“Drink of It, All of You”
Some time ago, after administering the Lord’s Supper in my congregation on a Sunday evening, I received an email with the following sentiments (I have condensed it somewhat):
Dear Pastor Trice,
I have a dilemma. Please help me. I have heard preachers say from the pulpit that if anyone is living in unrepentant, unconfessed sin then they will be judged if they partake of the Lord’s Supper. When I think of this, it makes me think that it would be better for me to abstain altogether than to partake and provoke God's judgment. Last Sunday, however, you said to the congregation, “If you’re one of Christ’s disciples, he invites you to come and receive a blessing at His Table: don’t turn down such a wonderful invitation!” That made me think that it could actually be sinful of me as a Christian NOT to partake of the Table when Jesus has invited me! How do I resolve this dilemma?
It has become my conviction that the dilemma felt by such spiritually sensitive individuals as this one is actually created by certain elements in the customary fencing of the Table within Reformed churches. Despite our proper insistence in the Reformed tradition that Christ and his benefits are received in the sacrament by faith, we have, I believe, by a misguided emphasis on warning, needlessly created doubt in the hearts of many of the faithful members of our churches. And it is not those most spiritually sensitive brethren alone who are affected. I believe that the typical fencing of the Table in our circles all too often undermines a joyful, believing expectation of blessing on the part of the entire congregation as they approach the Table.
It is the purpose of this article to revisit the typical Reformed fencing of the Table in light of 1 Corinthians 11: 17-34. In what follows, I will seek first to make a few exegetical observations about this passage in light of common misconceptions; then, I will make a few practical observations about the effects of these misconceptions; and in conclusion, I will make a proposal regarding a more proper fencing of the Table.
I. Exegetical Observations
1. Secret Sin?
In the typical Reformed fencing of the Table, an emphasis is placed upon not partaking when there is the presence of secret, unrepentant sin, and Paul’s exhortation in 1 Corinthians 11 to “examine oneself” is prescribed as the way to discover and repent of such sins. But however real a problem it is to come to any act of worship with secret sin, it should be obvious that this is certainly not the problem in Corinth that the apostle is addressing. The sin of the Corinthians was of such an outward and scandalous nature that news of it had found its way all the way back to the apostle (!): “I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part…” (vs. 18). As the apostle then recounts what he has heard about their meetings, he shows that the sectarian spirit which pervaded the congregation had caused them to abandon any effort to eat the meal of the Lord together; rather, they were eating regardless of whether all were present or not, and regardless of whether all had food or not. Even if we should see hyperbole in Paul’s comment, “One goes hungry, another gets drunk” (vs. 21), the critical issue for Paul is that those with the means to bring an abundant part of the elements for the Lord’s Table (apparently the practice in that church) were unwilling to share with those too poor to bring any. This shameful division between the “haves” and the “have-nots,” such that only a part of the congregation at any one time actually partook of the Table, leads Paul to make the obvious assessment that such observances could not be viewed as “communion” services at all: “it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat” (vs. 20), i.e., it is not the meal that Jesus ordained and intended.
It is helpful at this point to bear in mind all that we know about the Corinthian church from this first epistle, in order to recognize why their behavior warranted such a severe response from Paul. The Corinthian church was one notorious for its various problems, as a cursory reading of the first letter will reveal. However, throughout the book the greatest source of concern to the apostle is the measure of division present within the church. Corinth was a strife-ridden church. That this was so is evidenced - after his opening words of greeting - by the very first concern which the apostle takes up: the report he has heard of their quarreling among themselves (1:10ff). The church had become divided into various schools of thought, each of which claimed for itself the reputation of men such as Paul, Apollos, or Cephas. Paul’s opening appeal to them, therefore, is “that all of you agree and that there be no divisions among you” (1:10). Especially relevant to our considerations is the fact that this apostolic consternation and appeal becomes a refrain throughout the whole book. In chapter 3 Paul rebukes them for being fleshly (carnal) and spiritually infantile because “there is jealousy and strife among you” (3:1ff). In chapter 6 Paul expresses outrage that this strife has led to lawsuits against each other in secular court, to which he responds with exasperation, “Why not rather be defrauded?” (6:1ff). And in chapter 8, where Paul takes up the matter of dealing graciously with a weaker brother, he makes the devastating statement that by “sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ” (8:1ff).
