ORDAINED SERVANT

28
Vol. 14, No. 1 O RDAINED S ERVANT Published by The Committee on Christian Education of THE ORTHODOX PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH March 2005 Administrator, Teachers and Students Who were present for the Intensive Training Week of The 2004-5 Ministerial Training Institute

Transcript of ORDAINED SERVANT

Vol. 14, No. 1

ORDAINED SERVANT

Published by

The Committee on Christian Education

of

THE ORTHODOX PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH

March 2005

Administrator, Teachers and Students

Who were present for the Intensive Training Week of

The 2004-5 Ministerial Training Institute

2 Ordained Servant — Vol. 14, No. 1

ORDAINED SERVANT

Statement of Purpose

Ordained Servant exists to provide solid materials for the equipping of office-bearers to serve more faithfully. The goal ofthis journal is to assist the ordained servants of the church to become more fruitful in their particular ministry so that theyin turn will be more capable to prepare God's people for works of service. To attain this goal Ordained Servant will in-clude articles (both old and new) of a theoretical and practical nature with the emphasis tending toward practical articleswrestling with perennial and thorny problems encountered by office-bearers.

Editorial Policy

1. Ordained Servant publishes articles inculcating biblical presbyterianism in accord with the constitution of the OrthodoxPresbyterian Church and helpful articles from collateral Reformed traditions; however, views expressed by the writers donot necessarily represent the position of Ordained Servant or of the Church.

2. Ordained Servant occasionally publishes articles on issues on which differing positions are taken by officers in goodstanding in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Ordained Servant does not intend to take a partisan stand, but welcomesarticles from various viewpoints in harmony with the constitution of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

All material in this periodical is subject to U.S. and International copyright laws and may not be repro-duced without prior written approval. Interested parties are invited to obtain permission to reproduce ma-terial found in this publication by writing to the editor.

Copyright by the Committee on Christian Education of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. All rights reserved.

Published for the Committee on Christian Education of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church under direction of the Subcommittee on Resources for Church Officers

Contents: Vol. 14, No. 1

Editorial Notes.......................................................................................................................................................................3

About Good Preaching, by Andrew H. Selle......................................................................................................................4

Pastor to Pastor: The Peril of Pornography, Part 1, by William Shishko...........................................................................8

Teaching Membership Classes, by Daniel R. Hyde............................................................................................................11

On Weekly Communion - Some Pastoral Reflections, by Larry Wilson.............................................................................15

“Drink of It, All of You”, Revisiting Elements of the Traditional Reformed Fencing of the Table, by T. Nathan Trice....21

Please send all materials intended for possible publication in Ordained Servant to the Editor, G. I.Williamson, 406 Normal College Ave., Sheldon, IA 51201. (Or you can send a text file, by Email to:[email protected]).

Ordained Servant is published in March and September by the Committee on Christian Educationof the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Copies to ordained officers of the Orthodox PresbyterianChurch are paid for by the Committee. It is also available to others in the U.S.A. who remit $7per year to Ordained Servant, 5645 73rd St SW, Carson, ND 58529; foreign subscribers pleaseremit $12 per year.

3Ordained Servant — Vol. 14, No. 1

EDITORIAL NOTES

A t the 2004 fall meeting of theCommittee on Christian Edu-

cation it was decided to reduce thenumber of annual issues of this pub-lication from four to two. But at thesame time it was determined thateach issue may be slightly largerthan before (up to 28 pages insteadof 24). It is my hope that more canbe packed into each issue and thatthis change will enhance the qualityof Ordained Servant.

T he cover of this issue showsthe administrator, teachers and

students participating in the 2004-5Ministerial Training Institute (MTI)of the Orthodox PresbyterianChurch which was held, this year, inthe Westminster Orthodox Presby-terian Church, in Westminster, Cali-fornia. The MTI was launched in1999 and over 100 men have takenone or more of the following cours-es: The Westminster Standards, Ec-clesiology, Presbyterian Polity,Homiletics, Pastoral Theology, Cov-enant Nurture, Reformed Worship,Presuppositional Apologetics, andThe OPC: History, Character, Dis-tinguishing Characteristics. Thecourses to be offered this Spring areHomiletics, Ecclesiology, and TheOPC: History, Character, Distin-guishing Characteristics. The Inten-sive Training week, for these cours-es, will be held this spring in WillowGrove, Pennsylvania. A Cataloguewith full information can be ob-tained from Mr. James Thomas, 112Evergreen Dr., Aliquippa, PA 15001or ([email protected]).

T wo of the articles in this issueof Ordained Servant deal with

concerns about the proper adminis-tration of the Lord’s Supper. I sup-pose we are all aware of the fact thatno less than John Calvin believedthat we ought to observe the Lord’s

Supper each Lord’s Day. Some ofthe reasons for this conviction arepresented in a cogent way by LarryWilson. It is presented here, not asthe last word on the subject, but as aworth-while defense of Calvin’sview. The other article, by NathanTrice, is concerned with what hesees as weaknesses in our traditionalway of observing this sacrament,argueing that we’ve become toosombre and that we ought to bemuch more festive. My thanks toboth of these men for some seriousthought about this important subject.

O ne of the snares of Satan inour day and age is the easy

access to pornographic materia onthe Internet. Things of this kindwere not unknown a half-centuryago (in my high-school days it wascommon knowledge that such couldbe had at one Des Moines bookstore.But it took a bit of brazen “courage”to go in there and ask for that sort ofmaterial). Today it is possible foranyone almost anywhere to get it.(During my recent visit to Cyprus toteach a class of pastors from Egyptand Kuwait, they told me that manyyoung men spend money and time torent the use of computers for thisvery purpose). I’m very grateful,therefore, to Pastor ‘Bill’ Shishkofor his no nonsense articles confront-ing this growing issue. The first arti-cle, in this issue, will be followed byan even longer one in the next issue.

I again remind readers of Or-dained Sevant that a CD contain-

ing the entire archive of the first 13years of this publication is availablefor $5 (postage paid). If you wantone of these, you need to send $5 tothe editor to cover the cost of theCD, the label, the sturdy mailer andthe postage. Be sure to include yourfull return address.

