Can non-members take Communion?

…And should they?

I was recently asked by a fellow pastor for my opinion on this topic. He commented (regarding our denomination's polity about who may be admitted to the table of the Lord's Supper), "BCO 58.4 offers us the option of inviting members of a gospel-believing church to participate in the Supper or the option of closed communion. After fencing the table do the elders have a further responsibility to withhold the sacrament from people they know are not members anywhere? Why or why not?"

This is a GREAT question. What do we do with people who have never bothered to join the local church? Should they be permitted to take Communion?

Here's what I said: The BCO structures it the way it does so that Sessions will have the option of choosing for themselves, according to their own convictions (or one could say, so that Sessions would be FORCED to choose for themselves). Most PCA churches have opted (actively or passively) for open Communion, though even this takes different forms.

In my own practice, I almost always say something to the effect of, "this Sacrament is not only for members of ___ church, but for all believers in Christ. Therefore, if you are a member in good standing of a Bible-believing church, we bid you to come and dine."

Now, in my previous congregation, this declaration actually was used of the Holy Spirit to bring conviction to one regular attender's heart, who was not a member anywhere. She came and asked whether she could, in good conscience, take the Sacrament — and I told her that I didn't see any reason why she couldn't/shouldn't join the church and soothe her conscience! So she did, before the next time we served Communion (which we did monthly there).

I know that many will argue that 1 Corinthians 11's warnings about "discerning the body" are the basis by which we should demand an active profession of faith from communicants, i.e., why we shouldn't offer paedocommunion, etc. However, the best exegesis I've seen on that passage actually takes it another direction (based, at least in part, on context): that it isn't about discerning the body of Christ in the elements — understanding His sacrifice on our behalf — as much as discerning the body of Christ in the communion of the saints. In other words, when we take Communion without a clear awareness of the local church and its life together, we are in danger of eating and drinking judgment on ourselves.

Thus, I believe that Elders DO have a responsibility, when the know people are not members, to urge them to rectify that (by offering a profession of faith for membership) in order to protect them from judgment. This serves them well, too, in that their profession of faith is tested and verified by the local church, and not just a matter of their own opinion — and thus, they will know objectively that they are rightly partaking of the Sacrament that is clearly intended to be taken by those who are in union with Christ.

Beyond that, though, I wouldn't go further. The above would, on its face, be a good argument in favor of close or closed Communion, but I stop short of advocating that because:

1. we inevitably have frequent visitors who are, indeed, members in good standing of a Bible-believing church — and we should rejoice in the fellowship that we share in Communion;
2. we've generally done a very poor job (for several generations now) of teaching more comprehensively about the primacy and implications of church membership, and to get to the point where close Communion is appropriate (in light of the above) demands a better and more comprehensive high view of membership — both in our own congregations and in all/most others;
3. the circumstance you describe — where Elders know for sure that there are people taking Communion who are not members anywhere — assumes a relationship between those people and the Elders, or at least one Elder; in which case, there is already the context for the sort of conversation I described to take place.

[That's the end of my response to my friend.]

How should we approach it, then? Are we to conclude that, because our culture has eschewed a high view of the local church, Paul's warnings no longer are in effect? No — but we should approach it more comprehensively, teaching the importance of the local church and the implications of membership (or lack of it). We should approach it more pastorally, exercising concern for "weaker brothers" who don't (yet) see the emphasis that Scripture places on the local church. And we should approach it relationally, working in an organic way to come alongside one another to urge the vitality of healthy church life — and thereby avoiding the pitfalls of formalistic, legislative approaches to such problems.

Leavened or Unleavened?

[From Pastor Ed… 12/2 and 12/9]

Maybe you've been wondering that already. Over the last several months you've surely noticed that we've been serving unleavened matzoh crackers instead of regular (leavened) bread. Several people have asked me, which is the "right" kind of bread to use for Communion?

This is an issue that has been a matter of debate for years — centuries even. It also tends to be a very personal issue, one that many feel strongly about. I don't claim to have the final answer to the question, nor do I believe it should be a question that should cause division among brothers and sisters in Christ. But I do have some thoughts, and the Session has asked me to articulate my thoughts about this issue, hopefully for the edification of our congregation.

There's no doubt that, at the institution of the Lord's Supper (see Luke 22), Christ used unleavened bread; this was at the end of the season of Passover, when the leavening for bread would have been purged from all Jewish homes in Israel weeks earlier. It was also an observance and celebration, of sorts, of the Passover feast originally described in Exodus 12. Because Christ used unleavened bread in the institution of Communion, many contemporary believers have concluded that Christians must likewise use only unleavened bread for a proper observance of the Supper.

Is this so? Or is there freedom to use leavened bread also or instead? To consider this, let's first consider what the purpose of the unleavened bread was.

Leavening itself is a rising agent made from fermented dough, which spreads throughout rest of fresh dough over time, and causes the bread to "rise" — in other words, the fermentation spreads gases throughout the bread which are released during baking, but which make air pockets in the loaves and give it the springy, spongelike texture that we associate with leavened bread. Because unleavened bread lacks these air pockets, it is more solid and hardened in texture, sometimes being more crumbly (almost like a cookie) and in other recipes being cracker-like.

The Feast of the Unleavened Bread was intended to remind the Israelites that they were brought out of Egypt quickly — that they could not wait for their bread to rise, and so made unleavened bread instead (see Exodus 12:39). Thus unleavened bread became regularly associated with acts of worship for Israel. Leavening was prohibited in some of the sacrifices and offerings — those offered wholly to God — but was allowed for those that people would consume some or all of (such as the Peace Offerings).

