Session-Controlled Communion & 1st Corninthians 11

[Pergamum]

Thanks Pastor Fred, even though I don't know what pace is.



I am going to bed. God bless you guys.



p.s. do commmunion tokens fit in the arcade machines in the mall next to the church? Get communion AND play Donkey Kong...now THAT would be awesome!

 

[fredtgreco]

Fred,

I do not know how having session-controlled communion that interviews visitors logically goes to the "logical conclusion" of barring the visible church from partaking in the Lord's Supper? The church I attend on Lord's Day evenings that interviewed me did not have a problem with my ARP membership. I also would not make arguments that bring in the size of a church/denomination as evidence against it.

The point is that if there were even 25 visitors at a church service (a very real possibility in many churches, including mine) it would be a near impossibility to interview them all. If I understand you correctly, you were interviewed as a part of ongoing attendance. I am speaking of irregular visitors. To put the point - when I go to San Diego this weekend to perform a marriage ceremony, should the local OPC (or even PCA!) church be able to require me to show up sufficiently early to be interviewed by them? I am a member in good standing of my Presbytery, and they have absolutely no authority over me. They also have almost no ability to make a proper judgment. They do not know me (as my court does) and do not know even if I gave the right answers whether that was borne out in my life.


I would also say that it should to be permitted to bar anyone who had the proper credentials, and the history of closed communion is exactly that. Each Session does not get to determine which church/denomination is a true church or not. That is a matter for the higher courts (per Presbyterianism). Each Session also does not get to judge the "genuineness" of the profession of a member of another church. That is violative of the jurisdiction and authority of the visitor's Session.

 

[fredtgreco]

Thanks Pastor Fred, even though I don't know what pace is.

It means "with all due respect to; with the permission of"

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Fred,

I do not know how having session-controlled communion that interviews visitors logically goes to the "logical conclusion" of barring the visible church from partaking in the Lord's Supper? The church I attend on Lord's Day evenings that interviewed me did not have a problem with my ARP membership. I also would not make arguments that bring in the size of a church/denomination as evidence against it.

The point is that if there were even 25 visitors at a church service (a very real possibility in many churches, including mine) it would be a near impossibility to interview them all. If I understand you correctly, you were interviewed as a part of ongoing attendance. I am speaking of irregular visitors. To put the point - when I go to San Diego this weekend to perform a marriage ceremony, should the local OPC (or even PCA!) church be able to require me to show up sufficiently early to be interviewed by them? I am a member in good standing of my Presbytery, and they have absolutely no authority over me. They also have almost no ability to make a proper judgment. They do not know me (as my court does) and do not know even if I gave the right answers whether that was borne out in my life.

I would also say that it should to be permitted to bar anyone who had the proper credentials, and the history of closed communion is exactly that. Each Session does not get to determine which church/denomination is a true church or not. That is a matter for the higher courts (per Presbyterianism). Each Session also does not get to judge the "genuineness" of the profession of a member of another church. That is violative of the jurisdiction and authority of the visitor's Session.

Let me take them in order:

1) Interviewing Visitors

In this case the Session should do its due diligence to do what it can to interview all visitors, especially when you are in a situation like yours Rev. Greco. Always giving a guarding of the table talk before communion, because at that point it is up to the conscience of the individual. However not every possible scenario can be taken care of all the time.

2) Your example of going to San Diego

If you know ahead of time you will be visiting an area and the congregation you are visiting practices session-controlled communion then it should be your responsibility to call/e-mail/send a letter to the Pastor/Clerk stating that you will be visiting with a short testimony and maybe a recommendation from your Session or Pastor. You are also inferring that those who practice session-controlled communion force their elders to make a decision on the heart of the individual and that is just not true. (Please feel free to correct me if I am misunderstanding you).


3) True Churches

I still do not understand how you can say closed-communion logically infers the local session gets to decide the veracity of a denomination. I am not bothered by others hearing my testimony. How can that be invasive at all? One should be happy to share there testimony with any who would ask.


Also let me add that I believe we should submit ourselves as visitors to the authority of the local congregation.

 

[fredtgreco]

Fred,

I do not know how having session-controlled communion that interviews visitors logically goes to the "logical conclusion" of barring the visible church from partaking in the Lord's Supper? The church I attend on Lord's Day evenings that interviewed me did not have a problem with my ARP membership. I also would not make arguments that bring in the size of a church/denomination as evidence against it.

The point is that if there were even 25 visitors at a church service (a very real possibility in many churches, including mine) it would be a near impossibility to interview them all. If I understand you correctly, you were interviewed as a part of ongoing attendance. I am speaking of irregular visitors. To put the point - when I go to San Diego this weekend to perform a marriage ceremony, should the local OPC (or even PCA!) church be able to require me to show up sufficiently early to be interviewed by them? I am a member in good standing of my Presbytery, and they have absolutely no authority over me. They also have almost no ability to make a proper judgment. They do not know me (as my court does) and do not know even if I gave the right answers whether that was borne out in my life.

I would also say that it should to be permitted to bar anyone who had the proper credentials, and the history of closed communion is exactly that. Each Session does not get to determine which church/denomination is a true church or not. That is a matter for the higher courts (per Presbyterianism). Each Session also does not get to judge the "genuineness" of the profession of a member of another church. That is violative of the jurisdiction and authority of the visitor's Session.

