ARTICLE 101
Advisory Committee 6, Domestic Missions, the Rev. C. Steenstra reporting, presents the following: (The report of Advisory Committee 6 is continued from Article 65.)

SUPERVISION OF GUESTS AT THE LORD'S SUPPER

A. Materials:

1. Report 37 (Majority and Minority)
2. Overture 26 (Classis Wisconsin).
3. Overture 31 (Classis Hamilton).
4. Communication 17.
5. Communication 18.
6. Communication 25.

B. Observations:
A great deal of valuable insight and helpful material is brought forward in Report 37. The advisory committee wishes to note the following:

1. All of our churches are in favor of some form of supervision of guests at the Lord's Supper.

2. There is no one method of supervision that is used by consistories of Christian Reformed Churches.

3. A large percentage of consistories are satisfied with the methods they are using.

4. The nature of the church, the unity of the church, the place of elders in the church, and the variety of guests are legitimate concerns in the supervision of guests at the Lord's Supper. The majority report observes that "the complexity of the church in our modern age, complicated by a vagueness of our conception of that church, lies at the very root of all our problems." It suggests in its recommendations that concern for the tangible and visible unity of the church is the chief and perhaps only condition for participation in the Supper. We question whether there are not other significant and prior concerns such as repentance of sins and profession of faith in Christ.

It also appears to us that the use of the recommended guidelines as to the variety of guests (ascertaining their identity and category and counseling them in accordance with their identity) would be too cumbersome to implement even in ideal circumstances. We therefore, question whether such guidelines would be practical and workable, and would make for an adequate method of supervision of guests at the Lord's Supper.

C. Recommendations:

1. That synod adopt the following guidelines re the supervision of guests at the Lord's Supper:

a. It is the responsibility of the consistory to identify guests in order to supervise properly the Lord's Supper.

b. It is the responsibility of the consistory to inform guests as to the requirements for participation in the Lord's Supper and as to the consequence of partaking in an unworthy manner (I Corinthians 11:27-29).

c. It is the responsibility of the consistory to invite guests "who are truly sorry for their sins, who sincerely believe in the Lord Jesus as their Savior, and who desire to live in obedience to him," to come to Lord's Supper (Form 3; Heid. Cat., L.D. 30, Q. & A. 81).

Grounds:
i) These guidelines safeguard the integrity of the church.

ii) These guidelines address themselves to the relationship of the guest to Christ.

iii) These guidelines preserve the sanctity of the table.

-Adopted

2. That synod declare that the choice of method and administration of supervision be determined by the consistory since the Church Order does not speak directly to this issue.

-Adopted

3. That synod declare that this constitutes its answer to Overtures 26 and 31 and to Communications 17, 18 and 25.

-Adopted

Overture 26 - Further Study Requested re Guests at the Lord's Table
(Art. 101)

Classis Wisconsin overtures synod to refer the reports of the Committee on Supervision of Guests at the Lord's Table back to the committe for further study.

Grounds:
1. The report does not give an adequate analysis of the problems of supervision The report has narrowed down on only one aspect of this entire matter. This aspect is union with the visible manifestation of the church. Presumably all Reformed Christians will agree that continuing guest status is intolerable. Ideally all guests (except for the traveling guest) should become members. The report concludes that we should welcome other guests but insist to them that this guest status is an exception to the necessity of union with the local congregation.

All this may be fine, but it leaves a host of unanswered questions. Why single out the doctrine of the corporate nature of the church on which to quiz and/or inform the guests? What about other doctrines such as salvation by grace alone through faith or for that matter the nature of the sacrament itself? Is there going to be no attempt to ascertain whether or not the guest is earnestly striving to live according to the will of God? The committee says that the norm for attendance is I Corinthians 5:11: the norm for us must be that no adulterer, drunkard or robber may be part of our fellowship. Yet the content of the preservice interview (on which they insist) is commitment to church membership.

2. The suggested guidelines do not solve the problems. At least two things are involved. First, who shall be invited, welcomed and admitted as guests at the Lord's Table? Secondly, how shall this invitation, welcome and permission to attend be administered? The report gives some little help on the first question by its categories of guests. However, the report and guidelines give scant and somewhat incidental attention to the second question. To suggest, as the report seems to do, that the problems come because the churches are too large is cavalier. The small mission churches report the most problems.

3. The suggested guidelines are unclear. There are many references to "acknowledging the host." Is this Christ, the local congregation or the consistory? What is meant by "acknowledge"? One of the categories is "ecumenical guest"? How ecumenical may we be? Must the guest accept Reformed standards? May a Methodist or Roman Catholic participate? The report in guideline "d" suggests welcoming the guest without a church home if he "declares himself to be a true Christian." What is a true Christian? Who decides if he is a true Christian? Will we now have two standards: One for admission to the Lord's Supper via profession of faith and another via guesthood? In the body of the report it is insisted that "There must be true fellowship before communion." The guidelines, however, speak of an interview "before or after the service." If there must be fellowship before the communion how can an interview after the service fulfill this requirement?

4. The proposed certificates of membership may well create problems. Are these designed to be permanent or just for a singIe use? The single use does not seem feasible since travelers do not always plan ahead of time nor are they always aware that the church where they are to worship might be having the Lord's Supper. How will the consistories get someone to surrender his certificate when proceeding with discipline (if they are permanent)?

Classis Wisconsin
Al Walcott, stated clerk

Overture 31 - Re Guests at the Lord's Table
(Art. 101)

Classis Hamilton overtures the Synod of the Christian Refonned Church not to adopt recommendation 2 of study committee Report 37A.