The nature of leavening makes it a great metaphorical illustration of spiritual things. Jesus warned against the hypocritical "leaven of the Pharisees" (Luke 12:1) but also described the Kingdom of God as spreading like leavening. Paul used the unleavened bread of Passover as a metaphor for how we have been cleansed through Christ, our Passover Lamb who was sacrificed: "Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth" (1 Corinthians 5:8).

We cannot therefore conclude that leavening is bad in itself, for leavened bread was permissible in some of the sacrifices, and Christ described the Kingdom of God as being like leavening! But certain things that are like leavening, in terms of how they spread quickly and thoroughly — things like hypocrisy, malice, and evil — should be cast out in the same way that the leavening was put out during the Passover season.

But if some leavened bread is permissible, is it permissible in Communion? Consider this: one of the occasions when leavened bread was required was during the Peace Offering; this was a time when some of an animal was sacrificed by fire to the Lord, while the rest was consumed by the priests and the ones bringing the offering. The meaning of the Peace Offering was to celebrate the communion with God and with one another before God. Leviticus says of the Peace Offering: "with the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving he shall bring his offering with loaves of leavened bread. And from it he shall offer one loaf from each offering, as a gift to the LORD" (Leviticus 7:13-14).

Does this sound familiar? It should: our sacrament of the Lord's Supper is generally considered to be a continuation of the Peace Offerings, as we talked about in a recent sermon. (The Passover itself is also thought to be a particular kind of Peace Offering, though obviously one with unleavened bread.) The sacrament of the Lord's Supper is a celebration of our reconciliation to God and our communion with Him — and, because of Him, our communion with one another also — and a foretaste of the ultimate and eternal fellowship with Him that we will have in glory. Given that the Peace Offering includes the permission for, and at times even the requirement of, leavened bread, we might conclude therefore that leavened bread is permissible for Communion.

Here's another consideration: it is pretty clear that the New Testament-era church celebrated Communion often; if Acts 2:42 is an indicator of their ongoing and common practices, it seems that the took Communion together every time they met for worship! When we look at that verse we see that the definite article ("the") is used with the concepts of "breaking of bread" and "prayers" — thus indicating that it wasn't just breaking bread together, as in sharing in meals and fellowship (though they DID do that too, daily — see Acts 2:46) but THE breaking of bread, which is a euphemistic reference to the way the Gospels also speak of the Lord's Supper.

Would they have used unleavened bread every week? Almost certainly not: while we can go to the grocery store whenever we want to buy unleavened matzoh crackers (or other kinds of unleavened bread, including pita, shortbread, and other crackers), first-century Christians would have had such easy access to unleavened bread. Probably they would have used whatever bread was available to them.

Thus we might also conclude that either leavened or unleavened bread is permissible for use in worship. But, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians, not everything that is permissible is also beneficial. We CAN use leavened or unleavened bread; which SHOULD we use?

Here is what the Session has decided about this: we recognize that Passover was a fasting season, leading up to a feast — much like our own Christian calendars hold as a pattern. Therefore, we have decided that, during the fasting seasons of the church (Advent and Lent) we will use unleavened bread. Likewise, during the feasting seasons of the church — Christmastide, Epiphany, Easter, Pentecost, and Trinity — we will certainly use leavened bread. During the other times (usually called "ordinary time") we will recognize freedom to use either leavened or unleavened bread.

It is our prayer that our congregation be blessed by this variation and freedom, and I hope that this explanation will be of some help to you in receiving such blessing!

Assurance and the Lord's Supper [repost]

From Pastor Ed… (from Sunday, 4/1) — slightly edited from a previous post.

___________________________________

In the previous installments about "preparing our hearts" for the Lord's Supper (considering "what it DOESN'T mean" and "what it DOES mean"), I looked at some biblical reasons why we should see this sacrament as the means of grace that it is (and also some Catechism questions that speak to the issue). In other words, why our "preparation" for Communion ought not become a means of works!

There is one lingering issue that I want to address regarding the Lord's Supper: the matter of assurance.

If the brunt of our preparation for Communion is focusing on Christ's work on our behalf— even in light of reflecting on our sin and want, and how desperately we need Him— then it is certainly possible that some who endeavor such preparation would occasionally (or even frequently) struggle with questions of assurance of their salvation.

Once again, our Westminster Larger Catechism is so helpful here. Here is question 172:

May one who doubts of his being in Christ, or of his due preparation, come to the Lord's Supper?
Answer: One who doubts of his being in Christ, or of his due preparation to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, may have true interest in Christ, though he be not yet assured thereof; and in God's account has it, if he be duly affected with the apprehension of the want of it, and unfeignedly desires to be found in Christ, and to depart from iniquity: in which case (because promises are made, and this sacrament is appointed, for the relief even of weak and doubting Christians) he is to bewail his unbelief, and labor to have his doubts resolved; and, so doing, he may and ought to come to the Lord's Supper, that he may be further strengthened.

I think when most American evangelicals consider the question, "may one who doubts of his being in Christ, or of his due preparation, come to the Lord's Supper?" the knee-jerk answer would be a resounding, "NO!" Again, I think this reflects misconceptions about what it means to be "prepared" to take the Supper, and about the Supper itself.

I love how the Westminster Divines correct this mistaken instinct. The bottom line? "He may and ought to come, that he may be further strengthened."

Let's consider two things about this: the reasons why he may and ought to come, and the hope for what the result of his coming would be.

