TRUTH AND JUSTICE AS THE FOUNDATION FOR ECCLESIASTICAL UNITY – 4, NON-CLOSED LORD’S SUPPER (1)

This series of articles focuses on the admission to and the fencing of the Lord’s Supper. This was an important ground for the liberation of LRCA in 2007.

For a proper understanding, it is good to first speak more generally about admission policies and the fencing of the Lord’s Supper, as it should be in accordance with Scripture, the Reformed Confessions, and the Reformed Church Order.

In the Netherlands, the term “open Lord’s Supper” is usually used for a celebration that is open not only to entitled confessing members of the congregation and entitled confessing members of sister churches (with an attestation) but also to other Christians. These other Christians are not allowed to participate in what we commonly practice as closed Lord’s Supper.

There is also another categorization: “open” – “restricted”- “closed”. “Open” means that anyone who wishes may participate. Restricted means that at the very least, one must be a confessing member of a (evangelical) church to partake, usually involving some scrutiny by the consistory. A closed Lord’s Supper, as mentioned earlier, is exclusively for entitled confessing members of their own congregation or a sister church (with attestation, art. 61 CO).

Furthermore, an important aspect regarding admission is how one views the church. Whether as a visible church that meets the criteria of the true church (art. 29 BC) or rather as an invisible church found in various denominations (Westminster Confession). This has an influence on admission to the Lord’s Supper. Especially in Presbyterian churches, the church view of denominationalism is common, which is based on an invisible church (also see the previous articles on confessional membership at this section of the website).

The question arises whether we all think alike on this matter. Hence, I begin with two couple of articles that deal more broadly with the relationship between the church and Lord’s Supper, particularly in connection with what is the practice in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC). The articles were written in 1986 by Prof. J. Geertsema of the Canadian Reformed Churches. He refers to well-known Dutch Reformed authors.

*          *          *          *     *        *        *      *      *     *      *      *       *        *        

Are we sectarian with a closed Lord’s Supper Table?
By Prof. J. Geertsema, From the Clarion, Volume 35, No. 6, March 21, 1986

1. Introduction
The reader may know that there are three different ways in which the Lord’s Supper is administered: at a closed Table, at a restricted Table, and at an open Table. An open Table ( bold SdM) means that every person who attends the service in which the Lord’s Supper is administered and who desires to participate, is invited to do so.

The restricted Table (bold SdM) means that everyone who is a professing Christian and desires to participate is, in principle, allowed to do so. There is, however, this restriction, that the consistory must give its permission. This permission can be obtained through an interview beforehand in which the consistory ascertains that the person requesting to commune with the congregation truly is a professing Christian, a church member in good standing, who is not living in sin. The restriction can be more or less strict. A consistory can decide that in principle every professing Christian is allowed, but it can also determine that the professing Christian must profess the faith as adopted by that church in its creeds and confessions, or anyway in its main doctrines.

The third manner, that of a closed Table (bold SdM), means that participation is only allowed to the communicant members of that local church who are not placed under discipline, or to communicant members of one of the sister churches who have an attestation with them from their home church. Also here a consistory can be more or less strict.

There is among us no difficulty with the open Table. We all agree that an open Table is in conflict with Scripture. If I am not mistaken, the practice in our churches in the past has mainly been that of the closed Table. However, there is no unanimity (anymore) with respect to the acceptance of the closed Table. Some favour very much the restricted Table, adducing even the ground that churches which have a closed Table are sectarian or lean to sectarianism.

It is good, therefore, that we pay attention to this matter and ask ourselves whether we, with our practice of a closed Table, are really sectarian. Let us, however, first listen to some voices from the past and the present.

2. Dr. H. Bouwman, “Reformed Church Polity
When the late Professor H. Bouwman, in his book Gereformeerd Kerkrecht (Reformed Church Polity), II, pp. 386ff., writes about those who commune, he says first of all with respect to those who are members of their own congregation that “the church cannot read in the hearts and judges its members according to the outward marks, namely, of confession and walk of life. It admits to the Table adult members of the congregation who agree with the confession of the church and whose life appears to be irreproachable. And it suspends from the Holy Supper, according to the command of Christ, ‘those who by their confession and life show that they are unbelieving and ungodly.'”