In order to understand the apostle’s words in 1 Corinthians 11, then, it is important to recognize from the context the utterly scandalous nature of the divisions in Corinth. The apostle’s consternation regarding the strife in the Corinthian church reaches its apex in the passage here, and that for a very good reason: manifestations of open strife between brothers could not be more sinfully conspicuous than in that ordinance of God expressly intended to manifest and perpetuate the communion of the saints! When the apostle eventually asserts that God’s judgment of illness and death had come upon some of them for their unworthy partaking of the Table (vs. 30), he does not leave his readers in any doubt regarding what kind of sin warrants such a severe censure of God, as if various secret sins of individuals within the congregation might be the cause. No, it is the sin problem for which the Corinthian church had become notorious that had provoked God’s wrath, and when they brought their shameful partisanship right to the Table of the Lord, God was moved to inflict upon them the severest of consequences. The notion is common among us, and fostered by a typical fencing of the Table, that an “unworthy” eating and drinking and the consequent judgment of God all pertain to secret, unconfessed sins. Yet nothing could be further from the apostle’s mind. He is addressing open patterns of sin in the life of the Corinthian congregation that manifested themselves most egregiously in the way they were partaking of the Table. Whatever understanding, therefore, that we acquire for expressions like “unworthy participation” and “eating and drinking judgment,” it must be informed by the circumstances Paul is addressing. They do not refer to inward and secret sins, but to the more scandalous manifestations of outward sin. Every faithful Christian struggles with various “secret sins,” and, strictly speaking, is guilty from time to time of secretly and impenitently living in such sins—until by the work of the Spirit his sin is revealed to him and fresh repentance is granted. However, it is not to this experience, common to us all, that the apostle aims his warning. Rather, it is for the outwardly scandalous professor of Christ that the apostle reserves the fearful warnings of 1 Corinthians 11.
Therefore, in the first place, I think it should be apparent that the sin being addressed in the apostolic warning was not inward and secret, but outward and scandalous.
2. “Eating and Drinking in an Unworthy Manner”
In the history of Reformed exegesis of this text, key phrases such as this one have become freighted with a meaning broader than that intended by the apostle. One way that the concept of “eating and drinking in an unworthy manner” has been understood is by identifying it with the danger of an individual’s coming to the Lord’s Supper who is not a true Christian, or truly regenerate. But the apostle is not speaking of this reality at all. The apostle nowhere suggests that the unworthy partaking of the Table is due to the unregenerate state of certain members of the Corinthian church. In fact, he presumes that even the worst offenders among them are regenerate people, because he identifies the Lord’s “judgment” upon them as his means of preserving them from being condemned with the world (vs. 32). The apostle’s understanding of “unworthy partaking” is something being done by those whose regenerate condition he does not question. However profitable it is to review from time to time the evidences in one’s self of a saving work of God, such an exercise is simply foreign to the apostle’s concern in 1 Corinthians 11. There is no necessary connection made here between a due preparation for the Lord’s Table and the serious entertaining of the question, “Am I really a Christian?”[1] Indeed, I would suggest that the typical Christian should be seriously entertaining this question far less frequently than he should be coming to the Table! Yet due to this popular misconception of the apostle’s words, there is an unwholesome level of introspection that often accompanies our observance of the Lord’s Supper.
The other way that partaking “in an unworthy manner” is often understood is by identifying it with the danger of participating in the sacrament without a sufficient level of spiritual preparedness, i.e., sensitivity to sin, felt love for Christ, and a spiritual frame of mind. Of course, spiritual preparations are important for participating in any of the corporate means of grace, but the tendency in our tradition to think of “unworthy partaking” as relating to whether or not we have been “doing well spiritually” is far removed from the apostle’s intent. It was not a general spiritual malaise that was the Apostle’s concern, but rather specific scandalous sins that were being brought, of all places, right to the Table of the Lord.
