The sacraments, have for centuries, been the source of much controversy. Yet, so important are the sacraments, that the fathers listed the second mark of the true church, “the proper administration of the sacraments.” What is the proper administration of the sacraments? First, the number of sacraments must be determined. In the New Testament we find that Christ has instituted two sacraments, Holy Baptism and the Holy Supper, in place of the two Old Testament sacraments of Circumcision and the Passover. Among other things,¹ proper administration of the sacrament of Holy Baptism will involve determining the mode (immersion, pouring, sprinkling) and to whom the sacrament is to be administered. Much has been written concerning baptism. For those of the Reformed faith, the proper administration of this sacrament is by sprinkling administered to believers and their children including infants. It is the sign and seal of the covenant grace that God made with believers and their children (cf. Genesis 17:7; Acts. 2:39).

In the case of the Holy Supper, the proper administration involves the use of bread and wine and who are to be admitted to the table of the Lord which brings us to the “fencing of the table” and who are to come to the table of the Lord?

The church at Corinth had failed to concern itself with this question. Rather, they became proud of their liberal tolerance and it brought public scandal upon the church. “It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife” (1 Corinthians 5:1). We can make several observations from this verse:

1. The sin was well known. It was no secret scandal. To put it in modern terms, it was front page news. Everyone knew about it!
    
2. The sin was incestuous. The man was committing this abomination with his mother or possibly, stepmother, contrary to Old Testament marriage laws which are still binding upon the church (cf. Leviticus 18). 
    
3. While the church was complacent, the godless Gentiles were repulsed by this sin, a sin that the Romans prohibited by law.

Sadly, the Corinthians were not repulsed. They had been wallowing in this kind of immorality so long, that they failed to see the filth of this situation. That’s what happens when a church no longer practices discipline over its members. The apostle Paul rebukes them for their liberal tolerance and then explains how situations like this should be handled: (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:2-5) Paul exhorts the church to apply correction in the name and power of Jesus Christ, If the church fails to do so, they only invite further moral decay and jeopardize the spiritual purity of the entire congregation. The church is to excommunicate sinning members, releasing them into Satan’s domain, the world. The goal of this harsh action is not punishment, but always for the mending of the person who has sinned that he might repent and be restored to the church.

Paul goes on to make the point that because we are all part of the body of Christ, we directly affect each other for good or bad: “Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?” (1 Corinthians 5:6b). As leaven, or yeast, invades every part of the dough, so one Christian’s sin can corrupt an entire congregation. So Paul tells them: “Purge out therefore the old leaven,that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened” (1 Corinthians 5:7a). Paul then reminds the Corinthians of their position in Christ, and he encourages them to start living like the new, “unleavened” creatures they are. Christ’s sacrifice should motivate them toward purity, because He paid a dear price to free them from sin: “For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (1 Corinthians 5:7b-8). Christ has become our passover and so our feast is now the Lord’s Supper. In preparation for our spiritual feast, we should examine our hearts in order that sin be put away from us.

Paul continues with his instruction in 1 Corinthians 5:9-11: We can’t separate or isolate ourselves from this immoral world. That’s been attempted in the past, but it’s impossible and resulted in nonsense. Rather, we are to remain separate from them in that we do not become one with them in their immorality. However, unless we left the world, we will continue to rub shoulders with them as we live and work in this world. But with regard to the church, it is different. Allowing an offending member of the church to go uncorrected brings dishonor upon the Lord and His Church is defamed. Such must be judged and removed: “But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person. For what have I to do to with judging them also who are outside? Do not you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God judges. Therefore put away from yourselves the evil person” (1 Corinthians 5:11-13).It is at this point that the question, Who may come to the table of the Lord?, becomes applicable. Self-discipline, spiritual oversight, and church discipline are closely connected to celebrating and administering the Lord’s Supper. The sacrament is to be kept holy. It is the most intimate expression of our separation from sin and the world, and of our deliverance and holiness in Christ. It is to be guarded and protected from sin and scandal.

How is this to be accomplished? First of all, each one must examine his or her own heart: (H.C. #81 speaks of this). The warning in the form for the Lord’s Supper in our Directory of Worship that “the uninstructed, the profane, the scandalous and those who secretly and impenitently live in any sin not approach the holy table,” implies self-examination as well even though such a warning may be ignored.

Secondly, the church, through its properly ordained officers, must be concerned and vigilant for the purity and holiness of this sacrament. Such concern, vigilance, and oversight is clearly implied in H.C. #82: “Are they then also to be ADMITTED…? The word, “ADMITTED,” clearly implies restriction, a fencing or guarding of this sacrament. Otherwise, admission has no meaning. Again, the church, through its office of elder, exercises this oversight. Elders must take this responsibility very seriously. The Bible, and therefore the H.C. as well, points out the terrible judgment that can fall upon an entire congregation when there is no concern and proper fencing or guarding of the table of the Lord. Paul elaborates on this later in this letter: 1 Corinthians 11:27-32. When there is no fencing of the table of the Lord, the covenant of God is profaned and His wrath provoked against the whole congregation.