Grounds:
1. The nature of the church is too exclusively limited to the local congregation in the light of various Scripture references such as Acts 9:31; I Corinthians 10:32; 11:22; 12:28; Ephesians 1:22; 3:10 and 5:23-25.

2. The emphasis in Articles 27 and 28 of the Belgic Confession is on "one catholic or universal Church" and not on the word congregation as the report erroneously suggests.

3. The search for unity among Christians in a divided Christendom is aimed too exclusively at a unity around the Lord's table at the expense of a unity around the Word of God.

4. The practical application of this report is neither helpful nor workable.


Classis Hamilton
Alvin H. Venema, stated clerk

REPORT 37

SUPERVISION OF GUESTS AT THE LORD'S TABLE

A. MAJORITY REPORT
(Art. 101)

MANDATE
The Synod of 1973 appointed a study committee to study the problems faced by consistories with respect to the supervision of admission of visitors to the Lord's Supper, in the light of the Scriptures and the Reformed creeds.

Grounds:
a. The Church Order does not speak directly to this matter.

b. Increasing mobility within our society, and the greater ease with which Christian believers today visit congregations of another denomination than their own, makes the problem one of growing difficulty and urgency for consistories.

c. The problem is so widespread in the churches that it warrants the attention of synod.

Note: The committee understands this to mean that it must not only study the problems, but also present some suggestions for a solution. The grounds given would seem to bear that out.

MATERIALS
1. Letter of the Stated Clerk of Synod.
2. Majority report of the advisory committee of Synod 1973.
3. Minority report of the advisory committee of Synod 1973.
4. Unprinted appeal of Mr. Roy van Kooten.
5. Unprinted appeal, church visitors, Classis Rocky Mountain.
6. Communication of Stated Clerk of Classis Pella to Synod.
7. Communication of First CRC Oskaloosa to Classis Pella.
8. Communication of Stated Clerk of Classis Pella to Synod.
9. Communication of the Sully CRC to Rev. W. P. Brink.
10. Communication of First CRC Pella to Rev. W. P. Brink.
11. Communication of Calvary CRC Pella to Rev. W. P. Brink.
12. Protest and petition of Rev. J. Geels to Synod 1973.
13. Study committee report of Classis Pacific Northwest.
14. Letter from the CRC in Montreal, Quebec.
15. Letter from the Calvin CRC in Grand Rapids, Mich.
16. Letter from Rev. C. Spoor of Burnaby, B.C.
17. Letter of Rev. H. Spaan, giving a resume of statements made by hilll On the floor of Synod 1973 and sent to us at our own request.

Later on, even more materials were added to the long list when a survey of the churches was initiated by our committee.

HISTORY
The Synod of 1973 received an appeal from Mr. Roy van Kooten against the practice of the Calvary Christian Reformed Church of Pella, Iowa, admitting guests to the Lord's Table by giving an invitation in the church bulletin and reading the same from the pulpit on communion Sunday. Previously this appeal had not been upheld by the Calvary ConsIstory and by Classis Pella. Some of the churches in Classis Pella supported Mr. van Kooten and, when his appeal came to the Synod of 1973, synod sustained the appeal of Mr. van Kooten.

Simultaneously a similar problem had arisen in Classis Rocky Mountain. This classis refused to approve the work of the church visitors who had pointed out to the Chelwood Consistory that their practice of admitting guests to communion was in violation of article 59 and article 85 of the Church Order. The Chelwood Church, in fact, left the decision to partake of communion to the individual as he received an invitation from the pulpit.

Classis, upon advice of a duly appointed study committee, declared that articles 59 and 85 did not speak directly to the matter of inviting non-member worshipers to the supper. The synod agreed that this classical statement was formally correct, yet it decided to refer this problem also to our study committee.

SURVEY OF THE CHURCH
The committee decided to draft a questionnaire and send it to all the churches in the denomination. In this way we hoped to get a clearer picture of the actual problems encountered by consistories and of the solutions they themselves had designed to overcome their problems.

Our questionnaire contained the following items:
1. Name of church

2. Type of congregation
a. Rural
b. Urban
c. Inner city
d. Mission
e. Other (describe)

3. Approximate percentage of members of the congregation with a Reformed background.

4. Approximate number of visitors to the Lord's Supper during the past 12 months at an individual service.

5. Method of extending invitation to the sacrament during the past 12 months. (More than one method may be indicated)
a. Face to face encounter, consisting of interrogation concerning doctrine and life.
b. Invitation through relatives, friends, etc.
c. Invitation from pulpit, including explanation of who may be worthy partakers.
d. Invitation extended by announcement in bulletin.
e. Other (please explain).

6. Are the names of those invited announced to the congregation?

7. Must visitors sign a card attesting to their faith and church membership?

8. Are visitors told that their participation is ultimately a matter between them and their Lord?

9. Does the method of extending an invitation differ for those who are Christian Reformed and others?

10. If method differs, please explain how and why.

11. How would you rate the effectiveness of your method of supervision
excellent ..... good ..... fair ..... poor ..... uncertain .....

12, Do you encounter any particular problems in implementing your method of supervision; if so, please explain.

13. Additional comments,................................

By the cut-off date, March 10, 1974, 410 churches had responded, a clear indication of how sensitive the issue has become in our denomination. Many questionnaires were returned with extensive elucidations, sample bulletin notices or advice to the committee. Classis Lake Erie, Classis Cadillac and Class is Pacific Northwest called attention to their approach and results of their own studies and research.

