Second part of the first article “Are we sectarian with a closed Lord’s Supper Table?”
By Prof. J. Geertsema, (From the Clarion, Volume 35, No. 6, March 21, 1986)
3. Dr. F.L. Rutgers, “Advice for the Churches”
It is also good to listen here to Professor F.L. Rutgers. He writes in Kerkelijke Adviezen (Advice for the Churches), II, p.156 about the question, “is it allowed to admit members of other denominations in the same place as guests to the Lord’s Supper? Rutgers advises, “in my opinion, a Dutch Reformed (Hervormd) person cannot and may not be admitted to the Holy Supper by a Reformed consistory, when he objects (for whatever reasons) to place himself under the oversight and discipline of that consistory, which, of course, can only happen by joining the Reformed Church [Italics added, J.G.]. If things are done differently, the admission to the Lord’s Supper is given over to arbitrariness and disorder, and a policy is followed with which the consistory loses the only means to keep the Lord’s Supper holy.
Rutgers continues: “I do understand that there can be various motives which urge a ‘Dutch Reformed’ or ‘Lutheran’ or ‘Baptist’ or ‘Roman Catholic’ to remain nominally and formally in the church with which he broke already spiritually, even though there is an instituted Reformed Church in the place where he lives, and even though he feels that he belongs to that (Reformed) Church. These motives can be family circumstances, fear of financial disadvantage, and so on, which are certainly ‘extenuating circumstances’ for his ecclesiastical unfaithfulness to the King of the Church. But they cannot make him go scotfree. A consistory, in my opinion, may not cooperate in making him think that way. This certainly would happen when a person in such a wrong position would be treated as if his situation was not abnormal.”
We notice that Rutgers is stricter than Bouwman. Bouwman is of the opinion that members of other denominations who do not join the Reformed Church can be admitted under certain circumstances. Rutgers says: it cannot be done. It is wrong. It undermines the right and duty of the consistory and it allows for, and cooperates in, the continuation of a sinful, unfaithful attitude.
4. The Reformation Church in Blue Bell
Last year the Reformation Church in Blue Bell was admitted to the federation of our churches. The reader may remember that I quoted extensively from a report that the consistory of this church issued first of all for the churches in Ontario South. This report dealt with the controversy in this church that led to its request to be admitted to the federation of the American and Canadian Reformed Churches. This report has also a chapter on “Restricted Communion.”
The Blue Bell Church was originally Orthodox Presbyterian. The question whether the OPC should have an open, a restricted or a closed Lord’s Supper Table played an important role in the discussions. Before this already the Tri-County Reformed Church of Maryland separated from the OPC mainly because of the matter of “fencing” the Lord’s Supper. According to the Tri-County Reformed Church, as well as the Blue Bell Church, the practice in the OPC is too free. Another Presbyterian denomination, the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, as I understand, has the practice of a closed Table. It shows that not all conservative Presbyterian Churches think the same and have the same practice.
It should interest us what the brothers of the Blue Bell Church say in their report on this point. The chapter on “Restricted Communion” follows that on “Confessional Membership.” The brothers write that the two matters are closely connected. Quoting James Bannerman, The Church of Christ, vol. 1., pp. 297ff., they say, “it is only by insisting upon this unity of confession that the true unity of the church is manifested.”
They also write, “If the Reformed faith is true, then everyone and not just office holders – must cling to its truth.” All should agree with this.
Discussing then “Restricted Communion,” the brothers say, “On the basis of the preceding, it is also clear that the Lord’s Table must be restricted to those who profess the true Reformed religion. The Directory of Worship [of the OPC, J.G.] teaches that no one may come to the Lord’s Table prior to public profession of faith (v. 4) and, in the same way, access to the Table is one of the rights of membership (v. 5). Thus since it is Biblical and confessional to require that those who would be members of the church confess the true Reformed religion, it is obvious that access to the Table is also restricted to those who profess the true Reformed religion.”
We read further, “One cannot say that there are those outside the visible body of Christ and yet who are entitled to the outward sign and seal of the covenant. Nor can one argue that ‘teachability’ qualifies one for the Table. First, teachability is not given in Scripture as a prerequisite for admission to the Table. Second, just what ‘teachability’ (or ‘sincerity,’ or ‘Christian character,’ for that matter) is has never been made clear, nor can it be for it is a subjective criterion. The Table ought not be used to ‘win’ people, nor to show the communion of the saints to those with a different confession. The Table is for those who confess the truth.”
It is obvious that the Blue Bell brothers write against the views of those in the Presbytery of Philadelphia in the OPC who were their opponents and had different views.
They write also, “The term ‘restricted communion’ needs, however, to be more closely defined. Restricted communion is not to be confused with closed communion. The latter position would limit access to the Table to the members of one congregation; in its most virulent forms, it would restrict communion to those who ‘knew’ beyond doubt their election and who could demonstrate that election to the satisfaction of the elders [We recognize here the practice of, e.g., subjectivistic, Old Reformed circles, J.G.]. Restricted communion does not fence the Table in such a way as to keep out those who have a right to partake. On the contrary, restricted communion opens the Table to those to whom it belongs. But it opens the Table by following the objective command of Christ and not by setting up various manmade subjective criteria.
“Restricted communion, then, involves the elders and revolves about their proper exercise of the keys of the kingdom. The Table is not open to every individual; and it is not up to the individual to decide whether or not he ought to partake. That is the role of the elders. It is their duty to ensure that all who partake at the Table fulfill the Biblical requirements for Table fellowship …. The elders must see to it that they uphold the Word of God. And this they do by applying the Biblical criteria: a profession of the true religion, a godly life, and membership in a true Church.
“That is, God has entrusted this ordinance to the church (WCF [Westminter Confession of Faith, J.G.] XXV. 3; XXIX. 1). The Lord’s Supper, then, is not to be administered to an individual irrespective of his relationship to the church, which is the covenant people of God, united in confession of the true Reformed religion (WCF XXIV. 3; XXV. 2). That is, the Lord’s Supper is only for those who have professed this true Reformed religion, have made this profession credible in their lives, and are members in good and regular standing in the true Church (1 Cor. 12:13; WCF XXIA. 1, XXX. 3.).”
These words concerning the duty of the elders regarding the admittance to the Lord’s Supper show good Reformed thinking and should have our full agreement. The report also says the following: “Objections [against the three above-mentioned criteria, J.G.] which take their starting point in either an invisible church doctrine, or in a doctrine of union with Christ which is abstracted from church membership, run aground on the rocks of Deuteronomy 29:29 [bold face added, J.G.].
To argue that ‘union with Christ’- that is, mystical union – is the prerequisite for Table fellowship requires the elder to be able to read the heart of the person requesting admittance.”
Herewith I conclude this overview. Next time I hope to deal further with this matter and come to a conclusion. But I can say now already that I find the last paragraph which I quoted from the Blue Bell report of the greatest significance. Keep these words in mind. The Blue Bell view is not far from the closed Table view as was prevalent in our church federation.
(to be continued)