“Everyone agrees…that Scripture does notspeak the language ofscience but that of dailyexperience… But whenScripture, from its ownperspective precisely asthe book of religioncomes in contact withother sciences and alsosheds its light on them,it does not all at oncecease to be the Word ofGod but remains thatWord. Even when itspeaks about the gene-sis of heaven and earth,it does not present sagaor myth or poetic fanta-sy but offers, in accor-dance with its own clearintent, history, the histo-ry that deserves cre-dence and trust. And forthat reason Christiantheology, with only afew exceptions, contin-ued to hold onto the lit-eral historical view ofthe creation story.

The first chapter ofGenesis…cleary bearsa historical characterand forms the introduc-tion to a book thatpresents itself from be-ginning to end as histo-ry.”

— from pages 494 and499 of Volume II (Godand Creation) of thenew English Translationof Bavinck’s ReformedDogmatics.

êêêêêêêêêêêêêêê ABOUT GOOD PREACHING

by

Andrew H. Selle, D.Min.

Dear Mr. Turretini,

Thank you for your letter of gentlerebuke to us at Redemptive-HistoricalOPC. We appreciate your concern.About our view of preaching, youcharge us with being “narrowly com-mitted to a fairly contemporary re-demptive-historical approach largelyarising out of the perspectives of cer-tain twentieth-century biblical theolo-gians….” In contrast, you claim tostand “in the mainstream of such theo-logical giants as Augustine of Hippo,Martin Luther, and John Calvin.” Wemake no such grand claims. However,we do wish to clarify our views andencourage full-orbed Reformed, effec-tive, and Christ-honoring preaching inour churches. This letter gives no ex-haustive treatment about the subjectbut will touch on three crucial mattersexpressed as propositions below. Wehope and trust you agree with them.

Let’s set the stage by imagining asermon about Samuel’s birth narra-tive1 summarized as, “Hannah standsas a timeless example for us of earnestprayer and sacrificial faithfulness.Hannah prayed; so should you. Han-nah kept her vows; so should you.

Amen” and closing prayer. Whowould dare argue against prayer andvow-keeping? What is lacking in sucha message? The answer can be foundby discerning the contours of sanctifi-cation in the messianic topography ofscripture.

First of all, ask yourself, Could Ipreach this message down the street atTemple Beth Israel? “Pray. Keep yourword. Don’t lie. Do this. Don’t dothat.” This is moralistic preaching inthe sense that it expounds the moralityof the Law without a Gospel con-text—without a Christ context! Butjust as the Law has no power to justi-fy, neither has it power to sanctify.

I. The Law has no power to sanctify,but sanctification occurs only in un-ion with Christ; therefore, goodpreaching uses the Law only in con-nection with the Gospel of Christand faith in that Gospel.

You wrote, “The necessity of topo-logical preaching rests in the necessityof instructing the people of God in thedoctrine of sanctification.” You haverightly raised the stakes at this point.When we discuss the ministry of theWord, we are not concerned merelywith preference or style, but with the

issue, How are God’s people madeholy in progressive sanctification?The scriptures resound with the an-swer, summarized in our standards.Sanctification comes entirely by thegrace of the Triune God, as the Spiritapplies the work of Christ to the Fa-ther’s elect. In this regenerative/renewal process, he employs themeans of the Word; the three “usesof the law” are not “contrary to thegrace of the gospel, but do sweetlycomply with it, the Spirit of Christsubduing and enabling the will ofman to do that freely, and cheerfully,which the will of God, revealed in thelaw, requireth to be done.”2

The Reformed emphasis upon un-ion with Christ, both federal and vital,cannot be overstated with respect tosanctification. Paul stamps his trade-mark, “in Christ,” onto every facet ofthe Christian life. He praises the Fa-ther who “has blessed us in the hea-venly realms with every spiritualblessing in Christ.”3 Every blessingof the Gospel—in fact the entire

Ordained Servant — Vol. 14, No. 14

Note to the reader: This article is a response to Mark Larson’s piece, “About Preaching,” in a re-cent issue of Ordained Servant (Vol. 13, No. 2, p. 31). Mark’s article was presented in the formof a letter from a fictitious minister named “Calvin Turretini, Pastor at Geneva OPC” to a “Mr.Salutes,” from “Redemptive-Historical OPC.” Following the same literary device, the articlebelow is Mr. Salutes’s response to Mr. Turretini.

1 1 Sam. 1 & 2

2 WCF, XIX.7; cf. WLC, Q. 753 Eph. 1:3ff.; cf. 2:6,7; 4:32; Rom. 6:11;

8:1,39; 1 Cor. 1:4,30; 15:22; 2 Cor. 5:17,19;Gal. 3:28; Phil. 4:19; Col. 2:10; 2 Tim. 2:1,and many others.

5Ordained Servant — Vol. 14, No. 1

ABOUT GOOD PREACHING

ordo salutis—is rooted in our unionwith Christ. If “sanctification is thework of God’s free grace”4 fromwhat source comes this grace? Itsprings from a living communionwith the Savior, rooted in believers’“communion in grace…with Christ”along with justification, adoption,and “whatever else…manifests theirunion with him.”5 In the Christianwalk and in preaching, the impera-tives of moral obedience must flowout of the indicative of our faith-union with Christ.6

What about the role of faith insanctification? Faith is the man-wardside of spiritual union, the humanexpression (itself a gift) of the Spirit’s inward power. We believe“into Christ” at regeneration, andthen continually receive the gifts ofGod’s grace through the instrumentof faith.7

The only way of receiving sup-plies of spiritual strength andgrace from Jesus Christ, on ourpart, is by faith. Hereby wecome unto him, are implantedin him, abide with him, so as tobring forth fruit. He dwells inour hearts by faith, and he actsin us by faith, and we live byfaith in or on the Son of God.8

Our Lord commissions Paul topreach Christ, and to open Gentile

eyes darkened by Satan’s power, sothat they will “receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those whoare sanctified by faith.”9 He rebukesthe confused Galatian church withthe rhetorical question, “By works ofthe Law did you receive the Spirit,or by hearing of faith? Are you thatfoolish! Having begun in the Spirit,now by flesh are you being perfect-ed?”10 Paul knew what we lesserpreachers sometimes forget: sanctifi-cation is a “fruit,” not a work, andGod’s people will bear the fruit ofthe Spirit, the Christ-like image ofholiness, only through “faith work-ing by love.”11

Does Christocentric preaching ofgrace, then, exclude explicit instruc-tion for the Christian walk? Ofcourse not! God’s grace in Christ,far from precluding the third use ofthe law, establishes and energizes itbecause Christ by his Spirit writesthat law upon the hearts of God’speople. II. The moral law “doth foreverbind all…to the obedience there-of…,”12 an obedience internalizedby the regeneration of the HolySpirit; therefore, good preachingencourages specific and experien-tial obedience in the life of faith.