Rather than complicating this report with an immense variety of statistics, the committee chose instead to present an analysis of the answers given to our questionnaire. Our analysis is as follows:

A. Level of satisfaction, whatever the method.
Some 74% of our consistories reported that they were quite satisfied with the solutions they had found.

At the same time some of our churches made it very clear that these solutions were not necessarily in accord with the action of the Synod of 1973.

Most of our churches, notably the rural ones, maintain the practice of asking the visitor to contact the minister or an elder prior to the worship service; permission is usually mediated through friends or relatives. At times the request is simply phoned in. These churches report the greatest degree of satisfaction.

Face to face encounters are not popular; 155 churches never do it, ninety-two seldom, eighty-one churches did not answer the question. A large number of churches prefer to have an invitation given from the pulpit in addition to the one stated on the bulletin. This often includes an explanation of the biblical requirements for partaking; roughly half of our churches use this method. Least satisfied are our suburban churches, genuine supervision of communicants poses a real problem for them. Nevertheless, they constitute only one fifth, or 20%, of the churches polled. The satisfaction level does not seem to be very crucial, but we should keep in mind that mere statistics may be deceptive.

B. The troublespots
Many churches are convinced that established traditional patterns no longer serve them well. The time before the service is too short for a meaningful interview; greeters at the door, authorized to extend an invItation on behalf of the consistory, find it next to impossible to report back to their fellow elders. Most non-CRC guests are not acquainted with our customs; evangelical Christians tend to resent our practice of screening guests and consider it a sign of un-Christian suspicion.

A number of churches, together with Classis Lake Erie, have expressed themselves in disagreement with the Synod of 1973, calling its decision both confusing and contradictory. They feel that visitors are held guilty until proven innocent and urge the churches to place the burden of responsibility upon the individual. In this connection the case of Judas Iscariot is sometimes used as evidence and proof for personal responsibility after the necessary warnings have been given.

We believe that the case of Judas Iscariot cannot be used as a norm for admitting persons to communion. Both his case and the host at the Supper (Jesus) are unique. His partaking, if so assumed, was to be a fulfillment of the Scripture and thus once and for all (einmalig). The norm for us must be that no adulterer, drunkard or robber may be part of our fellowship. (See I Cor. 5:11.)

Other forms of criticism of the present state of affairs show that our concept of "the church" is too narrow; that in effect the sacrament is for members of the CRC only. Others maintain that the screening process takes away the spontaneity and the festive character of the Supper for both guests and elders. Still others point out that there are no guidelines given in the Church Order and that we should not make any now.

It is all too clear that many churches have become frustrated and often go their own way with a congregationalist approach to the problems. Strangely enough, satisfaction and dissatisfaction go hand in hand. That is precisely where our problem lies.

C. Alternatives
One can hardly speak of a single Christian Reformed approach to the supervision of guests at communion. All our churches are in favor of some form of supervision; none promotes open communion, but they are widely experimenting with a variety of solutions, some of which exclude supervision of elders altogether.

No single alternative has been given us, but the troubled churches tend to shift the emphasis to the pulpit. Thereby they eliminate, as they see it, discrimination between member and guest since the sincere calI to total commitment comes to both alike.

No system of signing cards or greeters at the door or any other method seems to solve the problem.

In view of the overwhelming response we have received from the churches and from three different classes, we wish to underline our appreciation for the vast amount of work that has been done by them. It is crystal clear that this whole matter, now before us, touches the very life of the churches. That in itself has been an encouragement to the committee called upon to study all these problems in the light of the Scriptures and the Reformed creeds.

THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM
The first matter we have wrestled with can be called the nature of the problem. Amid the welter of different opinions and solutions current within our denomination, we came to the conclusion that the real core problem had been circumvented.

Not all the churches view the problem from the same angle. Many are quite content to receive guests at the communion table on a regular basis, without dealing with the question of membership in the local church. Others feel that the matter must be left to the individual conscience of the guests. Some feel that our celebration of communion is too guarded and too restrictive, calling for an easing of the rules. Still others are of the opinion that, given the variety of rural, suburban and mission churches, the whole issue should be left in the hands of local consistories, so that they may dispose of the problem in loco, as they see fit.

We believe that in all these attempts the real point of difficulty has been missed: the biblical concept of the church.

We hope to show in this study that the complexity of the church in our modern age, complicated by a vagueness of our conception of that church, lies at the very root of all our problems. We shall never begin to solve any of our problems until we have dealt with "the church."

The most agonizing problem in this connection is surely the multiplicity of denominations, a baffling phenomenon to many Christians and certainly to the world. Though we fully recognize a spiritual unity, experienced by Christians in many denominations, that spiritual unity is not made manifest as the Scripture and the confessions demand. The Scriptures relate to us the prayer of our Lord that they may all be one, "so that the world may know that thou hast sent me" (John 17:23). In other words, according to this text, the unity of the disciples will bring glory to the Father. The world must be able to see the oneness in tangible form and that is where a mere spiritual unity falls short.

The Scriptures confront us with a clear calI to that visible unity, but unfortunately we tend to gloss over the impact of the Highpriestly prayer by assuming that we have already attained to that unity by being spiritually one in the Lord.

In the same manner the confessions do not suggest a simple pluriformity of churches as an acceptable alternative to the categories of true and false. In other words, the existing evil situation of the brokenness of the body of Christ may not be permitted to dictate the terms of our church fellowship with other Christians. We believe that this is exactly what is happening, bringing along a host of peculiar problems.

