Perhaps nothing so scandalizes the contemporary (i.e., modern) church as the attempt by the visible church to obey the teaching of Jesus and the teaching of the Apostles concerning the Lord’s Table. I say this for three reasons: 1) recently I have been bombarded with questions from correspondents asking about fencing the table; 2) we have been discussing it as a consistory; 3) few things have so upset (a few) visitors as being told they should abstain from the table.
Americans (or at least American evangelicals) are an autonomous, egalitarian, rebellious, and independent lot. It is a fundamental assumption of American evangelicals that, having entered into a personal, private relationship with the risen Christ, they are entitled to commune in any and every visible, institutional church they will. John Wesley said that the world was his parish, but American evangelicals seem to believe that the world is their congregation. They may be members of no visible church, at least none that any self-respecting Reformed congregation should recognize (see Belgic Confession 29), but they consider it their birthright to act as if they are members of all congregations, even if they submit to the discipline of none and certainly not to the congregation where they hope to commune.
I once heard a well-meaning but misguided missions professor tell a seminary class, “Now men, when you go on the mission field, you mustn’t challenge peoples’ basic assumptions.” With all due respect, nonsense! That is exactly what we must do, whether in North America or in South America, whether in the Northern Hemisphere or the Southern. Congregations in North America who dare to challenge the reigning assumption of autonomy, that every man is a consistory (session) unto himself, had better tie on their collective hats. The blowback will be quite intense. “How dare you? Why, who are you to tell me I cannot come to the Lord’s Table?”
Well, we elders and pastors, sinners that we be, are the divinely instituted authorities in this congregation and we have been given clear instruction in God’s Word to guard or fence holy communion as best we can, according to the rule prescribed in Scripture. First of all, our Lord entrusted the supervision of holy communion to the visible, institutional church. Not every entity which calls itself “church” is that. Indeed, not everyone who calls himself “Christian” is that. Communicants must meet two tests: they must be Christians and they must be in the visible church. Frequently we get protests:
“But I am a Christian.”
“Fine, join yourself to a true church.”
“But I can’t find one.”
“Nonsense, you’re standing in one right now.”
“But I don’t agree with you. God’s Word clearly requires that only those who’ve come to the age of discretion and who’ve made a profession of faith should be baptized and you folk practice infant baptism.”
“Are you suggesting that those of us who’ve had only infant baptisms are not baptized?”
“Yes, I am. Thus, I cannot unite with your congregation.”
“I respect your convictions and the consistency of your views, but I’m puzzled.”
“Puzzled, why?”
“Well, I’m puzzled as to why you’re so adamant about being communed by a congregation that corrupts the sacrament of baptism. Further, why do you want to commune with a lot of unbaptized persons? By your lights, formally, we’re not even Christians. Doesn’t that strike you as odd?”
The claim made by American evangelicals that one has had a personal encounter with the risen Christ does not, according to the Reformed confession, constitute one a “Christian” and thus as eligible for communion in a Reformed congregation. Communion is for Christ’s gathered people, who have been initiated into the visible, covenant community in baptism, who have professed his name. It is for “the church” as a community, not for a collection of private persons pooling their private religious experience together temporarily.
“But isn’t this a private matter? Isn’t this something between me and my Lord?”
“No, not really. Jesus did not entrust the administration of the supper to you. He entrusted it to the disciples, who became apostles. And they, in turn, entrusted its care to the visible, institutional church and to her officers.”
The Corinthian congregation communed whenever they met, on the Lord’s Day. In that same body, Paul recognized the authority to exclude impenitent sinners from the congregation (1 Cor 5). Indeed, according to Paul, it is possible to so corrupt a sacrament as to make it no longer a sacrament (1 Cor 11).