First, why may he come at all (let alone ought to come)? The Catechism gives several reasons:

• He may have true interest that he isn't yet assured of. Someone who lacks assurance needs to be reminded that their "interest" in Christ (not interest like a hobby or curiosity, but interest in the sense of our inheritance) is not based on their perceptions. No matter what one's sense of "feeling" close to God, assured of faith, etc., one whom Christ has claimed is claimed for good!
• His own soul's inclinations may contradict his lack of assurance. The Divines point out that someone who is apprehensive about the fact that he isn't in Christ may, by nature of the apprehension, have evidence that he is! Likewise, the desires to be found in Him, and to turn from his sin, are both indicators that, according to God (though not necessarily according to the unassured), he does in fact have saving faith. Why? Because Scripture is clear that none of these come to a man (or woman) apart from the Holy Spirit, and that in fact we, when our souls are dead in our sin, seek out the opposite. The only reason for the inclinations mentioned here is that the Spirit has regenerated the soul of the unassured, has removed his heart of stone and given him a heart of flesh.
• The Sacrament itself is appointed for such relief. There is a reason why we call it one of the "means of grace"— it is a means by which God communicates and affirms to us His grace. When a believer comes to the Sacrament, he/she may rarely wrestle with assurance or he/she may regularly doubt, but the Supper is itself a way that God ministers to Christians by affirming ("signifying and sealing" is the language the Westminster Divines used) to them that He has poured out His grace for their sins, and reconciled them to Himself. In it, He grants "relief to weak and doubting Christians… that they may be further strengthened."

This naturally leads us into the hope of what may result from the coming of the doubting Christian. What is that result? That they be affirmed in the "promises made," that they be "further strengthened," and that they be generally given greater assurance and hope in their own salvation. In other words, that where they doubt before, they have greater confidence after; where they are weaker in faith prior to coming to the Table, their faith will be stronger afterward.

There is that phrase in-between, that urges, "he is to bewail his unbelief, and labor to have his doubts resolved." What does this mean? I think it generally points the doubting Christian back to what I have already discussed: that he/she consider the depth and breadth of their sin, and consider also the enormity of the Cross to cover their sin. After all, whether we are conscious or mindful of it or not, all of us are weak in our faith, and have cause to doubt our worthiness (or even to be certain of our unworthiness!)— but all of us likewise have great hope in the effective and finished work of our Savior, who leads us to deeper awareness of our atonement in Him.

What it DOES mean to prepare our hearts for the Lord's Supper [Repost]

This was printed as my "From Pastor Ed…" column on Sunday. It is essentially a repost of a blog entry from 2011, adapted slightly.


______________________

In previous weeks, I commented on some common misunderstandings about "preparing our hearts" and "examining ourselves" with regard to the Lord's Supper. Now I want to comment plainly on what it does mean. To do this, I'll consider the relevant questions and answers from the Westminster Larger Catechism, interacting with each in turn to develop a complete sense of how we might prepare for communion.

Westminster Shorter Catechism question 97: What is required for the worthy receiving of the Lord's Supper?

A. It is required of them that would worthily partake of the Lord's Supper, that they examine themselves of their knowledge to discern the Lord's body, of their faith to feed upon him, of their repentance, love, and new obedience; lest, coming unworthily, they eat and drink judgment to themselves.

Note a few things of what the Catechism indicates a "worthy" receiving of the Supper consists of: the believer is to examine himself. Examining what? He "discerning" of the Lord's body, his faith, and the fruit of his faith. In other words, to receive the Lord's Supper in a "worthy" manner is to take it seriously, to acknowledge its significance and its weight, and to have a proper reverence and joy in what it represents.

The basis offered for the Catechism's answer-- the sole Scriptural evidence presented-- is 1 Corinthians 11:27-32. Here's that passage, plus the seven verses that precede it and the two after it (context is king!):

When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!
For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.
So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.

This is a full and weighty passage, and there is much in it that sometimes leads to controversy or disagreement. I won't give an exhaustive examination of the whole passage here, but I do want to touch on some highlights, particularly as they pertain to the Catechism question above.

First, note (as should be or become instinctive in Bible reading) that the relevant clause begins with "therefore"-- pointing us to what immediately precedes it. The fact that "a man ought to examine himself" (v. 28) and that he should recognize "the body of the Lord" (v. 29) is directly related to vv. 20-26-- especially vv. 20-22, where Paul describes the conduct of an unworthy participation in the Lord's Supper. "Recognizing the body of the Lord" has as its contrast v. 22's "do you despise the church of God". In other words, the "unworthy" manner is related to the manner of how the Lord's Supper is conducted, not the person participating.

Second, consider "worthiness" as it relates to this passage: could it possibly mean that some are deemed worthy to share in fellowship and communion with God Himself, by merit of their own work (even religious work, i.e., "proper" confessing of sin, etc.)? Or does it more likely mean that "worthiness" indicates a proper awareness of our desperate need for atonement apart from ourselves (and fulfilled in the work of Christ), which this sacrament "proclaims" (v. 26) to us and all around us? Thus, worthily discerning the body of Christ and participating in the Supper means that we long for it, as it represents and reminds us of Christ's great grace poured out for us.

Our Catechism isn't "finished" in helping us with the question about preparing our hearts for Communion, however. There is another helpful question and answer: Westminster Larger Catechism question 171: How are they that receive the sacrament of the Lord's Supper to prepare themselves before they come unto it?

A. They that receive the sacrament of the Lord's Supper are, before they come, to prepare themselves thereunto, by examining themselves of their being in Christ, of their sins and wants; of the truth and measure of their knowledge, faith, repentance; love to God and the brethren, charity to all men, forgiving those that have done them wrong; of their desires after Christ, and of their new obedience; and by renewing the exercise of these graces, by serious meditation, and fervent prayer.

Here again, we have a straightforward answer to the question: first and foremost, do you know yourself to be in Christ? To prepare oneself for the Sacrament is to be re-affirmed in faith.

