Its a shame that Mr. Packer is so limiting at who can come to the table of our Lord when Jesus was so inviting. Christians always want to be concerned with who is in or out.

If Mr.Packer is going to exclude loving couples who happen to be gay then I hope he is also willing to exclude those who have ever divorced, those who look at pornography, those who are arrogant and judgemental, those who do not love their spouse/children as they should, those who abuse the earth to get ahead. Truely, if I went on we would all be exlcuded.

Communion is a meal of sinners who recognize their need of a savior. Not a VIP list.

I think it's going to be very difficult to deny Communion to someone when you are passing the elements down the row, without causing some sort of a scene.

I wonder if, to a certain extent, you have to allow the unrepentant sinner to scorn the sacrifice of Christ at their own peril?

On the other hand, causing a scene might effectively demonstrate to the rest of the congregation that Communion is something not to be taken lightly.

To Pomo:

The way I read it and understand it is that it is not excluding all sinners, period... If that was the case, Jesus would not have included Peter or Thomas in his Last Supper... anyone who has ever told a lie is out, period. I agree, it's a meal of sinners who recognize their need for a Saviour. The problem is unrepentant sinners. Gay, straight, liar, murderer, fornicator, etc... we've all sinned. But repentance is the key to the table.

I agree that this is tough, but I don't think this "red ropes" off communion...like a VIP line at a club. Would I do this? I don't. But the standard is not how loving we are - whatever our sexual orientation - or how we've taken our responsibilities and stewardships. The exclusion is not for those trying to live in total service to Christ (as defined by the scripture)...that's what grace is for. The exclusion is for those who know what Christ, as the Word, says and reject that standard. In that case, it's not the pastor that's rejecting that congregant. It's the congregant who said, "The communion signifies an act that is not a priority in my life." You can't axe Parker for that.

So hard, yeah. But mean-spirited exclusionary, no. If anything, it's Christ's ultimate love (and yeah, even respect) for us to let us choose. And when you choose how to live, you have to man up to the consequences of what that means. If you pick and choose and get angry about the obvious consequences, God didn't shift the tables on you. You did that to yourself.

Whilst we should exercise discipline in the Body, the point of service of the Sacrament is not the time. If the Elders have done their job under Matthew 18, then the disciple should be aware of the need to examine themselves. It is for them to discern their standing in Christ, and for Christ to judge it. Our church offers Communion to all those who love the Lord.

"For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself."

I don't see that the congregation's job is to jugde if someone is "holy" enough for communion. Maybe you should put your own house in order first.

Packer's criteria leave open up all sorts of problematic questions. How well do we have to understand what the communion service is all about? How confident should leaders be in their own understanding of it? Would J.I. Packer, for instance, deny communionion to those who think access to the Lord's table should NOT be restricted? Because we certainly disagree with his understanding of "what the Lord's table is all about."

Secondly, as Packer himself points out, the question about what constitutes a serious moral offense is a matter of debate. To take one example, should we exclude persons from communion who brazenly pursue material possessions? And then we have to discern whether they are brazen or repentent. Perhaps the money-worshipper has had a change of heart at this moment--would we deny them communion at the very moment they have a change of heart?

These are practical considerations, posed in the hope of exposing the absurdity of Packer's position. But there are a whole host of theological considerations, too. The first one I would tackle is taking a look at who our Lord welcomed to his tables when he walked the earth.

"Loving couples who happen to be gay" are loving couples who are doing what the New Testament classifies as sin. This isn't about "who's in and who's out." It's simply about conforming to the New Testament rather than conforming to a fallen society. What Dr. Packer suggests not only is Biblical but was the practice of the early churches.

We know that we all sin; but we also know that "no one born of God practices sin." If this means anything, it means that men and women who willfully and continually do what the New Testament calls sin are not born of God. That statement came from the same man who said that, if we do sin, we have an Advocate: Jesus Christ, the righteous One. If withholding Communion spurs me to live in the truth of both of those statements, then (like it or not) I need that discipline of having Communion withheld from me.