Further, the Supper has jeopardy attached to it. In the Corinthian congregation, some who abused the supper became ill and died (1 Cor 11). The supper is no mere funeral or memorial. It is a communion between the living Christ and his people in which the ascended and glorified Christ feeds his people on his true or “proper” and “natural” body and blood.1 It is a covenant renewal ceremony. As such, it is for blessing to believers but also judgment to unbelievers, just as Noah’s flood was a blessing to the church and a curse upon the rest of humanity (See Heb 6 and 10).
Let us pick up our dialogue again:
“But I’m now a member of such and such independent, fundamental Bible church.”
“That’s a start. Let me ask a question. Do you recognize that there are merely nominal Christians, who profess Christ but who do not actually have a living union with him by faith alone?”
“Absolutely! That’s one of the biggest problems facing the church today.”
“If there are merely nominal Christians, that is, Christians in name only, isn’t it possible that there are merely nominal churches too?”
“Well, sure, but not our congregation. We’re born-again, washed in the blood and immersed in the water. We’re a Bible church.”
“I appreciate your fervor, I do, and I once agreed with most of your views, but fervor and sincerity and even genuine religious experience are not sufficient for communion in a Reformed congregation.2 After all, lots of groups are sincere, fervent, and some of them may even have a genuine religious experience; but we can’t judge the validity of one’s religious experience. There’s no such thing as a spiritual thermometer. The airport has a metal detector, but we don’t have a regeneration detector. We have to go by marks that God has given in his Word as confessed by the Reformed churches.”3
“Those are?”
“As articulated in Belgic Confession, Article 29, they are the ‘pure preaching of the gospel,’ the ‘pure administration of the sacraments,’ and the ‘administration of discipline.’ Those that lack those marks are a false church or a sect.”
“Well, that seems a little narrow, but okay, I’ll bite. Which are the true churches?”
“There’s no list exactly, but for the purposes of admitting people to communion we follow the rule adopted by the Synod of Dort in the original Dort Church Order (1619), that only those who profess “the Reformed Religion” may come to the table of the Lord in a Reformed congregation. In our setting, we see that those churches that belong to the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council confess substantially the same faith with us.”
“Are those the only Reformed churches?”
“No, we recognize that there are likely true churches beyond NAPARC, but that’s a useful starting point. If folk come to us from outside NAPARC we’re happy to talk to them about their church and to try to make an intelligent judgment. Why do you call yourself Reformed?”
“We believe in the ‘Five Points.’”
“That’s great, but there’s more to being Reformed than the five points. The same Synod that gave us the Five Points also confessed the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession. They also applied that confession to a chaotic church situation not unlike ours. They restricted communion to those with whom we have a true communion, a common baptism, a like faith, and who are under the supervision of a recognizable church. In the Belgic and the Heidelberg we confess that God’s Word also teaches among other things: a certain view of redemptive history (covenant theology), infant baptism, and a way of governing the church.”
The real question is this: Has Christ instituted a visible, organized, disciplined church?4 The Reformed churches say, “Yes, he has.” The church is a divine creation, not a merely human contrivance for the advancement of personal, spiritual experience (ecstasy). The demand by every autonomous American to be admitted to every communion at will is, at bottom, nothing more than a repudiation of the notion that Jesus has established a visible church.
This is why it is a scandal. To insist that he has instituted a church, and to claim that not every entity that calls itself a “church” actually is one—that strikes Americans as positively bigoted and elitist. It is not of course, unless Scripture itself is elitist. That would make the pastoral epistles (1 and 2 Timothy) elitist. Certain men are eligible for the offices of deacon, elder, and minister. Not everyone is. Elitist? Is church discipline (Matt 18) elitist? Is the exercise of the keys (Matt 16) elitist? Are all distinctions within the visible church elitist? Was it elitist to say, “Many are called but few are chosen?” To ask those questions is to answer them. The real problem here is not the refusal by Reformed congregations to commune everyone, but the refusal of American evangelicals to reconcile themselves to the existence of a divinely-instituted and disciplined church.
Notes
- See R. Scott Clark, “The Evangelical Fall From The Means Of Grace.”