Some churches and denominations, in order to fulfill this weighty responsibility, have what is termed, “closed communion,” meaning that the table is restricted to only the members of the local congregation, provided they are not under discipline. There is the tendency to look upon such a restriction as being too exclusive, narrow-minded and judgmental, as if they alone are Christians. (How quickly we can judge others rashly and unheard!) Rather, we should ask and understand what is the purpose of closed communion. When we do, we will find that it is one way to guard the purity of the sacrament. Elders, after all, are first and foremost responsible for the spiritual oversight of the members of the flock or church where God has placed them. They know them because they labor among them. They are to have their spiritual welfare at heart. They do not have this same knowledge or oversight of visitors or non-members. That belongs to the elders of the church of which those people are members. This oversight is clearly implied in the words of question 82 of the H.C.: “…who show themselves by their confession and life to be unbelieving and ungodly.” Who, but the local elders, are able to judge this? On the other hand, what can be known about the life of a visitor or non-member if there has been no such observation by the elders?  That’s the reasoning or purpose for “closed communion. Thus we see that it’s not so exclusivistic as some make it out to be.

However, the RCUS, as a denomination, has not practiced “closed communion.” Nonetheless, the elders are still to be as concerned for the purity and holiness of the sacrament. In an effort to take this responsibility seriously and to guard the sacrament, visitors and non-members must seek admission from the elders. Admission will be granted if two conditions or requirements are met:

1. Such have the same belief concerning the sacrament.
    
2. Such are in good and regular standing with their own church. These requirements are in conformity to Article 189 of the Constitution of the RCUS to which we vow adherence. A word, then, about each of these conditions:

First, that visitors or non-members believe the same as we do concerning the sacrament: The sacrament is not to be separated from the Word and according to H.C. #67, both the Word and the Sacraments are designed to direct our faith to the one sacrifice of Christ on the cross as the only ground of our salvation. There must be consistency. The sacraments cannot be administered or practiced apart from what the Word teaches us. In the Lord’s Supper we express in the most intimate way, our unity and oneness in the Lord. The Bible asks, “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” (Amos 3:3). In Ephesians 4:4-6 the Word teaches us: “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as you are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.”  So how ecumenical may we be? If we, on the basis of God’s Word and our confessions, cannot merge with the RCC, or liberal Protestant churches, or Arminian churches, how can we unite with them around the table of the Lord? With regard to the very sacrament itself, there are major differences concerning the presence of Christ. Some believe that the bread and wine are miraculously changed into the real body and blood of Christ. Others believe that the physical flesh and blood of Christ are in, with, and under the bread and wine, though they have not actually changed. Still others believe that the bread and wine are but symbols of the body and blood of Christ and the Supper is only a memorial ceremony. And then there is the view that Christ is spiritually present in the bread and wine and that we feed upon Him as we embrace by faith His suffering and death. In order for there to be true unity, we must have the same belief concerning this sacrament and that belief must be according to the Word. The Heidelberg Catechism teaches us the biblical view of this sacrament (cf. 75, 76, 78, 79).

The second condition for admission to the table of the Lord is: Visitors or non-members must be in good and regular standing with their home church. This requirement is concerned with whether a person is under discipline and trying to escape or circumvent such discipline by going elsewhere. Yes, one could lie when asked about this, but at least the church has, through its elders, fulfilled its responsibility. At the same time, making this a condition for admission implies a confidence and trust in the oversight of fellow elders in sister congregations and denominations, and that they have fulfilled their responsibility with regard to the visitors. It also recognizes the bond of communion believers have beyond the walls of the local congregation.

When the basis and purpose of these two conditions is properly understood, no one should be offended when asked these questions. Never are we to be ashamed of the gospel. The Bible says that “we are to be ready always to give an answer to every man that asks of us a reason for the hope that is in us” (1 Peter 3:15), “for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation”  (Romans 10:10).

If I visit an orthodox church that practices “closed communion,” and must sit and observe, I may not fully agree, but I am not offended because I know it’s their way of guarding the purity of the sacrament.

When I visit another orthodox church where I am questioned concerning my understanding of the sacrament and my standing in my home church before being allowed to partake of the sacrament, I am not in the least bit offended. Rather it encourages and gladdens my heart, because it tells me that this church and its elders takes seriously their responsibility to guard the purity of this holy sacrament. So should you.

We see from the example of the Corinthian church how lax and scandalous a church can become. Let us heed the warning! Let us guard the Holy Supper!