I've always had a different take on the Matthew 18 verse, referenced in the interview above. Jesus seemed to have a unique way of relating to heathens, publicans, and tax collectors...he spent time with them. He didn't reject them. Even my four year-old son knows that Jesus invited himself over to the house of the most notorious tax collector (Zacchaeus). Perhaps we should not sit as judge and jury over who should and shouldn't be allowed at the table...lest we ourselves might be judged.

"The second point of restriction is when individuals in the congregation are known to be living in sin."

Looks like it's gonna be pretty lonely up there at the Lord's Table.

By the way, wasn't Judas at the table when Jesus was inaugurating that whole "Supper" thing?

Think about it.

Grace and Peace,
Raffi

I am sorry I though that we didn't get to decide who was in and who was out of the kingdom of God. It is not the pastor's, it is not the churches table, it is notthe denominations table, It's the Lord's table. The hospitality of the Lord's table I don't think should be policed by anyone, I think, now I may be wrong about this, that God has bigger issues for his church to worry about than this. I would also say what would it say to a person who is starting to try to follow jesus, doesn't really understand much, has not yet made a commitment for christ or have been baptized to be told because he doesn't have the right level of membership he can't come to the lords table. That seem contrary to what Jesus was about and the way he operated.I would not want any part of a church that said they followed jesus but whose methods seem contrary to his teachings if I was just beging to follow him.

Is it possible that the words were not meant to exclude someone from taking communion but rather to instruct how to adjust their heart before taking communion?

We are thinking in terms of exclusion when God thinks in terms of reconciliation. We tell people to adjust so they can come to His table, not stay away from his table.

I always make a point of saying that ALL are welcome to this table - it is not a members only club but a place where you can encounter God and be encountered by God. If you seek to connect with God come - the table is open.

I leave the rest up to God. It is not for me to judge the heart of someone who may be ready to do some serious "business" with God. I may just inhibit someone from that and I don't want to get between God and the one God wants to encounter - that could be a dangerous place.

Has anyone ever read this:

But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. "Purge the evil person from among you."

It's from an interesting little book I own called the Bible (1 Corinthians 5.11-13). To those who say "I don't see that the congregation's job is to judge if someone is "holy" enough for communion," please read this and seriously consider the instructions given the church, particularly in 1 Corinthians. It's not quite as easy going as we try to make it be.

Wow! I like Packer, but I think he's way off base here. Whatever happened to "Let a man examine himself ..." 1 Cor 11:28?

Everything Dr. Packer said here is solidly based on Scripture and backed up by centuries of church practice across the vast majority of Christian denominations that have ever existed. Everything that has been advanced in objection to Dr. Packer's points has been based on various other things, ranging from mushy postmodern "logic," to sappy sentimental liberalism, to morally-outraged-but-ultimately-impotent pragmatism — all of it virtually devoid of any serious attempt to deal with the full range of relevant biblical data as Dr. Packer has. To the extent that the approach that opposes Dr. Packer's gains influence in the church, to the same extent the spiritual outlook for God's people in the coming years looks exceedingly dark.

My pastor always announces (upfront) that ALL BAPTISED CHRISTIANS WHO BELIEVE CHRIST TO BE FULLY PRESENT IN THE BREAD AND THE WINE ARE WELCOME AT THE SUPPER.

We don't hand out questionaies. If we are in error, we belive we err on the side of God's grace for sinners.

Spiritual discipline in the church.
Interesting.
Very interesting.
So, now, we have the morality police in the church?
And by what standard is this application measured against?
Mosaic law?
Talmudic law?
Noahic law?
Arbitrary locality customs?
By what standard is being applied?

I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Packer, but on this…I’m not sure he articulated his thoughts very well.
I’ve seen him do better.

Look, people are people, and if you want to go on a witch hunt, which is what this could easily turn into, then I highly recommend that if you want to find the miscreants who are living contrary to the word of G-d, i.e. the bible, here is what you do.
Ready?
Go to the bathroom.
Turn on the light.
Look deep into the mirror.
Stare into the eyes of the person looking back.
Congratulations, you found the miscreant you have been looking for.

