In the first 6 articles on “non-closed Lord’s Supper” the focus has been on admission to the Lord’s Supper in the OPC as it was in the past. In this and the following article, I will address the following questions consecutively:
- What is the practice of admission to the Lord’s Supper in the OPC in this time?
- What is the practice of admission in other Presbyterian churches?
- How have the CanRC, who have a kind of sister church relationship with the OPC since 2001 (a so-called ecclesiastical fellowship, EF), judged the admission to the Lord’s Supper in the OPC?
- What is the practice of admission in the URC, with whom the CanRC also have a EF relationship?
- What is the present practice of admission in the congregations of the CanRC?
- How do DGK assess a non-closed Lord’s Supper?
1. What is the practice of admission to the Lord’s Supper in the OPC in this time?
This admission is clearly defined in the so-called Church Order book (Book of Church-Order) of 2020. See also: https://www.opc.org/BCO/DPW.html#Chapter_III . In Chapter III, C., pages 152 and 153 under the heading “Invitation and Fencing the Table,” it states:
“The minister shall then declare who may come to, and who are excluded from, the Lord’s Table according to the Word of God. He may use the following or like words:
It is my privilege as a minister of Christ to invite all who are right with God and his church, through faith in the Lord Jesus, to come to the Lord’s Table.
If you have received Christ and are resting upon him alone for salvation, as he is offered to you in the gospel, if you are a baptized and professing communicant member in good standing in a church that professes the gospel of God’s free grace in Jesus Christ, and if you live penitently and seek to walk in godliness before the Lord, then this Supper is for you, and I invite you in Christ’s name to eat the bread and drink the cup.”
Subsequently, a warning from the pulpit suffices, stating that all those who do not meet the above conditions will receive the Lord’s punishment.
It should be noted that members and guests are not required to adhere to the reformed confession, that guests do not need to have a membership of a true church according to criteria corresponding to Article 29 of the Belgic Confession, and that they, if requested, may give self-testimony of their life.
On the OPC website, specific attention is given to the fact that Anglicans, Baptists, and Arminians, among others, are also allowed to partake in the Lord’s Supper. (For more information, see my article “Truth and Justice as the Foundation for Unity – 2 – No Binding (1),” with links to the OPC site).
2. What is the practice of admission in other Presbyterian churches?
The view of the churches that also have an EF relationship with the CanRC is similar to that of the OPC. This is evident from the reports of the deputies for foreign relations of the CanRC, as recorded in the Acts of 2004 (Synod Chatham) and 2007 (Synod Smithers). For clarity, I have quoted certain passages verbatim with a reference to the source.
a. Free Church of Scotland FCS), Free Church of Scotland continuing (FCC)
Report to Synod 2007 from CRCA (https://canrc.org/documents/8029) page 13:
“Other visitors are urged to approach the minister or an elder in advance, or are met by one of these on the Sunday. The decision whether or not to admit anyone as a guest ultimately rests with the Kirk Session of that congregation. As a result, this person may be granted permission on the basis of his oral attest.
The FCS does not know confessional membership. They will extend membership to people with Baptist or Pentecostal convictions, however, such persons are restricted from being elected to the offices in the church.
Our practice of doing profession of faith after receiving years of catechetical instruction is unknown to them. They instruct their children in special programs, comparable to Sunday school classes, and allow children to become communicant members when they express this desire even at an early age, sometimes as early as age 8 -12. These youngsters must first follow a class for communicants. They are not admitted on the basis of the Sunday School training or because they have communicant parents; rather, the reasoning is that the Holy Spirit works differently in people of different ages. The admission of children to communicant membership is still relatively infrequent.”
With regard to binding to the confession in the Free Church continuing (FCC), the deputies noted the following (page 16):
“Confessional Membership was our next topic. It was explained how we in the CanRCs envision that whoever has professed his faith is expected to uphold the confessions of the church to which he has pledged his agreement. The FCC practice, like that in the OPC, allows for differences of opinion.
People holding Baptistic views are permitted membership, and through discussion, attempts are made to convince them to accept the FCC doctrine of paedo-baptism. It is possible that such parents, when a child is born, may not ask for the administration of the sacrament. The issue will be addressed, but the parents will not be forced to comply.