- See R. Scott Clark, “On Churchless Evangelicals (Part 1).”
- See R. Scott Clark, “Why the Focus on the Confessions?”
- See R. Scott Clark, “The Church: The Christ-Confessing Covenant Community.”
©R. Scott Clark. All Rights Reserved.
Editor’s Note: This article was originally published on the Heidelblog in 2009.
RESOURCES
- Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
- Download the HeidelApp on Apple App Store or Google Play
- The Heidelblog Resource Page
- Heidelmedia Resources
- The Ecumenical Creeds
- The Reformed Confessions
- The Heidelberg Catechism
- Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
- Why I Am A Christian
- What Must A Christian Believe?
- Resources On Fencing The Lord’s Table
- Heidelblog Contributors
- Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to
Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization
R. Scott Clark
R.Scott Clark is the President of the Heidelberg Reformation Association, the author and editor of, and contributor to several books and the author of many articles. He has taught church history and historical theology since 1997 at Westminster Seminary California. He has also taught at Wheaton College, Reformed Theological Seminary, and Concordia University. He has hosted the Heidelblog since 2007.
More by R. Scott Clark ›
Amen. We cannot claim to love Christ and yet hate His Bride.
One slight issue arises from this post, however. The boundary line of NAPARC membership that you mention does not always match the boundary lines you mention from the Belgic Confession. What about the large number of Arminian and Baptist members of North American Presbyterian churches that do not practice “confessional membership”? Shall we exclude a Calvinistic Baptist who is a member of an ARBCA congregation from communion while welcoming to the Lord’s Table an Arminian Baptist who is a member of a PCA congregation?
Bryan,
Good question and one that comes up all the time.
We’re not called to be the consistory of the world. We’re called to fence the table as best we can. We recognize that there incongruities that arise when some of our sister congregations in NAPARC admit members who do not confess the Reformed faith, at least not consistently. We have to trust our brothers in sessions and consistories in our sister congregations. We have to trust that they’ve heard credible professions of faith. We don’t expect to achieve Baptistic perfection in this world.
Well, there are different ways to *trust* others. I can trust you “to do the right thing” in some situation… but if I know that you’re not doing the right thing, and I simply choose to ignore the fact that your doing the wrong thing as a matter of your stated policy to do (what I know is) the wrong thing… well, that’s something else.
So, we should work toward greater consistency in a confessionally reformed sense. It’s the right thing to do, isn’t it?
Ahhhh. Music to my ears!
Too bad so many NAPARC congregations are confessionally-reformed-in-name-only, and do not practice a form of admission that requires communicant members to profess the reformed religion.
So many NAPARC sessions believe terms of communion much beyond “credible profession of the gospel” are “sectarian” and “unbiblical.” Many also find any “fencing” practice that actually involves the necessity of physically admitting someone to the Supper abhorrent. They prefer to say a “few words of warning” and let every one interpret it for themselves, and admit themselves.
I say, let judgment begin with the family of God. Let’s work and pray for NAPARC to get her house in order, even as we explain to outsiders how our family *should* be operating.
Our toughest resistance will not be from the Evangelicals, but from the Reformed folk who don’t really know that being confessionally reformed is something fundamentally different from *and incompatible with* Evangelicalism and their scheme of open communion.
What would you say to a member of a non-NAPARC church, like a PCA church? Or even less familiar, what if someone from France from the French Reformed Evangelical denomination came (EREI) and wanted to take the Lord’s supper? Would you require an inquiry about their church?
Thanks,
Daniel
Daniel,
The PCA is a member of NAPARC:
The Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church The Canadian Reformed Churches The Reformed Church of Quebec (ERQ) The Free Reformed Churches of North America The Heritage Reformed Congregations The Korean American Presbyterian Church The Orthodox Presbyterian Church The Presbyterian Church in America The Reformed Church in the United States The Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America The United Reformed Churches in North America
As I said in the post, if someone comes from a non-NAPARC congregation then we would talk with him him and assuming his congregation meets the terms of Belgic 29 then we would commune him.