The preacher trusts the Holy Spiritto direct the flock into those “goodworks which God prepared in ad-vance for us to do”—through wis-dom received by faith and exercisedin faith.13 The Holy Spirit uses the

means of the ministry of the Word,both public and private, to urge spe-cific acts of obedience. When facedwith a vexing food-distribution prob-lem, the apostles’ practical solution isfirmly rooted in biblical mandates(care for the poor, guarding the min-istry of the Word and prayer, godlycharacter of leaders) and biblicalprecedent (Moses’ appointment ofJoshua).14 Even a cursory look at theepistles reveals the same “principle”and “implementation” pattern. Paulcommands church members to stopjudging one another because Godalone is the Judge before whom “eve-ry knee will bow” and “every tongueconfess.”15 Euodia and Syntychemust “agree in the Lord,” and Syzy-gus must assist them as a conciliatorbecause the church is “united inChrist,” and its members must be“like-minded,” and “one in spirit andpurpose.”16

Even with OT narratives, we knowthat “…everything that was written inthe past was written to teach us….”17

We do not have to contrive “practicalapplications” of a text; God alreadyhas applied his Word to all believersin every era of history.18 However,the particular manner in which be-lievers “walk out” their faith—the

4 WSC, Q. 35.5 WLC, Q. 69; cf. 1 Cor 1:30.6 Rom. 6:1ff.7 Cf. WCF, XIV.2: “But the principal acts of

saving faith are accepting, receiving, andresting upon Christ alone for justification,sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue ofthe covenant of grace.” Note the use of Ga-latians 2:20 as one of the proof texts.

8 John Owen, The Glory of Christ, ed. Wil-liam H. Goold, The Works of John Owen,Vol. 1 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1965),459.

9 Acts 26:1810 Gal 3:3 (author’s trans.) Epiteleisqe is under-

stood as passive voice (‘being perfected’) ratherthan middle (‘achieve your goal’), placing em-phasis upon the Spirit’s work. Nowhere else inthe NT does this verb appear in the middlevoice.

11 Gal. 5:6, 22,2312 WCF, XIX.5; WLC, Q. 97 is an outstanding

summary.

13 Eph. 2:10; James 1:5,6; Rom. 14:23; 1 Tim.4:3,4; Titus 1:15.

14 Acts 6:1-7; Num. 27:16ff.15 Rom. 14:11-14; cf. Isa. 45:23; Phil. 2:10. See

also the multiple and specific admonishmentsgiven to the Corinthian church.

16 Phil. 2:1,2; 4:3. Post-apostolic undershep-herds likewise know and love the flock undertheir care, and labor in the Word to give in-struction geared to its needs, a task particular-ly implied in words like ‘admonish’ (nouthe-teo), 1 Thess. 5:12.

17 Rom. 15:418 OT saints lived by faith in God’s redemptive

promises and longed for Christ’s advent;now we rejoice in the fulfillment of God’s re-demptive promises in Christ and long for hisreturn.

6 Ordained Servant — Vol. 14, No. 1

ABOUT GOOD PREACHING

implementation of the Word—is always shaped by their life context.The Lord’s people must obey wherethey live, in a real world in a realtime, and they need real help. With-in the boundaries of Christian free-dom19 and confidentiality, thepreacher explicates the text, present-ing immediate implications of it formoral conduct.

What is the goal of Christian ser-vice? It is both corporate and cove-nantal: for God’s glory “…that wewill in all things grow up into himwho is the Head, that is Christ.”20 Achurch being restored into the imageof its Savior, its covenant Head, re-quires preaching that leads us tohim.

III. God’s saving work in JesusChrist is the focus and center of allbiblical revelation; therefore, goodpreaching must be Christocentric.A sermon without Christ is no ser-mon at all.

In your admonishment to us,brother, you declare that “historicalnarratives do not have a Christ-centric (sic.) focus exclusively.”Isn’t this a contradiction in terms? A circle can have only one center, alens one focal point. That clear cen-ter point of the Bible is Jesus Christ.Israel’s sordid history reveals it asthe rebellious servant who receivesthe Lord’s just curse upon covenantbreakers. Throughout the history of

redemption, its failure drove God’speople to look for the true Son, thefaithful Servant, by whose sufferinghe would atone for “the many.”21 After his suffering, Jesus meets twodespairing disciples on the road,“And beginning with Moses and allthe Prophets, he explained to themwhat was said in all the Scripturesconcerning himself,” and “openedtheir minds so they could understandthe Scriptures.”22 In the apostolicpreaching after Pentecost, now fixedin the NT canon, we hear those samedivine Bible lessons. Jesus Christ isat the heart of both OT promise andNT fulfillment.23

You are zealous, brother, that thepreacher not jettison the rich OT il-lustrations of moral conduct (right-eous and unrighteous) given to us forexample and admonition. We areequally zealous that he not portrayOT history as “a detached chronicleof moral tales having as their onepoint of comparison the analogy ofsome behavioral situation.”24 Withsuch a view, contemporary preachersmight just as well find illustrationsmore relevant to church members’current needs in the newspaper or The Lord of the Rings.