We all have a dark sin that we hope nobody, for the love of all that is private and secret, finds out about.
It’s a private sin.
Sometimes people suspect, others…not so much, but it is ours, and boy-howdy do we have a love/hate relationship with it.
Now imagine that little secret sin of yours is put proudly on display before the entire congregation so all can sit in judgment of you.
I hope you all find that prospect as uncomfortable as I do.

Homosexuality is a sin, without a doubt, but so is gossiping.
So is hate.
So is greed.
So is materialism.
And the worst part of it all is that the list is not exhaustive, there is so much that we do that points to our unrighteousness that we have a blanket statement of "I'm a sinner."

Bottom line is the church is a hospital, and not one of our country clubs. Sick people go to a hospital, healthy people can go to their country club.
If a person comes to the church looking for a country club-like atmosphere, and they find what they are looking for the fault of their effort does not lie with them. They found what they wanted.
No, the fault, the blame if you will lies with the church because they are the ones who allowed their congregation to become...a country club.

I understand communion is for followers of Jesus. It is called the Lord's table partly because it is for those who recognize Jesus as Lord. Jesus did it with His disciples, not the tax collectors and the general public. Go ahead and eat with them and involve yourself in their lives at other times, but Communion is for believers to remember the cost of our salvation, and an encouragement to look ahead for His second coming.
Is it being exclusive to have one time in your schedule that is for your brothers and sisters in Jesus? It's absurd to argue that. Jesus took all kinds of time to be with and teach just His followers.
The second aspect about sin and judgement is a very serious personal thing. Paul said not judging YOURSELF rightly led to sickness and death. I share that caution with the congregation before every communion time, encouraging them to take time to make sure they are in a right relationship with God.
The church I grew up in used to do communion after a regular service, separated by a song, allowing people a natural time to leave if they did not wish to participate.

1Cor5:11-13, if used as a set of rules to determine who should receive Communion, would make the Table an exceedingly lonely place. Jesus told us that anyone who looks at a woman with lust in his heart has committed adultery (sexual immorality). How many of us have a football or a baseball team that we "idolize", or for some it is a car or a pastor or... How can we know another person's heart? Can we see into their spirits and determine if they have truly repented from their sins? This is not an easy topic, but to throw this particular Bible verse out and make a statement like, "It is from an interesting little book I own called the Bible.", seems to create more dissension and create more separation among Christians. I do not claim to know who should or should not receive communion, but I also do not condemn those who have interpreted the Bible differently than myself.

My denomination found the practice of communion such a great source of dissension and disunity that we stopped it. There were arguments over who was allowed to serve it. There were arguments over who was allowed to take it. There were arguments over the alcohol content of the wine. There were arguments about the efficacy of the sacraments (baptism, too) as a means of grace.

In the end, we decided the best thing to do was to stop observing them. We've been arguing about the rightness and wrongness of that decision ever since, but it's far more peaceful than it was!

ROB, you said ""Loving couples who happen to be gay" are loving couples who are doing what the New Testament classifies as sin. This isn't about "who's in and who's out." It's simply about conforming to the New Testament."

What the New Testament classifies as sin in YOUR interpretation. There are other interpretations which don't classify it as sin. So once again when we start saying these people can take communion and these can't, we're the ones playing judge and excluding people from something we have no business excluding them from. God is big enough to sort it out.

I have yet to see anyone challenge Raffi's point that Judas, who was clearly an unrepentant sinner, was at the table when the Lord's Supper was instituded. That is not mushy postmodern "logic" or sappy sentimental liberalism. It is a fact that is also from the interesting little book that Todd calls the Bible (Lk 22:14-23). Surely this text, which describes the context of the original Lord's Supper, should be taken as seriously as the ones from 1 Cor 11 and Mt 18. My point is simply that this is a complex issue, and surely we can debate it without belittling the other side's interpretation. There are valid points that are made on both sides of the argument.
My question for those who side with Packer's interpretation is, how do you respond to the fact that Judas was at the Lord's supper?