Dr. Clark,
Thanks, I didn’t realize that all those denominations were a part of NAPARC (even though I have been in more than one – my father led EE with ERQ for many years).
-Daniel
Dr Clark,
Thank you for the Armstrong extract on the Lord’s Supper – this is a wonderful read.
Stephen
Scott
Would you allow,say a CREC minister who visited Oceanside URC while on vacation, to come to the Table?
Hi Gary,
The key adjectives here are “confessional” and “Reformed” (or Presbyterian). I don’t see how a CREC minister qualifies under either of those rubrics. Yes, the CREC ministers confess something, namely the Federal Vision. Certainly the confession of the FV on the gospel brings into question one of the marks. Their inclusion of the FV, indeed becoming the ecclesiastical haven for FV rebels fleeing the discipline of the PCA and the URCs, raises questions about the third mark and their toleration of both paedo- and its denial and their advocacy of paedocommunion brings into doubt the second mark of the church.
Scott
My sentiments exactly.
Dr. Clark,
Do you know of any CREC church that claims “Federal Vision” as their confession? To my knowledge, they all claim either the Westminster, Heidelberg, Belgic confession or something similar. I don’t see how you can treat the FV as a “confession.” The FV is anything but a unified confession. The Joint Statement is the closest thing, and that is simply a group of pastors saying “this is what we have in common.” All those things are subordinate and bound to the confessions, not over or against them.
It would be a little bit as though there were some controversial elements to the upcoming “Desiring God” conference. People might start calling it “the Desiring God Theology” and the various speakers (very various backgrounds, and beliefs) would be called proponents of the “Desiring God Theology” which “originated in 2009.” Of course there would be much confusion of what the theology “really was.” The CREC’s official position, if I understand it, is simply that they regard the theological ideas/beliefs of what has been known broadly as “The Federal Vision”, (which was a conference title) as not heretical. Each church upholds one or more of the historical confessions .
As for the second mark of the church, if you feel they are not a true church based on Paedocommunion, then there is good evidence that there was no true church until the 12th century when the church took the chalice away from the laity. This resulted in children choking on the break in the absence of wine, so they removed communion from the children. It was an assumed position of the early church to commune covenant children. There may be good reasons not to commune children. Perhaps Calvin was right in rejecting Augustine and Cyprian and many others in this. But one thing is sure, it is not novelty. It is an ancient practice practiced at large by all the church for centuries. While Calvin interprets 1 Cor. 11 differently than I would (one of the few disagreements I really have with him), I don’t feel he or the Reformation condemns specifically the communion of infants. They will often disagree, but not view it as heterodoxy. Not an issue of fellowship vs. non-fellowship.
A few favorite quotes from Augustine:
. . . . let the bishop partake, then the presbyters, and deacons, and sub-deacons, and the readers, and the singers, and the ascetics; and then of the women, the deaconesses, and the virgins, and the widows; then the children; and then all the people in order, with reverence and godly fear, without tumult.
~Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, 8.2.13
They are infants, but they receive His sacraments. They are infants, but they share in His table, in order to have life in themselves.
~Works, Vol. 5, Sermon 174:7
And the CREC churches do maintain, actively, the third mark of the church. I have seen a man excommunicated, and then, to my great joy, come back in repentance to the Church and restored to fellowship.
Just a few thoughts to bounce off your comment.
Respectfully,
Daniel
Daniel:
I think you may be too bold there by saying that it was the standard practice in the early church to have infants at the table. Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, The Didache, and the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles all explain that people are to be baptized and/or “initiated” (i.e. catechumens/catechized) before partaking. Infants at the table probably happened back then, but perhaps not as frequently or widespread as many would like to believe.
Also, though I don’t have the time right now, it would be helpful to consider the location and time period of the above references as we consider how widespread certain practices were in the early church.