Rather, we approach every textwith a firm conviction that it is notfirst of all about us, but about Godand his great salvation accomplishedin his Son and applied by his Spirit,from our effectual calling to the daywe see our Lord face to face in gloryand become like him. Until thepreacher beholds Christ in the text,he has not grasped the true telos ofthat portion of Scripture. We preach

“Jesus Christ and him crucified….”25

Every sermon must be about Him. Ifyou were to say, “This Sunday I willtell you what the Law says (what todo and what to eschew) and nextweek I will tell you about Christ,”you just as well could say, Todaythere will be no preaching. You haveto wait another week for a sermon.Why? Because a sermon withoutChrist is no sermon at all. Why? Be-cause the Gospel is not just for thepagans out there but for me! I mustbelieve it, with all its thrilling andpervasive implications for my life,every day—and I must hear it everyLord’s Day.26

How, then, does the ministerpreach Christ, particularly from anOT historical narrative? Does hespeak of Jesus’ work as an after-thought, with the same obligatoryconclusion tacked-on to the end ofevery message—a safe alternative toan altar call, properly toned-downand tamed to protect our Reformedsensibilities? No, to do it right, thereis no shortcut to careful study of thetext, within its immediate and re-demptive-historical context, as weseek wisdom about how the Spirit in-tends those OT characters to speak toGod’s people today. That study mustbe done, and done with the sure ex-pectation that the text, to its verycore, speaks of Christ27 who dwells

21 Isa. 53:10-12.22 Luke 24:27,45.23 Heb. 1:1,2.24 Edmund P. Clowney, “Preaching Christ: Lec-

ture delivered at Calvin Theological Seminary,October 29, 1964,” (unpublished paper), p. 13.

25 1 Cor. 2:2.26 According to the Westminster divines, the

preacher’s goal toward his flock is to “drawtheir souls to Christ, the fountain of light,holiness and comfort.” From Directory for

the Public Worship of God (1644), in BardThompson, ed., Liturgies of the WesternChurch (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1961),p. 365.

27 Edmund P. Clowney, Ibid., p. 16: “Thispreaching hems you in to Christ’s fullness,limits you to all the riches of the wisdom ofGod, narrows your thought to the mind ofChrist, and restricts your vision to one lightof the eye, the glory of God in the face ofJesus Christ…Determine with Paul topreach Christ. No more, no less.”

19 We must be careful not to elevate legalisticallythe suggested implementations of the Law tothe level of the Law itself. The preacher’s au-thority is declarative not legislative: e.g., wemust proclaim the Ninth Commandment toChristian attorneys and bind their conscienceswith the Word of God, “You must be honestand truthful.” However, we do not directthem about exactly what to say in court, asthey deal with the complexities of civil judicialsystems.

20 Eph. 4:15; cf. 1 Cor. 10:13; Col. 3:17; 1 Pet.4:11.

7Ordained Servant — Vol. 14, No. 1

ABOUT GOOD PREACHING

things.” You pray, “Thy Kingdomcome” to the King himself. Praywith full confidence that he hearsyou and answers your prayers. Andbe faithful like Hannah. Hannah pre-sented her son to the Lord. You giveeverything—all you have and all youare—for “You are not your own, youwere bought at a price.” Honor himwith your life, in his resurrectionpower.

Many blessings to you, Mr. Turre-tini, as you study his Word.

Sincerely,

Geerhardus Edwards Salutes

Andrew Selle is aChristian counselorand conciliator servingin Essex Jct., Vermont,and a Teacher at Cove-nant OPC, Barre, Ver-mont.

in the church to “equip (it) with every-thing good for doing his will.”28

Back to Hannah: The barren woman prays for a child, and theLord of Heavenly Armies answerswith a son. Then in a song of praiseHannah celebrates that great reversaltheme—the Lord will bring downthe wicked and proud and lift up therighteous and humble. In the samebreath she praises him for victory inbattle and for overcoming barren-ness. With an eye upon Genesis3:15, she sees the Mighty Warriorcrush his enemies and rescue hispeople—and in a jarring juxtaposi-tion, childbirth becomes central tothis great deliverance. Clearly, thepassage is not primarily about Han-nah. The immediate context is Sam-uel and God’s work through him.Samuel comes at a time when “Israelhad no king, and every man did whatwas right in his own eyes.”29 He be-comes the last and greatest of thejudges, the king-maker who willanoint David and initiate his eternal

dynasty. Hannah’s worship rises in agreat crescendo to the climacticprophesy, “He will give strength tohis king and exalt the horn of hisanointed”—his Messiah! How fittingthat Mary makes Hannah’s song herown, “…My spirit rejoices in Godmy Savior….He has brought downrulers from their thrones but has lift-ed up the humble.” Yet, as Hannahdeclared, “It is not by strength thatone prevails,” but by weakness. Whobecame weaker than Christ? For theweakness he experienced was theweakness of the cross. There he con-quers sinful rebels his way, by giv-ing them new hearts and a new life.

Pray like Hannah! May her songdirect you to the Lord of Hosts.Worship him. His name is Jesus.You have failed to keep fully themassive and sweeping demands ofthe Ninth Commandment, but in Je-sus is forgiveness and cleansingpower. At every point you fail,Christ succeeded, and he dwells inyou. In him, you are blessed with“every spiritual blessing” by the Father who “graciously gives us all

28 Heb. 13:21.29 Judges 21:25.

THE WESTMINSTER LARGER CATECHISM

Q. 158. By whom is the Word of God to be preached? Ans: The Word of God is to be preached only by such as are sufficiently gifted, and alsoduly approved and called to that office.

Q. 159. How is the Word of God to be preached by those that are called thereunto? Ans: They that are called to labour in the ministry of the Word, are to preach sound doc-trine, diligently, in season and out of season; plainly, not in the enticing words of man'swisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit, and of power; faithfully, making known thewhole counsel of God; wisely, applying themselves to the necessities and capacities ofthe hearers; zealously, with fervent love to God and the souls of his people; sincerely,aiming at his glory, and their conversion, edification, and salvation.

