I grew up mainly in a rural setting, which is probably why I talk about “hedging the table”. Others might call it “fencing the table”. In essence, we all mean the same thing. Namely, how do you lay out who communion is and is not for? How do you make clear this is for you, but not for you?

Pretty much every church hedges the table somehow. At an absolute minimum, it is usually when somebody stands up and says, ‘if you believe in the Lord Jesus, you are welcome to take this’. They affirm this is also a matter of personal conscience. It isn’t for the church to police.

In my experience, those who only hedge to that degree undermine their own principle no sooner than some issue of sin arises. At that point, despite stating communion is for all who believe they have trusted in the Lord Jesus, and it for them to examine themselves, it turns out if the elders have decided they don’t agree with you, you can’t take it. Which minimally means their stated hedged position isn’t really their position at all as it is neither open to all who believe they have trusted Christ nor down to personal conscience in actuality. It also leads to an awkward position whereby certain question marks over the salvation of some lead to their inability to partake whilst questions marks that exist over another are allowed to slide; quite what the line is it is hard to say.

Close communion advocates at least have the advantage of a clear and objective line on the matter. They may differ on precisely where the line lies, but for many it is something like: if you are a baptised member of a church in which you would ordinarily be permitted to take communion, then you are welcome to join with us. The objective line is less personal, it is less slippery and it can be applied equally to all. It does not leave the matter up to personal conscience (nor pretend that is what we’re doing when we aren’t in reality); the line is objective and can be externally known without having to parse internal motives and heart-issues. You either currently belong in membership to a local church at which you receive communion or you don’t.

The emphasis here is also less on the individual conscience – which we frequently find misleads itself despite what is clear to everyone looking on – and instead puts the emphasis on the affirmation of the local church. Which is, when all is said and done, at least in part what communion is. It is not just a personal affirmation that I think I am probably a believer – we can frankly just say and think that on our own and don’t need communion for it. If all we are affirming is our personal belief, communion is rather shorn of its value and is, frankly, unnecessary. If it simply affirms personal belief, it need not be taken publicly, it need not be taken with other believers and it ultimately need not be taken at all. The reason for it being public, communal and valuable is because communion is an affirmation by the church that this person belongs with us in Christ. In other words, a person may well say they’re a believer but the church is saying we agree with them! The ordinances are the marks Jesus gave us to do this. Baptism to affirm entry and belonging to the church; communion to affirm ongoing standing in the church.

For these reasons, we have found it helpful to hedge the table with three fairly basic questions to tease this out:

1. Have I personally trusted in Jesus as my Lord and saviour?
2. Am I baptised and in church membership?
3. Am I on good terms with my fellow members?

The first question is a matter of personal affirmation. Have I, personally, trusted in Jesus? Am I relying on his finished work for my salvation? This is our most basic way of asking those partaking: do you believe you are actually a Christian?

The second question, however, is crucial. A person may be convinced they are a believer and yet not affirmed as one by the church. It is worth remembering that the keys of the kingdom have been given to the church (cf. Matt 16:19; 18:18-20; 28:18-20). It is for the church to affirm – through baptism and communion – who belongs to the kingdom. Baptism and communion are marks of belonging. Belonging to the church – entering it through baptism – is the mark Jesus gave for his people. How we treat the church, according to Jesus, is a mark of how we view Jesus himself (cf. Acts 9:1-5 et al). If we don’t belong to the church, if we have affirmed only ourselves and yet have rejected (or been rejected) by the church, it is likely we have misunderstood our answer to the first question.

Our third question is more a matter of practice. It is easy to belong formally and yet function as though we don’t really belong at all. We may have the formal sign, but by our actions we may show that we don’t really belong. Further, we believe communion is an affirmation of our fellowship together in the same Christ to whom we are all united. But if we treat our brothers and sisters in such a way as to imply we aren’t really united – either by refusing to join the church at all or by joining and yet treating other believers with such disdain we make clear we are not united with them – we undermine the sign and its purpose. We may formally belong, but we aren’t evidently united. You cannot be united if you don’t belong – and so communion isn’t for those who don’t belong to the church – but you can belong and still fail to be truly unified. This third question is a good check on whether what we say we believe is actually being worked out in practice.

Of course, it is our hope that those who are unable to partake any given week will be able to join with us in time. If anybody is not yet a believer, we want to bring them to a point where they become a believer. If anybody is outside the church, we want to bring them to a point where we can welcome them into the church. If anybody is not living in a way that reflects their unity in Christ with their fellows members, we want to resolve whatever rift there is so that they can be truly united. The hedging of the table is not aimed at keeping the riff-raff out; it is aimed at being clear where everyone stands so that we can focus on whatever needs to happen so that we might meaningfully bring them in. If we fail to make clear where people stand now, we can’t be that surprised if they never see any reason to move from where they’re at.

So, for all those reasons, we hedge the table. We hedge the table according to those three questions. Far from acting a barrier to membership, we find it vests membership with real value and benefit. It actively encourages those outside to want to join. That, in itself, opens up the door to the necessary gospel conversations we need to have to help them get to a position where we can gladly welcome them and affirm them as brothers and sisters.