that is an honest question, not a rhetorical one)

Can you show me something in Scripture and/or the confessions that support barring her from the Lord's Table? (again, an honest question, not rhetorical. I could not find anything in Scripture or the confessions. As a matter of fact, I believe the confessions support permitting Jane Doe to partake, rather than barring her. But, I'd love to hear all of your opinions.)

Thanks all! [/quote:a032d83279]

sastark · #18 (**permalink**) 06-22-2004, 11:38 AM

My two cents on this, since I started it all:

Ideally, we should all be members of churches (and reformed churches at that!). I also understand the need for the elders to protect the flock, and part of that protection is excersizing the office of the keys (which would include barring people from communion).

However, what has been communicated to me is this: The practice of only allowing those who are members in good standing of a church to come to communion began in the American Colonies, when Mr. Smith would get excommunicated from the Presbyterian church, and instead of submitting to the discipline, he would walk down the street to the Baptist church and take communion.

So, as I understand it, this whole practice of requiring membership was a result of certain cultural trends.

Today, we have a different problem. We have people who are not members of any church (and yet, they have been baptized). I know this is not good. But what do we do when these people, who are sincere believers, vistit our churches? Do we allow them to partake?

As I said before, I can see nothing in the Confessions or in Scripture that would lead me to believe they should be barred from commuion. But I am certainly willing to learn more about this.

One last note: I agree that the pastor should give a verbal warning prior to serving communion, and that we ought to examine ourselves, individually prior to partaking. What I don't agree with is, the elders and/or pastor coming up to a person before the service and asking them "Are you a member of a church?", and if the answer is no, saying "Please do not take communion."

fredtgreco · #19 (**permalink**) 06-22-2004, 11:48 AM

Seth,

What is excommunication?

Why should someone who comes to your church who was excommunicated be denied the Supper?

sastark · #20 (**permalink**) 06-22-2004, 12:16 PM

[quote:5498a46bfd][i:5498a46bfd]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:5498a46bfd]
Seth,

What is excommunication?

Why should someone who comes to your church who was excommunicated be denied the Supper? [/quote:5498a46bfd]

Have you been talking to anyone I know?

I got asked the same questions. I guess I ought to answer.

Excommunication is the excersizing of the Office of the Keys against an individual who is living in unrepentant sin. It is a barring of that person from receiving communion until such time as they have repented.

For your second question: Some one who comes to my church, who is under discipline (specifically excommunication), should not be allowed to partake, because they will be eating and drinking condemnation to themselves.

fredtgreco · #21 (**permalink**) 06-22-2004, 02:02 PM

[quote:b723517fd4][i:b723517fd4]Originally posted by sastark[/i:b723517fd4]
[quote:b723517fd4][i:b723517fd4]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:b723517fd4]
Seth,

What is excommunication?

Why should someone who comes to your church who was excommunicated be denied the Supper? [/quote:b723517fd4]

Have you been talking to anyone I know?[/quote:b723517fd4]

No. But I can understand why another would raise the issue. :bs2:

[quote:b723517fd4] I got asked the same questions. I guess I ought to answer.

Excommunication is the excersizing of the Office of the Keys against an individual who is living in unrepentant sin. It is a barring of that person from receiving communion until such time as they have repented.[/quote:b723517fd4]

Who does the excommunicating? Can an individual say, "I'm not excommunicated; I judge myself to be fine." If not, why not?

[quote:b723517fd4]For your second question: Some one who comes to my church, who is under discipline (specifically excommunication), should not be allowed to partake, because they will be eating and drinking condemnation to themselves. [/quote:b723517fd4]

On what grounds can that decision be made. Shouldn't it be best left up to the individual as to whether they will be eating and drinking condemnation to themselves? If not, why not?

bockman · #22 (**permalink**) 06-22-2004, 02:06 PM

I'm in the process of reading the whole thread (but haven't got there yet)

My wife and I left a CRC church when the purpose driven life stuff came down the pike and I took my family in search of a better church home. I was excited to find that there was an ORC church in our area and the worship and teaching there was wonderful. I was unfamiliar with the concept of a fenced table but it wasn't long before we found out. My wife has been a member of a church for quite some time before she married me and I carried her off on a reformed bent, but I have never been a member of any church for a number of very normal reasons.

The idea that I would not be able to participate in partaking of the Lord's Supper was so uncomfortable that we are currently not attending. I am not a lone ranger Christian. I want earnestly to be part of a local body where we can contribute what little we have. Maybe I'll find the answers further in the thread, but I'm interested in what this means:

"Anyone willing to make a public profession should be willing to join with the visible church to be under her teaching, oversight, and discipline. "

Why do I have to sign the rolls to be part of the visible church and to be under teaching oversight and dicipline? From a pragmatic point of view I suppose it's useful in administration, but it's my view thats not the point of the church and certainly pragmatism shouldn't be a restricting believers from partaking in what is their right. I suppose I will probably end up becoming a member of this church but it grieves me to have to do so...

bockman · #23 (**permalink**) 06-22-2004, 02:11 PM

>>On what grounds can that decision be made. Shouldn't it be best left up to the individual as to whether they will be eating and drinking condemnation to themselves? If not, why not?

I'm not sure how good a job the church can do of protecting individuals in this regard without extensive knowledge of the inner man.