8 Ordained Servant — Vol. 14, No. 1

EDITORIAL NOTES

We cannot escape the fact thatwe live in a culture that is increas-ingly fueled with sensuality. Adver-tisers have realized for scores ofyears that an attractive female con-nected with products ranging fromshaving cream to cars will enhancesales. I buy the product, I get thegirl – so twisted reasoning goes.Today sexuality has overrun and al-most completely destroyed all bar-riers that have been put up againstit in the media. It is impossible toscan the range of cable channelswithout, in seconds, seeing immod-esty and sensual conduct, if not ex-plicit acts of fornication and adul-tery. Even some movies that arerated PG-13 are noted as having“nudity” and “adult situations.”(One wonders what R rated moviescontain!). To make a trip to your lo-cal Blockbuster is to put yourselfjust one step away from disreputa-ble “Adult Shops.” Catalogues thatcome into our homes (even if theyare not Victoria’s Secret cata-logues) contain explicit pictures ofwomen in immodest and sensual at-tire; so also do the advertisementsfor tanning spas, athletic clubs, andtravel agencies in weekly “Shop-per’s Guides” that are sent freely toour homes. Daily newspapers con-tain the same, especially on thesports pages. And, increasingly,pop-up ads on computers or clever-ly tagged “spam” come before oureyes as we make use of email or theInternet. All of this may fall shortof Playboy or Hustler magazine,but any one of these things can be-come a mental halfway-house tomen as they struggle with the prob-lem of sexual lust.

My plea to pastors in this article isthat you get your head out of thesand! The ostrich knows that an ad-versary is present, but avoids theproblem by looking away instead ofbravely facing it. My fear is that toomany pastors have their heads in thesand because they:

a. Are not aware that the problem isreally as bad as it is.

b. Do not think that we should beso alarmed by it.

c. Think that their only responsibili-ty is to go about their ministerialduties of generally preaching andteaching in hope that the problemwill take care of itself in the peo-ple to whom they minister.

Brothers, I have news for you:a. The problem is worse than you

can imagine. b. Unless you want to deal with a

lot of spiritual wreckage in your-self and others, you better bealarmed by it.

c. If you don’t get beyond “preach-ing the word” and “preachingChrist” in broad generalities youwill not be addressing the prob-lem, and it will not take care ofitself.

It’s a temptation to think that theproblem of sexual lust that leads tothe viewing of and eventual addic-tion to pornography (and worse!) issomething that is so modern becauseof the mass media and technologythat it is not addressed in Holy Scrip-ture. That mindset can easily create a“hand’s off” attitude when we thinkof our ministerial duties: “I will min-ister good doctrine, and the HolySpirit will make the necessary appli-cations in individual lives.”

Such an “ostrich view” is not counte-nanced by the Word of God for a mo-ment. It is a view that is dangerous!

It is helpful to keep in mind thatthe first century Roman Empire intowhich Christ and the Gospel of theKingdom came was no less riddledwith unbridled sensuality than isours. In Romans 1:26ff. the apostlePaul describes homosexual and heter-osexual fornication as the primaryfruits of a culture that is “given up”to false worship – particularly theworship of self. Yet it is to this cul-ture that Paul says that “the Gospel isGod’s power unto salvation.” (Rom.1:16). In first century Corinth, hun-dreds of male and female templeprostitutes were available at all hoursof day or night for “worshippers” togratify their lusts in acts of pagan“devotion” (Is this really much differ-ent than the problem of Internetporn?). It is to that city that Paulspeaks of the grace of God in Christcoming with power such that somewere no longer “fornicators, noridolaters, nor adulterers, nor homo-sexuals, nor sodomites…” By theGospel they “were washed… sancti-fied… (and) justified in the name ofthe Lord Jesus and by the Spirit ofour God.” (1 Cor. 6:9,11). Let’s notbe ostriches, brothers! Face the en-emy with the always powerful gospelof saving grace in Jesus Christ!

It is also important to keep in mindthat Christ and the apostles were notbackward about dealing specificallywith destructive sins like sensual lust.I fear that too many ministers todayare shy when their inspired patternswere quite bold:

PASTOR TO PASTOR:

The Peril of Pornography - Part 1by

William Shishko

9Ordained Servant — Vol. 14, No. 1

THE PERIL OF PORNOGRAPHY - Part 1

“You have heard that it was said tothose of old, ‘You shall not commitadultery.’ But I say to you thatwhoever looks at a woman to lust forher has already committed adulterywith her in his heart. If your righteye causes you to sin, pluck it outand cast it from you; for it is moreprofitable for you that one of yourmembers perish, than for your wholebody to be cast into hell. And if yourright hand causes you to sin, cut itoff and cast it from you; for it ismore profitable for you that one ofyour members perish, than for yourwhole body to be cast into hell.”(Matt. 5:27-30). (Brothers, doesthis have no application to radicalmeasures for today’s eyes and thelusts that are prompted by pictureson the Internet, television, and inmagazines?)

“But fornication and all uncleannessor covetousness, let it not even benamed among you, as is fitting forsaints; neither filthiness, nor foolishtalking, nor coarse jesting, whichare not fitting, but rather giving ofthanks. For this you know, that nofornicator, unclean person, nor cov-etous man, who is an idolater, hasany inheritance in the kingdom ofChrist and God. Let no one deceiveyou with empty words, for becauseof these things the wrath of Godcomes upon the sons of disobedi-ence. Therefore do not be partakerswith them” (Eph. 5:3-7). (Brothers,do you really believe that “not evena hint” of such uncleanness shouldmark God’s people?)

“For this is the will of God, yoursanctification: that you should ab-stain from sexual immorality; thateach of you should know how to pos-sess his own vessel in sanctificationand honor, not in passion of lust,like the Gentiles who do not knowGod; that no one should take advan-tage of and defraud his brother inthis matter, because the Lord is theavenger of all such, as we also fore-

warned you and testified. For Goddid not call us to uncleanness, but inholiness. Therefore he who rejectsthis does not reject man, but God,who has also given us His Holy Spir-it” (1 Thess. 4:3-8). (Brothers, haveyou gotten beyond the interpretativedebate over whether “his own ves-sel” is one’s wife or one’s body andthen have you dealt honestly andpractically with what it is to live inholiness rather than uncleanness?)

“Flee also youthful lusts; but pursuerighteousness, faith, love, peace withthose who call on the Lord out of apure heart” (2 Tim. 2:22). (Brothers,are you keeping your hearts pure,are you teaching others to do thesame, and are you fleeing “youthfullusts” as a model to help others dothe same?)