Fernando,
Yes, Judas was at the table, but read Luke 22.21-22. Jesus says woe to him. In Matthew he says it would be better if he were not born. Now, what does 1 Corinthians 11 say about those who partake without discerning? That they "drink judgment on [their self]" (v.29). So, we may see Judas as a picture of what happens when the table is taken with a evil spirit.

Moreover, Judas was not an acknowledged unrepentant sinner to the brethren. Jesus knew his sin, and withheld this knowledge for due reason, but Judas' evil deeds were still done in secret (see Luke 22.23), so the disciples would not have known to disqualify him.

Phil,
At some level there has to be discernment. Clearly Paul is instructing the Corinthians on what to do, same as he instructs the Thessalonians in 2 Thessalnoians 3.14-15. These words are not just rhetorical or to prove a point. Someone who is in unrepentant sin like this is expected to be disciplined by the church. This is not a "cast the first stone" passage, it is genuine instruction to be carried out by the body and its leadership.

Cameron,
I don't know what denom you are from, but something tells me it is never a good idea to purposely not do something that Christ has instructed.

Pomo,
That's the problem with pomo-christianity. The Bible has vested authority in men to interpret and teach the Scriptures (cf. Titus 1.9), and it also is their responsibility to adjudicate issues of church discipline based on the same Word. Even if they are basing it on "their" interpretation, the Bible clearly states that there is such a thing as "sound doctrine" and that is to be the basis of rebuking those who are in sin.

Ok Todd. But still the question remains on what is considered "sound doctrine" and who has the authority to say? But lets take your argument, I still hold on my points I made in the very first comment:

If Mr.Packer is going to exclude loving couples who happen to be gay then I hope he is also willing to exclude those who have ever divorced, those who look at pornography, those who are arrogant and judgemental, those who do not love their spouse/children as they should, those who abuse the earth to get ahead. Truely, if I went on we would all be exlcuded.

And lets not forget those who drive gas -guzzling SUV's unless they sell them their continued abuse of the earth is clearly unrepentant sin!

Todd,
Certainly we must discern and it is the job of the church leadership to discipline those who need it. There are two questions you seem to have avoided. The first revolves around the need to be condescending in your initial argument that this passage comes from a little book you like to call the Bible. This tone and attitude immediately lowers your credibility level. When you later make a good point your witness is lessened by the sarcasm you threw out there initially. The second point is more to the article as it was written. Is the communion table the right time for the leadership of a church to discipline a believer? The Bible discusses the proper way to discipline a brother and it does not mention doing so at the communion service.

This is definitely a complex issue and one that must be handled with grace and discernment.

One thing that's not been talked about is the wider context of 1 Cor. 11. We too often read verses 27-28 with an individualistic eye when in actuality what Paul is addressing is the larger problems of table fellowship in the Corinthian church. He wasn't talking so much about individual's sin, or their understanding of what was taking place but rather the community's understanding of what it meant to be a true community. I am not saying sin is absent from the issue but it is clear that Paul's thoughts regarding the Lord's Supper begin at verse 18 with his talk of factions in the church, people arriving early, getting drunk, while others who arrive later go without...and ends with verses 33-34 where he admonishes them to wait for one another, thereby avoiding judgment.

It seems to me the real issue has to do with what it means to be a Christian community. To love, serve, confront, and care for one another. How we come to the Table as a community is more important than how we come as individuals.

Good response Phil.

Todd B's answer to Fernando's question is a bit inadequate. Part of the issue is that if Jesus wanted us to purposely exclude those whose hearts were set in unrepentant sin from the table, then he would have had a perfect opportunity to do that with Judas. But he didn't. Why?