Let me take them in order:

1) Interviewing Visitors

In this case the Session should do its due diligence to do what it can to interview all visitors, especially when you are in a situation like yours Rev. Greco. Always giving a guarding of the table talk before communion, because at that point it is up to the conscience of the individual. However not every possible scenario can be taken care of all the time.

That is correct, not every possible scenario can be taken care of all the time. But that does not permit a Session to keep a Christian who is a member in good standing of another congregation from partaking. You place the burden on the individual to prove he is worthy, when he already has. That is but one of the reasons that we have church membership, and why we transfer members between churches, not require a new profession of faith. Closed communion denies this connectional raelity.

2) Your example of going to San Diego

If you know ahead of time you will be visiting an area and the congregation you are visiting practices session-controlled communion then it should be your responsibility to call/e-mail/send a letter to the Pastor/Clerk stating that you will be visiting with a short testimony and maybe a recommendation from your Session or Pastor. You are also inferring that those who practice session-controlled communion force their elders to make a decision on the heart of the individual and that is just not true. (Please feel free to correct me if I am misunderstanding you).

Again, you place all the burden on me. The Session is not in a place to judge my profession. It also, frankly, has no authority over me, and should not usurp the authority of my own judiciary. The only reason for doing so is to say that the Table belongs to the particular church, rather than the Lord, or the Church (capital C on purpose). What if I am not planning on staying but am providentially hindered? What if I do not know where I will attend? What if the church office is closed on Friday and Saturday? Why should I, as a member in good standing of a Presbytery which has ecclesiastical relations with said church, have to jump through such hoops? So that they can second guess my judiciary?

3) True Churches

I still do not understand how you can say closed-communion logically infers the local session gets to decide the veracity of a denomination. I am not bothered by others hearing my testimony. How can that be invasive at all? One should be happy to share there testimony with any who would ask.


Also let me add that I believe we should submit ourselves as visitors to the authority of the local congregation.

To be frank, it matters not a whit whether you are bothered by giving your testimony. This is a principial issue, not one of feelings. Maybe a young women is shy; maybe the an elderly gentleman who has walked with Christ for 6 decades doesn't like being put on the spot. The issue is - whose Table is it? What does membership mean?

Closed communion is all but congregationalism.

 

[Mushroom]

This is far from the free milk and cookies for all that you indict me of.

My beloved Pergamum, I very sincerely hope that you were not under the impression that I was accusing you of that. I know far better, and was honestly trying to determine where you thought the line should be drawn in fencing the table. My apologies if that was unclear. You and your family are very precious to me and mine, and I would hate the idea that I had offended you in unkindness.

 

[sastark]

The point is that if there were even 25 visitors at a church service (a very real possibility in many churches, including mine) it would be a near impossibility to interview them all. If I understand you correctly, you were interviewed as a part of ongoing attendance. I am speaking of irregular visitors. To put the point - when I go to San Diego this weekend to perform a marriage ceremony, should the local OPC (or even PCA!) church be able to require me to show up sufficiently early to be interviewed by them? I am a member in good standing of my Presbytery, and they have absolutely no authority over me. They also have almost no ability to make a proper judgment. They do not know me (as my court does) and do not know even if I gave the right answers whether that was borne out in my life.

I would also say that it should to be permitted to bar anyone who had the proper credentials, and the history of closed communion is exactly that. Each Session does not get to determine which church/denomination is a true church or not. That is a matter for the higher courts (per Presbyterianism). Each Session also does not get to judge the "genuineness" of the profession of a member of another church. That is violative of the jurisdiction and authority of the visitor's Session.

Let me take them in order:

1) Interviewing Visitors

In this case the Session should do its due diligence to do what it can to interview all visitors, especially when you are in a situation like yours Rev. Greco. Always giving a guarding of the table talk before communion, because at that point it is up to the conscience of the individual. However not every possible scenario can be taken care of all the time.

That is correct, not every possible scenario can be taken care of all the time. But that does not permit a Session to keep a Christian who is a member in good standing of another congregation from partaking. You place the burden on the individual to prove he is worthy, when he already has. That is but one of the reasons that we have church membership, and why we transfer members between churches, not require a new profession of faith. Closed communion denies this connectional raelity.

2) Your example of going to San Diego

If you know ahead of time you will be visiting an area and the congregation you are visiting practices session-controlled communion then it should be your responsibility to call/e-mail/send a letter to the Pastor/Clerk stating that you will be visiting with a short testimony and maybe a recommendation from your Session or Pastor. You are also inferring that those who practice session-controlled communion force their elders to make a decision on the heart of the individual and that is just not true. (Please feel free to correct me if I am misunderstanding you).

Again, you place all the burden on me. The Session is not in a place to judge my profession. It also, frankly, has no authority over me, and should not usurp the authority of my own judiciary. The only reason for doing so is to say that the Table belongs to the particular church, rather than the Lord, or the Church (capital C on purpose). What if I am not planning on staying but am providentially hindered? What if I do not know where I will attend? What if the church office is closed on Friday and Saturday? Why should I, as a member in good standing of a Presbytery which has ecclesiastical relations with said church, have to jump through such hoops? So that they can second guess my judiciary?