My fellow pastors, I urge you tobe aware of the challenge that lustand pornography pose to men andwomen (yes, women have their bat-tles in this area, too!) in our increas-ingly sexually charged society.Don’t be ostriches. Be honest in re-alizing that the congregation youpastor is simply not immune to theproblem facing our culture at large.Then consider and implement prac-tical strategies for teaching yourpeople, helping them individuallyand as couples, and providing theaccountability necessary for long-term victory in the battle for purityof mind and body.

I recommend the following re-sources to help increase your aware-ness of “the peril of pornography.”These all provide practical sugges-tions to help you make our youngerand older men and women bettersoldiers on this bloody field of ourmodern culture wars.

• Addictions, A Banquet In TheGrave by Ed Welch. This is, by far,the best treatment of addictions ofany type and the way to confront

them by the gospel. This is a mustread for pastors.

• Every Man’s Battle, Every YoungMan’s Battle, Every Young Wom-an’s Battle, by Stephen Arterburnand Fred Stoker. (Shannon Ethridgeand Stephen Arterburn for theYoung Womans’s volume). The the-ology of these books leaves a lot tobe desired, but their frank, down-to-earth treatment of the subject of thebattle with lust and pornography isengaging and practical.

• The Purity Principle by Randy Al-corn. Someone can read this book inan hour and be changed by it. It hitsyou between the eyes, it is rich withmemorable statements, and it contin-ually goes back to the riches ofChrist that enable believers to facethe demand for purity and be suc-cessful.

• Not Even A Hint by Joshua Harris.This 175 page book is my favorite. Itis theologically “right on,” it is rea-listic, and it clearly comes from apastor’s heart. The book is designedfor single men and women, but it isalso most useful for couples and forolder men and women whom wetrain to help others in the work ofguarding ourselves against lust. Iparticularly recommend this as abook parents should give to theirteenage children and discuss withthem.

In the next issue I will focus particu-larly on the growing problem of In-ternet porn.

For the past 23 years

William Shishko has

served as the pastor of

the Orthodox Presbyter-

ian Church in

Franklin Square, NY.

10 Ordained Servant — Vol. 14, No. 1

Addendum (added by the Editor):

Steve is an associate pastor at agrowing, nondenominational Ohiochurch. He established a number ofnew ministry programs and is oftenasked to speak at young adult re-treats. When he started watchingfootball with some non-Christianneighbors last fall, they joked abouthiding their Playboy magazines andthe Victoria’s Secret catalogues theyhad swiped from their wives, so asnot to offend the “holy” man in theirmidst.

Little did they know Steve had hisown collection…and then some. Notonly pornographic magazines, but anumber of adult videos, a selectionof carefully selected Web sites and amembership with a phone sex club.

He is not alone. Focus on the Fam-ily says one out of seven pastors whocall its toll-free help line say they areaddicted to pornography. PromiseKeepers reports that one-third of themen who attended PK rallies in 1996admitted to a personal struggle withpornography.

Pastor Ted Roberts knows whatit’s like. Since overcoming his ownaddiction to pornography, he hasspoken to thousands of people aboutsimilar problems, and he has reachedan inescapable conclusion: “Hell isusing sexual bondage to tear theChurch apart.”

Roberts is senior pastor of EastHill Foursquare Church in Gresham,Ore. He has become a leader in pio-neering sexual recovery ministries,and recently trained more than 200pastors and lay leaders to set up min-istries like the “Pure Desire” pro-gram he launched eight years ago. Inboth the program and the book by thesame name, Roberts provides a bibli-cal answer to overcoming sexual sin

and addiction. Pure Desire offers alifeline to those struggling with sexu-al bondage and teaches others to es-tablish sexual addiction recoveryministry at their churches.

“Sexual addiction in the Church ismore prevalent than most peoplehave ever thought,” says Dr. JohnTownsend, co-founder of Cloud-Townsend Communications. “TedRoberts’ uniquely biblical approachto healing and hope makes this booka great asset to both the struggler andthe helper.”

According to Enough is Enough,an organization devoted to protectingchildren and families from the dan-gers of pornography, illicit sexualmaterial is just about everywhere.This country now has over 20,000outlets selling prosecutable, hard-core pornography that would befound illegal by educated citizens inmost American communities. In fact,there are now more outlets for hard-core pornography in the UnitedStates than McDonalds’ restaurants,says Enough is Enough.

The introduction of pornographyto the information highway has madehome computers the fastest growingand primary mode of distribution ofillegal pornography, says Enough isEnough. Dr. Richard Land, presidentof the Southern Baptist Ethics andReligious Liberty Commission, callsporn a “ravenous cancer” that is de-stroying modern society. Land notedin Baptist Press that 1999 revenues ofporn Web sites alone were estimatedat nearly $1.2 billion. In addition,some 25 million Americans visit cy-ber-sex sites—and sex is the No. 1searched-for topic on the Internet.

Land also outlined the painful trailleft by pornography—increased inci-

dents of child molestation, rape andsexual violence, transmission of sexu-ally transmitted diseases, and societalvalues and attitudes that condone andencourage dissemination of soft-corepornography.

Dr. David Smith, president ofChristians United and a family practi-tioner, says: “I see a lot of people thatcome into the office who have hadtheir families disrupted, in some cases[by] divorce or child molestation [or]cases of rape. In almost all instancesit starts with someone's addiction topornography,” Smith says. “It’s sucha detriment to the communitiesaround here, I don't know why any-body would want to have that type ofmaterial available.”

Several Christian ministries havejoined the fight and established faith-based sexual recovery programs.“RSA—Renewal from Sexual Addic-tions” is run by a Laguna Hills, Calif.,psychologist and has a program atSaddleback Valley CommunityChurch. Another program called“Faithful and True Ministries” isbased in Minneapolis and operates inchurches in the southeastern UnitedStates. “Avenue: Resources forHealthy Sexuality” drew 500 partici-pants last year.