The second part of that first clause, though, is where I think most will be hung up. "Of their sins and wants" might suggest that we should examine our sins and seek to "properly" name them in confession before God, else we should not participate in the Sacrament. Of course, this understanding is the opposite of what I proposed in my first discussion about this topic. Am I contradicted by the Catechism?

Grammatical construction helps us here: notice that, in the answer above, "examining themselves" is set up as the action relating to each of the different sets of things which should be examined. It's as if you could copy that phrase and paste it before each clause, like this:
...to prepare themselves thereunto, by examining themselves of their being in Christ, of their sins and wants; examining themselves of the truth and measure of their knowledge, faith, repentance; examining themselves [of the truth and measure of their] love to God and the brethren, charity to all men, forgiving those that have done them wrong; examining themselves of their desires after Christ, and of their new obedience; and by renewing...

You get the picture. So, how does the grammar help us? See that the Westminster Divines inserted a comma between "of their being in Christ" and "of their sins and wants"-- but a semicolon after it. In other words, they want us to see the association of the one with the other (by way of the comma) and the distinction of that clause with the rest. So when they urge an examination of our "sins and wants" it is in relation to, and in light of, our being in Christ. We are to prepare our hearts, first of all, by knowing the forgiveness and reconciliation for us in our redemption by and through Christ, and by recognizing our sins and wants as they are forgiven and swept away in Christ.

Likewise, the rest of the answer could be interpreted in a meritorious fashion as well: how much do I love God? How much can I point to the demonstration of my love for the brothers, and charity to all, and forgiveness of those who have wronged me? How much do I desire Christ, and demonstrate my obedience to Him? It's certainly possible to read the Catechism this way, and in so doing make the Sacrament one of two things (which it was never intended to be for us): either we convince ourselves that we do actually measure up to some degree of "worthiness" through all of those things, and it becomes a time of puffing up in arrogance, self-righteousness, and boastfulness; or we see clearly how much we fail to achieve any of those things even inadequately in ourselves, and it becomes a slavish reminder of how far we fall short all the time, in every way, and we loathe to even think of taking it.

Both of these results are clearly contrary to Scripture (as I demonstrated in brief in my previous piece). They are also contrary to the clear teachings throughout the rest of the Westminster Standards! Therefore, these other clauses should be understood rather to mean, in light of the first clause (that we are found in Christ, even in all of our sins and wants), we are to seek the fruit of our faith in Christ in these ways.

The final phrases in that answer lends further credibility to this interpretation: "and by renewing the exercise of these graces, by serious meditation, and fervent prayer." Why would we need to renew the exercises if we were already succeeding in them? What is the purpose of serious meditation and fervent prayer for the spiritually worthy and meritorious? But the presence of these concluding remarks expects shortcomings in that which precede them. Even in the assurance of being found in Christ!I'll do one more part of this series, to wrap up by addressing the issue of assurance.

What it DOESN'T mean to "prepare our hearts" for the Lord's Supper [repost]

I've been using some of this, originally posted in July 2011, in my "From Pastor Ed" column in our Dove Mountain Church worship folders. Below is the entire contents.

____________________________

One of the areas where, as a pastor, I consistently notice misunderstandings is with regard to the sacraments. Really, there is misunderstanding left and right in that area. A particular part that is misunderstood, however, is what it means when church members are encouraged to "examine themselves" and/or "prepare their hearts" for the Lord's Supper.

One common(mis)perception that to prepare one's heart or examine oneself is simply to think, "hmm... now, what sins have I failed to confess to God, that I need to be sure to confess and ask forgiveness for before I can rightly take Communion?"

This is a wrong view, for several reasons. First, it implies that the barrier (or fence, if you will) between someone and communion with God is a matter of a work of their own-- in the form of a particular confession! In other words, the thing we must do to receive God's grace through Sacrament is the act of confessing. In fact, however, no work of our own, however religious, spiritual, or even biblical can or will gain us entrance to the table of God's Communion. This is a sacrament of grace, not of works; in order to obtain God's grace, we must be given it freely and mercifully.

Second, it implies a belief that our sins are not forgiven-- and therefore, we are not reconciled to God-- unless we have particularly confessed them. In fact, those who are in Christ truly have their sins forgiven before they even commit them. Our sins are known to God without our confession, their punishment has been paid by Christ on the cross, and they are wiped clean from our record, having been accorded to Christ. Receiving Communion is not contingent on our confession; it is contingent on Christ's finished work on our behalf.

Third, it implies that we are actually aware of all of our sins and able to confess them. Yet how often have I, by the maturing work of the Holy Spirit, come to realize an act-- or even a pattern-- of sin years after its commitment? You do, too. In fact, God knows the depths of our sin far more than we, and His forgiveness extends fare beyond our awareness. This is why Jack Miller so aptly stated something to the effect of, "You are more sinful than you ever dared to admit! But Christ is more gracious than you ever dared to dream!" As we mature in our faith, the cross becomes bigger and bigger-- though never big enough, in my eyes or yours, to truly account for just how gracious Christ is and has been with us.

Does this mean we shouldn't confess our sins? No-- we should confess our sins: to God, to those we've sinned against, even to one another. What it does mean is that there is not some measure of adequate confession that admits or forbids us to the Table.

Another common (mis)perceptionis that we must have sought reconciliation in every broken relationship before properly partaking in the Lord's Supper.

This is a wrong view, though it is frequently perpetuated by pastors. The appeal is made to Matthew 5:23-24:

“Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift."

At the risk of stepping on the toes of fellow pastors, let me point out a few things about this as it applies (or doesn't) to Communion...

