Fencing the table- Calvin Style
There used to be a time Post-Reformation, where those who wished to attend the Lord's Table had to make a credible profession of faith to partake. Even now some Reformed denominations have similar requirements. Some practice closed communion, (only communing members may partake) and some like my denomination, the PCA verbally fence the table. That means prior to communion the Pastor tells everyone attending that to partake of the Supper one has to be a Christian, a member in good standing of an evangelical church, and not engaged in open and public scandal, or under discipline. Those under discipline know who they are and they simply do not partake being instructed by the Session. During Calvin's time, to not partake of the Supper may have carried more of a social stigma then it does today. So many churches pass the elements down the aisle and those who do not partake go unnoticed and are usually not embarrassed. Those who should not partake and do anyway also can go unnoticed. Some Churches like mine have families come up to the chancel to receive the elements from the Session so it can be a little more obvious to everyone who does not partake, especially if the congregation isn't very large. The Reformed churches who don't practice closed communion, surely have unbelievers taking the supper, and probably have people under discipline taking it as well. It is hard to fence the table because of a variety of reasons.
John Calvin found himself in a unique situation. Calvin faced off against a group that had recently lost political power upon Calvin's arrival at Geneva. The Libertines were a group who appealed to the freedom of the Spirit as an excuse to indulge in the desires of the flesh. Some have said of the Libertines, that the "communion of saints" meant the common possessions of all goods and even other men's wives. They were sexually immoral and proud of their liberty. They were proud of their liberty all the while insisting on their right to attend the Lord's Table. But the Reluctant Reformer stood in opposition.
Here is what one historian writes: "The eventful morning dawned. The bell invited the people to the church of St. Peter. The Libertines were present, with their swords (drawn), determined to communicate. Calvin preached on the intention of the sacred ordinance, and spoke of the state of mind necessary for obedience to the Lord’s command. At the close, he said: “As for me, so long as God shall leave me here, since He hath given me fortitude, and I have received it from Him, I will employ it, whatever betide; and I will guide myself by my Master’s rule, which to me is clear and well known. As we are now about to receive the holy Supper of our Lord Jesus Christ, if anyone who has been debarred by the Consistory shall approach this table, though it should cost my life, I will show myself such as I ought to be.” - He then left the pulpit, and stood at the table. Removing the white cloth, and covering the bread and wine with his hands, he said, with a voice that rang through the building, “These hands you may crush; these arms you may lop off; my life you may take; my blood is yours, you may shed it but you shall never force me to give holy things to the profane, and dishonor the table of my God.” As if the very power of God prevailed, a calm succeeded, and the Libertines retired.... A solemn silence enabled the Reformer to celebrate the sacred ordinance in awe, as if the Lord Himself had been manifestly present. The question in the mind of Calvin was not whether he or the Libertines should succeed; but whether the Reformation should be wrecked at the very table of the Lord. He stood firm; and victory remained with him." -History of Protestantism by James A. Wylie
Calvin's courage against the Libertines in one sense was easy, although it wasn't easy to face down the threat of swords to be sure. Osterhaven writes- “A crowd of Libertines surged forward to the table. Calvin, descending from the pulpit, stood before the table. With drawn sword a Libertine cried, ‘Administer communion to us or you will die.’ (The Banner Of Truth; “The Reformers: The Secret Of Their Greatness”; Eugene Osterhaven). So I'm not saying it was actually easy to face death over the issue of "who should take communion", because it wasn't. I remember recently a "Gay" rights group attending a Mass in Chicago (I think) dressed as clowns and they were allowed to partake. So the courage to ban those from the table that should be banned is hard to find. What Calvin did in the face of death wasn't easy. But it was easy in this sense: it was obvious to Calvin that the thought of the Libertines participating in the Supper was worse than death.
