Reception at the Lord's Table [Brochure]

Full Text of This Product

As to the matter of receiving at the table of the Lord certain Christians, it seems to me that we cannot lay down any one rule. Wisdom from the Lord and the desire for faithfulness are needed as the different cases come before us. As to receiving “simply as Christians,” I have time and again said, “You receive such and such simply as Christians. How do you receive others?” I think I under-stand what is meant by it, and have been present when it has been done. In the one case, they are received simply for the occasion, and not as identifying them-selves with the position. In the other, they are taking a position with us. But with you and others, I have felt a difficulty.

I am not happy in having to think at times the table of the Lord is made, as it were, a convenience, as, for instance, when those with us have relatives visiting them. They are members of some denomination, but they come with their relatives to the meeting and desire to partake with us of the supper “simply as Christians.” It has seemed to me that an upright conscience and integrity would take them to their church; I mean in such cases as where there is no exercise as to our position and their church. They simply come for the occasion, and they do not care to break away from their friends for the time being. In this I am not happy.

It has seemed to me that in such cases our responsibility is not to refuse them, but to put before them why we are thus gathered and that our position is a practical protest against the unscripturalness of denominations. Are they willing, even for the time being, to identify themselves with us? In partaking with us of the supper, they, for the time, identify themselves with us in this position, which is a protest against that with which they are connected and are confessedly upholding. Where souls are exercised, it is another matter, and it seems to me one would feel quite free in sitting at the table with them.

Is not exercise of soul the important thing? And hence no one rule can be laid down. It would surely not be of the Lord to require of a godly, exercised soul, connected with any of what we may call orthodox denominations, that he sever his connection with his church, before we allow him to participate with us at the table. To do this, it seems to me, is to practically deny the ground upon which we are gathered.

As to those meetings professedly gathered to the Lord’s name, I believe it to be quite another matter. They are professedly gathered to His name, and they should know why they are in separation from us and we from them. Should any of them desire to partake of the table with us, their reasons for this should be inquired into and action taken according to what is found. There is always more intelligence with them, as to divine truth, than with those saints in the denominations, and I believe, generally speaking, that they are not as ignorant of the causes of the divisions among us, as some of them would sometimes have us think. At least, some of us have found this to be true, when such have been questioned. While, as just said, I do not think it would be of the Lord to require those in the churches to break away from them before allowing them a place at the table, I would not, I think, be happy in allowing one from the above mentioned gatherings to be with us until he had done so—that is, until he had severed his connection with his gathering. Such have more light as to the truth and church of God than those in the churches, and, hence, greater responsibility, and we, a corresponding responsibility as to them. Am I right in this? It is the ground I have taken as to them for some time.

I am aware this has been made a point of by those known as “Open” brethren, and that they charge us with inconsistency in it, saying we receive from the Church of England, where bad doctrine is held and taught, and refuse to receive from among them until connection is broken and their position judged by them as not of God. We have pointed out to them the difference in the light possessed and the consequent position taken. There is a leader among the “Open” brethren in Chicago who has several times attacked us on this point, pointing out what J. N. Darby and others have done in receiving from the establishment.

As to the different gatherings, we ought surely to make a difference between the leaders and the led, and we, I suppose, do it so constantly when we meet them. Thus, to a leader or teacher among those who have followed Mr. Raven one refuses the hand. We are bound, I believe, in faithfulness to do so, but not to the simple and misled and especially those who have taken their place with them since the division took place, and perhaps know little or nothing of it or the cause thereof. With such, our responsibility, it seems to me, is quite different.

Should not each case stand on its own merits and Romans 15:7 and Jude 22-23 be our guide?

W. Potter

(This is a companion brochure to “The Table and Supper of the Lord” BTP #3957.)