What then is the unworthy eating and drinking that Paul is warning against? If we resist abstracting these words from their context, we will recognize that he is speaking of attitudes and behavior that flagrantly contradict the meaning and purpose of the Lord’s Table itself, thereby making the observance of the Table a farce. The apostle refers to specific things in a man’s life which openly contradict that which he professes in the Table: love for Christ and for his brethren. The Corinthians were guilty of what we would call “disciplinable offenses.” Therefore, while in an absolute sense no one of us can partake of the Table “worthily,” yet in the sense in which the apostle meant it, all of us who are maintaining a Christian walk that is consistent with our profession may eat and drink “in a worthy manner.”
Therefore, in the second place, I would insist that the words of the apostle regarding eating and drinking “in an unworthy manner” have in view, not the danger of partaking of the Table in an unregenerate state, nor the danger of partaking in a state of general spiritual ill-health, but to the danger of partaking of the Table in a profane and scandalous manner.
3. “Let a Person Examine Himself”
The words “Let a person examine himself” (vs. 28) have come to be understand by many as a prescription by the apostle for a preparatory exercise of introspection uniquely required by the Lord’s Table. The Puritan expositor Matthew Poole fairly represents our tradition when he enlarges upon the meaning of that expression as follows:
He is to examine himself about his knowledge, whether he rightly understands what Christ is, what the nature of the sacrament is, what he doth in that sacred action; about his faith, love, repentance, new obedience, whether he be such a one as God hath prepared that holy table for; it is the children’s bread, and not for dogs; a table Christ hath spread for his friends, not for his enemies.[2]
It is my contention, however, that the apostle does not in this passage prescribe a broad exercise of self-examination that is uniquely a prerequisite to a proper partaking of the Table. Rather, his call is for due consideration and contrition over specific sins which he has already named! That is to say, the apostle’s call for self-examination is made in the context of his having made specific charges of guilt regarding the Corinthians’ behavior. After rebuking them specifically for their scandalous degree of schism, and after declaring to them that such sin involves a profaning of the Table, he then makes the poignant observation, “Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.” Bearing in mind this context, we can see that the apostle is not calling for self-examination apart from any and all pastoral direction. Rather, he is saying in so many words: “In light of this sin that is in your midst as a congregation, every one of you ought to consider what guilt you share in that sin, repent of it to God and to each other, and only then come together to the Table again.” The urgent necessity of self-examination, lest one eat and drink judgment upon himself, is not, therefore, held out indiscriminately to every believer in every circumstance, as if this were a spiritual exercise uniquely required before the Lord’s Supper. Rather, it is a form of introspection that is urgently necessary and incumbent upon those who are guilty of profaning the Table by ongoing, egregious sin.
It is of course true that the apostle speaks in universal language here—“whoever,” “let a person,” and “anyone who eats”; and it is true that he does so in order to underscore a vital principle that transcends the Corinthian situation. However, a proper discerning of what that transcendent principle is can be gained only by understanding the circumstances which provoke these statements. Often in our tradition, the transcendent, universal principle has been understood to be something like this: “Self-examination (of a general kind) is a necessary prerequisite to properly partaking of the Lord’s Supper.” I submit that this is not the apostle’s concern at all. Rather, it is the principle: “Anyone guilty of conduct which by its nature profanes the Lord’s Supper must stop, consider his peril, and repent of his ways before participating further in that ordinance.”
As an illustration, suppose that I as a pastor learned through a counseling situation that a man in the congregation had been guilty for many months of defrauding other businessmen in the congregation. Under such circumstances, it would be most appropriate for me to say to him, with all due severity, “You had better examine yourself before coming again to the Lord’s Supper, or you will be eating and drinking judgment upon yourself.” On the other hand, however, it would be a grave error on my part to apply that same severe warning to the entire congregation on each occasion of the Lord’s Supper, apart from any knowledge of sin in their midst, i.e..: “You had better examine yourselves before coming again to the Lord’s Supper, or you will be eating and drinking judgment upon yourself.” The first instance would be a faithful, pastoral use of the universal principle contained in 1 Corinthians 11, while the second instance would be an misguided, abusive use of the apostle’s words, and one that is foreign to his intention. I am afraid, however, that as a result of this fundamental misconception about 1 Corinthians 11, the faithful people of God in many churches hear again and again stern and fearful words that were never intended to be applied to them.
Therefore, I submit, thirdly, that the apostle’s call for self-examination is not a universal prescription for an exercise of introspection uniquely required for the Table, but rather a particular exhortation to those guilty of certain identifiable sins to consider their ways and to repent prior to returning to the Table.