Todd's excuses don't work here. It almost seems as if Todd B. is saying it would have been the disciples' job to exclude Judas, which seems really strange to me. I'm not sure I can recall a time in the scriptures when Jesus was thankful that his disciples excluded someone. Also, I'm not sure all the stuff about whether or not Judas' sin was "hidden" or not really matters here.

Phil,
Thank you for your last comment. I take your concern to heart and am glad that you were willing to say this. I probably did overspeak in an attempt to express my frustration and am sorry if this came across in bad taste.

As to your question about the proper place of discipline, I do not believe that Packer nor I are endorsing the discipline process taking place at the Lord's Supper, surely this is something that should have been started earlier and in small company as prescribed by Scripture. But the point of removing them from the pews or fencing them from the table, whatever the need may be for the given method of communion, is in order to protect the integrity of the ordinance in the whole of the community. Recall, Paul is quite adamant that a little leaven leavens the whole loaf, and the Old Testament is clear about the consequences one individuals sins can have on the whole of a gathering (think Achan in the book of Joshua), so for the leadership of a church to take extra care in removing those in open, acknowledged sin is a wise step, and seems to be in line with the varied warnings of Scripture.

Interesting ... some sins are so blatant, so out there, so obvious for all to see. Yet, I'd venture to say that perhaps the most heinous transgressions are those of the heart and mind, while the exterior of the person sits there looking pious and holy.

"The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it? 'I the Lord search the heart and examine the mind ...'" (Jeremiah 17:9-10).

I actually winced when I read the article. There are few, if any, ministry leaders that I'd be comfortable with making this call.

I think I'm going to have to let Him do the judging.

Think about it like this: if the one who eats and drinks wrongly brings damnation on themselves, how will that effect non Christians. According to the Bible, they are already not going to heaven... is there a deeper level of hell reserved for unbelievers who have the temerity to take communion?

The injunction to examine the heart is given to the believer, who is under a law of grace to be allowed to get their heart right through remembering what Jesus did for them.

For those who are exploring/interested/standing on the edge and who see that believers are remembering what Jesus did for them, surely the choice to remember that also must be a good thing! I became a Christian through taking Communion, not despite it... I'd taken it a few times as a person on the edge, and then one day, in the course of eating and drinking, I had a revelation of Jesus and i made the choice to go with Him.

How narrow minded and religious can we be, to exclude seekers because they haven't found yet.

Todd,
It is indeed difficult to find the place where we are maintaining the integrity of something as holy as Communion. I truly understand your point. My concern is in our pretending to be able to see into the hearts of the other people sitting in our church. I would not want to preclude even one person from sharing in the joy of knowing that Jesus died for them and that this is a symbol of His death and resurrection. To use the example of the gay couple, is it possible that one or both of the couple may be wondering if their lifestyle is a sin? If we show them the love of Christ instead of the judgement of man do we open the way for that person to come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ? I do not have the answers to these questions and each church will find the level of comfort that fits their congregation. My point is merely that we cannot see the hearts of individuals. Only God can. For me, I use the standard of each person must examine himself before coming to the table. This may leave the table open to some who are living in some type of unrepentant sin. The problem is, any way we do communion we leave the table open to some in unrepentant sin because we cannot see the heart.

When the Love Feast was first instituted (what we now call Communion or the Holy Eucharist or the Sacrament), the Jews had a problem inviting Gentiles unless they conformed to the Jewish Law. Peter had problems with the way Paul did things. And many came to this feast just to eat, party, and get drunk. And it was a great feast and good time to be with others. It wasn't a time of silence, reflection, and fearsome awe. That was instituted many centuries later.

When Paul saw how many of these followers of The Way came to this feast which was to commemorate what Christ did, he was appalled. This is why he said what he did: That those who came to get drunk, just to party and not come for the right reason, and didn't examine their motives for being there would bring judgment on themselves. That those who let them in and associated with these 'outsiders' should remove themselves -- they knew better. There was no separation of spiritual and physical, especially with this Feast.