Over and above all this there is the mobility of church members, an on-going process of urbanization, with a resulting anonymity of church members. These contributing social factors make it very difficult for the average Christian to define for himself just what the church is. It seems to be in a fluid state with little stability and intimate fellowship. The biblical idea of the body of Christ, with the several component members making up that body, is not easy to visualize. It would seem convenient indeed to accept the notion of some sort of super-church, largely invisible, with some semi-detached members showing up here and there for fleeting acquaintance, like ships passing in the night. Once that view has been adopted, the Reformed tradition and policy governing admission to the communion table become hopelessly outdated and totally irrelevant.

In the light of the foregoing, we must ask what the Scriptures and the confessions say about the church and the place of the elders in that church.

THE NATURE OF THE CHURCH
We believe that the great majority of the references to the church in the Scriptures point to the local congregation, e.g. the church at Corinth, the church in Sardis, Laodicea etc., the church which is at thy house and many more similar definitions

1 Cor. 1:2: "To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place caIl on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours." (See also Acts 15:22; 18:22; Romans 16:5; 1 Cor. 4:17; 1 Cor. 14:4,5; 1 Cor. 16:9; Eph. 4:4, Philip. 4:15; Col. 4:15; I Peter 5:13; III John 9; Rev. 2 and 3.)

The church is a communion of saints, a fellowship in and with Christ as well as a well-ordered and cohesive body, created by the power of God's Word and Spirit. This communal fellowship is the life fellowship of the local church and to that fellowship the sacrament of communion is given by her Lord. The church is a congregation, a gathering with visible unIty; an ekklesia which is a gathering of his people by his Word and Spirit (sunagoge).

The same conviction is expressed in article 27 of the Belgic Confession where we read that the one "holy catholic or universal church is a . , , congregation." Article 28 states that "it is the duty of all believers...to join themselves to this congregation, wheresoever God has established it." Article 29 declares that there are two churches, one true and one false. The true church can easily be distinguished from the false one because it is a visible entity, maintaining the true preaching of the Word, the biblical administration of the sacraments and the exercise of Christian discipline.

According to these articles, the sum total of individual congregations, assemblies or gatherings does not produce the total community of the church. On the contrary, every local congregation, however small, represents the total church in its catholicity, the church consisting of every tribe, language and tongue.

One does not find the church in the sum total of the congregations, or even in the so-called invisible church, but in the local congregation. In that "ekklesia" one finds the church he is duty bound to join. The church of God is always at a given location; there the body of Christ becomes visible and there is the "koinonia" the fellowship with Christ and with one another. The sacrament is a visible expression of that unity and fellowship in the local congregation, which is the church, the ingathering of God's people at that time and place.

Neither the Scriptures nor the confessions are content to define the church as a grand mosaic of individual congregations, each bringing its own color and sparkle to the total design; nor do they conceive of it as a variety of denominations, each with its own confessional stance. The church is where God's people meet at a specific location with a visible pulpit and a visible communion table. The fact that today his church is badly split and broken up does not alter that basic concept presented in Scripture and confession.

THE PLACE OF THE ELDERS IN THE CHURCH
In accordance with article 30 of the Belgic Confession the church must be governed by a certain polity which God has ordained in his Word. Ministers and elders serve a two-fold purpose.

First of all they must be the means by which the Gospel is promoted and the true religion preserved. They must see to it that the benefits of Christ, such as the forgiveness of sin and eternal life, are offered. They must also be the spiritual overseers who exercise discipline by punishing and restraining transgressors, Primarily, however, they must be shepherds and guides to Christ.

Elders must fulfill the task given them by the Chief Shepherd of the sheep; they must give leadership in wisdom, exhort and rule in his name. They must be the servants of Christ, taking his place, as the host welcoming his people, stewards and distributors of the grace and mysteries of God.

While this latter aspect may not be all that clear from the form for installation of officebearers or from the Church Order, it is clear from the Scriptures (I Cor. 4:1, 2; I Tim. 6:20; art. 31 Conf.). The apostle urges Timothy to be strong in the grace which is in Christ Jesus "and what you have heard from me before many witnesses, entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (I Tim. 2:2). The same idea is expressed in article 30 of the Belgic Confession when it maintains that by means of the officebearers "the true religion may be preserved and the true doctrine everywhere propagated."

Officebearers act on behalf of the host, they open the kingdom of heaven with the keys entrusted to them and shut it against unbelievers. Thus the task of the officebearers is to urge and invite all men to join themselves to the true church, but to keep out the wolves from the flock as well.

Obviously, this will also be their task at the communion table; a task to be fulfilled with a good understanding of the nature of the church and the purpose of the sacrament of communion.

THE SACRAMENT OF COMMUNION AND THE PARTICIPANTS

In article 35 of the Belgic Confession we are told that the Lord's Supper has been ordained to strengthen and nourish those whom he has already regenerated and incorporated into his family, the church. The emphasis is clearly upon growth through communion, which in turn leads to further communion: "In a word, we are moved by the use of this holy sacrament to a fervent love toward God and the neighbor."

In Lord's Day 30 of the Heidelberg Catechism the question is raised whether those are to be admitted to the table who are unbelieving and ungodly. The answer is that the Christian church is duty bound to exclude such people. Sin does not only affect the individual sinner but the entire congregation. The underlying thought is that no one celebrates the supper in lonely isolation, but only and always as a member of the body. That body is the local church; there the fellowship comes to expression. There they participate (in koinonia) in the body and blood of Christ. While the invitation "to do this in remembrance of hirn" is of primary importance, that invitation must also be accepted, because it is his own command.