4. “Discerning the Body”
Without the exercise of “discerning the body,” Paul tells his readers a person “eats and drinks judgment on himself” (vs. 29). Reformed expositions of this text have typically seen in this phrase an explicit requirement for a certain level of understanding regarding the nature and purpose of the sacrament: “discerning the body” therefore means having an adequate understanding of the spiritual realities which set this meal apart from ordinary meals. This belief is reflected in the wording of the OPC form which warns that the Table is not for the “uninstructed.” To admit any to the Table without adequate understanding is viewed as making them liable to judgment.
But once again I wish to ask: Is this in fact what the apostle means by this phrase in the context in which he uses it? Does he intend to teach as a universal principle that insufficient understanding on the part of participants in the Lord’s Table, and that alone, makes them liable to the wrath of God? Is the apostle indeed teaching that God’s anger is directed toward such believers simply because they don’t understand well enough? And, finally, exactly how much of an understanding of the mystery of the sacrament is necessary to avoid God’s wrath and displeasure?
These questions point us to the conclusion that the failure of the Corinthians to “discern the body” was something far more serious than a mere failure intellectually to grasp certain doctrinal truths. The Corinthians had been guilty of a flagrant disregard for one another in their celebration of the Lord’s Supper, and here the apostle calls this specific sin a failure to “discern the body,” that is, a failure to consider one another in love as they partook together. A growing number of commentators today view the “body” that Paul refers to here, not as the physical body of Christ, but as his body, the church. They note that Paul has already used this expression in reference to the church, in chapter 10, verse 17, which reads: “we who are many are one body.” For example, F.F. Bruce writes:
When they broke the bread, which was the token of the body of Christ, they not only recalled his self-oblation on the cross, but proclaimed their joint participation in his corporate body. If, then, they denied in practice the unity which they professed sacramentally in the Eucharist, they ate and drank unworthily and so profaned the body and blood of the Lord; if they ate and drank “without discerning the body” they ate and drank judgment upon themselves. To eat and drink “without discerning the body” meant quite simply to take the bread and cup at the same time as they were treating their fellow-Christians uncharitably in thought and behavior.[3]
In this interpretation, which I find quite persuasive, the “discernment” that the apostle requires in verse 29 is simply the opposite of the attitude and behavior he forbids in verse 22: “Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing?” By despising the church in so scandalous a way they were not discerning the body, and were thereby eating and drinking judgment to themselves.
Neither is Paul calling for a learned understanding of the much disputed relationship between the sign and the thing signified in the sacrament, or for the precise nature of the presence of Christ in the meal. Rather, Paul is calling for a loving consideration of the body of Christ, the church, and, for the participants in the sacrament at Corinth, that body was represented by those seated around them with whom they were not on good terms. To convey to our congregations that partaking of the Supper apart from a certain level of instruction and resulting comprehension incurs the judgment of God is to miss entirely the apostle’s concern. It leads the people of God to ask a question of themselves that is foreign to the apostle’s concern, namely: “Do I understand well enough what this sacrament means?” rather than the question he intends to raise: “Do I have a right attitude toward my brothers and sisters as I come to this sacrament?” Instruction of an ongoing kind regarding the nature and purpose of the Lord’s Supper is certainly important, but it is not such a lack of understanding acquired by instruction that the apostle warns against. It is a lack of regard for others acquired by love that he warns against, and which constitutes “not discerning the body.”
Finally, therefore, I would argue that the “discernment” called for by participants in the Table consists, not in an intellectual comprehension of the nature of the sacrament, but in a loving regard for those with whom one enjoys fellowship in the sacrament.