But what about those who are not so obvious? What about the ones who carry no sword and carry no profession? How do we fence those who are non-believers? How do we fence those who are not so known to us? It does seem nowadays that fencing the table is a foreign concept. Well it's not foreign among normal run of the mill evangelicals. Sometimes modern evangelicals fence the table by having a Communion service on Sunday night (monthly or quarterly), knowing that mainly members will be there. Sometimes modern evangelicals fence the table by saying something like "if you haven't confessed up all your sins then do so now." I remember when I was a kid attending a Baptist church, wondering if I had remembered all my sins? It was hard in my mind even as a kid, to get "worthy enough" to take the Supper. But that is not the fencing I'm talking about. None of us come worthy to the table. Let's make that clear. If we have a Table that is only for "worthy" people then none of us should ever participate in the Supper. But what about the basic stuff? Should we do more than to verbally fence the table? I don't know maybe we should. Maybe we are doing all we can. I'm not advocating closed communion. I don't think the Table is just a Presbyterian Table, it is a Christian Table. But I am wondering to myself if we could or should do more to take seriously the guarding of God's honor in who receives the body and blood of Christ. Maybe we should fence the table in more ways than verbal instruction. To be sure that goes on in some churches. Some of that goes on behind the scenes pastorally, I know that. I appreciate that and thank God for those Pastors who exercise godly and living discipline. Some parishoners for reasons of conscience elect to sit out. That is a good thing. I know we should fence the table. I wonder what I would do faced with a sword? I'm wondering if we are doing enough and should do more. If we are fencing the Table, I'm wondering if we should do it Calvin style?
Gage Browning
Post Tenebras Lux
Gage Browning
4 Comments
Reader Comments (4)
Yes, it would certainly be honorable to so fence the table that one is willing to give his life to defend the sanctity of the sacrament, but in the present context, I would say that how it's done among the PCA is sufficient.
The only thing I would suggest in the way of ratcheting up the fencing would be to be more pro-active in preventing church members under discipline from partaking, even if it means making a scene such as Calvin did in the case of the Libertines.
It wouldn't be practical to proactively prevent non-members who are under discipline, short of some sort of APB distributed among all churches in a presbytery, in which case the elders would have to be alert to such non-members in their midst and make a point to instruct them personally before the service not to do so. It could work to some degree, but may not be all that practical.
But circumstances aren't as life and death as they were during the Reformation.
Cap'n,
A couple of things, #1- Non-church members are not under discipline.
#2- you said, "But circumstances aren't as life and death as they were during the Reformation." That made me wonder. What do you do with 1 Cor 11?
"29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died."
I would agree its not life and death if it is merely a memorial.
#3- I think some churches do pastorally instruct some to avoid the supper as part of discipline. I'm just wondering if there is more than the verbal fencing for the group at large...should they be members only? Should they have to give profession prior to the service if they aren't members of that particular church? I know some churches prior to the service express the notion that non-members must give a profession of faith prior to the service. That is done in some churches by announcing if you wish to partake and are not a member, then you must meet briefly with some members of the Session etc... These are the things I'm wondering.
Gage Browning
Post Tenebras Lux
Responses to your responses.
1. I'm talking about people who are members of other churches who are being disciplined by their home church visiting your church, and what could be done with them. You don't mean it's okay to give the Supper to visitors who are being disciplined by their home evangelical church, do you? My comments were an attempt to think through how to proactively prevent them in a way that goes above and beyond verbally stating to the congregation at large that "you are welcome if you are a member in good standing (not under discipline) in an evangelical church. . . "
2. I'm talking about life and death as in the case of the violent turmoil that was sometimes the case during the generations of the Reformation, not God's ways of fencing his own table. Of course that is life and death; Scripture is clear. It's not what I was talking about. Furthermore, I am restricting my comments to Western culture, or possibly even America specifically; I'm also aware that more Christians are living under "life and death" circumstances around the world in greater numbers than ever in the history of the church.
3. I frankly don't know how to respond to number 3; sorry if my comments were unhelpful. I'll try not to comment for the sake of commenting. I know I can be more clear if I actually know what I'm talking about. :) <><
Thanks Cap'n,
I understand your point now...on #1. I don't know what we could do there. It's probably too hard today to do anything other than what we are doing now in the Reformed Church.
As to #2...I understand your point there. Your probably right. My emphasis was that it is a big deal who takes the supper, depending on your understanding of 1 Cor 11.
My point #3 was should we ask for a profession prior to communion of non-members? Some say and maybe rightly that has to be done by the parishoner themselves. There is a sense in which it may be too much of an interrogation process to do that kind of thing. Just thinking outloud.
Gage Browning
Post Tenebras Lux