Fencing the Table

Introduction

I mentioned that the Lord’s Supper is one doctrine that has divided us from other denominations. It was one of the most debated topics of the reformation and it is also another doctrine that separates us from many IFB churches in this area. Along Landmarkism often comes a belief in closed communion or the idea that only church members can partake in the Lord’s Supper. The Catholic Church actually practices closed communion and it is directly tied to their belief in apostolic successionism just like Landmarkism belief in baptist successionism causes them to be closed communion.

I remember going to the funerals of my grandparents who were staunch Catholics. Three generations of the women on my moms side all consider taking orders as nuns in the Catholic church, but at their funerals, a mass was held. During that time the priest invited everyone to come up to the front to receive the elements, but before he did so, he made sure to tell us this was only open to practicing Catholics. If you weren’t a Catholic, you could come up front and he would bless you but you could not partake.

HB Charles gives an example of how the church he grew up in practiced closed communion. In his church everyone who was eligible to take communion was given a punch card by the deacons and you would have your card punched when you were eligible to take the Lord’s Supper. If you had been absent from church for 90 days, you were considered an inactive member and were refused to partake of the Lord’s Supper.

Another large independent Baptist church in town that believes in closed communion only has the Lord’s Supper once a year. They schedule it on an irregular night so non-members will not show up and only members are informed of the day that they are having it.

Other denominations hold to open communion which is the idea that as long as you are a christian, you can participate. So if you came from a pentecostal, methodist, catholic, Lutheran church ect. You could partake as long as you truly believed you were a Christian. The argument in favor of open communion is that the ceremony was given to all Christians and symbolizes the communion of the One body of Christ. While this is true it misses out on what scripture actually teaches.

Our church practices close communion. What this means is that we believe the Lord’s Supper is not open to every Christian. As we will see tonight, Paul seems to limit it even more. But we do not believe it is locked down to only members of our local church. We would acknowledge that it is a symbol of the connection between believers in the body of Christ, but there are certain requirements for partaking in the Lord’s supper. We wish to say what scripture says and not to say more than scripture says on this issue.

These issues again are not impractical, unimportant debates because they determine church practice. Consider these questions about how to practice the Lord’s Supper.

Can children partake of the Lord’s supper?

What about if they haven’t been baptized yet?

What about non-members?

What about visitors from another gospel believing church?

Most churches practice to some level what we call fencing the Lord’s Supper. To some extent almost all churches have atleast fenced the Lord’s Supper around baptism. But what this means is that if certain qualifications are not met, we would tell people they should not partake in the Lord’s Supper. Now this can be offensive. We had one lady once who accidentally got skipped because she was sitting on a pew all by herself off to the side and she assumed we skipped her because we thought she wasn’t worthy of taking the Lord’s Supper. It had nothing to do with that, the deacon’s merely missed that pew. But you see how potentially explosive fencing can be. So tonight we are going to approach this issue by asking three questions: does the church have the right to fence the Lord’s Supper, what are the qualifications for the Lord’s Supper and what are the consequences if the Lord’s Supper is not fenced?

Does the Church have a Right to Say Someone Cannot Partake of the Lord’s Supper?

Most of our discussion tonight is going to revolve around 1 Cor 11. But I want us to go ahead and read vs 17-34. I want to point out a couple points from this passage right at the outset of our study. First, the Lord’s Supper is an ordinance for the gathered local church. Notice in vs 17 when ye come together. The Church had been gathering together to celebrate the Lord’s Supper but there were problems that Paul needed to address. But that phrase when ye come together is repeated four times in the text. The first instance is in vs 17, vs 20, 33, 34. This idea of coming together seems to book end the entire section. There are two implications of this phrase:

The Lord’s supper is a celebration of the gathered church. What this means it is not for individual functions outside of the church gathering. We don’t have a youth meeting at our house and host the Lord’s supper, we aren’t offering up the Lord’s supper after dinner one night. As we saw last week, part of the experience of communion with Christ is the unity of the believers coming together for the Lord’s supper. The Lord’s Supper is a family meal. This is not a private ordinance, but a corporate ordinance of the church. Back in 1 Cor 10 last week, we saw that the Lord’s Supper is a means of communion with Christ, but part of the way we commune with Christ is in the unity of the believers. This unity is expressed as we gather together with single purpose to celebrate the Lord’s Supper.