3) True Churches

I still do not understand how you can say closed-communion logically infers the local session gets to decide the veracity of a denomination. I am not bothered by others hearing my testimony. How can that be invasive at all? One should be happy to share there testimony with any who would ask.


Also let me add that I believe we should submit ourselves as visitors to the authority of the local congregation.

To be frank, it matters not a whit whether you are bothered by giving your testimony. This is a principial issue, not one of feelings. Maybe a young women is shy; maybe the an elderly gentleman who has walked with Christ for 6 decades doesn't like being put on the spot. The issue is - whose Table is it? What does membership mean?

Closed communion is all but congregationalism.

This post is one of the best defenses against the ungodly practice of closed communion I have ever read. Simple and to the point.

Thank you for posting it, Pastor Greco!

 

[KMK]

Let me take them in order:

1) Interviewing Visitors

In this case the Session should do its due diligence to do what it can to interview all visitors, especially when you are in a situation like yours Rev. Greco. Always giving a guarding of the table talk before communion, because at that point it is up to the conscience of the individual. However not every possible scenario can be taken care of all the time.

That is correct, not every possible scenario can be taken care of all the time. But that does not permit a Session to keep a Christian who is a member in good standing of another congregation from partaking. You place the burden on the individual to prove he is worthy, when he already has. That is but one of the reasons that we have church membership, and why we transfer members between churches, not require a new profession of faith. Closed communion denies this connectional raelity.




Again, you place all the burden on me. The Session is not in a place to judge my profession. It also, frankly, has no authority over me, and should not usurp the authority of my own judiciary. The only reason for doing so is to say that the Table belongs to the particular church, rather than the Lord, or the Church (capital C on purpose). What if I am not planning on staying but am providentially hindered? What if I do not know where I will attend? What if the church office is closed on Friday and Saturday? Why should I, as a member in good standing of a Presbytery which has ecclesiastical relations with said church, have to jump through such hoops? So that they can second guess my judiciary?

3) True Churches

I still do not understand how you can say closed-communion logically infers the local session gets to decide the veracity of a denomination. I am not bothered by others hearing my testimony. How can that be invasive at all? One should be happy to share there testimony with any who would ask.


Also let me add that I believe we should submit ourselves as visitors to the authority of the local congregation.

To be frank, it matters not a whit whether you are bothered by giving your testimony. This is a principial issue, not one of feelings. Maybe a young women is shy; maybe the an elderly gentleman who has walked with Christ for 6 decades doesn't like being put on the spot. The issue is - whose Table is it? What does membership mean?

Closed communion is all but congregationalism.

This post is one of the best defenses against the ungodly practice of closed communion I have ever read. Simple and to the point.

Thank you for posting it, Pastor Greco!

Rev Greco, would you describe your view as 'close communion' or 'open communion' or something inbetween?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Restricted Communion - John Murray

 

[a mere housewife]

Communion is a means of grace. One result of over-fencing is encouraging spiritual weakness among those who feel that they have to be perfect in order to partake by encouraging such a mentality in them, and by making them jump through hoops they don't have confidence to jump through in order to come to Christ. We saw this in Mexico, where out of a church of quite a few baptized adults, only the missionary and his wife took communion. We found out that it was because of the stern warnings given and because the missionary -who was a fundamentalist- had imbibed into them a sense that they were unworthy in his eyes and that of God (I am sure he didn't in the least mean to do this: he was often frustrated that no one was taking communion). Ruben taught them that one must examine themselves, but the requirement was that one stand in need of grace, and see that grace supplied in Christ. He gave the proper fencing warnings also. Almost all the adults partook. We (and the missionaries when they returned) saw this reflected in spiritual growth and strength in the Christians there. I don't think we should have to hedge grace around in a way that discourages people who are worthy partakers and stand in need of grace from coming to Christ. Even in the case of fencing communion, the session will often approve those who they must later bar.

 

[fredtgreco]

That is correct, not every possible scenario can be taken care of all the time. But that does not permit a Session to keep a Christian who is a member in good standing of another congregation from partaking. You place the burden on the individual to prove he is worthy, when he already has. That is but one of the reasons that we have church membership, and why we transfer members between churches, not require a new profession of faith. Closed communion denies this connectional raelity.




Again, you place all the burden on me. The Session is not in a place to judge my profession. It also, frankly, has no authority over me, and should not usurp the authority of my own judiciary. The only reason for doing so is to say that the Table belongs to the particular church, rather than the Lord, or the Church (capital C on purpose). What if I am not planning on staying but am providentially hindered? What if I do not know where I will attend? What if the church office is closed on Friday and Saturday? Why should I, as a member in good standing of a Presbytery which has ecclesiastical relations with said church, have to jump through such hoops? So that they can second guess my judiciary?




To be frank, it matters not a whit whether you are bothered by giving your testimony. This is a principial issue, not one of feelings. Maybe a young women is shy; maybe the an elderly gentleman who has walked with Christ for 6 decades doesn't like being put on the spot. The issue is - whose Table is it? What does membership mean?

Closed communion is all but congregationalism.

This post is one of the best defenses against the ungodly practice of closed communion I have ever read. Simple and to the point.