Practical Observations
1. A Dampening of Celebration at the Table
The most immediate practical effect of these misconceptions is the creation of a general atmosphere around the Lord’s Table which is largely incompatible with true celebration. The sheer repetition of the words of the apostle, apart from their context, has produced a subtle but real tendency among us to identify the observance of the Lord’s Supper with an introspective focus (“examine yourself”), a consideration of our sins (“if we judged ourselves”), in the context of possible judgment (“eating and drinking judgment”). But these stern words were never intended to set the tone for the regular observance of the sacrament! They are lifted from what is essentially an apostolic tongue-lashing given to a grievously errant congregation and should not be made paradigmatic for every congregation’s approach to the Table. Under what kind of circumstances would any pastor fairly make the assessment of a congregation, “Your meetings do more harm than good” (vs. 17, NIV)? Clearly, only under circumstances involving flagrant, egregious sin. The application of this point is simple: in our routine fencing of the Table, it is a grave mistake to adopt the same severity toward our own congregations as that found in the apostle’s warnings in the absence of the kind of sin which warranted it in the Corinthian church. By quoting extensively and even exclusively from this passage in our pre-Supper exhortations, we have imposed upon essentially healthy congregations and their orderly observances of the Supper the heaviness of the apostle’s rebuke to a seriously errant congregation. The opening words of the current OPC form could hardly illustrate better the setting of such a tone of heaviness:
It is my solemn duty to warn the uninstructed, the profane, the scandalous, and those who secretly and impenitently live in any sin, not to approach the holy table lest they partake unworthily, not discerning the Lord’s body, and so eat and drink condemnation to themselves (OPC Directory of Worship, IV:C:2, emphasis mine).
In light of such sober warnings given by the minister immediately preceding the meal, it is highly understandable if our members tend to view the time of receiving the elements as a time more for lamenting sin than enjoying and rejoicing in their salvation. The fact that often in our tradition “celebrations” of the Lord’s Supper feel anything but celebratory is due to more than our Western personal reserve. It is due, in part, to a theologically imbalanced view of the Table itself, perpetuated by a common fencing of the Table.
2. Private Abstentions from the Table at Will
The unfounded hesitation on the part of some believers to come to the Table has given rise to the common but highly questionable practice of members in good standing voluntarily, for undisclosed reasons, abstaining from participation in the Lord’s Supper. If questioned, such persons may confess to feeling “unprepared” for the Table, perhaps due to felt conviction for some moral failing that week. The conviction of many seems to be that a sense of spiritual well-being is a prerequisite to coming to the Lord’s Table, and, when they honestly acknowledge a season of spiritual lethargy or struggle with sin, they become convinced that they are unprepared for the Table. It can even be thought a matter of piety to refrain from the Table from time to time under these circumstances. The problems with this way of thinking are manifold.
First of all, it practically turns a means of grace into a reward of grace, as if the spiritual food of the Table were reserved for those who were already well nourished! Jesus compares His body to food, indicating that the sacrament is a means by which the people of God are nourished in grace. Therefore, it is precisely at times of spiritual leanness and struggle with sin that it is most needed, and should be most eagerly sought. In the second place, this way of thinking overlooks the fact that the Lord Jesus, in spreading the Table, calls his people to it, and that it is a serious thing for a professing disciple to resist that call. His words are “Drink of it, all of you” (Matt. 26:27), and however gracious that invitation is, compliance with it should not thereby be construed as something merely optional, any more than compliance with his call to assemble for worship as a whole is optional. Third, this way of thinking ignores the serious implications of a communicant member’s abstaining from any given celebration of the Table. Since it is by barring a person from the Table in discipline that the church ultimately removes him from its fellowship, this practice amounts to individuals’ “excommunicating themselves for a day.” Not only does such an act deprive the rest of the congregation of the full fellowship with the body that the Table is intended to afford; it also subtly shifts the authority to extend or withdraw fellowship in the Table from the officers of the church to the individual.
The solution, therefore, for those with hesitations about coming to the Table is to remember that only willful patterns of sin which are incompatible with a profession of love to Christ and the brethren give rise to an unworthy partaking of the Table as it is defined by the apostle. It should be noted that where such patterns of sin exist, it is still a sin not to come to the Table, yet it is a greater sin to profane the Table. The proper recourse in such a situation is not simply to “sit out” all Lord’s Supper celebrations, but immediately to repent, reform one’s life, and return to the Table. The apostle nowhere tells the Corinthians not to partake of the Table. Rather, in light of their sin, he tells them to examine themselves before coming to the Table. His objective is not for any of them to abstain from the Table, but for all of them to partake of the Table rightly. When a member of the church has good reason to be concerned about his coming to the Table, it will be due to some area of notable inconsistency in his profession, and, as a general rule, faithful elders will have already begun to bring warning and admonition to him regarding it, as the apostle did with the Corinthians.
