No Longer Quiet⤒🔗

For the longest time in my ministry the Lord’s Supper was what you might call “the quiet sacrament.” In other words, very few questions were asked about it and little or no controversy swirled around it.

Naturally, this differs quite a bit from the time of the sixteenth century when the Lord’s Supper was the centre of a great deal of debate and disagreement. Why, it even led to more than a few wars!

At the same time this sacrament is also different from that other sacrament of holy baptism which has always attracted its share of fireworks. How much water, what’s in the water, and who gets the water have been perennial issues. Over against all of this the Lord’s Supper seemed to have become the mellow sacrament.

Yet that has changed! Once again there are churches also in our federation who struggle with this sacrament. They struggle not so much with what it means or how to interpret and understand it, as with how to administer it. Common cup, multiple cups, wine and/or grape juice, sitting at table or in the pew, all of these aspects are being debated.

Admission←⤒🔗

And so is something else. It has to do with admission, specifically the admission of guests. When it comes to them, the question is whether or not to maintain a position of restricted (close) communion or move to one of open communion?

Now, it has to be said that this is not a loud debate at the moment. There are not a lot of people championing this cause in our circles but on occasion there are questions, and sometimes there are complaints, and even accusations. So before the questions multiply and the complaints turn shrill, it may be of benefit to look a little closer at this matter. How should the church of Jesus Christ deal with guests at the Lord’s Supper?

Different Approaches – Closed or Open←⤒🔗

A quick survey reveals that historically there have been three different answers to this question. Some churches such as the Roman Catholic Church and some Baptist and Lutheran churches have adopted a closed communion approach. This means that only members of that particular church or federation may partake of the sacrament and no others. In this approach the key to admission is being a member of that church and/or being the recipient of a particular practice of that church. For example, there are Baptist churches which insist that only those who have undergone complete water immersion are qualified to partake of the Supper.

At the other end of the scale there is the more recent, and perhaps more prevalent, practice of open communion. It holds that all who consider themselves to be believers or Christians are welcome to participate. In this situation the local church leaves the matter of eating and drinking solely up to the conscience and responsibility of those who are present. All the guests who feel so inclined may join in. It does not matter what church they belong to, what their doctrinal views are, or what their lifestyle is like, it is up to them. If they partake, they and they alone, not the church, will have to answer for it.

In between these extremes of closed and open communion, there is a third approach. It is not that widespread but it is practiced by any number of Reformed, Presbyterian, and other churches around the world. It is called “restricted” or “close” communion.

It goes out from the perspective that admission to the sacrament is not just a matter of individual choice and responsibility. Also the local church and its office bearers must have a say in this matter. Indeed, the latter ultimately determine under what conditions guests may partake. The hosting church thus sets the conditions.

Restricted or Close←⤒🔗

Now even within the circle of those churches who practice restricted or close communion, conditions can and do vary. Some of these churches fence the table with a stern verbal warning and stress to both members and visitors that if they partake carelessly, they will bring judgment on themselves. They thus restrict verbally, but is that sufficient? Other churches in this camp insist on an interview with all guests and, depending on the result of that interview, admit or do not admit them. Still others request guests to read a written statement, answer a number of pertinent questions about their beliefs, lifestyle, and church membership and ask them to sign on the dotted line. After this they inform the home church that so and so has celebrated the sacrament with them. Then too there are a few churches like us in the Canadian Reformed federation who urge members to use written attestations or letters of testimony in order to secure admission as guests.

Which Is Biblical?←⤒🔗

In light of these three different general approaches, the question may be asked, “Which approach is right? Which is most in line with what Scripture teaches? Which practice should a local church adopt and administer?”

Catholic – Not Closed←⤒🔗

Well, let us consider the closed position. What is it saying? In the case of the Roman Catholic Church it is saying that only the Roman Church is the true church of Christ and those only those who are members of it may partake of his body and blood. Some other churches insist on the same exclusiveness and thus maintain the same restriction. They are saying “to partake you need to be on our church rolls.”