Thank you for posting it, Pastor Greco!

Rev Greco, would you describe your view as 'close communion' or 'open communion' or something inbetween?

My position (which is also that of the PCA and OPC) is "close" communion. The table is fenced, and requirements are laid down, but the Session does not have to examine each person communing.

I have seen John Murray's arguments before, and they did not impress me then. His position boils down to "we might possibly make a mistake, so we should be as conservative and restrictive as possible; and if someone worthy is barred, he should appreciate our being diligent and get over it."

If a person is a member in good standing of a true church - and it is recognized as such by the church communing - the Session of the communing church has no business second guessing the proper judiciary. It is a withholding of the means of grace and a denial of connectionalism.

 

[a mere housewife]

Rev. Greco, I was wondering how the recognition of membership in a valid church would function where one didn't know anything about the church, or where membership wasn't on paper. For instance in Mexico, there wasn't a membership role and baptised, faithful attenders were dealt with as members. (Ruben always warned against coming unbaptised, or under discipline of some other church, or without believing that Christ was the only God and Saviour; but there wasn't much more we could do to 'hedge' for visitors.) What do you think would be the best procedure in this kind of church -- in other words, can 'close' communion function only in a certain kind of society?

 

[Pergamum]

The point is that if there were even 25 visitors at a church service (a very real possibility in many churches, including mine) it would be a near impossibility to interview them all. If I understand you correctly, you were interviewed as a part of ongoing attendance. I am speaking of irregular visitors. To put the point - when I go to San Diego this weekend to perform a marriage ceremony, should the local OPC (or even PCA!) church be able to require me to show up sufficiently early to be interviewed by them? I am a member in good standing of my Presbytery, and they have absolutely no authority over me. They also have almost no ability to make a proper judgment. They do not know me (as my court does) and do not know even if I gave the right answers whether that was borne out in my life.

I would also say that it should to be permitted to bar anyone who had the proper credentials, and the history of closed communion is exactly that. Each Session does not get to determine which church/denomination is a true church or not. That is a matter for the higher courts (per Presbyterianism). Each Session also does not get to judge the "genuineness" of the profession of a member of another church. That is violative of the jurisdiction and authority of the visitor's Session.

Let me take them in order:

1) Interviewing Visitors

In this case the Session should do its due diligence to do what it can to interview all visitors, especially when you are in a situation like yours Rev. Greco. Always giving a guarding of the table talk before communion, because at that point it is up to the conscience of the individual. However not every possible scenario can be taken care of all the time.

That is correct, not every possible scenario can be taken care of all the time. But that does not permit a Session to keep a Christian who is a member in good standing of another congregation from partaking. You place the burden on the individual to prove he is worthy, when he already has. That is but one of the reasons that we have church membership, and why we transfer members between churches, not require a new profession of faith. Closed communion denies this connectional raelity.

2) Your example of going to San Diego

If you know ahead of time you will be visiting an area and the congregation you are visiting practices session-controlled communion then it should be your responsibility to call/e-mail/send a letter to the Pastor/Clerk stating that you will be visiting with a short testimony and maybe a recommendation from your Session or Pastor. You are also inferring that those who practice session-controlled communion force their elders to make a decision on the heart of the individual and that is just not true. (Please feel free to correct me if I am misunderstanding you).

Again, you place all the burden on me. The Session is not in a place to judge my profession. It also, frankly, has no authority over me, and should not usurp the authority of my own judiciary. The only reason for doing so is to say that the Table belongs to the particular church, rather than the Lord, or the Church (capital C on purpose). What if I am not planning on staying but am providentially hindered? What if I do not know where I will attend? What if the church office is closed on Friday and Saturday? Why should I, as a member in good standing of a Presbytery which has ecclesiastical relations with said church, have to jump through such hoops? So that they can second guess my judiciary?

3) True Churches

I still do not understand how you can say closed-communion logically infers the local session gets to decide the veracity of a denomination. I am not bothered by others hearing my testimony. How can that be invasive at all? One should be happy to share there testimony with any who would ask.


Also let me add that I believe we should submit ourselves as visitors to the authority of the local congregation.

To be frank, it matters not a whit whether you are bothered by giving your testimony. This is a principial issue, not one of feelings. Maybe a young women is shy; maybe the an elderly gentleman who has walked with Christ for 6 decades doesn't like being put on the spot. The issue is - whose Table is it? What does membership mean?

Closed communion is all but congregationalism.

This is a very good thread and I am very glad for it.


I spoke at another church that WAS congregational and practiced closed communion and they reached just that conclusion, that only THEIR church members could partake of communion. I.e. only people who were members of that one particular reformed baptist church could partake.

I was asked to speak, I was given support for my overseas ministry, and yet when the juice (I know) and bread came by I was not permitted to partake.

I asked the pastor afterword if he really thought his church policy made sense and he admitted that he wished it were different but under his assumptions of both closed communion and congregationalism that this was the only way his church could fence the table.

 

[KMK]

Good morning, Pergie!

 

[Robbie Schmidtberger]

My position (which is also that of the PCA and OPC) is "close" communion. The table is fenced, and requirements are laid down, but the Session does not have to examine each person communing.