Meanwhile, Steve is being helpedby the Pure Freedom program on theSetting Captives Free Web site. Ac-cording to Mike*, who along with hiswife operates Setting Captives Free,“Our heart’s desire is to reclaim thosewho are captive, to recover those whoare enslaved; not merely to inform,but to help release.”

Mike says he was exposed to por-nography at the age of 10. “It excited

(Continued on bottom of page 20)

êêêêêêêêêê TEACHING MEMBERSHIP CLASSES

Originally a lecture given to URCNA interns at Westminster Seminary in California

by

Daniel R. Hyde

Of the myriad tasks a ministerperforms, one in which he is usu-ally not trained is that of teachingmembership classes. But unlike thetasks which painfully awaken anew pastor out of his dream world,teaching membership classes is awonderful joy. Because most thingsjoyful to the individual ought to beshared with the community, whatfollows is my philosophy of minis-try in relation to church member-ship classes. My desire in stating aphilosophy of membership classesis to stimulate your thinking andgive you guidance on this topic sothat you do not have to “re-inventthe wheel.”

PURPOSE

Let us first answer the question,why have a membership class? Thepurpose of the membership class atthe Oceanside United ReformedChurch is to introduce and initiateconverts, visitors, and transfereesinto the confessional, liturgical, andcommunal life of the church (cf.Acts 2:42).

First, because the church existsto be a confessional institution andorganism (“the apostles’ doctrine”),those joining the church must be in-troduced to the church’s theology.As confessionally Reformedchurches we teach and defend thefaith “once for all delivered to thesaints” (Jude 3). This faith, we be-

lieve, is “contained in the Old andthe New Testament, and in the arti-cles of the Christian faith, and [is]taught in this Christian church.”1

And, therefore, as ministers calledto teach and defend this faith, “Wepromise therefore diligently toteach and faithfully to defend theaforesaid doctrine, without eitherdirectly or indirectly contradictingthe same by our public preaching orwriting.”2

Second, because the church ex-ists to be a liturgical institution andorganism (“the prayers, the break-ing of the bread”), those joining thechurch must be introduced to thechurch’s liturgy. Our purpose as achurch is to “ador[e] the depths ofHis mercies” (Canons of Dort, I,13) when we “come together as achurch” (1 Cor. 11:18), receivingGod’s service to us in the means ofgrace. We must explain the beautyand purpose of Reformed worship,explain our liturgies line by line,and show people that worship is acosmic and historical experience,especially with young people whoare taught to think in post-modernways that we have no real past norfuture, just a meaningless present.Worship links us to our past andbrings us into contact with the glo-ries of our future now!

Third, because the church existsto be a communal institution andorganism (“the fellowship”), those

joining the church must be intro-duced to the church’s community.If we do not have a community,then our theology and liturgy aremeaningless. The church is not agathering of isolated individuals,but a family gathering, a covenan-tal assembly. We must confront aculture of detachment and nihilism,as typified by the Beatles’ song“Nowhere Man”: “He’s a real no-where man sitting in a nowhereland, making all his nowhere plansfor nobody.” We must also con-front a culture of narcissism, whichbombards our people with sloganssuch as, “Just Do It,” “Have ItYour Way,” “You’re the Man!”The doctrine and life of the churchare so desperately needed today,and must be applied in practicalterms. What is a “member?” Howare we to live as a church in unity?What is the practical function ofpastors, elders, and deacons in car-ing for us? What are members tocontribute to the community in ser-vice?

Curriculum

Moving from the theoretical tothe practical, let us answer thequestion of what we teach. Verysimply, we teach the Word of Godas faithfully summarized and ex-plained in the catholic creeds andReformed confessions. Since thefirst part of our purpose is to intro-duce people to the confessional

Ordained Servant — Vol. 14, No. 1 11

12 Ordained Servant — Vol. 14, No. 1

life of our church, the membershipclass is no place to pass out a spiri-tual gifts inventory to find out whatthese new people are good at; it isnot a place to simply say, Here areall our ministries, do we have whatyou need? Instead, teach people thefaith and how to live it in a“crooked generation” (Acts 2:40).

I have organized my particularclass into a book called “The GoodConfession” (1 Tim. 6:12). The“Introduction” explains why weare who we are. “Part 1” is theheart of the class where we discusswhat we believe, utilizing the Bel-gic Confession as the baseline withthe Heidelberg Catechism, Canonsof Dort, and selections from theWestminster Standards supple-menting. “Part 2” explores Re-formed worship and our congrega-tion’s liturgy in particular. “Part 3”explores the application of doctrineand worship to our lives. Finally,the “Conclusion” is a survey of our“Form for Public Profession of

Faith.” (See the chart below for anoutline of this program).3

Know Your Audience

Let us now get really practical,moving from the why and the whatto the how of teaching membershipclasses. In doing so I reminded youthat any philosophy, whether ofmembership classes or of life it-self, is only as good as it is playedout in real life.

The first part of the how is toknow your audience. One of themost basic, oftentimes overlooked,questions is, who am I teaching?This is a question that has been apart of pastoral care and the art ofsacred rhetoric from early in thechurch through the Reformation.For example, Gregory the Great, inhis monumental work, The Book ofPastoral Rule, says

Since, then, we have shown whatmanner of man the pastor ought

to be, let us now set forth afterwhat manner he should teach.For, as long before us GregoryNazianzen of reverend memoryhas taught, one and the same ex-hortation does not suit all, inas-much as neither are all bound to-gether by similarity of character.For the things that profit someoften hurt others; seeing thatalso for the most part herbswhich nourish some animals arefatal to others; and the gentlehissing that quiets horses inciteswhelps; and the medicine whichabates one disease aggravatesanother; and the bread which in-vigorates the life of the strongkills little children. Thereforeaccording to the quality of thehearers ought the discourse ofteachers to be fashioned, so asto suit all and each for their sev-eral needs, and yet never deviatefrom the art of common edifica-tion. For what are the intentminds of hearers but, so tospeak, a kind of tight tensions ofstrings in a harp, which the

TEACHING MEMBERSHIP CLASSES

Introduction The Identity of Our Church

Chapter 1 The History & Background of Our Church

Chapter 2 The Mission of Our Church

Chapter 3 A Short Explanation of Our Creeds and

Confessions

Part 1 The Theology of Our Church

Chapter 4 What Do We Believe About the Bible?