• Notice that the verse begins with "therefore"-- which implies that we're missing at least a few verses if we want to gain understanding of this text. The immediate context is the two verses preceding these, which say, "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell." In the larger context, Jesus (in the beginning portion of the Sermon on the Mount) is teaching about how he came to fulfill the law, and challenging the religiosity and formalism of the Pharisees and the teachers of the Jewish law. In brief, these verses are not rebuking someone who is otherwise properly worshiping, but demonstrating how the so-called worship offered under these pretexts is false.
• The Communion Table is not an altar. No sacrifice is being made there; we are not re-crucifying Christ every time we celebrate Communion. That analogy is both poor theology and pastorally deficient. The death of Christ as recognized in "remembrance" in Communion (Luke 22:19) and which is "proclaimed" in Communion (1 Corinthians 11:26) is a finished work, not one that we must re-create each Lord's Day (or once a month/quarter/whatever).
• The Sacrament meal is not something that WE are offering! Rather, it is something offered TO us. By its very institution, Christ offered the Sacrament to His disciples; this was, as at least part of the meaning of the Supper, a replacement of the Passover feast (which was ALSO a gift of mercy and grace offered by God to His people). By this point, we should be starting to seriously question the usefulness of this text as it is sometimes applied to Communion.

Is there no use or application of this passage with regard to the Lord's Supper? Yes and no. The setting Christ describes is worship-- so really, we ought to apply this text to our whole sense of corporate worship. Insofar as the Lord's Supper is a part of that (which, of course, it is inseparable), we should apply it appropriately. Yet, orthodox theology of corporate life together as the Body also teaches us that reconciliation is only possible through Christ, which is the very nature of the covenant renewal that takes place week by week. So the application to the ordinary life of the church-- and her individual members-- is limited in its scope. (See the above contextual comments.)

As I have said, these are common-- but they are certainly MISperceptions about the Lord's Supper. In a future post, I'll address what it DOES mean to "prepare our hearts" for the Lord's Supper.

Assurance and the Lord's Supper

In the first two installments about "preparing our hearts" for the Lord's Supper ("what it DOESN'T mean" and "what it DOES mean"), I looked at some biblical reasons why we should see this sacrament as the means of grace that it is (and also some Catechism questions that speak to the issue). In other words, why our "preparation" for Communion ought not become a means of works!

There is one lingering issue that I want to address regarding the Lord's Supper: the matter of assurance.

If the brunt of our preparation for Communion is focusing on Christ's work on our behalf— even in light of reflecting on our sin and want, and how desperately we need Him— then it is certainly possible that some who endeavor such preparation would occasionally (or even frequently) struggle with questions of assurance of their salvation.

Once again, our Westminster Larger Catechism is so helpful here. Here is question 172:

May one who doubts of his being in Christ, or of his due preparation, come to the Lord's Supper?
Answer: One who doubts of his being in Christ, or of his due preparation to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, may have true interest in Christ, though he be not yet assured thereof; and in God's account has it, if he be duly affected with the apprehension of the want of it, and unfeignedly desires to be found in Christ, and to depart from iniquity: in which case (because promises are made, and this sacrament is appointed, for the relief even of weak and doubting Christians) he is to bewail his unbelief, and labor to have his doubts resolved; and, so doing, he may and ought to come to the Lord's Supper, that he may be further strengthened.

I think when most American evangelicals consider the question, "may one who doubts of his being in Christ, or of his due preparation, come to the Lord's Supper?" the knee-jerk answer would be a resounding, "NO!" Again, I think this reflects misconceptions about what it means to be "prepared" to take the Supper, and about the Supper itself.

I love how the Westminster Divines correct this mistaken instinct. The bottom line? "He may and ought to come, that he may be further strengthened."

Let's consider two things about this: the reasons why he may and ought to come, and the hope for what the result of his coming would be.

First, why may he come at all (let alone ought to come)? The Catechism gives several reasons:

• He may have true interest that he isn't yet assured of. Someone who lacks assurance needs to be reminded that their "interest" in Christ (not interest like a hobby or curiosity, but interest in the sense of our inheritance) is not based on their perceptions. No matter what one's sense of "feeling" close to God, assured of faith, etc., one whom Christ has claimed is claimed for good!
• His own soul's inclinations may contradict his lack of assurance. The Divines point out that someone who is apprehensive about the fact that he isn't in Christ may, by nature of the apprehension, have evidence that he is! Likewise, the desires to be found in Him, and to turn from his sin, are both indicators that, according to God (though not necessarily according to the unassured), he does in fact have saving faith. Why? Because Scripture is clear that none of these come to a man (or woman) apart from the Holy Spirit, and that in fact we, when our souls are dead in our sin, seek out the opposite. The only reason for the inclinations mentioned here is that the Spirit has regenerated the soul of the unassured, has removed his heart of stone and given him a heart of flesh.
• The Sacrament itself is appointed for such relief. There is a reason why we call it one of the "means of grace"— it is a means by which God communicates and affirms to us His grace. When a believer comes to the Sacrament, he/she may rarely wrestle with assurance or he/she may regularly doubt, but the Supper is itself a way that God ministers to Christians by affirming ("signifying and sealing" is the language the Westminster Divines used) to them that He has poured out His grace for their sins, and reconciled them to Himself. In it, He grants "relief to weak and doubting Christians… that they may be further strengthened."

This naturally leads us into the hope of what may result from the coming of the doubting Christian. What is that result? That they be affirmed in the "promises made," that they be "further strengthened," and that they be generally given greater assurance and hope in their own salvation. In other words, that where they doubt before, they have greater confidence after; where they are weaker in faith prior to coming to the Table, their faith will be stronger afterward.

