I have received numerous questions from members who are curious about our practice of what is called fencing the table. In the wording that I use, I say that if someone is a member of our church “or a member in good standing of another evangelical church” they are invited to the table. To some this may seem overly restrictive or judgmental – especially if they aren’t used to the practice of fencing the table.
I felt that it might be helpful for me to explain this practice and the manner in which I “fence the table” at our church. It may be of interest to know that my wording is taken directly and intentionally from the PCA’s Book of Church Order:
“Since, by our Lord’s appointment, this Sacrament sets forth the Communion of Saints, the minister, at the discretion of the Session, before the observance begins, may either invite all those who profess the true religion, and are communicants in good standing in any evangelical church, to participate in the ordinance; or may invite those who have been approved by the Session, after having given indication of their desire to participate.” (BCO 58-4, my emphasis)
When I fence the table, I am doing it just as the Book of Church Order directs us. If someone objects to this wording, then it is worth noting that others have objected to it in the past, as well, and the PCA has considered those objections. There was an overture from Third Reformed Church and Philadelphia Presbytery to the General Assembly of the PCA to change the wording of the Book of Church Order 58-4 to remove the phrase “and are communicants in good standing in any evangelical church.” They objected, arguing that extending the invitation of the table only to members in good standing isn’t biblical. Their argument was that the individual should be able to decide for themselves if they qualify for the Supper, and that sessions don’t have that right.
In answer to this overture the 21st General Assembly (which met in 1993) denied the overture and directed that the following response be addressed to those requesting this change so they could understand why their overture was denied. What follows is a succinct and clear defense of the current practice of the PCA as well as the wording of the Book of Church Order as it is written.
1. In recognition that this is the “Lord’s table,” 1 Corinthians 10:21, not the table of one church only, BCO 58-4 permits “open communion,” that is, allowing members in good standing in any evangelical church to partake and “close communion,” which permits only those members of other churches who have been examined and approved by the Session to partake. (It does not permit “closed communion,” the practice of excluding all but the members of the particular congregation.)
2. In the judgment of charity, we believe that other evangelical churches have examined and found credible the faith of their members and, on the basis of this presumed approval, in “open communion” we invite members of other churches to the Lord’s table in our midst. In “close communion,” the Session of a particular church itself determines the credibility of a visitor’s profession of faith. There is no such available assessment in this life for members of the Invisible Church.
3. Baptism is into a community of believers, that is, a church. Unbaptized people certainly should not be permitted to come to the Table. Of course unbaptized people credibly professing faith in Christ and seeking admittance to the Table should be baptized with all proper speed, and thereupon admitted to the Table. At this point, these communicants are baptized members of a visible church.
4. One cannot love Christ and eschew His bride. The credible profession of persons unwilling to unite to Christ’s church must be questioned. Any sinful unwillingness to unite with Christ’s people should be addressed pastorally (Hebrews 10:25; 1 Corinthians 10:16-17). Those unwilling to unite to Christ’s Church are outside the visible body of Christ.
5. One cannot be subject to Christ and not be subject to the government He has appointed in His Church. Believers become subject to the government of the Church through their covenant vows of membership (Ephesians 4:11-12; Hebrews 13:17; 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13).
6. Church discipline is necessary for properly maintaining the Lord’s table; such discipline is unavailable apart from membership in a visible church.
7. This overture implies that there is no Biblical ground for the keeping of a roll of members of the visible church, and therefore that people who may partake of the church’s sacrament. However, the clear evidence of Scripture is that the church should keep a roll of members. The supreme model for our membership roll is the membership roll of heaven (Exodus 32:32, 33; Daniel 12:1; Luke 10:20; Philippians 4:3; Revelation 13:8; 20:12, 15). The biblical pattern is for new believers to be “numbered” or “added to” the rolls of the local church (Acts 2:41, 47; 6:7; 1 Timothy 5:9). Members could be taken away from the roll (1 Corinthians 5:2)—this indicates more than being physically barred, since even unbelievers could attend Christian worship (1 Corinthians 14:23)—or reinstated (2 Corinthians 2:6-7); it is impossible to have coherent discipline without such a roll. There was a widow’s roll for diaconal purposes (1 Timothy 5:9). Elders are to know their sheep, are accountable for the care of the flock entrusted to them—this demands knowing who they are; that is, it demands a list or roll (Hebrews 13:7, 17-18; 1 Thessalonians 5:11-14; 1 Peter 5:2; Acts 20:28). The apostolic church utilized letters of transfer or commendation (Acts 18:27; Romans 16:1-2; 2 Corinthians 3:1; 8:23-24); examples of these letters including Philemon and 3 John. Inter-church business was conducted by people with reference letters (1 Corinthians 16:3; 2 Corinthians 8:16-24). We conclude therefore that requiring professed believers to be enrolled as members of an evangelical church as a condition for taking the Lord’s Supper is consistent with sound Biblical practice.
(Source: https://www.pcahistory.org/pca/ga/21st_pcaga_1993.pdf p. 141-142)
I’m not sure that there is much I can add. Although the BCO is not infallible, nor does it have the same authority as Scripture, it is still a helpful document that assists sessions in biblically shepherding God’s people. My own hope is that the above response from the 21st General Assembly nearly 30 years ago will give some help to those members who struggle with the issue of church membership and its close connection with how communicants are invited to the table. It is not simply from tradition that church membership is a requirement of partaking: we do believe that this is a biblical practice to require that those who publicly participate in the sacraments also live as part of the visible church and rejoice that God has shown us in His word how he wants his church to be run.
Adam Parker is the Senior Pastor of Evergreen Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Beaverton, Oregon. He is the husband of Arryn and a father of four. He is a graduate of Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, MS.