The local church is the one administering the Lord’s Supper. This ceremony is hosted by the gathered church. Most churches have the elders and the deacons administer the elements of the Lord’s Supper though this is not spelled out in scripture. The very fact that Paul writes a letter to the church of Corinth to get them to correct abuses shows that the church has authority over how the Lord’s Supper is going to be conducted. One example of when this authority would be directly practiced is in the case of church discipline. If the Lord’s Supper speaks of the unity of the believers and we have cast someone out for unrepentant sin, they would not be allowed to partake. The extreme forms of separation imply a statement that the person we are separating from is a publican and a sinner as Paul states. In 1 Cor 5, we have turned them over to Satan. We cannot recognize their profession of faith. Our culture doesn’t like the church making any kind of a statement about whether someone is saved or not. To them that is a personal thing, but the Lord’s Supper is an affirmation of the unity we possess and church discipline is its opposite. It is a direct statement that we are in doubt of that person’s salvation.

Paul writes to the Church of Corinth in our text tonight and he wants them to deal with these problems. The last line of the text implies Paul is going to come and follow up on what he has written to them. So does the church have a right to say who can partake of the Lord’s Supper? The answer is yes.

What are the Requirements for taking the Lord’s Supper?

This passage is key to our understanding that communion cannot be open. I want us to pay particular attention to 1 Corinthians 11:27 “Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” Paul is addressing Christians here and yet, he says it is possible even for a Christian to eat unworthily. That means that there are some things that might disqualify even a Christian from being able to partake. There are requirements on top of being a Christian. We are going to begin with what the text says about eating unworthily and then build out from there to other passages of scripture. But what would make a man unworthy to partake of the Lord’s supper. I am going to go in order as they appear in the text and not in any order of importance:

Division- 1 Cor 11:18-19 Notice Paul begins this passage with the word’s first of all implying that this is just the first item on a list of things that need to be addressed about the Lord’s supper. Paul has received a report that there are divisions in the church. Back in the beginning of the book, Paul said that their practice of baptism had become divisive because they were arguing over who baptized them. Some said I am of Paul, others of Cephas, some of Apollos and the hyper spiritual of Christ. If this division affected one aspect of the church’s practice it would make sense it impacted others as well. So the church was segmenting into clicks based on men they esteemed. I have seen this happen in IFB churches where people like this Pastor over that Pastor or this deacon over that deacon. This Sunday school teacher over that one. It can even creep up just around a well-spoken church member who gets every one listening to them. The church divides rather than unites. Why is this so important to the Lord’s Supper? We have already established last week and this that one of the purposes of the Lord’s Supper is to show the unity of the body of Christ. Division directly contradicts that message.

Selfishness- 1 Cor 11: 20-22 We see some sort of problem in the church where the rich are indulging and the poor are starving. Those who have are so over indulging that they are drunken. Again the discrimination between the have’s and have nots in the Lord’s Supper is directly opposed to the unity of the body of Christ. Paul directly addressed this issue back at the beginning of the book. James also deals with this in chapter 2. The Lord’s Supper had become a status symbol. In vs 33, he tells them to tarry for one another which speaks of waiting and making sure everyone is taken care of.

Lack of Salvation- while not directly addressed in the form of a command this one is assumed. 1 Cor 11:26 says that the Lord’s Supper is a declaration of the Lord’s death. The implication is that I have received the benefits of that death. The only way any of us are worthy of the body and blood of Christ is by our salvation. Every one of us is unworthy in and of ourselves apart from the redeeming blood of Christ.