There is that phrase in-between, that urges, "he is to bewail his unbelief, and labor to have his doubts resolved." What does this mean? I think it generally points the doubting Christian back to what I have already discussed: that he/she consider the depth and breadth of their sin, and consider also the enormity of the Cross to cover their sin. After all, whether we are conscious or mindful of it or not, all of us are weak in our faith, and have cause to doubt our worthiness (or even to be certain of our unworthiness!)— but all of us likewise have great hope in the effective and finished work of our Savior, who leads us to deeper awareness of our atonement in Him.

What it DOES mean to "prepare our hearts" for the Lord's Supper

In a post a few days ago, I commented on some common misunderstandings about "preparing our hearts" and "examining ourselves" with regard to the Lord's Supper. Now I want to comment plainly on what it does mean.

To do this, I'll consider the relevant questions and answers from the Westminster Larger Catechism, interacting with each in turn to develop a complete sense of how we might prepare for communion.

Westminster Shorter Catechism question 97: What is required for the worthy receiving of the Lord's Supper?
A. It is required of them that would worthily partake of the Lord's Supper, that they examine themselves of their knowledge to discern the Lord's body, of their faith to feed upon him, of their repentance, love, and new obedience; lest, coming unworthily, they eat and drink judgment to themselves.

Note a few things of what the Catechism indicates a "worthy" receiving of the Supper consists of: the believer is to examine himself. Examining what? He "discerning" of the Lord's body, his faith, and the fruit of his faith. In other words, to receive the Lord's Supper in a "worthy" manner is to take it seriously, to acknowledge its significance and its weight, and to have a proper reverence and joy in what it represents.

The basis offered for the Catechism's answer-- the sole Scriptural evidence presented-- is 1 Corinthians 11:27-32. Here's that passage, plus the seven verses that precede it and the two after it (context is king!):

When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!
For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.
So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.

This is a full and weighty passage, and there is much in it that sometimes leads to controversy or disagreement. I won't give an exhaustive examination of the whole passage here, but I do want to touch on some highlights, particularly as they pertain to the Catechism question above.

First, note (as should be or become instinctive in Bible reading) that the relevant clause begins with "therefore"-- pointing us to what immediately precedes it. The fact that "a man ought to examine himself" (v. 28) and that he should recognize "the body of the Lord" (v. 29) is directly related to vv. 20-26-- especially vv. 20-22, where Paul describes the conduct of an unworthy participation in the Lord's Supper. "Recognizing the body of the Lord" has as its contrast v. 22's "do you despise the church of God". In other words, the "unworthy" manner is related to the manner of how the Lord's Supper is conducted, not the person participating.

Second, consider "worthiness" as it relates to this passage: could it possibly mean that some are deemed worthy to share in fellowship and communion with God Himself, by merit of their own work (even religious work, i.e., "proper" confessing of sin, etc.)? Or does it more likely mean that "worthiness" indicates a proper awareness of our desperate need for atonement apart from ourselves (and fulfilled in the work of Christ), which this sacrament "proclaims" (v. 26) to us and all around us? Thus, worthily discerning the body of Christ and participating in the Supper means that we long for it, as it represents and reminds us of Christ's great grace poured out for us.

Our Catechism isn't "finished" in helping us with the question about preparing our hearts for Communion, however. There is another helpful question and answer: Westminster Larger Catechism question 171: How are they that receive the sacrament of the Lord's Supper to prepare themselves before they come unto it?
A. They that receive the sacrament of the Lord's Supper are, before they come, to prepare themselves thereunto, by examining themselves of their being in Christ, of their sins and wants; of the truth and measure of their knowledge, faith, repentance; love to God and the brethren, charity to all men, forgiving those that have done them wrong; of their desires after Christ, and of their new obedience; and by renewing the exercise of these graces, by serious meditation, and fervent prayer.

Here again, we have a straightforward answer to the question: first and foremost, do you know yourself to be in Christ? To prepare oneself for the Sacrament is to be re-affirmed in faith.

The second part of that first clause, though, is where I think most will be hung up. "Of their sins and wants" might suggest that we should examine our sins and seek to "properly" name them in confession before God, else we should not participate in the Sacrament. Of course, this understanding is the opposite of what I proposed in my first discussion about this topic. Am I contradicted by the Catechism?

Grammatical construction helps us here: notice that, in the answer above, "examining themselves" is set up as the action relating to each of the different sets of things which should be examined. It's as if you could copy that phrase and paste it before each clause, like this:
...to prepare themselves thereunto, by examining themselves of their being in Christ, of their sins and wants; examining themselves of the truth and measure of their knowledge, faith, repentance; examining themselves [of the truth and measure of their] love to God and the brethren, charity to all men, forgiving those that have done them wrong; examining themselves of their desires after Christ, and of their new obedience; and by renewing...

You get the picture. So, how does the grammar help us? See that the Westminster Divines inserted a comma between "of their being in Christ" and "of their sins and wants"-- but a semicolon after it. In other words, they want us to see the association of the one with the other (by way of the comma) and the distinction of that clause with the rest. So when they urge an examination of our "sins and wants" it is in relation to, and in light of, our being in Christ. We are to prepare our hearts, first of all, by knowing the forgiveness and reconciliation for us in our redemption by and through Christ, and by recognizing our sins and wants as they are forgiven and swept away in Christ.

Likewise, the rest of the answer could be interpreted in a meritorious fashion as well: how much do I love God? How much can I point to the demonstration of my love for the brothers, and charity to all, and forgiveness of those who have wronged me? How much do I desire Christ, and demonstrate my obedience to Him? It's certainly possible to read the Catechism this way, and in so doing make the Sacrament one of two things (which it was never intended to be for us): either we convince ourselves that we do actually measure up to some degree of "worthiness" through all of those things, and it becomes a time of puffing up in arrogance, self-righteousness, and boastfulness; or we see clearly how much we fail to achieve any of those things even inadequately in ourselves, and it becomes a slavish reminder of how far we fall short all the time, in every way, and we loathe to even think of taking it.