I have seen John Murray's arguments before, and they did not impress me then. His position boils down to "we might possibly make a mistake, so we should be as conservative and restrictive as possible; and if someone worthy is barred, he should appreciate our being diligent and get over it."

If a person is a member in good standing of a true church - and it is recognized as such by the church communing - the Session of the communing church has no business second guessing the proper judiciary. It is a withholding of the means of grace and a denial of connectionalism.

Well put. Communion should encourage Christian unity. Close, or even session controlled, practically puts an end to that. I have seen dear Christian brothers and sisters show up and barred from the table as they were PCA, OPC, or even reformed baptist at that time. I was even told by one particular session that was in the same presbytery as my own that I must be interviewed with them in order to partake. My heart was hurt and upset, for I believed they questioned my faith in Christ.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

The point is that if there were even 25 visitors at a church service (a very real possibility in many churches, including mine) it would be a near impossibility to interview them all. If I understand you correctly, you were interviewed as a part of ongoing attendance. I am speaking of irregular visitors. To put the point - when I go to San Diego this weekend to perform a marriage ceremony, should the local OPC (or even PCA!) church be able to require me to show up sufficiently early to be interviewed by them? I am a member in good standing of my Presbytery, and they have absolutely no authority over me. They also have almost no ability to make a proper judgment. They do not know me (as my court does) and do not know even if I gave the right answers whether that was borne out in my life.

I would also say that it should to be permitted to bar anyone who had the proper credentials, and the history of closed communion is exactly that. Each Session does not get to determine which church/denomination is a true church or not. That is a matter for the higher courts (per Presbyterianism). Each Session also does not get to judge the "genuineness" of the profession of a member of another church. That is violative of the jurisdiction and authority of the visitor's Session.

Let me take them in order:

1) Interviewing Visitors

In this case the Session should do its due diligence to do what it can to interview all visitors, especially when you are in a situation like yours Rev. Greco. Always giving a guarding of the table talk before communion, because at that point it is up to the conscience of the individual. However not every possible scenario can be taken care of all the time.

That is correct, not every possible scenario can be taken care of all the time. But that does not permit a Session to keep a Christian who is a member in good standing of another congregation from partaking. You place the burden on the individual to prove he is worthy, when he already has. That is but one of the reasons that we have church membership, and why we transfer members between churches, not require a new profession of faith. Closed communion denies this connectional raelity.

2) Your example of going to San Diego

If you know ahead of time you will be visiting an area and the congregation you are visiting practices session-controlled communion then it should be your responsibility to call/e-mail/send a letter to the Pastor/Clerk stating that you will be visiting with a short testimony and maybe a recommendation from your Session or Pastor. You are also inferring that those who practice session-controlled communion force their elders to make a decision on the heart of the individual and that is just not true. (Please feel free to correct me if I am misunderstanding you).

Again, you place all the burden on me. The Session is not in a place to judge my profession. It also, frankly, has no authority over me, and should not usurp the authority of my own judiciary. The only reason for doing so is to say that the Table belongs to the particular church, rather than the Lord, or the Church (capital C on purpose). What if I am not planning on staying but am providentially hindered? What if I do not know where I will attend? What if the church office is closed on Friday and Saturday? Why should I, as a member in good standing of a Presbytery which has ecclesiastical relations with said church, have to jump through such hoops? So that they can second guess my judiciary?

3) True Churches

I still do not understand how you can say closed-communion logically infers the local session gets to decide the veracity of a denomination. I am not bothered by others hearing my testimony. How can that be invasive at all? One should be happy to share there testimony with any who would ask.


Also let me add that I believe we should submit ourselves as visitors to the authority of the local congregation.

To be frank, it matters not a whit whether you are bothered by giving your testimony. This is a principial issue, not one of feelings. Maybe a young women is shy; maybe the an elderly gentleman who has walked with Christ for 6 decades doesn't like being put on the spot. The issue is - whose Table is it? What does membership mean?

Closed communion is all but congregationalism.

1) The session of a church that has a session-controlled communion will not keep anyone from participating in communion who is willing to answer a yes or no question as to their status in the body of Christ. Simple as that. No one is saying they must answer twenty questions. Just answer whether or not they belong to a True Church and confess Jesus as their Savior and Lord.

2) No Session is "judging" your profession just asking if you have a profession to make. Even churches that have an open communion need to be able to protect the visitors in the house from doing damage to their body. That is all that is going on in session-controlled communion. The session is watching out for its own house. If I come to visit Houston and I know that I'll be in your neighborhood then I would contact the church before attending. How hard would that be? Seriously? How big of a hoop is that? I personally was glad that I was asked to profess Christ to fellow brothers. I did not feel they were "usurping" the authority of Fairmount ARP.


3) Session Controlled-Communion is not anything close to Congregationalism. I think our Presbyterian forefathers would take great offense to that connection. Also if I was a congregationalist I would nearly take offense to that as if there is something inherently wrong with Congregationalism to link it with what have some have called an "ungodly practice".

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Restricted Communion - John Murray

Bingo. Thanks for that Andrew.

 

[fredtgreco]

1) The session of a church that has a session-controlled communion will not keep anyone from participating in communion who is willing to answer a yes or no question as to their status in the body of Christ. Simple as that. No one is saying they must answer twenty questions. Just answer whether or not they belong to a True Church and confess Jesus as their Savior and Lord.