It is evident from I Corinthians 11:17-32, the passage which appears as proof text in its entirety under Lord's Day 30 of the new translation of the Catechism, (Acts of Synod 1974, page 603) that to partake the Lord's Supper while there are factions and divisions is blasphemous. There must be fellowship before we can celebrate communion together. After all, the Lord's Supper is a vIsible demonstration as well as a mutual confession that we are one in the Lord by virtue of participating in him. We cannot partake with those whom we have not first received into Christian fellowship. It is simply not sufficient to believe that the body of the Lord was given on the cross as a sacrifice for our sins; we must also believe a holy universal church, represented in all its aspects by the local congregation. To do less than that is to be less than honest in spiritual matters.*

Because of the communal character of the Lord's Supper we do not believe that the forms for the celebration are broader in their concept of the participants than our actual practice. We are of the opinion that statements as "all those, then, who are thus minded, God will certainly receive in grace and count them worthy partakers of the table of his Son Jesus Christ," refer to the participants as they come together in congregational fellowship and may not be construed as a general invitation to guests one and all. After all, we unite as members of one body in true brotherly love around the table, by the same Spirit who unites us to Christ.

To sum it up: The Lord's Supper cannot be celebrated without having full regard for the body of Christ, hIs church. The sacrament is the sacrament of the church, always and ever. Communion is visible fellowship, koinonia, and elders must work toward the goal outlined by the Scriptures so that communion may be what it is intended to be.

In this light we must come to grips with the brokenness of the church. In the local congregation there must always be an awareness, even a painful awareness of the brokenness of that one body of Christ. We must diligently work toward the tangible and visible unity of the body of Christ; we should be very busy with that assignment. The beginning of that unity is with us, but the fullness of it has not yet come. That brokenness is a sad reality, but we believe that with the help of our Lord we shall overcome; we are committed to it. Our very partaking in the sacrament implies a commitment not to leave the brokenness for what it is.

There is a tension in the Christian life of obedience and thankfulness which will not be removed in this age, but only in the age to come. It is the tension between that which is and that which is not yet. We have a foretaste of eternal life, but the perfection of it is not yet here; it awaits the Day of Christ. The brokenness is not yet healed, but we pledge ourselves to work hard for it.

Both guest and host must make that pledge, work for it today, taking steps to resolve the existing tension and live in that expectation that our hope will become a visible reality.

THE VARIETY OF GUESTS AT COMMUNION
Our mandate demands that we deal specifically with the guests at the communion table. It is evident that there is a great variety among these guests and we wish to reflect upon that fact.

The several guests cannot be placed under a common denominator, nor can they be given a blanket invitation, precisely because in their variety the brokenness of the church is reflected.

We do not want to be dogmatic about our categories, but we do believe that the problems we have studied center around certain kinds of guests. We shall mention four different types of guests, even though that will not do justice to every single individual case. We are of the opinion that with these four different categories sufficient guidance has been given to consistories in general to deal with specifics.

A. The traveling guest, a member of one of our sister congregations.

In a way this person is probably the least of our problems. The casual way, however, in which he makes himself known, either through a relative or by phone, is something which should be eliminated. There is nothing casual about the celebration of the supper. It is a remembrance fellowship meal in the presence of the risen Lord and his congregation.

The guest owes it to the host to properly acknowledge him and introduce himself to the Lord's appointed representatives. Perhaps his consistory should provide him with a certificate which establishes his membership in our denomination. If possible he should not wait to announce his presence ten minutes before the service, but sometime on the previous day. In short, he should show the necessary Christian courtesy to the host.

B. The ecumenical guest, a Christian who belongs to another denomination, with no plans to join our fellowship at this time.

This guest feels free to visit in ecumenical style any evangelical church of his liking and finds no gpeat problems in doing so. His view of the church is probably vague, but he finds it all important that a person believe in the salvation of the Lord Jesus Christ. He is ready to declare his faith whenever he is required to do so, but he has little conception of the church of Christ. Most likely he is consoled by the idea that all churches together form the great universal and invisible church of the Lord. He is loyal to his own denomination for reasons of his own and sees no barriers on the road of true Christian fellowship across denominational lines, provided there be a common faith in the Savior. He is not likely to welcome elder supervision, because he believes that the whole matter of participation in communion ought to be left to the individual conscience of the believer. A warm and well meant invitation is all he needs and in his opinion no more is required in terms of guarding the table.

Obviously, this is the Christian who presents us with problems. The easiest way would be to give him the invitation he expects and leave well enough alone.

We believe it to be the duty of all Christians to wrestle with the nature of the church; to show our fellow-Christian guest where the problem lies as well as the great need for every Christian to come to grips with the terrifying brokenness of the church. We cannot, in the light of the Scriptures, afford to show on the one hand our unity in faith and on the other hand simultaneously the open denial of that unity by going our own ecclesiastical way afterwards.

The guest must also pledge himself to work for unity as the Lord wants it. While he cannot be expected suddenly to grasp the difficulties involved in interchurch communion, we may not leave it at that. There must be true fellowship before communion. We must confront him with the fact that there is no church in the sky as a panacea for all our sinful divisions and schisms. For that reason the guest should acknowledge the host before communion and the host in turn must welcome the guest, while making our position clear to him.

In a large church this would ordinarily present us with all sorts of logistical problems. This has become clear already from the answers given to our questionnaire. We believe that in such cases a fellowship meeting should be held before the communion service. We can then make it plain to him that we are not holding to the view that the Christian Reformed Church is the sole custodian of the faith, but that we seek ardently the visible unity of all believers. Can we not have coffee together before we have the wine? Don't we have time for that? We should!