Both of these results are clearly contrary to Scripture (as I demonstrated in brief in my previous piece). They are also contrary to the clear teachings throughout the rest of the Westminster Standards! Therefore, these other clauses should be understood rather to mean, in light of the first clause (that we are found in Christ, even in all of our sins and wants), we are to seek the fruit of our faith in Christ in these ways.

The final phrases in that answer lends further credibility to this interpretation: "and by renewing the exercise of these graces, by serious meditation, and fervent prayer." Why would we need to renew the exercises if we were already succeeding in them? What is the purpose of serious meditation and fervent prayer for the spiritually worthy and meritorious? But the presence of these concluding remarks expects shortcomings in that which precede them. Even in the assurance of being found in Christ!

I'll do one more part of this series, to wrap up by addressing the issue of assurance.

What it DOESN'T mean to "prepare our hearts" for the Lord's Supper

One of the areas where, as a pastor, I consistently notice misunderstandings is with regard to the sacraments. Really, there is misunderstanding left and right in that area. A particular part that is misunderstood, however, is what it means when church members are encouraged to "examine themselves" and/or "prepare their hearts" for the Lord's Supper.

One common (mis)perception that to prepare one's heart or examine oneself is simply to think, "hmm... now, what sins have I failed to confess to God, that I need to be sure to confess and ask forgiveness for before I can rightly take Communion?"

This is a wrong view, for several reasons. First, it implies that the barrier (or fence, if you will) between someone and communion with God is a matter of a work of their own-- in the form of a particular confession! In other words, the thing we must do to receive God's grace through Sacrament is the act of confessing. In fact, however, no work of our own, however religious, spiritual, or even biblical can or will gain us entrance to the table of God's Communion. This is a sacrament of grace, not of works; in order to obtain God's grace, we must be given it freely and mercifully.

Second, it implies a belief that our sins are not forgiven-- and therefore, we are not reconciled to God-- unless we have particularly confessed them. In fact, those who are in Christ truly have their sins forgiven before they even commit them. Our sins are known to God without our confession, their punishment has been paid by Christ on the cross, and they are wiped clean from our record, having been accorded to Christ. Receiving Communion is not contingent on our confession; it is contingent on Christ's finished work on our behalf.

Third, it implies that we are actually aware of all of our sins and able to confess them. Yet how often have I, by the maturing work of the Holy Spirit, come to realize an act-- or even a pattern-- of sin years after its commitment? You do, too. In fact, God knows the depths of our sin far more than we, and His forgiveness extends fare beyond our awareness. This is why Jack Miller so aptly stated something to the effect of, "You are more sinful than you ever dared to admit! But Christ is more gracious than you ever dared to dream!" As we mature in our faith, the cross becomes bigger and bigger-- though never big enough, in my eyes or yours, to truly account for just how gracious Christ is and has been with us.

Does this mean we shouldn't confess our sins? No-- we should confess our sins: to God, to those we've sinned against, even to one another. What it does mean is that there is not some measure of adequate confession that admits or forbids us to the Table.

Another common (mis)perception is that we must have sought reconciliation in every broken relationship before properly partaking in the Lord's Supper.

This is a wrong view, though it is frequently perpetuated by pastors. The appeal is made to Matthew 5:23-24:

“Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift."

At the risk of stepping on the toes of fellow pastors, let me point out a few things about this as it applies (or doesn't) to Communion...

• Notice that the verse begins with "therefore"-- which implies that we're missing at least a few verses if we want to gain understanding of this text. The immediate context is the two verses preceding these, which say, "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell." In the larger context, Jesus (in the beginning portion of the Sermon on the Mount) is teaching about how he came to fulfill the law, and challenging the religiosity and formalism of the Pharisees and the teachers of the Jewish law. In brief, these verses are not rebuking someone who is otherwise properly worshiping, but demonstrating how the so-called worship offered under these pretexts is false.
• The Communion Table is not an altar. No sacrifice is being made there; we are not re-crucifying Christ every time we celebrate Communion. That analogy is both poor theology and pastorally deficient. The death of Christ as recognized in "remembrance" in Communion (Luke 22:19) and which is "proclaimed" in Communion (1 Corinthians 11:26) is a finished work, not one that we must re-create each Lord's Day (or once a month/quarter/whatever).
• The Sacrament meal is not something that WE are offering! Rather, it is something offered TO us. By its very institution, Christ offered the Sacrament to His disciples; this was, as at least part of the meaning of the Supper, a replacement of the Passover feast (which was ALSO a gift of mercy and grace offered by God to His people). By this point, we should be starting to seriously question the usefulness of this text as it is sometimes applied to Communion.

Is there no use or application of this passage with regard to the Lord's Supper? Yes and no. The setting Christ describes is worship-- so really, we ought to apply this text to our whole sense of corporate worship. Insofar as the Lord's Supper is a part of that (which, of course, it is inseparable), we should apply it appropriately. Yet, orthodox theology of corporate life together as the Body also teaches us that reconciliation is only possible through Christ, which is the very nature of the covenant renewal that takes place week by week. So the application to the ordinary life of the church-- and her individual members-- is limited in its scope. (See the above contextual comments.)

As I have said, these are common-- but they are certainly MISperceptions about the Lord's Supper. In a future post, I'll address what it DOES mean to "prepare our hearts" for the Lord's Supper.

Warfield on qualifications for baptism and membership

I love this quote from Benjamin B. Warfield on baptism:

If we demand anything like demonstrative evidence of actual participation in Christ before we baptize, no infant, who by reason of years is incapable of affording signs of his union with Christ can be thought a proper subject of the rite….The vice of this system, however, is that it attempts the impossible. No man can read the heart. As a consequence, it follows that no one, however rich his manifestation of Christian graces, is baptized on the basis of infallible knowledge of his relation to Christ. All baptism is inevitably administered on the basis not of knowledge but of presumption.