When Bouwman deals with the question “What must be done when strangers desire to take part in the Lord’s Supper?,” he writes: “The rule must be that only members of the church partake in the Lord’s Supper, while those who make known their desire to join the church can receive permission for it [the participation, J.G.] in special cases. It is absolutely necessary that those who come to the Lord’s Supper place themselves under oversight and discipline of the consistory, because otherwise the right and calling of the consistory to keep the Holy Supper holy is taken away from it.

As I understand it, Bouwman speaks here about a person who wants to join. He means to say that, if a person is in the process of joining and of being received as a communicant member of the church, while certain matters delay a conclusion, a consistory can decide to admit such a person to the Table of the Lord before he is officially a member.

Bouwman does not elaborate on the special cases. He does not give examples. That makes it difficult to follow him. We can ask, for instance, how can a person place himself under the oversight and discipline of the consistory while he is not, at the same time, ready to become a member yet? Therefore, it is better to say that one who desires to join should first join and be received as member and then can also with the congregation partake at the Supper of the Lord as member of that body.

Bouwman says the following about those who are really guests. ” ‘Guests’ were always admitted by the church, provided they are guests in truth, that is, members of other Christian churches whose confession sufficiently agreed with their own, and provided they have a valid reason that prevents them from celebrating the Lord’s Supper in their own church. In former days this happened especially with the Lutherans who stayed in places where there was not a Lutheran Church, but only a Reformed one, and vice versa. But the churches have always seen it as a necessity that in such cases the necessary oversight was fully maintained.”

Bouwman adds, “In The Netherlands, where people always have the opportunity to join one of the Reformed Churches, the need for such oversight is even more urgent . . . .” He speaks about a reliable testimony, which, as far as I can see, must mean an attestation.

In the early days of the Reformation, when Reformed and Lutheran people were persecuted, they were often allowed to take part in the Lord’s Supper in each others’ churches, but it also happened that this admission was withdrawn. In this connection those who favour a restricted Table often point at the fact that Professor K. Schilder, when studying in Germany, partook in the celebration of the Holy Supper in a Lutheran Church. Hereby we can make the remark that something is not automatically good because K. Schilder said it or did it.

Bouwman also informs his readers about the situation in the churches of the Secession (1834) and those of the Doleantie (1886). It often happened, he writes, “That members of other churches who did attend the services in these churches, but for some reason did not dare or want to join, asked to partake in the Lord’s Supper celebration, and were allowed to do so a few times.” Bouwman, then gives this comment: “It is good that the consistory does not push away such Christians, provided it always tries to convince them of the abnormality of the situation.”

We finish our listening to what Bouwman says with a quotation from p. 558 in the same volume, where he deals with the necessity of a confession. Bouwman writes there: “The unity in church life requires unity in confession and church organization. Otherwise cooperation is practically impossible. There is a higher unity, namely, the unity in Christ.

A church in a certain region or country may never overlook this unity because otherwise she is in danger of becoming a sectarian circle. In the deepest sense there is a unity between Christians over the whole world, however, distinct and diverse they may be in the manifestation of their faith. One Lord, one faith, one baptism. All those whose hope and faith is based in Christ are one in Him. But in the conceptions and views regarding so many things there is a profound difference. Inclination, character, upbringing, race, history and climate are part of the cause of these differences. This explains the pluriformity in the one Christian church.” Bouwman

also speaks of the invisible church, being all the believers wherever they are.

Coming to a provisional conclusion regarding the view of Bouwman, we can say that there is a connection between his view on the invisible, pluriform church with its higher unity in Christ and the easy acceptance of guests from other denominations at the Table of the Lord. Bouwman’s concept of a higher unity that transcends church walls is the basis for his view on the admittance of members of other churches to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, even when there is no sister or other relationship with such church.

Another thing that I ask the attention for is the fact that Bouwman points out with great emphasis that “it is absolutely necessary” that strangers who are admitted as guests “place themselves under the oversight and discipline of the consistory,” and further, that he calls “abnormal” the situation in which a consistory admits people of other denominations who have not joined the congregation for whatever reasons.

                                                                                                          (to be continued)