Warmly,
Shane
Daniel,
I did a multi-part review of Venema’s book on paedocommunion. Check it out. The historical picture is not quite as plain as you intimate.
Daniel,
The CREC is the de facto home of the Federal Vision movement. Most of the leading FV proponents are now ministers in the CREC. No, I don’t know that the CREC has formally adopted the FV confessionally but the CREC does confess the FV in the broad sense of the verb “to confess.” It’s the paradigm within which they re-interpret the historic and orthodox confession.
Stephen
John Armstrong has changed his views and very significantly ! He now sees the Roman Catholic Mass as a legitimate Christian celebration of the Lord’s Supper.
Hi Scott,
Great post. Can I re-print it in Clarion?
James Visscher
Thanks for the encouragement James. I’ll send you an email.
It’s also interesting how it works when the shoe is on the other foot. Let’s say, for example, that someone who had been credobaptized in a run-of-the-mill American Evangelical congregation, but had become disillusioned with what he or she observed as a drift away from sound doctrine, and wanted to join a confessional Reformed or Lutheran church.
The pastor of the Lutheran or Reformed church would probably tell them about new member classes and that they would be required to learn about their denominations confessions and be required to proclaim agreement with them in front of the congregation. Then he’d ask them if they had been baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity. If the answer is yes, more than likely he’d accept that baptism as valid regardless of the method (immersion) or the age at which it took place – this is God’s work in us, not the other way around, regardless of what Evangelicals might think.
Let the reverse scenario take place, however, where the lay person coming from a now-apostate Protestant denomination and wants to join a “conservative” baptistical church (don’t ask me why anyone would want to do that, but let’s just say that they did). The receiving pastor would probably make the same announcement about new member classes (minus the confessions) and then ask about baptism. When the person replies that they had been baptized by affusion as an infant, the pastor would instantly discount that baptism as valid, regardless whether it was done in a Trinitarian manner or not. Then he would insist that they be re-baptized (blasphemous an act as that is) and via immersion (scripturally unsupported as that is) or else not join.
While most of these American evangelicals seem to have no problem tossing grape juice and Wonder Bread to just about anyone sitting in the pews with little regard to their beliefs, baptism is an arbitrary barrier. Go figure. We do well to fence (or close) the table to those who have not been carefully examined.
Presumably if Charles Spurgeon, the famous English Baptist preacher, was still alive, then he wouldn’t qualify to sit at the Lord’s table in one of your churches.
Yes and he would regard me as unbaptized! At least I see him as a baptized person.
Call me, whatever, but I can’t but wonder if an appeal to Spurgeon here to make the point isn’t something of a suspicious appeal to celebrity, as in, “You’d actually not commune Charles Spurgeon? Wow, now I know you’re off the rails.”
But it seems to me the point of recovering Reformed theology, piety and practice pays little to no attention to the spirit of the age.
Amen!
Dr. Clark,
I appreciate your discussion. It is extremely valuable because I frequently encounter confusion and frustration in Presbyterian circles on fencing the table. It seems that some conservative Presbyterian churches even allow people to partake without membership but with merely “adherent” status.
I also once encountered a passionately held viewpoint in a Presbyterian church based on an interpretation of the following text:
“But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup” (I Corinthians 11:28).
The person held that Scripture enjoined self-examination a person’s approach to Lord’s table and, consequently, any fencing beyond that was adding to the Word of God. I think you have said some things that are helpful in answering this argument but I still find myself unsure of how best to reply to this view. Any suggestions?
Hi Brandon,
It’s a both…and approach. The individualist acts as if this is ALL scripture says about fencing the table. That’s reductionist. It’s not ALL scripture says about discipline or the table. That’s why the real problem here is the doctrine of the church. Every man is not his own church or consistory. The same apostle who wrote those words also enjoined the church to act corporately in discipline.
Both…and
Thank you for the clarification Dr Clark.