This is the heart of one of my core points with regard to church membership in general (after all, your baptism IS your admission into church membership): that no qualification beyond the public profession of faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ can or should be required. (See my booklet, Grafted Into The Vine: rethinking biblical church membership, for more on how this is developed in Scripture.)

Good stuff, B.B.!

Thoughts about Why It's Wrong to Be Sorrowful at the Lord's Table

My (online) friend Valerie recently posted these 14 "stream-of-consciousness" thoughts (man, I wish my streams of consciousness were as cogent!) on her blog. I asked if I could repost it, and she graciously granted permission.

1. When we confess our sins at the beginning of the service, the pastor or elder declares that we are forgiven. That means our sin has been removed as far as the east is from the west. It doesn’t exist anymore. Therefore there’s nothing left for us to be sorrowful about. If we are sorrowful at the Lord’s Table, we cast doubt on the efficacy of His forgiveness.

2. What can wash away my sin? Nothing but the blood of Jesus. My tears can add nothing to the cleansing process. He didn’t miss any spots that I still need to scrub away on my own. If we are sorrowful at the Lord’s Table, we are trying to accomplish our own salvation by our work of mourning.

3. Self-flagellation accomplishes nothing. By His stripes we are healed, not by ours. If we are sorrowful at the Lord’s Table, we deny the efficacy of His vicarious suffering.

4. The Lord’s Supper should draw our attention to those with whom we commune—the Lord Jesus and His body, the church. Being sorrowful over our own sin means our attention is consumed with ourselves. If we are sorrowful at the Lord’s Table, we are being self-centered at the worst possible moment.

5. Godly sorrow produces repentance without regret, leading to salvation (2 Corinthians 7:10). If we are sorrowful at the Lord’s Table, we are engaging in worldly sorrow that leads to death.

6. One day a little boy refused to obey his father, threw a tantrum, and talked back in a rather egregious manner. The father took his son aside to apply some tender loving care to his nether region. A few swats, a few tears, a few words of apology and forgiveness, and a few hugs and kisses brought about a general change of attitude, and they abode in peace together for the rest of the afternoon. But that evening at the dinner table, the little boy wept and wailed about how sorry he was for misbehaving. Pretty soon his brothers and sisters were weeping and wailing, as well, over their past transgressions, and the whole family had a rather miserable meal. If we are sorrowful at the Lord’s Table, we are denying the Father’s forgiveness, and we are tempting our brothers and sisters to do likewise.

7. (Same scenario, take 2) One day a little boy refused to obey his father, threw a tantrum, and talked back in a rather egregious manner. The father took his son aside to apply some tender loving care to his nether regions. A few swats, a few tears, a few words of apology and forgiveness, and a few hugs and kisses brought about a general change of attitude, and they abode in peace together for the rest of the afternoon. But that evening at the dinner table, the father recounted the boy’s misdoings and went on at length about how disappointed and ashamed he was of his son. While he was at it, he reminded all his other kids about their past transgressions, and the whole family had a rather miserable meal. If we are sorrowful at the Lord’s Table, we are slanderously saying that the Father’s forgiveness is not sincere, neither for ourselves nor for our brothers and sisters.

8. One day, a wife was quarrelsome and disrespectful to her husband. Later, she was sorry for what she’d done. She apologized and he freely and gladly forgave her. They made up according to the time-honored custom of lovers everywhere. But as he kissed and caressed her, rather than joyfully receiving and returning his affection, she started weeping and kept saying over and over again, “I’m so sorry. I was such a witch today. I can’t believe the way I behaved. You must be so upset with me” and so on. If we are sorrowful at the Lord’s Table, we are faithlessly rejecting His love for us.

9. (Same scenario, take 2) One day, a wife was quarrelsome and disrespectful to her husband. Later, she was sorry for what she’d done. She apologized and he said that he freely and gladly forgave her. They made up according to the time-honored custom of lovers everywhere. But his kisses and caresses were accompanied by reminders of what a witch she’d been that day, how badly she’d behaved, and how he upset he still was about the things she’d said and done. If we are sorrowful at the Lord’s Table, we are slanderously saying He hasn’t truly given us His forgiveness and love.

10. Some people need persistent reminders that their sins have been forgiven, that Jesus loves them, that they are clean. If we are sorrowful at the Lord’s Table, we are throwing an anvil rather than a life preserver to weak-faithed people who are already drowning under a burden of shame.

11. The gospel is like well-functioning toilet. Forgiveness flushes away the contents, and they are gone for good. Why would we want to remember them? Why would we want the pipes to back up so we can continue to gaze upon and smell our filth? Why would we want to keep using (and never emptying) a chamber pot when we’ve got perfectly good indoor plumbing? If we are sorrowful at the Lord’s Table, we are clinging to our sin and showing that we still love it more than Jesus.

12. Jesus has borne our sins on the cross. The devil wants us to believe that we still bear them ourselves. If we are sorrowful at the Lord’s Table, we are making it out to be the table of demons.

13. He preparest a table for me in the presence of mine enemies. He doesn’t do so in order to hand me over to them to be tormented with shame and guilt. And He doesn’t do so in order to perpetuate His enmity with me. If we are sorrowful at the Lord’s Table, we make the good Shepherd out to be a wicked trickster of a wolf.

14. The Lord’s Supper is a foretaste of the Lamb’s wedding feast in the new heavens, where every tear is wiped away. If we are sorrowful at the Lord’s Table, we are bringing hell into heaven.