Proper Lord's Table Fencing

[Rogerant]

Recently I attended a church that has decided to change it's policy on the fencing of
the Lords table. Before this change the fence was consistent with this passage from
Charles Hodges Systematice Theology

Charles Hodge states:

It cannot be doubted that it was required of the Jews in coming to the paschal supper that they should believe the fact of their miraculous deliverance out of Egypt that they should be duly grateful to God for that great mercy and that they should have faith in the promise of that still greater redemption through Him of whom their paschal lamb was the divinely appointed type. All this was implied in an intelligent and sincere attendance on the Jewish Passover. The priests, however, were not authorized to sit in judgment on the sincerity of the worshippers, and to exclude all whom they deemed insincere. So while faith, love, and the purpose of new obedience are clearly required of all who come to the table of the Lord, all that the Church can demand is a credible profession; that is, a profession against which no tangible evidence can be adduced. Even to acceptable prayer, faith and love and the purpose of obedience are demanded, and yet we cannot exclude from access to God all whom we do not deem true believers. Confounding the Church and the world is a great evil, but the Church cannot be kept pure by any human devices. Men must be so instructed that they will be kept back from making profession of a faith they do not possess, by their own consciences; and those who act unworthily of their Christian profession should be subjected to the discipline of the Church. Further than this the Bible does not authorize us to go, and all attempts to improve upon the Bible must be productive of evil. According to our Directory for Worship, the minister “is to warn the profane, the ignorant, and scandalous, and those that secretly indulge themselves in any known sin, not to approach the holy table.” To these classes his power of exclusion is confined. “On the other hand, he shall invite to this holy table, such as, sensible of their lost and helpless state of sin, depend upon the atonement of Christ for pardon and acceptance with God; such as, being instructed in the Gospel doctrine, have a competent knowledge to discern the Lord’s body, and such as desire to renounce their sins, and are determined to lead a holy and godly life.”


The church's new policy reads: Only those believers that are communicant members of a true church may come to the table. Also, all those who desire to come to the table must be examined by the elders to ascertain their faith and evidence of "a godly life".

Now I agree that the requirements of those who desire to become elders must be above reproach. But must those who desire to share in the Lord's supper, who have been baptized in a bible believing church have to undergo an examination by the elders before they are admitted to the table? They are also requireing all those who have been attending the church for yearts to attend a 12 week new members class and become official members of the church before they can share in the Lord's supper. And those who desire membership must complete the course and sustain examination before they can receive the supper. Those who have not yet become official formal members must now abstain from receiving the supper.

Does this not requirement of a profession of faith "plus" demonstration of a godly walk as ascertained by the elders undermine the gospel of faith apart from the works of the law?

 

[Jack K]

I probably wouldn't put up that high a fence, but...

If there are longtime attenders who've somehow been baptized but have never committed themselves enough to any church to become members somewhere, I can see how this church's elders might feel a need to do something about that. The Supper in part celebrates our unity with each other in Christ. If there are people unwilling or uninterested in affirming that unity through membership, yet wanting a part in the Supper, I might buy the argument that the congregation's appreciation of the Supper ought to be strengthened by raising the bar a bit. I do think, though, that I'd let longtime attenders continue to partake while they complete the membership process. This, too, affirms unity.

As for examining those who wish to come to the table, there are helpful/affirming ways to do that and judgmental ones. Until you see how these elders handle it, I wouldn't want to say if they're right or wrong. We ought to welcome all believers even if they're struggling deeply with sin (you might even say such believers are most in need of the table). Yet as your quote from Hodge says, "the purpose of a new obedience is clearly required."

 

[Peairtach]

We just have a meeting with the Kirk Session for first time communicants to accredit their profession of faith as best they can by God's grace.

The fencing of the Table itself during the communion service should just be to advise people of the kind of gross, wilful, presumptious and scandalous sins that would debar them, at least temporarily, from the Table, and to encourage true believers that are not under church sanctions or currently guilty of these sins to come to the Table.

 

[MW]

John Murray, Restricted Communion

 

[Rogerant]

John Murray, Restricted Communion

I have read John Murray's opinion of Restricted Communion Volume 2 that you posted.

John and I both agree that their is an obligation of the session to physically restrict the supper to those who are not in the faith or are in known sin and unrepentance, or under current disiplinary actions by another communion inside or outside of the sessions own denomination.

