N. Eshelman
Puritan Board Senior
First time visitors are often problematic when it comes to the Lord's Supper. My question- what do you do with a first time visitor that would like to commune at your church? Who is able to?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
At my church, while the pastor is explaining the Lord's Supper, he explains that it is for believers and members of an evangelical church. I personally don't believe that you must be a member of a church to take communion, but it seems like a standard thing in PCA churches. I think if one believes in Christ as his savior then one is a member of the invisible church--I think if you are in Christ's body you should NOT be kept from eating of the Lord's Supper, since it is for you, too.
There would be a verbal "fencing" of the table to effect of warning off unbelievers and being a member of a church where "this gospel is preached." There might also be admonition toward not being in major unrepentant sin.
I personally don't believe that you must be a member of a church to take communion, but it seems like a standard thing in PCA churches.
I think if you are in Christ's body you should NOT be kept from eating of the Lord's Supper, since it is for you, too.
.One major downfall of the personal interview as a means of guarding the table is that the consistory/session relies solely upon the word of the individual professing faith. How would consistories/sessions be able to respect the discipline of other congregations if they rely on this testimony alone? Is a consistory/session really in a position to judge the profession of a visitor?
I think the assumption would be the home church would have already assessed the profession of faith, and that our view would be a charitable one toward that assessment, as befits the church universal, the Body of Christ.
I prefer the early church practice of letters of attestation instead. It has fallen into disuse, but the Canadian Reformed Churches have managed to preserve this practice in North America. It prevents your congregation's administration of the Supper from becoming a "loophole" for members of other churches under discipline.
If we are speaking here of the reason for letters of attestation being to ensure the person is not under church discipline that includes suspension from the Lord's table (not all church discipline is suspension from the Lord's Table) the verbal fencing is intended to do the same. Sometimes with the language, "member in good standing of a church where this gospel is preached."
Taking communion, as I have come to understand more fully in the last couple years, is a great privilege, and ought not be taken lightly.
The Lord Himself will chasten, and this for those who partake "unworthily." One ought not be so concerned about what the church authority does as what the Lord will do when the person is turned over to the Lord for his chastisement.
In my understanding, the biblical principles of who ought abstain are:
1) unbelievers,
2) people who are barred by lawful church authority from partaking, even if only for a time,
3) those who are living a disorderly life pattern
The church authority cannot perfectly judge these, yet must in ways that God causes to become known to them.
It is my understanding, for example, that someone who cannot be said to be committed or accountable to any local church, is a life pattern, a disorderly one that ought be repented of before one partakes.
All others, weak and imperfect, even without technical membership, are invited, commanded, encouraged and welcome to partake.
It also avoids creating a situation where one's profession/Christian walk must be judged based upon a brief conversation. Instead, we accept the testimony of those officers of another true church of Christ who directly oversee the individual in question.
That being said, personal interviews are to be preferred if the alternative is merely a "verbal fencing." Guarding the Lord's Table is simply a logical conclusion of the exercise of church discipline.
While I think verbal fencing is sufficient, unless God causes something to become known about the visitors that might otherwise bar,
a brief interview before the service is fine, if that is the local church custom. No believer ought be intimidated by that, in fact ought appreciate it.
I just don't think it is necessary to protect the biblical vital interests.
This is sound reasoning, in my opinion, and the reason that I agree with the PCA's practice of "close" communion (neither open nor closed). If a Session of a church that is recognized as a legitimate branch of Christ's Church (e.g. designated by the use of the term "evangelical" in the current PCA form; although that can be expanded upon - usually I use terms like "Bible-believing, gospel-preaching, Christ-exalting" in conjunction with that) has judged a person's profession of faith valid in the context of his life and Christian witness, I'm not sure why a church would consider a few minute personal interview more valid.One major downfall of the personal interview as a means of guarding the table is that the consistory/session relies solely upon the word of the individual professing faith. How would consistories/sessions be able to respect the discipline of other congregations if they rely on this testimony alone? Is a consistory/session really in a position to judge the profession of a visitor?