A man holding such views, or any other male who does not subscribe to the Westminster Confession, will not be eligible to be elected to the office of elder or deacon. Our practice of instruction, agreement and the possibility of having it result in disciplinary action was mentioned.”
b. Presbyterian Churches of Korea PCK)
Report of CRCA to Synod 2004 page 17,18 (https://canrc.org/assemblies/general-synod/2004):
“The committee communicated with the PCK concerning the Lord’s Supper, confessional membership we concluded that this was not something previously unknown. In the Committee Report to Synod 1983, it was stated that the PCK form of government is in line with “classic Presbyterian Form of Government. It differs not at all from the principles of Presbyterian church government as found with the OPC, the Free Church at Scotland, and so on” (Acts 1983, 320).
Report of CCRA to Synod 2007 (https://canrc.org/documents/8029) page 37:
“Visitors who request admission are questioned on a number of matters to affirm their faithfulness before they are invited to attend. At the time of celebration, the pastor gives a verbal warning that those attending must be baptized and must not have led a sinful and unworthy lifestyle.
When members move to another church they are to be given an attestation, with or without annotation. (The implementation of this rule has proven to be difficult.) The information received was similar to that as reported to Synod Chatham 2004. The differences in confession and church polity are mostly cultural and historical and are similar to those of our other Presbyterian sister churches.”
Based on the mentioned reports, it appears that, similar to the OPC, there is also no requirement of binding to the Reformed confession in a practice of non-closed Lord’s Supper in these Scottish and Korean Presbyterian churches. This includes self-testimony for guests. Members and guests with doctrinal errors may be welcome.
3. How have the CanRC, who have a kind of sister-church relationship with the OPC since 2001 (a so-called Ecclesiastical Fellowship, EF), judged the admission to the Lord’s Supper in the OPC?
In 2001, during the CanRC Synod Neerlandia, an Agreement was established when entering into an EF relationship with the OPC, involving pulpit exchange and participation in each other’s communion celebrations. This Agreement states the following regarding supervision of admission to the Lord’s Supper (“supervising the admission to the Lord’s Supper”):
“The churches of the Reformation confess that the Lord’s Supper should not be profaned (1 Cor. 11:27, see Heidelberg Catechism Lord’s Day 30, Q&A 82; Westminster Confession of Faith XXIX.8). This implies that the celebration of the Lord’s Supper is to be supervised.
In this supervision the church exercises discipline and manifests itself as a true church.
This supervision is to be applied to the members of the local church as well as to the guests. The eldership has a responsibility in supervising the admission to the Lord’s Supper.”
The last sentence seems to suggest that the supervision is in order, but that is certainly not the case. This is evident from the amendment made by the Synod in 2001 compared to the original text proposal drafted by the CanRC Synod Fergus in 1998. The proposal from Synod Fergus 1998, preceding the last aforementioned sentence of the Neerlandia Agreement, had a specific instruction for the implementation of the supervision of the Lord’s Supper:
“This means that a general verbal warning by the officiating minister alone is not sufficient, and that a profession of the Reformed faith and a confirmation of a godly life is required.”
This passage was removed by Synod Neerlandia 2001 without any explanation.
As a result, the CanRC agrees that an OPC church council is sufficient with only a general warning from the pulpit. The CanRC may also consider this adequate for visitors from the OPC who do not have a certificate. All objections to this, including those from CanRC Abbotsford, have been rejected by Synod Chatham 2004 and subsequent synods.
After 2004, the CanRC struggled for years on many synods with the OPC’s practice of lack of binding to the confession and the absence of required supervision of the Lord’s Supper, but these practices were never condemned. These matters were referred to as “outstanding divergencies” for a long time.
Meanwhile, the CanRC Synod of Dunville 2016, in response to new appeals, made a special statement. Letters from CanRC Fergus-Maranatha and CanRC Lynden expressed concerns about the aforementioned divergencies, urging action. However, the synod responded that it no longer wanted to consider these issues as outstanding differences that needed resolution. The reason mentoned was that further discussion on these matters would damage the EF relationship with the OPC.
4. What is the practice of admission in the URC, with whom the CanRC also have a EF relationship?
These churches had separated from the Christian Reformed Churches (CRC, similar to synodal churches) in the past. In their new church order, no attestation is required anymore to be admitted to the Lord’s Supper. Self-testimony is also sufficient there.
(to be continued)