We may well face a massive task to re-educate Christian people in this manner, but surely, we have enough stamina and imagination to tackle this problem. Since there is a more informal atmosphere in our church services during the last few years, it would seem that we have an excellent opportunity to start now, especially since at this time our difficulties with the supervision at communion have multiplied beyond all proportion.

C. The burdened believer, the guest who has a church home but who finds that his needs are not fulfilled there.

This brother or sister has our sympathy, of course, but as a guest who has come to seek out our fellowship and profess to be in need of it he must face the same circumstances and the same consequences. He is frustrated about his own affiliation, but is unwilling to make a definite choice regarding membership in our denomination.

Again, we welcome such a guest and may be rather tolerant and understanding with respect to his position. Yet, sometime the decision will have to be made; consistories should help him making a choice between the fellowship he is escaping from and the fellowship he is seeking. If he finds that he cannot have real fellowship with the members of his own church, then he must break with them, hard though that decision may be. He ought to be shown that an ostrich policy cannot be tolerated in the church of Jesus Christ as a viable option for escape from conflict.

D. The guest without a church home, attracted to our denomination, but not ready to join our fellowship.

As a steady visitor in our home mission churches and often virtually a permanent guest at the communion table, he is possibly the most problematic guest of all. In fact, he is without membership anywhere even though his name may appear in some church directory, yellow with age. We hesitate to confront him, because we feel he cannot be pushed. We welcome him month after month, but the matter remains in status quo and he in no-man's land. He may have some misgivings about the established church; formal profession of faith, adherence to creeds or provisions of the Church Order have little appeal for him.

From our side we tend to neglect making known to our guest our concern for the church and leave his membership in limbo. Since we can well understand some of his misgivings, we try to be patient and yield a little here and a bit there. After a while we find ourselves drifting away from our foundations and create a church concept to fit that situation. We might, for example, seek refuge in the idea that all churches together form the universal and invisible church of the Lord without a fixed address and make that a neat escape hatch for our frustrations. In fact, we only add to our perplexities; we get more visitors than we can handle and the system of supervision falls apart.

In addition, we have yielded, perhaps unwittingly, to a form of individualism which loses sight of the corporate character of the church. Then we find ourselves in a real bind: we become a Reformed church with a fundamentalist oriented communion table and fellowship. We believe that the church is an integral part of the faith we confess, but in actual practice we begin to see a communion table at which individual Christians testify to their personal faith. The local church, faced with these problems, makes its own solutions in this awkward situation, frequently disregarding the creeds and the provisions of the Church Order. In the midst of that confusion, synod pronounced its veto. Such is the geography of our difficulties at this point.

We are well aware that these things are extremely delicate, but we should not strengthen the imaginary status of the permanent guests by repeated invitations to participate in the Lord's Supper. Nor should we leave the whole of that decision to him alone.

SUMMARY
It would seem that we can summarize the whole complex matter in just a few words. Of course, summarizing it is quite different from solving it. Yet our summary may help to focus sharply on the nature of the problem with which we are dealing and that in turn may help us toward a solution.

The love for the Lord must go hand in hand with the love for his church; what God has joined together, man must not put asunder. The union which we have with our fellow Christians in the Lord is always a visible manifestation of the universal church. Sadly enough, the lack of that union also comes to visible manifestation. Nevertheless, the communion table is a sign and seal of our union in the Lord; Christians pledge themselves to work toward that goal with firm hope.

If we cannot do more in our sinful world, we certainly may not do less; it is a part of the never ending struggle for the Christian. He has not yet attained to the goal, but he continues to reach for it as long as he lives. He believes in his Lord and Savior, he also believes one holy catholic church; these are essential parts of his faith and expressed in the Apostles' Creed and the Nicean Creed.

RECOMMENDATIONS
On the basis of the foregoing study we wish to present the following recommendations to our churches regarding the supervision of guests at the communion table:

1. That synod give opportunity to the Rev. L. Mulder, secretary of the study committee, to answer questions on behalf of our committee.

2. That synod adopt the following guidelines for our churches regarding the supervision of guests at the Lord's table.

a. That consistories welcome the traveling guest, a member of sister Christian Reformed Church and remind him that it is proper for him to acknowledge the host before he can partake. In order to do so properly his home consistory should present him with a certificate of membership, of which we give a sample.

Front of card
Mr/Mrs ..... is a member in
good standing of the Christian Reformed Church at .....
Dated ..... 19..

Reverse side of card
We request our sister congregations to receive this brother/sister into its fellowship and provide him/her with pastoral care while he/she visits in your area.

During the service this guest could be asked to arise in order to be introduced to the congregation. All casual contacts to arrange for his or her participation in the communion service, such as phone calls etc., should be avoided.

b. That consistories welcome the ecumenical guest (with active membership in another denominaton) to the communion service if he acknowledges the host and is willing to take part in an interview before or after the service. This guest should be informed of our stand regarding the corporate responsibility which all Christians have for the sinful disunity among churches. He must be confronted with the consequences of his desire to participate in the communion service to which he is welcomed. For the same reason we urge members of our churches to be aware of the same consequences when participating in the communion services of other denominations.

c. That consistories welcome the burdened believer (with membership in another denomination but in need of our fellowship) to the communion table, provided he also acknowledges the host. This person must face the same consequences as the ecumenical visitor. Since he does not find his needs fulfilled in his own church home, we should have a fairly high degree of tolerance for his painful position. At the same time, he must come to a decision sooner or later. He cannot have what would in fact amount to a dual membership and he must be made aware of this. Follow-up work in this case is essential and pastoral care should have high priority for this troubled guest.

d. That consistories welcome the guest without a church home to our fellowship if he acknowledges the host and has declared himself to be a true Christian. However, he must be informed of the consequences: his participation is in effect a confession of unity with the congregation; it must lead of necessity to membership in that congregation.