Unconfessed sin- the overall implications of this entire passage is that when I have unconfessed sin in my life of any sort, I am unworthy to partake of the Lord’s supper. 1 Cor 11:28 says we are to examine ourselves . Sin in any form is unworthy of the body and blood of Christ. Jesus died for those sins and our choice to indulge is treading under foot the Son of God and counted the blood of the covenant as nothing.

Baptism- The next couple points can be included on this list for a couple reasons. First, disobedience to God’s expectations is sin. We have been told to be baptized as a sign and seal of our relationship with Christ and when we refuse, it is a form of disobedience. But there is another reason baptism is included on this list. I want us to turn to Acts 2:41-42. Before we were in Romans I preached through the book of Acts, I would recommend reviewing some of those early sermons. Right after Pentecost, 3000 people get saved. These verses show us that immediately after getting saved they were baptized. Before the entered into the daily life of the church, they would go through the rite of Baptism. It may seem to be strange to require baptism before taking the Lord’s Supper, but throughout history nearly no church has every said you could partake without baptism. It is the first step of obedience in our lives as Christians. It is a symbol of our allegiance and affiliation with Christ. Can we take the Lord’s Supper which is also a statement of our union with Christ if we are not willing to make this public declaration of our faith?

Church membership- Also included in this list is church membership. The phrase were added unto them at the very least hints at membership. Later in the book in a similar context, we see they were added to a list of the names. So the church had a list of official members of the church. What I want us to see in these verses is the progression: first, they were saved, they gladly received the word; second, they were baptized; thirdly, they were added to the Church and then finally, they entered into the worship of the church which included doctrine, fellowship, breaking of bread (the Lord’s Supper) and prayers. The order is significant because these thing proceeded their entering into the fellowship with all that that entails. This again ties back to the meaning of the Lord’s Supper. They were being recognized as members of the body of Christ. Now, I want to make something clear here. At our church, we do not believe you have to be a member of our church to partake; rather you must be a member of a gospel preaching church somewhere. We recognize that the body of Christ is more than our local church and if you have been obedient to the scriptures in church membership elsewhere we accept that. To limit it to membership only in our church is again to add to scripture. The text never gives this limitation.

What are the consequences for taking the Lord’s Supper Unworthily?

I want us to go back to 1 Cor 11. The requirements to the Lord’s supper are serious matters to the Lord and this is why we cannot take them lightly. Fencing is as much about love for the Lord as it is for the person who takes the elements unworthily. Notice vs 27-32. Paul says that the person who partakes unworthily is guilty before God. He has trampled underfoot the body and blood of Christ counting it nothing special. Paul states directly that because they had eaten and drunk unworthily some were weak, sick and some had even died. God takes this seriously.

Conclusion

So what are we to do about it? How do we fence the elements? From this text I see a primary pattern for dealing with these issues:

The Pastor exhorts- Paul doesn’t say the pastor and deacons are to kick people out under normal conditions; nor does he tell us to use a punch card or check the doors before anyone comes in. The church isn’t told to take this direct of a hands on approach to policing it. Rather, fencing has traditionally been done in the same way Paul did it here: by exhorting the church. We stand up and tell people what god expects and exhort them to deal with God. I could never truly police the Lord’s supper because some sins in your heart are unknown to me. Paul never anywhere exhorts the church to do anything else.

The individual examines his heart- vs 28 instructs a man to examine himself. In most cases, church discipline excluded the individual is responsible to examine his own heart and police himself. In vs 31, Paul says if we would judge ourselves, then we would have no reason to be judged.

God judges- Ultimately according to vs 32, God polices the Lord’s Supper. He will judge those who are unworthy.

Next Sunday Evening when we have the Lord’s Supper, it will be important to examine our hearts. Honestly, you have a week to do so and we should partake of the Lord’s Supper knowing our hearts are pure and our hands are clean before the Lord.