I found this a very interesting article. It struck a chord with me, having been brought up in a brethren assembly (which is distinctly not reformed) with a closed table. Only visitors with a letter from a recognised assembly would be permitted to take partake in the Lords Supper.
Now 30 years later I’m a member of the Church of Scotland and very definitely reformed in my theology.
It’s always struck me as strange that in wider evangelical christian circles any attempt to limit access to the table is viewed with shock and horror. Your statement –
“It is a fundamental assumption of American evangelicals that, having entered into a personal, private relationship with the risen Christ they are entitled to commune in any and every visible, institutional church they will.”
is absolutely true.
but (you knew there was a but coming) I can’t see how this could be effectively put into practise in the Church of Scotland without isolating ourselves completely from the wider evangelical fellowship.
I find myself in the position of being a member of a group of churches that recently voted to allow the ordination of a Homosexual. My own local church which I attend has members whom I doubt very much if they have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ never mind a reformed theology. If we took this line with every bible believing evangelical Christian we would find ourselves extremely isolated.
Church of Scotland member Mark said “I can’t see how this could be effectively put into practise in the Church of Scotland without isolating ourselves completely from the wider evangelical fellowship.”
You have got a much bigger problem than that mate, you are a member of a church that has departed from the faith – in other words you are a member of an apostate denomination.
Good thoughts, Dr. Clark. Too often people view “open” and “close” communion as the only options. Your approach allows for a healthy dose of catholicity within reformed boundaries. There are obviously numerous aspects of this issue that cannot be addressed in a brief blog entry, but I found your basic approach to be refreshing in many ways. Fencing the table is definitely a ‘must.’
I appreciate this post. Thanks. I have a question: What would you say about a congregation affiliated with a NAPARC church that does practice open communion?
I live in a small town with no Reformed church, so I go to an LCMS church. We are not members nor will we become members because we will not affirm the entirety of Luther’s Small Catechism. The pastor has met with my wife and me several times and spoken to us about our beliefs, and we remain firm as Reformed. In most matters this causes no trouble and we are grateful to have found refuge at this wonderful church! But in the matter of communion, we have been graciously granted an exception to be able to take the table with them, despite the closed communion policy they maintain, I guess there is a bit of flexibility built in. And while we are grateful for this, I can’t help but feeling like an imposter sometimes, that I am not really ‘communing’ with the group at all, as my own conviction about this exact practice differ significantly from theirs. It’s like I’m a guy who snuck in to a class reunion party when I never even went to that school. No one kicked me out, but it sure does feel a little odd to hum along as they all sing the old fight song.
Absolutely needed. Improper fencing of visible gospel is a denial of the spoken gospel
Thomas,
Wouldn’t it be better to say that refusing to fence the table is disorderly and abandonment of a mark of the true church?
Subject to correction by wiser minds, it appears to me that the decision to approach the table is scripturally laid on the individual (“examine himself”), which the decision to exclude someone from the table is laid on the church (“Let him who has done this be removed from among you”). I can’t find in the New Testament any command to corporately determine in advance who may come; only discipline to exclude those who demonstrate their own disqualification. But maybe someone can point me to some passages I have missed.
Dan,
What would you accept as evidence?
Is there a passage that says that a person shouldn’t rush the pulpit?
I ask because the churches drew inferences from a variety of texts. Think of this as the administration of the word, which belongs to the ministers and elders, and also, to church discipline, which also belongs to elders.
James 3:1 maybe? Can’t remember more offhand
The problem is not just with the evangelicals who expect to be served but also with the Reformed ministers and elders who want to serve the evangelicals. Our consistory recently brought an overture to classis regarding this matter and stressed that the church order historically placed boundaries and that those boundaries are confessionsal.
Unfortunately, the overture was voted down by all the delegates present except for our consistory. The argument that seemed to win the day was that we must show hospitality in our churches and denying Communion to those who say they are Christians, regardless of their church membership, is inhospitable. As an observer at this classis, I was disappointed to witness such shallow, unbiblical thinking. No one on the side of “hospitality” cited Scripture or the confessions.