To tolerate his status as permanent guest would be an unbiblical tolerance and hospitality. His so-called permanent guest status comes to an end, one way or the other. He can be a guest a few times and then owes the hour of decision. No further invitations shall be extended if no decision is forthcoming. This guest simply cannot remain between "yes" and "no" for long; the nature of the church and the sacrament forbids it.

We are of the opinion that the problem of guests does not only show itself at the time we celebrate communion. It is there at all times, quite apart from the sacrament. The difficulties which center around the communion table are only the visible tip of the iceberg underneath. We must seek for true and biblical ecumenicity at all times. For that reason the follow-up suggested is by no means a luxury, but a scriptural approach to our fellow believers.

It will mean a brand new course for many of our churches; it will also mean more work for our elders. The guests will have to be talked to, preferably not at communion time, but between celebrations.

Generally speaking, we believe that the above mentioned guidelines will show us a way out of our problems. No general invitations are issued from the pulpit anymore; we are honestly beginning to face real issues. It can be expected that in this manner the problems will slowly disappear because the list of permanent guests will gradually decrease in numbers.

It might be argued that there is no time before the service to put these proposals into effect. We would reply that if such be the case then our churches have become too large for their own good. After all, these are not trivial matters; if no time is available then our imagination must go to work to find time, before or after the service.*

Some suggestions and guidelines for the interview held with guests before or after the communion.

1. Our guests must be brought to the recognition that the communion service in which they partake in fact establishes and confirms Christian unity.

2. Our guests must come to the realization that all Christians at all times must pursue the true unity of the church in a visible manner, wherever and whenever they can. In effect they should make that promise and understand it in the light of the creed of Nicea: I believe one holy catholic church. . . .

3. Guests should not seek admission by way of casual contact

4. Consistories must work out details with wisdom.

3. That synod dismiss the study committee since its mandate has been completed.

Committee on Supervision of Visitors at the Lord's Table
Nicholas Knoppers
Lambertus Mulder, secretary
Jan Pereboom
Homer Samplonius
Jack Westerhof

Note: Rev. John Vriend, one of the original members of our committee before his move to Grand Rapids, Michigan, was most helpful as an advisor to our committee.

REPORT 37
SUPERVISION OF GUESTS AT THE LORD'S SUPPER
B. MINORITY REPORT
(Art. 101)

It is with deep regret that I am unable to agree with the viewpoints expressed by a majority of my fellow members of the study committee relating to Supervision re Visitors at the Lord's Supper. Although there is much in the report with which I agree, the area of disagreement is of such a fundamental nature that I cannot in good conscience sign the report in its entirety.

One of the basic threads of thought that flow through the report might be summarized somewhat as follows:

1. The congregations that replied to the questionnaire of the committee missed the real point of difficulty: the biblical concept of the church. These congregations have a vague conception of the church.

2. The church is a well-ordered and cohesive body—a gathering with visible unity. It appears to be restricted to the local congregation.

3. The multiplicity of denominations is a baffling phenomenon and is sinful in view of the prayer of our Lord that they all must be one. (See John 17:23.)

4. As long as a multiplicity of denominations exist, it is blasphemous to partake of communion with a member of another denomination unless there is a mutual pledge to work toward the tangible visible unity of the body of Christ.

I am unable to agree with this line of thought since I believe it is based on a view of the church that appears to be narrower than the New Testament view and departs from our creedal standards. Furthermore, it leads to conclusions in the report that are contrary to the tone and language of the Forms for the Celebration of the Lord's Supper.

None of the churches that replied to the questionnaire indicated that they had a vague conception of the church. It seems presumptuous on the part of the majority of the committee to take the position that the multitude of problems that the churches presented exist because the congregations have a vague conception of the church.

The church universal is identified in the majority report as the local congregation; whereas the holy catholic church of our creeds is dismissed as "the notion of some sort of super-church, largely invisible, with some semi-detached members showing up here and there for fleeting aquaintance, like ships passing in the night." The report's view of the church rests on the statement, "We believe that the great majority of the references to the church in the Scriptures point to the local congregation", whereas contrary scriptural references are ignored (Eph. 1:22; 3:10, Col. 1:18, 24).

The report further seeks to buttress its position by noting that the Belgic Confession, Article 27, refers to the one holy catholic or universal church as a congregation However, the congregation of which the confession speaks "is not confined, bound, or limited to a certain place or to certain persons, but is spread and dispersed over the whole world . . . ." surely that is not a local congregation! In fact the whole thrust of Article 27 of the Belgic Confession is that the church is universal, composed of all true Christian believers including those who have died as well as those not yet born.

Furthermore, the report places great emphasis on the allegation that the church is broken. Support for this is claimed by reference to our Lord's pastoral prayer in John 17, namely, "that they all may be one." The report implies that this is a prayer that all Christians must become members of one visible organization, free of any denominational distinctions and therefore it is the duty of all Christians "to always work toward the tangible and visible unity of the body of Christ."