3. An Individualistic Approach to the Table
Yet another practical effect of our misconceptions of 1 Corinthians 11, as embodied in a typical fencing of the Table, is the obscuring of the primary point of the passage: the horizontal dimension of the Lord’s Table. The Lord’s Supper is a time for the felt enjoyment of our relationships with each other as a church, as well as with Christ. It is an expression of our love for one another, as well as for Christ. The failure of the Corinthian church to recognize this is the sum and substance of the apostle Paul’s great angst. To be sure, they were profaning and offending God himself at the Table, but precisely by means of their disregard for their brethren. The fundamental principle underlying Paul’s severe words to the Corinthians is in fact the same one made throughout Scripture: you cannot be right with the Lord without being right with your brothers in the Lord. It is on the basis of this principle that the Old Testament prophets repeatedly warn the people that their worship and sacrifice, if offered apart from fairness and goodness toward their brothers, constitute a stench in God’s nostrils, and only provoke his wrath (see, for example, Amos 5:21ff). It is the same principle that Jesus reiterates when he calls for a man, upon remembrance of an offense between himself and a brother, to “leave his gift at the altar” and, only after being reconciled to his brother, to resume his worship (Matt. 5: 23-24). It is the same principle that the apostle has underscored earlier in this epistle when he states: “sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ” (1 Cor. 8:12). The use of abstracted portions of 1 Corinthians 11 can suggest that “getting right with God” is the primary issue of the passage, when in fact “getting right with your brother, in order to be right with God” is the issue. As Gordon Fee has put it:
One wonders whether our making the text deal with self-examination has not served to deflect the greater concern of the text, that we give more attention at the Lord’s Supper to our relationships with one another in the body of Christ.[4]
Yet the typical observance of the Table in our churches, ironically, is the most individualistic part of our service. In the quietness of the distribution and partaking of the elements, each member is essentially alone with his reflections and prayers, in contrast with the rest of the service in which all join with each other in some common hymn, prayer, or received Word from the pulpit. In other words, an introspective orientation has undermined the very purpose of the meal: fellowship (communion) with God and each other.
4. Impediments to Frequent Communion
One final effect of this mistaken perspective is that it has created psychological impediments to more frequent celebration of the Lord’s Supper. When coming rightly to the Lord’s Supper involves a regiment of self-examination and an emotional and spiritual preparation distinct from what is required by the other elements of worship, then it is easy to think that the observance of the Table should be reserved for more infrequent, “special” occasions. Ironically, however, I Corinthians 11 provides what is probably the clearest biblical evidence for a weekly celebration of the Table by the apostolic church. It is the obvious assumption of the apostle as he begins the passage that their meetings together as a congregation are accompanied by the observance of the Lord’s Supper: “When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat” (vs. 20). It was clearly the practice of the Corinthian church, when they gathered, to bring food with them from which the elements of the Table would be taken. We can of course assume that celebrating the Lord’s Supper is not all that they did, but we must conclude that they did identify meeting together with eating together at the Lord’s Supper. None of the apostle’s words of reproof are directed at the frequency of their celebrating the Table. In fact, in directing them first to satisfy their hunger at home with a regular meal before gathering (vs. 22, 34), he implies that he expects them to continue to celebrate the Lord’s Supper in those gatherings, though in a more appropriate way: they will still “come together to eat” (vs. 33). Therefore, while the Lord’s Supper should in fact be viewed as requiring preparation and consecration of ourselves afresh to the Lord, is should also be recognized that this is part and parcel of a weekly preparation for the Sabbath and all its corporate means of grace. The Table is arguably the climactic part of worship, but it was clearly an ordinary part of worship in the apostolic church.
A Proper Fencing of the Table
With a proper understanding of I Corinthians 11, as well as a biblically balanced view of the Lord’s Supper, what should our routine fencing of the Table consist of? In the first place, we should take it as axiomatic that the proper purpose of the “fence” which we maintain around the Table is to keep out, in the first place, “those who are not sheep,” and, in the second place, “those who are not acting like sheep.” This first category, those who “are not sheep,” represent those who are not communicant members in good standing of local congregations of the visible Church.[5] They are not of the number of the recognized saints of God, such a number being determined by the objective criteria of membership in the visible church. The Lord’s Supper is the Church’s ultimate expression of the communion of the saints, and is to be guarded from all those who are not saints. Such people present in the congregation should be graciously but clearly informed that this meal is not for them.
