Finally the second part of the second article by prof. J. Geertsema from the Clarion.
A closed Lord’s Supper Table is not proof of a sectarian spirit but shows ecclesiastical faithfulness – Prof. J. Geertsema, From the Clarion Volume 35, No. 7 April 4, 1986
The invisible church concept as basis for the rejection of the closed Table
What Professor F. L. Rutgers wrote, and was quoted in our previous article, is fully in line with what we have stated above. Rutgers said that a Reformed consistory should not admit to the Table of the Lord a person who belongs to the Dutch Reformed (Hervormde) Church, when this person refuses to place himself under the oversight and discipline of the consistory by joining the Reformed Church. Acting otherwise leads to arbitrariness and disorder, according to Rutgers. The confession must be maintained that this person “acts contrary to the ordinance of God.”
When we apply all this to our own situation, it can be clear that a Reformed consistory which does not open, but closes, the Table of the Lord to Christians of other denominations in its area or country, acts in faithful adherence to its adopted confession, taking that confession seriously.
Obviously, working with what we confess in Art. 28 and 29 leads to different conclusions and practices than working with the concept of the pluriformity of the church and with that of an invisible church besides the visible congregation. But working with Art. 28 can certainly not be called sectarian, or Art. 28 itself must be a sectarian article.
We should act in an ecclesiastical manner, not in an individualistic and subjectivistic way
The Blue Bell Reformation Church’s report states that the Table of the Lord should be restricted by a Reformed consistory to those who made profession of the Reformed faith, live accordingly and are members of the true church. I can agree with that.
But a very important question that now comes up is, who determines which church is a true church whose members can be admitted? Is that the minister of a local church? Is that the consistory of that local congregation? Are we not a federation of churches? And has the recognition of other churches as true churches of Christ not always been acknowledged to be a matter of the whole federation, not of individual persons or churches?
Professor D.P.D. Fabius, LL.D., who taught law at the Free University, wrote a brochure in 1918, which he gave the title, Kerkelijk Leven. I may refer here to the introductory article in the 1986 Yearbook. The good Reformed message in that brochure is that we must act ecclesiastically, and not individualistically, not following our own personal subjective feelings and views.
The brochure was written as an objection to the individualistic act of a Rev. Netelenbos who took the freedom to preach as Reformed minister in a Dutch Reformed Church and defended this act as an act of confessing and practicing the “higher unity in Christ” beyond our human church walls.
I see an admitting of Christians of other denominations to the Table of the Lord when those denominations are not officially acknowledged by our federation of churches as true Churches of Christ in the same light: it is acting unecclesiastically, individualistically, going by one’s own personal or consistorial opinion. And with Fabius, I have objections here. Acting unecclesiastically leads to arbitrariness and disorder. Also on this point we must act decently and with good ecclesiastical order (1 Cor.14:40).
When so the federation of the churches has acknowledged an other church group as true Churches of Christ Jesus and a sister church relationship has been established according to that acknowledgment, the pulpit is open and so is the Table. As I see it, the restricted Table of the Blue Bell Congregation, and the closed Table as many of our Canadian Reformed Churches practice it, are basically the same.
But what about the “higher unity” in Christ?
But do we, herewith, deny any unity in Christ with believers outside our own federation and the sister churches abroad? No we do not. I know quite a few true, faithful, sincere Christians, not belonging to one of our churches, who heartily love the Lord and seek to serve Him in obedience to His Word. And I am sad about the fact that we do not go to the same church and sit at the same Table of the Lord. As far as faith in Christ and love for Him is concerned, there is a strong bond. We are children of the same Father in heaven.
However, when “my” church federation cannot merge or have a sister relationship with their church groups for reasons of doctrine and/or church government, or rather for Biblical and confessional reasons, and when so Scripture and confession are the foundation upon which the separating church walls are built, do I, or does my consistory, have the right to act as if those separating church walls all of a sudden do not exist anymore when it comes to the Table of the Lord? Must we maintain church walls on the basis of Scripture and confession, when it comes to the church federation, but break those walls down when it comes to individual participation at the Table of the Lord? To me, that is being inconsistent, to say the least. To me, this is misusing that so called higher unity.
We should not create a concept of a higher unity in Christ that can be placed over against the confessional and organizational unity in Christ and in the church. Such a concept tends to break down church walls built upon the foundation of Scripture and confession. It tends to undermine obedience to the Lord in matters of church membership, to diminish ecclesiastical faithfulness and sincerity. And it so easily brings confusion in the congregation.
If separating church walls are a matter of obedience to God’s Word and in accordance with the adopted confession of the church which is based on Scripture, it is the calling of the churches to maintain those walls both for the church federation and for individual members.
But is a closed/restricted (Blue Bell) Table not a denial of the catholic church and, herewith, a sectarian viewpoint? When a church has a confession that is fully based upon the Scriptures and faithfully adheres to that confession, in obedience to the Scriptures, that church acts in accordance with the catholic faith in a catholic manner. One may read here K. Schilder’s speech Your Ecumenical Task, published by the ILPB in London, ON.
Our conclusion is: a Table that is opened to Christians of other denominations, especially in the same area or country, with which our churches have no relationship, undermines ecclesiastical faithfulness, dims the sharpness of ecclesiastical obedience, and works confusion. And the accusation that a closed Table is sectarian does the very same things.
A closed/restricted Table as we have it should rather be seen as confessional sincerity and ecclesiastical fidelity, and it is being honest to fellow Christians with whom we long to sit at the same Table in the same true Church of Christ.
This the end of both articles of prof. J. Geertsema.
(to be continued)