The roots of the current practice go back to the CRC in the 1960s-70s. There was an argument there even after the church order had been revised that only those with Reformed church membership should be admitted to the table. Synod upheld that overture, but then reversed themselves the next year.
I think today people are simply unfamiliar with the idea of fencing, the table, the way the Synod of Dort did.
Is it going to take some education and some years before people are ready for that sort of Reformation.
Dear Scott,
I commented years ago when you first published this.
If you have time to comment, I’m wondering if you would agree with the view explained here: https://honest2blog.blogspot.com/2024/04/about-close-confessional-communion.html
Thanks.
Baus,
I think we should follow the instruction of the Church Order of Dort>/a>:
Dear Scott,
If you’re (and Church Order of Dort 61 is) saying that failure to affirm the church’s confession constitutes failure to “make confession of the Reformed religion” and is sufficient reason for not admitting to communicant membership nor to the Lord’s Supper, even one who can be considered a fellow Christian… then, we agree.
It also seems to me all the NAPARC Presbyterians disagree. My understanding has been that since around 2010 the URCNA also allows for disagreement. Is that the case?
Baus,
Yes, the intent of the Reformed churches for about 60 years before Dort and for about three centuries after it was to fence the table so that only Reformed people came to Lord’s Table in a Reformed congregation. That is close (and nigh unto closed) communion.
Yes, the NAPARC Presbyterians disagree.
Yes, as I explained to another commenter, the CRC decided in the 70s that membership in an “evangelical congregation” or a “Bible-believing” congregation is sufficient for admission to communion. There was a case at (CRC) synod where this approach was ultimately approved.
Most URCs follow the post-70s CRC approach.
Our church order says “Biblical church membership,” but most of our consistories do not seem to interpret that phrase in light of Belgic Confession art. 29. So there is a failure, in my view, to connect the dots. “Biblical church membership” gets re-interpreted to mean “evangelical” or “Bible-believing,” etc., which is strange since we have no ecclesiastical relations with those (mostly Baptistic) churches and can only “dismiss to affiliate” (or whatever language a consistory might use).
We need to connect our church order, which is subordinate to our confession, to our confession and interpret our confession as it was intended to be understood (or revise the confession).
Dear Scott,
I appreciate the further details.
Upon re-researching… what I had in mind was that URCNA Synod London 2010 two (contrary) reports were presented on the “Level of Doctrinal Commitment” required for communicant membership. 1) allowed for “stipulations” (exceptions), and 2) required “full assent” (which seems to be the biblical and historical view you support).
https://www.urcna.org/sysfiles/site_uploads/pubs/SL_pub5528_1.pdf#page=697
However, at URCNA Synod Nyack 2012, a “final” report was presented that seemed to support (esp in Affirmation 4) the “no exceptions” / “full assent” view.
https://www.urcna.org/urcna/Nyack%20Doctrinal%20Committment%20Acts%20of%20Synod_2012(2).pdf
So… What happened to this report in 2012? It wasn’t “adopted” or has no constitutional force? Or it’s just that most URCNA’s continue to misinterpret what is required in a post-70s CRC way?
I’m looking for a congregation that affirms (Reformed) confessional communicant membership/ confessional communion! I’m willing to re-locate!
The initial reports were just that. There were, as I recall, majority and minority reports. The document adopted was the non-binding “pastoral advice,” of 2012 in which Synod set up two levels of commitment: Quia (because it’s biblical) subscription for officers and something like assent for laity. The advice, however, is just that. No consistory is bound to it. It was a compromise document.
As to who does what, that can only be determined by contacting each consistory.