The second category, those who “are not acting like sheep,” represents those members of the visible church that, while still at present retaining their membership, nonetheless have manifested patterns of sin which are incompatible with a faithful Christian walk. Such individuals within the congregation are identified through the ongoing oversight of the congregation by the pastor and session. When such patterns of sin are discovered, and repentance for such sin is not forthcoming, the elders should take steps to warn such a person from coming to the Table until that sin is dealt with. This warning should be with the full severity of the apostle’s words to the Corinthians, inasmuch as the sin involved is of the magnitude of the Corinthians’ sin. Because of the seriousness of such a situation, the congregation as a whole should be informed of this action, and all should recognize it as an intermediate form of discipline: that which is commonly known as “suspension from the Table.” Such discipline should be carried out toward members who have fallen into conspicuous patterns of sin—i.e., they are not acting like sheep. The Table is not for them either.
It should be clear from this that I am directly challenging the practice of routinely setting before the congregation the notion that the Table is for them if they meet a set of criteria that only they can apply, i.e., that they have examined their heart sufficiently, they are spiritually prepared, they really understand what they are doing, etc. This has the regrettable effect of erecting a “fence” around the Table that is subjective, indefinite, and up to the members of the church ultimately to establish for themselves, when, in fact, the fence around the Table should be quite objective, definite, and established by the elders themselves as leaders of the Church. I believe that this element, when it appears in the fencing of the Table in our circles, is entirely without biblical warrant and is contrary to God’s intention for the meal. In fact, I would argue that it is contrary to the very nature and purpose of the sacraments according to our Reformed confessions. The Westminster Confession (27:1) provides an excellent definition of the sacraments as:
holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and his benefits; and to confirm our interest in him: as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the church and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to his Word” (emphasis mine).
I would ask the question: How can the Lord’s Supper serve to put a visible difference between those that belong to the church and the rest of the world when, in the fencing of the Table, we encourage members of the visible church to absent themselves from it according to the state of their heart at any given time? The very ordinance which is intended to preserve the boundaries of the visible church in an ongoing way ends up, in the typical Reformed practice of fencing the Table, obscuring those very boundaries.
With what words, then, should we preface the celebration of the Table? As we have seen, those who are not members of the visible Church, and those who are members under discipline, should be clearly forbidden to partake. All others, however, should be assured that as members of the covenant community, the covenant meal is for them. Our words to the assembled saints, prior to the celebration of the Supper, should be words of warm invitation to come to the Table. In fact, in light of the misconceptions which church members in our tradition commonly labor under, they should be encouraged—even strongly—to come to the Table. It is for them! Despite their many struggles with sin, and even profound sense of spiritual failure, they should be reminded that the Table, as Calvin expresses it, “is medicine for poor sick souls.” It is the Savior’s desire that they should have it, and God’s people should be exhorted not to resist the mercy and grace offered therein. He has said to his people: “Drink of it, all of you,” and the only appropriate response for each of us is humbly and gratefully to comply, by faith expecting great blessing
Footnotes
[1] After suggesting that “the want of right understanding this scripture has been a stumbling block to many,” the Puritan John Flavel goes on to say regarding Paul’s words “let a person examine himself”: “It seems clear, by the occasions and circumstances of his discourse, that he does not intend we should examine our state of grace; whether we are true believers or no, and sincerely resolved to continue so; but he speaks of the actual fitness and worthiness of the Corinthians at that time, when they came to receive the Lord’s Supper. And therefore, verse 20, he sharply reproves their irreverent and unsuitable carriage at the Lord’s table: they coming thereunto disorderly, one before another” (A Familiar Conference Between a Minister and a Doubting Christian, vol. 6 of Works, p. 467-8).
[2] Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, vol. III, p. 581.
[3] Apostle of the Heart Set Free, p. 285.
[4] The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 569.
[5] It is my conviction that all those who are communicant members in good standing of an evangelical church should be admitted to the Table in any particular congregation, as opposed to the practice called “closed communion,” which limits participation to the members of that particular church or denomination. It is not my purpose, however, to argue that point here.