But John also says the following:

"It is the responsibility of those in whom this government is vested to ensure that those admitted to membership in the church fulfil those requirements of credible and intelligent profession which are the criteria by which those in whom government is vested are to judge. We say that the session must require an intelligent and credible confession of faith in Christ as Saviour and Lord. It may happen, and it sometimes does, that those who are truly united to Christ and who, therefore, in the forum of the divine judgment as well as in the forum of the conscience are eligible to partake are, nevertheless, excluded by the session and that quite properly because they are not able to make the requisite confession of faith."

And then:

"A session is not able in some mystical fashion to examine the heart and God does not give special revelation respecting those who are his. The session must act upon the basis of credibility and observable data. This discrepancy and apparent injustice arise from the infirmity inseparable from the limitations under which God himself has placed those who govern in the church. It is regrettable that the person concerned is not able to make the necessary confession but we may not say that, in the absence of this confession it is regrettable that the session excluded the person concerned. If we say so then we are reflecting upon the divine institution which men are under obligation to observe. We must, therefore, recognize this limitation that governs the administration of the Lord's supper."

He goes on to say:

"Furthermore the session is under obligation to exclude from the Lord's supper those who are guilty of such overt sin as requires exclusion. This applies even to those who have made the requisite confession and may be truly united to Christ, until such time as they give evidence of repentance and reformation. To deny this necessity is to waive completely the demands of discipline."

Now it seems quite clear from me that John agrees with Charles Hodge that those who are currently under church discipline or demonstrating overt sin should be barred from the table. And both Hodge and Murray both agree that "A session is not able in some mystical fashion to examine the heart and God does not give special revelation respecting those who are his. The session must act upon the basis of credibility and observable data." (John Murray) and "The priests, however, were not authorized to sit in judgment on the sincerity of the worshippers, and to exclude all whom they deemed insincere." (Charles Hodge)

Although you three have provided reasonable arguements in favour of fencing the table, I have not seen any support for the examination of the elders of the fruit of one's godly walk,nor any scriptural evidence to support the interogation by the elders to investigate the sincerity of the applicant.

The false shepherds in Israel were chastised by our Lord for limiting those from receiving the sustenance of the Lord, yet feeding themselves. They of course were doing so by judging the sincerity of the applicants godly life. Their actions no doubt subsequently discouraged the sheep to the extent that the sheep sought relief from those who did not have in their care the oracles of God and the means of salvation. They were swallowed up by the beasts of paganism.

Ezekiel 34:1 And the word of the LORD came to me, saying, 2 “Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy and say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD to the shepherds: “Woe to the shepherds of Israel who feed themselves! Should not the shepherds feed the flocks? 3 You eat the fat and clothe yourselves with the wool; you slaughter the fatlings, but you do not feed the flock. 4 The weak you have not strengthened, nor have you healed those who were sick, nor bound up the broken, nor brought back what was driven away, nor sought what was lost; but with force and cruelty you have ruled them. 5 So they were scattered because there was no shepherd; and they became food for all the beasts of the field when they were scattered. 6 My sheep wandered through all the mountains, and on every high hill; yes, My flock was scattered over the whole face of the earth, and no one was seeking or searching for them.”
7 ‘Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the LORD: 8 “As I live,” says the Lord GOD, “surely because My flock became a prey, and My flock became food for every beast of the field, because there was no shepherd, nor did My shepherds search for My flock, but the shepherds fed themselves and did not feed My flock”—

 

[MW]

Although you three have provided reasonable arguements in favour of fencing the table, I have not seen any support for the examination of the elders of the fruit of one's godly walk,nor any scriptural evidence to support the interogation by the elders to investigate the sincerity of the applicant.

What you regard as two things I would regard as one. The fruit is the test of sincerity. The Protestant doctrine of justification is that good works are the fruit and evidence of a lively faith. Looking for the fruit of a sincere profession is fully in keeping with the Protestant commitment to sola fide. The reality is that a Session has no ability to judge a man's eternal state before God; but it does have the ability and obligation to "oversee" the faith and life of those under its care. This includes the outward conduct as an expression of the inward person. It is not as if the Session asks the individual what good works he has been doing. It simply looks to make sure there is nothing "scandalous" in the individual's life which exposes a deficiency in his profession. To be sure, the Scriptures give some clear indicators of scandalous behaviour to be separated from, e.g., divisiveness, Rom. 16, fornication, 1 Cor. 5, idleness, 2 Thess. 3. If these are a basis for brotherly separation then they are also a basis for debarring from the Table.