The celebration is long gone and now we are left quibbling over who should be there and who shouldn't. Instead of looking at ourselves, we are pointing fingers at who is good enough and who isn't. We know in our hearts if we are 'right' and if we aren't. And there are many who leave and turn their backs on G-d because they feel 'God' has when in fact it is us who have turned our backs on his creation.

For a thoroughly convincing (from Jesus, Scripture, church history, experience, mission) counter-argument to fencing the table, I'd highly recommend Sara Miles' memoir, Take This Bread. Even Steve Brown, a fellow Reformed fella, likes Sara.

When the bible says not to eat or drink in an unworthy manner it also instructs us to examine ourselves. The point of this was not for us to tell people to skip communion because sin is present. The point is for a person to examine their lives and confess and adjust.

I think the one guy who has hit the nail on the head is Doug Resler. The context of the passage by in 1 Cor. 11 is about unity in the Body of Christ. The rich weren't waiting for the poor. So by the time the poor arrived there was no food left, communion was over. Only the elite participated, the poor were left out. One of the amazing things about the church is it is one of the only places where people can come together, regardless of social economic background, and be on an even playing field. The Corinthians were destroying this unity by causing division in not waiting to eat the meal together. Read verses 33 & 34.

“So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.”

Paul starts off with unity at verse 17 and ends with unity in verse 34. The rich were sinning against the body of Christ through their selfishness. I think that is the danger of focusing on individual passages rather than trying to understand them in their context.

Jesus said in John 13:34-35 that we are to love one another (speaking to believers) because that is how the world will know that we belong to Him. The opposite of Love is Selfishness. Selfishness is me focused, Love is focused on others. How can we expect the world to love and follow Jesus when Christians within the same body don’t even love each other enough to wait until all are present to participate in the Lord's Supper? I have never been in a church that even acknowledged the verses before 23 and after 32. Every communion Sunday is focused exclusively on 1 Cor. 11:23-32. Context, context, context.

When we eat the bread and drink from the cup we declare our unity and come together as one body. Unity is not about compromise it is about submission together under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Tradition generally has kept communion closed to believer or to believers "in good standing." We have a very high view of communion, offering every week, and offer it to everyone in attendance. We believe that it is between God and the person. We emphasize that people receive it with reverence. We have had many non-believers point to communion as one of the primary reason they trusted Christ. In my experience I have attended church in which believers and pastors treated communion as an inconvenience. In our community it is hallowed by believer and non-believer alike.

Before serving the communion I always encourage self-examination. I realise that the best judge of the heart is God and the person to whom the heart belongs. I also remind people that as the "bread and the wine" is being passed down the aisle, they must refrain from passing a cup to their neighbour. I remind them that when they pass the cup from the tray to their neighbour,they do, by that very act pass judgment on their neighbour. I realise also that I do not know how God has worked in their hearts during the moments leading up to communion. I try to shepherd my people to the best possible place so that they can participate in communion without provoking God to anger.
Selvan
Zambia

AMEN Brother Packer! He IS right! If you eat and drink the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner, you eat and drink judgement upon yourself. It's pure and simple. So why voice opinions? Scripture says that those who practice homosexuallity will NOT enter the kingdom of Heaven. You CAN NOT get around that. Be careful to not shame the Lord's name. If you do, You will go to hell. Not my words, the words of the Christ.

I have attended ONE communion that was revered as sacred. Every other time I have attended, its been a "going through the motions" ritual. Sad...

Those who are without sin cast the first stone.

If you are going to restrict who joins you in communion are you not judging that person? That is sinful, so should you be barred from communion as well?

Jesus' last supper was with a person who betrayed him for money. Sin is the betrayal of Jesus; therefore, I think everyone should be welcome to the Lord's table.

Whatever side of the arguement you take, it is important to note one thing, do not withhold any information that can help ur members decide whether to partake of the sacrament or not.
It is very vital to let people know the implications of eating unworthily.
By doing this you are you are neither judging nor excluding anyone.

May His mercy continue to endure concerning us all who believe and seek Him.

Turner V. O.