Posted at Reformation Scotland:
Although we should all be encouraging each other in the life of holiness, sometimes the Lord’s people are hindered and weakened by the sins and questionable behaviour of others. If things get very serious, we need to “mark and avoid” the people responsible, but plenty of incidents and activities do not justify this level of response. In his pastoral capacity James Durham was aware of believers who were so bothered by the problematic things in the lives of their fellow church members that they wondered whether it was even right to sit together with them at the Lord’s supper? Seeing that, at least in their perception, those individuals did not meet the criteria for participating in this ordinance, these believers were concerned that it would spoil or “pollute” the Lord’s supper — so much so, that perhaps they themselves should avoid taking communion with them. In the following updated extract, James Durham explains from multiple angles why this is the wrong conclusion. We can be too fastidious. (Note that in his discussion, the term “scandalous” does not mean “outrageous, shockingly immoral” but rather has the slightly technical sense of “causing some form of spiritual harm to other people, and/or bringing reproach on the name of Christ.”)The Lord’s supper itself
Firstly, there are two possible ways in which the sacraments could be polluted. The first is intrinsic, relating to the essence of the sacrament. By corrupting the institution of Christ, the sacrament could be turned into no sacrament (as it is in the Roman mass), or made into something hurtful (as when significant ceremonies, sinfully devised by men, are mixed and added, besides and contrary to Christ’s institution). The first everts the nature of the sacrament, so that it is henceforth not a sacrament at all any more. The second poisons it, so that it is impossible to receive the sacrament without actively partaking of that sin.
Another way of polluting the sacrament is extrinsic, relating to the circumstances, rather than the essence — how we make use of it, or when it is applied beyond Christ’s warrant (such as when it is administered to someone who Christ does not permit). In that case it is not a sacrament to that person, yet it remains a sacrament in itself. This is pollution in the sense of making the sacrament “profane,” or common, to us.
For example, when the word of promise is applied generally in a congregation, without distinguishing, in application, between “the precious and the vile,” this is a profaning of the Word (for the word of promise should not be made common any more than the sacrament) (see Ezekiel 22:26). Yet, even in that case, the Word does not cease to be God’s Word, although it is misused in this way.
As a pearl cast before a sow is puddled and abused, yet it still remains a pearl, so it is here in the Word and sacraments; they are misused when misapplied, yet they are still the ordinances of God. The temple was said to be profaned when it was made more common in its use than was allowed, yet it was still the temple of the Lord.
Admitting scandalous persons to the sacraments may in this sense be called polluting the sacraments, but the sacraments essentially in themselves are not affected.