Obviously your experience with "closed" communion is severely limited. Sessions tend to interview visitors close to the level of a membership interview. If it is a "simple yes or no" question, why even bother? What is being accomplished? Seriously. How is it any different to simply verbally fence the table by reminding all of the requirements? Is saying "yes" so much more significant than "showing" yes by taking? That is worth having every visitor (which again, can be a significant process - if 20-30 visitors are present, as is the case in our congregation of about 160) call, come beforehand and sit in front of a group of strangers who know absolutely nothing (or nearly nothing, as the case may be) about them? What exactly is being accomplished here? Is the purity of table more purely kept? Are the warnings more dire? No. What is accomplished is fiefdoms.

If it is more than yes/no (which it should be, if one would practice true closed communion) then your argument falls of its own weight.

2) No Session is "judging" your profession just asking if you have a profession to make. Even churches that have an open communion need to be able to protect the visitors in the house from doing damage to their body. That is all that is going on in session-controlled communion. The session is watching out for its own house. If I come to visit Houston and I know that I'll be in your neighborhood then I would contact the church before attending. How hard would that be? Seriously? How big of a hoop is that? I personally was glad that I was asked to profess Christ to fellow brothers. I did not feel they were "usurping" the authority of Fairmount ARP.

There is EXACTLY judgment going on here. The reason we bar someone from the table is because we cannot vouch for their profession of faith (i.e that they are a Christian). If there is no judgment going on, then the exercise is a foolish waste of time. It is clearly a usurpation. You only think it not because you "feel" that it is not a "big deal" (hardly sharp ecclesiastical theology) and frankly because you were admitted. What if they denied you? What if they denied you because you were a baptist? A non-Psalm singer? Not dressed reverently enough? Denial for any reason, even if they just were not "sure" about your profession is a tantamount profession that the court that admitted you to membership made the wrong decision. As far as they are concerned, you aren't to be admitted to the Table, and your Session thought otherwise.

3) Session Controlled-Communion is not anything close to Congregationalism. I think our Presbyterian forefathers would take great offense to that connection. Also if I was a congregationalist I would nearly take offense to that as if there is something inherently wrong with Congregationalism to link it with what have some have called an "ungodly practice".

It is absolutely congregationalism. It is saying that a congregation and its Session do not need to abide by the decisions of a sister court. Note that closed communion is exactly that - closed to ALL except those who are members of a particular congregation, and those that the Session chooses to admit. There is no requirement that they admit others. Think through the consequences of these actions.

There is a reason that this practice has been all but abandoned in the visible church. Just because the Puritans did something does not make it the best course (love them though I do). Are you prepared to go to annual communion? Most of the churches that practiced closed communion and tokens did that as well.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

An article worth reading:

Restricted Communion in One OPC Congregation
William Shishko

Extracted from Ordained Servant vol. 3, no. 4 (October 1994)

“...or be admitted thereunto."

So ends the Westminster Confession of Faith’s chapter on the Lord’s Supper (XXIX). The Westminster Standards do not teach that people admit themselves to the Lord’s Supper, but that they are to “be admitted” to it. “All ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with (the Lord), so are they unworthy of the Lord’s table, and cannot, without great sin against Christ, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto.” (section VIII, emphasis mine). We demonstrate our allegiance to this confessional standard by not admitting covenant children or new Christians to the Lord’s Table until they have publicly professed their faith in Christ, c.f. OPC Directory for Worship, V:4. We also apply this standard by the step of church discipline known as “suspension,” cf. OPC Book of Discipline, VI:B:3.

But how do we apply the confessional standard “...be admitted thereunto” with respect to visitors at a service when the Lord’s Supper is being observed as part of our worship? A warning is read, c.f. OPC Directory for Worship, IV:C:2, and the elements are distributed indiscriminately by Session members across the pews, etc. The decision is left to the visitors (adults and children) as to whether or not they may partake of the elements. They “admit themselves thereunto.” Over against the old Scottish tradition which took the confessional standard so seriously that “communion tokens” were issued to those who were permitted to come to the Lord’s Supper, the hallowed American tradition is that “it’s left up to the individual.” Which tradition is closer to the pattern of both the Scriptures and the Reformed confessions?

Over a decade ago the Session of the OPC, Franklin Square considered this question, and came to the conclusion that what is commonly called “restricted communion” was decidedly more in line with the standard implied in the Westminster Confession of Faith, and Larger Catechism #173. We were struck with the fact that our church visitors were treated with a different standard than our own covenant children, who often knew more about the Gospel than many visitors! We were also convicted that the traditional American practice of “letting people make the decision for themselves” eviscerated any upholding of the discipline of other churches (a situation we would periodically face). From that time we have applied our conviction with this practice:

1. The week prior to the Lord’s Supper (which is observed monthly) we announce in the church bulletin that: “The Lord’s Supper will be administered next week as part of our morning worship service. The Lord’s Supper is for those who have been baptized in the Name of the Triune God, have publicly professed their faith in Christ, and are members of an evangelical church. Those visiting with us who desire to partake of the Lord’s Supper should speak with one of the church elders before doing so.” A similar announcement is placed in the bulletin on the Sunday of the Lord’s Supper.