Such eminent scholars as William Hendriksen, Arthur Barnes and Matthew Henry in their commentaries on John 17 all agree that this prayer does not refer to tangible, visible organizational unity. Hendriksen: "Jesus is not requesting that some day all denominations may become one mammoth denomination—(However excellent church union may be when it can be achieved without sacrificing any basic principle)." Henry: "Let us also pray for more abundance of holy love, that a spirit of mutual forbearance and kindness, among all who appear to love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity, may convince the world that they are all of one heart and soul, though separated by outward circumstances." Barnes: "This refers not to a union of nature, but of feeling, plan, purpose." "Christians are all redeemed by the same blood and are going to the same heaven." "Though they are divided into different denominations, yet they will meet at last in the same abode of glory."

This aspect of the report is also contrary to the view expressed by Dr. Abraham Kuyper when he discussed the matter of denominations at Princeton University in 1898. "But if the church consists in the congregation of believers, if the churches are formed by the union of confessors, and are united only in the way of confederation, then the differences of climate and of nation, of historical past, and of disposition of mind come in to exercise a widely variegating influence, and multiformity in ecclesiastical matters must be the result. A result, therefore, of far-reaching importance, because it annihilates the absolute character of every visible church, and places them all side by side, as differing in degrees of purity, but always remaining in some way or other a manifestation of one holy and catholic church of Christ in heaven" (A. Kuyper, Lectures on Calvinism, Six Lectures Delivered at Princeton University in 1898, Pages 63-64, Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1953).

In view of the opinion of these well known, highly respected authorities I cannot accept as axiomatic the theory expressed in the report that Christ prayed that denominational differences ("brokenness" is the term used in the report), must be eliminated. Even though church-union in certain circumstances may be desirable, to state to a Christian from another denomination that to partake of the Lord's Supper with him would be blasphemous unless he pledged himself to work toward church-union, in my opinion would do more to create disunity than unity. Yet this is the thrust of Recommendation 2-b.

Another area of disagreement concerns the fact that the report virtually ignores the teachings contained in our Forms for the Celebration of the Lord's Supper even though these may be considered to be our church's interpretation of what Scripture and the creeds say concerning the sacrament. The only reference to the forms is by way of a footnote which implies that the invitation is extended only to members of the local congregation plus, presumably, those who have requested permission to participate and have been granted this permission by the proper authority. The literal wording of the invitation is much broader and is clearly intended to be by the authors of the new forms. The report of the Liturgical Form Revision Committee to the Synod of 1964 stated that their intent was to provide forms that are explicitly Reformed enough to indicate the distinctive theology of our communion and at the same time catholic enough to demonstrate the catholicity of the church which we wish in all ways to confess.

When the form states, "We therefore bid all of you who have confessed your Lord, and who have truly examined yourselves according to the admonition of the Apostle Paul, to come in contriteness of heart and assurance of faith to commune with Christ in the partaking of this Holy Supper" (Form 2, page 4), this invitation is clear and unambiguous.

Furthermore when the form quotes Christ, "This do in remembrance of me," and goes on to say, "In obedience to that command we now celebrate this memorial feast," there is a clear implication that all Christians are required to obey as often as the opportunity presents itself. There is nothing optional about this command.

Does this position imply that the churches may serve the elements to any and all in cafeteria style as some critics of this position would claim? Of course not. Question 82 of the Heidelberg Catechism clearly states that the church is to exclude those who show by what they say and do that they are unbelieving and ungodly. On the other hand, there is not the slightest hint that in order for a visitor to obey this command he must "express willingness to take part in an interview" in order to "be confronted with the consequences of his desire to participate in the communion service to which he is welcomed." In view of this I find Recommendation 2-b to be untenable.

This concludes the discussion of some of the more basic reasons for my inability to sign the report in its entirety.

Although the mandate of the committee doesn't require it, I agree that it is appropriate to provide some guidelines. Due to lack of access to proper research material I do not feel qualified to submit an adequately documented set of alternative guidelines; however, I would suggest that synod consider the following:

1. The consistory should request visitors who feel that they meet the test of worthy partakers to make themselves known. God's people must be hospitable. In many instances in the Old Testament the stranger within the gates was treated as one of the family and subject to the same law (Fourth Commandment). The manner of identification cannot and need not be uniform in all circumstances. In churches where visitors are few, a face to face encounter may be the best method; however, where there are a large number of visitors (in some resort areas the visitors outnumber the members) requesting them to arise during the service may be appropriate. Only if visitors are identified can Christian hospitality be exercised.

2. The consistory should make certain that all potential participants are thoroughly informed as to the requirements for participation as well as the consequences of partaking in an unworthy manner. The matter of self-examination must be emphasized. The aspect of "fencing the table" should not be overemphasized. There is evidence that some Christians believe that the elements have some sort of magical quality and consider it a victory to mislead a consistory when that consistory attempts to assume the impossible burden of certifying that all participants are worthy. (See Question 4 to the Guide for Conducting Church Visiting.) Here again uniformity of method is neither necessary nor desirable. In some cases, a reading of the form may be adequate, sometimes face to face encounters may be best, and in other cases bulletin or pulpit explanations may be the most edifying. The method is secondary as long as the objective is attained.

3. The consistory should encourage participation by all who are worthy as well as seek to exclude those who are unworthy. The sacrament is a means of grace and it should be pointed out to potential participants, including visitors, that neglect of the means of grace is sinful. When our Lord says, "Do this," his command must be obeyed. There is no option. The individual Christian present at the service may not refrain or participate depending upon his whims of the moment. Unfortunately, I think it can be demonstrated that many of our churches give the distinct impression that they would be more comfortable if visitors refrained from participation but that permission to participate will be considered if the visitor expresses a strong enough desire to do so.

C. E. Zeilstra