I prefer the early church practice of letters of attestation instead.
I think if you are in Christ's body you should NOT be kept from eating of the Lord's Supper, since it is for you, too.
The key term there is "in Christ's body." Surely that has to refer to a particular church in order to mean something which approximates to the biblical use of the term. In 1 Cor. 12, for example, "Christ's body" consists of numerous parts which are tempered together. There is also explicit recognition of specific parts functioning in areas of teaching, government, helps, etc. It is difficult to see how one could be considered as being "in Christ's body" who has expressed no commitment to the other parts of the body and has no submission to those whose gifts are being exercised in positions of leadership.
We provide verbal instruction to both members and visitors alike. We warn unbelievers, and those who may be in unrepentent sin, of the dangers involved in partaking of the Supper. We do not feel compelled to go beyond this.
sent from my most excellent Motorola Atrix.
My former pastor in a non-denominational Baptist church would read 1 Corinthians 11:23-29 verbatim at every Lord's supper and clearly place the burden of discernment upon the participants. I prefer that practice to the pre-worship interrogations common in reformed and Lutheran churches. Strict Presbyterian "fencing" feels Roman Catholic to me. I'm much more comfortable with God determining who is worthy to eat and drink than I am with elders having the final say.
I'm not sure "interrogations" are common in reformed churches, a few churches will do a brief interview, but that seems to be the exception, not the rule.
I think if you are in Christ's body you should NOT be kept from eating of the Lord's Supper, since it is for you, too.
The key term there is "in Christ's body." Surely that has to refer to a particular church in order to mean something which approximates to the biblical use of the term. In 1 Cor. 12, for example, "Christ's body" consists of numerous parts which are tempered together. There is also explicit recognition of specific parts functioning in areas of teaching, government, helps, etc. It is difficult to see how one could be considered as being "in Christ's body" who has expressed no commitment to the other parts of the body and has no submission to those whose gifts are being exercised in positions of leadership.
I just think that you can be a Christian and not be a member of a church. Maybe we could say it's less than ideal that someone not belong to a church, but I say that it DEFINITELY does happen. There are definitely Christians who are not members of churches. When I was in h.s. and college, I was not a member of a church as I went to church on my own. But I was definitely a Christian. I was definitely in Christ's body. And when I went to a PCA church that said "a member of Christ's body," I took communion. I have been told since that they probably actually meant a member of a church, but I did not know that. I assumed they meant that if you believe in Christ, communion is for you. I feel like it should be, "Sure, we can talk about membership after the service, if you'd like, but right now, it's important that you receive what Christ freely offers in his supper."
Sure, in our world we may like the pragmatic things like membership, but I do not believe that membership precedes belief. And I think belief is what is required for communion.
When I was in h.s. and college, I was not a member of a church as I went to church on my own. But I was definitely a Christian. I was definitely in Christ's body.
My former pastor in a non-denominational Baptist church would read 1 Corinthians 11:23-29 verbatim at every Lord's supper and clearly place the burden of discernment upon the participants. I prefer that practice to the pre-worship interrogations common in reformed and Lutheran churches. Strict Presbyterian "fencing" feels Roman Catholic to me. I'm much more comfortable with God determining who is worthy to eat and drink than I am with elders having the final say.
When I was in h.s. and college, I was not a member of a church as I went to church on my own. But I was definitely a Christian. I was definitely in Christ's body.
It is difficult to respond to a personal anecdote, but, in the abstract, being "in Christ's body" has nothing to do with being on one's own. If the New Testament is permitted to speak for itself, "Christ's body" must be understood as a particular, visible body of people, in some form of connection with one another and some form of submission to specific functions which God has appointed. If there is a "body" there must be "members" of the body all "joined together" in some way, shape, or form. The body does not exist apart from the members and members do not exist apart from the body. Please see especially 1 Cor. 12:12.