2. Regular visitors (who have not already done so) speak with one of the elders either during the week prior to the Supper, or on that Sunday morning. We try to have one or more elders available near the entrance of the church so that visitors may consult with an elder. In most cases we know enough about the churches people come from so that individual elders may represent the Session by either giving permission to visitors to partake of the Lord’s Supper with us, or asking that they refrain from partaking with us “this time.” We see even the denial of permission to partake of the Lord’s Supper as an opportunity for ministry.

3. The standard warning is given prior to the administering of the Lord’s Supper, along with a statement such as this: “In order to preserve the integrity of our oversight of the Lord’s Table, if any of you visiting with us have not spoken with one of the church elders regarding your participation in the Lord’s Supper, we would ask that you refrain from partaking today.”

4. During the actual distribution of the elements the session members withhold the respective plates from those who have not spoken with of the session members.

I hasten to point out that this system is not “foolproof.” We frequently have many visitors, and it is difficult to enforce this as we would like. This difficulty is compounded by the fact that people do not actually come up to the communion table to be served, and also because the plates with the elements must, of necessity, be passed down entire pews from person to person. It would be far better if the elders gave the elements personally to each person “admitted” to the Lord’s Supper...but that’s hard to do in a congregation of over 200 people seated in pews!!! It’s also sometimes difficult to discern whether the congregation the visitor is from is genuinely “evangelical.” The term itself is becoming meaningless in our day. But, as with every other area of church discipline, we keep on working to be faithful to the standard of the Word of God. Our view has been to give a judgment of charity and admit persons who profess to be members of churches that are in some way conformed to a biblical pattern of doctrine and life.

What are the responses to this practice? Some take umbrage and (in true New York fashion!) let the elders know it. Others are more or less bothered by it, or are simply unfamiliar with it, and submit (the OPC is different than other evangelical churches in a number of ways, isn’t it?). Still others will say that even if they didn’t fully understand why we do things this way, they appreciated the care we had to preserve the integrity of the Lord’s Table. I’d like to think that’s the response that is the most genuinely sensitive to the administration of holy things in an unholy world.

How does your Session grapple with the phrase “...or be admitted thereunto”? Ponder the question and honestly ask yourself if the American evangelical pattern most of us are familiar with really squares with our confessional standard and the historic practice of the Reformed churches. For further reading on the question, see Professor John Murray’s thought provoking little article entitled “Restricted Communion” in his Collected Writings (Banner of Truth), 2:381-384.

Rev. Shishko is pastor of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church of Franklin Square, New York.

 

[Pergamum]

The very practice then of passing the plate instead of the elders individually giving the elements to individual peoples seems practically to contradict the other points of extreme care in the administration of the elements in the article above.

Also, if they announce: “In order to preserve the integrity of our oversight of the Lord’s Table, if any of you visiting with us have not spoken with one of the church elders regarding your participation in the Lord’s Supper, we would ask that you refrain from partaking today.” But then if they give you no period of time to go talk to an elder (i.e. they announce this once the service has begin and there is no pause) then a person has to sit there and not partake because they "missed their chance" to do something they didn't know they were supposed to do.

If we ARE to partake of the Supper and are not to refrain from doing so, it would almost appear that it would then be better to stop the service (though impolite) and say, "WAIT, I didn't get my interview..." than to sit passively by and miss out on something the Lord wants us to partake of due to bad organization of how the procedure is done.

 

[fredtgreco]

The very practice then of passing the plate instead of the elders individually giving the elements to individual peoples seems practically to contradict the other points of extreme care in the administration of the elements in the article above.

Also, if they announce: “In order to preserve the integrity of our oversight of the Lord’s Table, if any of you visiting with us have not spoken with one of the church elders regarding your participation in the Lord’s Supper, we would ask that you refrain from partaking today.” But then if they give you no period of time to go talk to an elder (i.e. they announce this once the service has begin and there is no pause) then a person has to sit there and not partake because they "missed their chance" to do something they didn't know they were supposed to do.

If we ARE to partake of the Supper and are not to refrain from doing so, it would almost appear that it would then be better to stop the service (though impolite) and say, "WAIT, I didn't get my interview..." than to sit passively by and miss out on something the Lord wants us to partake of due to bad organization of how the procedure is done.

Exactly. So if a well known OPC minister (for example) shows up, and does not know about the practice, he is barred from the Table. So much for connectionalism.

It doesn't do much good to read about it (and hope you comprehend exactly what that means) after the service has started, or once communion has started.

 

[Pergamum]

Stop the service!!!!!!!!!!! .......i want to partaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaake! Someone pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease interview me!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[fredtgreco]

Stop the service!!!!!!!!!!! .......i want to partaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaake! Someone pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease interview me!!!!!!!!!!!

I wonder what a Session would do in that circumstance? I mean not the yelling, but if someone stood and addressed the minister just before the elements were passed?


And I wonder what would happen if after that, 35 other people stood up?

 

[Scott1]

fredtgreco
PCA Pastor

The Table should be verbally fenced, and those prohibited from it whom have been judged unworthy. That was what Calvin was doing. He was not flinging himself so that the equivalent members from a distant OPC/PCA/SBC church could not partake. He was prohibiting those who were involved with his church, local, and flagrant in their sin would not partake.