Dear Scott,
I appreciate your article. I’m curious how this fencing works from a practical standpoint. Do the elders interview visitors before the service? What about visitors who arrive late? Should tokens be presented for entrance to the table? Curious how this would work. It seems common for those reforming to enter into an overzealous phase with a new practice. I would love to read more about how to reform in this area in a gentle Christ-like way so we don’t have to be “caged” for over enthusiasm!
Thank you for your engaging work!
Tim
Tim,
Check out these:
Resources On Fencing The Lord’s Table
There are different ways to do it. The old way was for people to bring tangible evidence of their membership in a Reformed congregation (e.g., a letter from their consistory), if they were visiting another congregation. The token was the Scottish way of proving that you had attended the preparatory service.
In my congregation, when I first began attending in ’84, they fenced the table at the door. You had to affirm that you were a member of a congregation.
Now the table is fenced from the pulpit. The elements are passed down the rows.
In the 16th and 17th centuries communicants came forward to receive the elements and thus a minister might even stand in front of the table or wave people off. I have administered communion that way.
Hello, Dr. Klark. Pentecostalism (healings, miracles, strange tongues, prophecies) goes against which mark of the church? Sorry for the English, I’m using Google translate
Ismael,
Interesting question.
The people who wrote and originally adopted our confessions all rejected what we today call “Pentecostalism” (which is really a misnomer) as “fanaticism.” They regarded the Anabaptists who practiced it as “sects.” The Anabaptists who did these things lacked the marks of the true church (the pure preaching of the gospel, the pure administration of the sacraments, and the use of church discipline). Today’s “Pentecostals” (again, what we call “tongues” today has no relation to what happened at Pentecost–if you have English, check out the series, “Feathers and All“) don’t come directly from the Anabaptists so the analysis is more complicated and require us to draw inferences.
Certainly, practicing glossolalia has no place in a Christian worship. Those who permit or encourage it are undisciplined. Those who regard claims to continuing prophecy as divine revelations are undisciplined and undermining the sufficiency of Scripture and thus, implicitly, undermining the gospel. Charlatans who claim to be able to heal but who do not show themselves to be false teachers, and if they are tolerated or encouraged then such a church or denomination is undisciplined.
It’s a little like the mainline liberal denominations. They affirm formally some/most of the doctrines in the classical Reformed confessions but, in practice, they deny them incessantly.
It’s why I always say “theology, piety, and practice.” If the confession becomes purely formal, then it’s what people call “dead orthodoxy.”
Thank you very much. It helped me a lot. I live in Brazil, and here, I would say, almost 90% of Christianity has some mix with Pentecostalism here. We took the bad things the Americans produced and managed to distort it even more than the Americans. I fight, with the Bible, to remove these influences. Here in Brazil, when the reformed fight for a pure cult according to the scriptures, they are labeled neo-puritans. God bless you and your ministry.
I see you answered the practical question above with reference to fencing either by token or letter or at the door or from the pulpit.
It strikes me that doing the fencing from the pulpit 100% entails that the fencing is done by the individual on a private basis. Ergo to do it effectively needs some non-pulpit method.
I’m further struck that your model conversation above is quite long! I can’t see our elders going through that with all our visitors.
Any advice for an urban church that gets regular visitors? We do communion last Sunday of every month.
Yes, when the fencing is done from the table, it does it leave it to the individual. This is better than nothing. The conversations at the door weren’t that lengthy but they could be a little awkward at times. I’ve been on both sides. Most of the time it went well and quickly.
Most of the time, people seem to respect what the church institutes and practices.
I don’t have any alternatives. Sorry. It is a challenge.
I’m always suspicious when anyone needs a lot of words to explain something that should be clear in the apostolic teachings. I don’t think this is and is more a tradition than a biblical mandate. I see discipline and excommunication for unrepentant sinners with hopes of restoring them.
I don’t see fencing the table anywhere.
Victor,
It takes a lot of words to explain the Trinity, the two natures, of Christ, and God’s sovereignty because people are ignorant, sinful, and confused.
Yours is a really bad test.