Needless to say, there is something easy and convenient about this approach. No interviews are required, no letters need to be read and no announcements have to be made.

But is it in step with the biblical teaching about the church? Specifically, what does it say about the catholic, universal character of the church? Is the church after Pentecost not a body composed of peoples from all tribes and nations? Is it not on the march to that eschatological church depicted in Revelation 4, 5, and 21?

A careful study of the book of Acts points out that the apostles embraced believers in many places. They did not say to them, “First join the church in Jerusalem and then we will recognize you as fellow believers and admit you to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper.” At the Supper of our Lord room and opportunity must be made for all those who believe and confess the “catholic and undoubted Christian faith” (HC, LD 7, A. 22).

Holy – Not Open←⤒🔗

If “closed” is not the way to go, what then about “open”? Is the matter of partaking not a matter of individual choice and responsibility? Should the Lord’s Supper not be open to all?

Again, it may be pointed out that also this approach is easy for a local church. From time to time it may be accompanied with somewhat of a warning from the pulpit, but often even that does not happen. It is all up to you! And that’s OK as far as many people are concerned. They will tell you that it is not the task of the church to judge anyone anyway.

True enough! Of course, judgment belongs to the Lord! Read Romans 14 and so forth.

But is that all there is to it? What about the fact that the Lord’s Supper is supposed to be a holy meal (1 Corinthians 10:14-22; 1 Corinthians 11:17-34)? What else does it signify and seal but the broken body and shed blood of our Saviour (Matthew 26:20-30; Mark 14:17-26, Luke 22:14-30; John 13:21-30)? In short, this Supper is no ordinary supper. It is a special, unique, singular, and spiritual supper.

In addition, it is also a dangerous supper. Some church members in Corinth discovered that too late. In 1 Corinthians 10, the Apostle Paul warns the believers that they cannot eat from two different tables. You either eat from the Lord’s Table and are blessed or you eat from the table of demons and are on the receiving end of “the Lord’s jealousy” (1 Corinthians 10:22).

In 1 Corinthians 11 he says that they should not be surprised by the fact that some of them are weak, sick, and that even a few have died. That’s what happens when you eat and drink casually and do not recognize the holy and special character of the body of the Lord (1 Corinthians 11:29).

In Corinth, they practiced a form of open communion and the results were plain to see!

Catholic, Holy – Restricted←⤒🔗

Where does this leave us? First, it leaves us with the need to acknowledge that the Lord’s Supper is a meal for all true believers. Second, it tells us that this is a special meal that needs to be handled with great care.

Fine, but how does one work this out? The answer lies with the elders of the church! Paul says to the elders of the church at Ephesus and to elders everywhere,

Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own bloodActs 20:28

Elsewhere he says that it are the elders who “direct the affairs of the church” (1 Timothy 5:17). Also, the writer of Hebrews tells us that “they keep watch over you as men who must give an account” (Hebrews 13:17).

In light of these and other references, it remains exceedingly odd that there are churches out there who consider themselves biblically based but who have no elders. As for churches who have them, it stands to reason that they have been called to play a vital role in all of the affairs of the church, and that surely must include the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. How can something so special and so important fail to attract their attention? Do they not have a calling to promote its catholic character? Should they not be concerned about its holiness? How can they fail to protect, as much as they can, any and all from drinking judgment to themselves?

Summing Up←⤒🔗

Hence it falls within the task of the elders to safeguard this sacrament. They are to keep watch over the members in their charge, admitting to it those in good standing. At the same time they are to see to it that the guests who are welcomed and received profess the Reformed faith and lead a godly life.               

Two things then go hand in hand here. First, members and guests are to engage in a sincere searching of their hearts. Second, elders are to keep watch over the welfare of the flock and the holiness of the table of the Lord. Together it’s a recipe for blessing!