Can you give guidance regarding these situations?

1) If I bring a guest with me to church who does not profess to be a Christian, my understanding is I should graciously explain to them that communion is for those who are Christians, correct?

2) If I bring a guest with me who identifies themselves a Roman Catholic, who believes they are saved and who I know well enough to have reason to believe they are saved, how should I advise them?

3) Would it be any different if they believed they were saved but I had reason to believe they were *not* saved?

Or is it best to only rely on the verbal instructions of the Pastor (i.e. the Table is for those who are members in good standing of a church where this Gospel is preached...)

Gratefully.

 

[fredtgreco]

fredtgreco
PCA Pastor

The Table should be verbally fenced, and those prohibited from it whom have been judged unworthy. That was what Calvin was doing. He was not flinging himself so that the equivalent members from a distant OPC/PCA/SBC church could not partake. He was prohibiting those who were involved with his church, local, and flagrant in their sin would not partake.

Can you give guidance regarding these situations?

1) If I bring a guest with me to church who does not profess to be a Christian, my understanding is I should graciously explain to them that communion is for those who are Christians, correct?

2) If I bring a guest with me who identifies themselves a Roman Catholic, who believes they are saved and who I know well enough to have reason to believe they are saved, how should I advise them?

3) Would it be any different if they believed they were saved but I had reason to believe they were *not* saved?

Or is it best to only rely on the verbal instructions of the Pastor (i.e. the Table is for those who are members in good standing of a church where this Gospel is preached...)

Gratefully.

I think this is where the verbal instructions of the pastor are most helpful. I would address both of these situations in my fencing explanation, which usually takes about 5 minutes.

Our practice is "close" communion, not "open" (anyone can take if they think they should) or "closed" (only members of the congregation and interviewed guests). It is clear from the fencing (and BCO 57) that you must be a Christian and a member in good standing of an evangelical (I usually say Bible believing, Christ preaching) church.

 

[Reepicheep]

Have I mentioned I went to High School with Fred Greco?

 

[Mushroom]

Have I mentioned I went to High School with Fred Greco?

Its OK, Tony, we won't hold you guilty by association.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

WLC Q. 173. May any who profess the faith, and desire to come to the Lord’s supper, be kept from it?

A. Such as are found to be ignorant or scandalous, notwithstanding their profession of the faith, and desire to come to the Lord’s supper, may and ought to be kept from that sacrament, by the power which Christ hath left in his church, until they receive instruction, and manifest their reformation.

From J.G. Vos Commentary on the Larger Catechism:

2.) Is the church to decide what persons are converted, and have saving faith in Christ? -- Certainly not.

"...Church Officers and church courts cannot see people's hearts and they have no business to pronounce judgment on whether people are, or are not, truly saved Christians."

5.) What is the position of the catechism concerning the question of open, close (often called "closed"), or restricted communion?

...This question, in the form in which it exists today, is not directly answered by the catechism, or any of the Westminster Standards, because the problems created by denominationalism were not in then in view...Therefore the Westminster Assembly, while stating that the ignorant or scandalous are not to be admitted to the Lord's Supper, did not take up the question of whether members of one denomination should be admitted to the sacrament in congregations of another denomination.

However, the statements of the catechism do have some relation to the question of open, close, or restricted communion.

Open communion means that all persons who wish to come are admitted to the Lord's Supper. (The invitation is usually to "all members of evangelical churches" or "all who are of the Lord," etc., but all who wish to partake are admitted without any investigation of their faith or life.)

Restricted communion means that members of other denominations may be admitted to the Lord's Supper after they have met with the officers of the congregation and have satisfied them concerning faith and life.

Close communion means that only members of the denomination that is administering the sacrament, or of closely allied denominations officially recognized as of virtually identical faith, are admitted to the Lord's Supper...

It should be said at once that the catechism is clearly opposed to open communion [as Vos has defined it here].

 

[Scott1]

fredtgreco
PCA Pastor
Obviously your experience with "closed" communion is severely limited. Sessions tend to interview visitors close to the level of a membership interview. If it is a "simple yes or no" question, why even bother? What is being accomplished? Seriously. How is it any different to simply verbally fence the table by reminding all of the requirements? Is saying "yes" so much more significant than "showing" yes by taking? That is worth having every visitor (which again, can be a significant process - if 20-30 visitors are present, as is the case in our congregation of about 160) call, come beforehand and sit in front of a group of strangers who know absolutely nothing (or nearly nothing, as the case may be) about them? What exactly is being accomplished here? Is the purity of table more purely kept? Are the warnings more dire? No.

This is an area I am growing in. I am becoming more aware of the need to approach the sacraments with care and of their spiritual nature. There is something of a mystery in them and sense we all need to be very careful. Scripture tells us:

I Corinthians 11:28-30
"But let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eatheth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep."

It seems the "close" approach is near God's will revealed here-a clear charge is made by the church officer to believers, non-believers and believers in major unrepented sin, explaining the benefits for strengthening our faith and the consequences for unworthy partaking. The charge is for each man to examine himself, guided by clear exposition of God's word regarding the sacrament.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

I'd like to hear some more thoughts on this if the PB would be interested.