Chapter 5 What Do We Believe About God?

Chapter 6 What Do We Believe About Man?

Chapter 7 What Do We Believe About Jesus Christ?

Chapter 8 What Do We Believe About Justification?

Chapter 9 What Do We Believe About Sanctification?

Chapter 10 What Do We Believe About the Church?

Chapter 11 What Do We Believe About the Sacra-

ments?

Chapter 12 What Do We Believe About Christ’s Return?

Part 2 The Liturgy of Our Church

Chapter 13 Understanding & Enjoying Our Liturgy

Part 3 The Community of Our Church

Chapter 14 Living the Reformed Life

13Ordained Servant — Vol. 14, No. 1

skillful player, that he may pro-duce a tune not at variance withitself, strikes variously? And forthis reason the strings renderback a consonant modulation,that they are struck indeed withone quill, but not with one kindof stroke. Whence every teacheralso, that he may edify all in theone virtue of charity, ought totouch the hearts of his hearersout of one doctrine, but not withone and the same exhortation.4

Before Gregory, Augustine said“So the interpreter and teacher ofthe divine scriptures, the defenderof the true faith and vanquisher oferror, must communicate what isgood and eradicate what is bad,and in this process of speakingmust win over the antagonistic,rouse the apathetic, and make clearto those who are not conversantwith the matter under discussionwhat they should expect.”5

Augustine then gave an exam-ple of how to adapt one’s teachingto his hearers. When speaking Lat-in, he says that a preacher shoulduse the plural ossum and not thesingular os, because Africans, whoare not apt in distinguishing longand short vowels, may mistakenlythink os is the singular of ora in-stead of the correct word, ossa. Hethen says “What is the use of cor-rect speech if it does not meet withthe listener’s understanding? Thereis no point in speaking at all if ourwords are not understood by thepeople to whose understanding ourwords are directed. The teacher,then, will avoid all words that donot communicate.”6

Also consult William Perkins’The Art of Prophesying, chapter 7,where he discusses the various“categories of hearers.”7

Our forefathers knew that itwas necessary to know their audi-ences in order to teach them. Theway it is now stated is that “peopledon’t care how much you knowuntil they know how much youcare.” Know your class intimatelyas much as possible as this willhelp you in preparing how to com-municate what you are teaching. Inpreparation you ought to answersome basic questions:

First, are you teaching cove-nant children preparing for publicprofession of faith? Your classmay be entirely or partially madeup of children who have grown upin the church and have been cate-chized. These children usuallyknow the “stuff” of the faith, butmay not understand all the implica-tions of that knowledge. They’veheard Reformed doctrine a thou-sand times. Your job is to showthem why these doctrines are im-portant – why we believe what webelieve.

Second, are you dealing withnew members by transfer? If soand know what kind of church theyare coming from, what thatchurch’s confession of faith was (ifany), how they worshipped, etc.You need to know where thesepeople are coming from and howthat tradition intersects with yours.This goes a long way in knowing ifthese people need more instructionon the basics of the Reformation.

Third, are you dealing with ex-evangelicals? I usually find thatthose from evangelical churcheswho say they have become “Re-formed” usually mean that they be-lieve in the five-points. This is val-uable to know, as you will have todeal with issues like Reformed

worship, the covenants (especiallyas it applies to the doctrine of thechurch and sacraments), and de-briefing them of their Dispensa-tionalism.

Fourth, are you dealing withconverts? This is the group of peo-ple who need the most instruction.The membership class is evenmore so for them an initiation intoyour church. Much pastoral disci-pleship is needed in addition, be-fore, during, and after the class.For them it must be kept basic,with every term, idea, and persondefined and/or explained. Remem-ber, you really are teaching them anew language, “the words of thefaith” (1 Tim. 4:6).

Personality/Presentation

The second practical issuewhen asking how to teach a mem-bership class is your personalityand presentation: how you saywhat you say. In a membershipclass you must ever keep beforeyou these words: suaviter inmodo, fortiter in re (gentle inmanner, strong in substance). AsReformed ministers we understandbeing “strong in substance,” but itis with the words “gentle in man-ner” that we need training. In amembership class setting especial-ly, a pastor must be gentle becauseno one has it all figured out. Peo-ple have holes in their knowledge.People have baggage from previ-ous churches. Thus you can’t fixthem overnight, so don’t try! Youmust be firm but be smooth andcaring in the way you speak.

Another application of beinggentle is to be flexible. My classeslast anywhere from six to twelveweeks depending on the makeup

TEACHING MEMBERSHIP CLASSES

14 Ordained Servant — Vol. 14, No. 1

class, the members are encouragedto be hospitable by inviting attend-ees to their homes for lunch on theLord’s Day as a way to include themembers in the church’s outreach.

Conclusion

So that’s the why, what and howof my membership classes. Theyare a tremendous blessing and in-volve a lot of thoughtful prepara-tion and presentation to those whogive us a hearing. May God add toour churches through thoughtfuland gentle pastors who catechizethe world around in membershipclasses.

1 “Public Profession of Faith: FormNumber 1.” Ibid., 132.

2 “Form of Subscription,” Psalter Hym-nal (Grand Rapids: CRC, 1976) 117.

3 I plan to publish this in the future, butfor a copy for your own edification orfor your church, contact me throughmy congregation’s website:www.oceansideurc.org.

4 St. Gregory the Great, The Book ofPastoral Rule, 3, prologue.

5 St. Augustine, On Christian Teaching,trans. R.P.H. Green (Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 1997) 103 (IV, 6).

6 Ibid., 116 (X, 24).7 William Perkins, The Art of Prophesy-

ing (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth,1996) 56-63.

8 Psalter Hymnal (Grand Rapids: Chris-tian Reformed Church, 1976) 132-33.

Daniel R. Hyde is the

Church Planter and

Pastor of the Oceanside

United Reformed

Church in Oceanside,

California.

of my class and the needs of thatparticular class. If a particular classsession needs to spend more timeon answering questions or explain-ing in more detail what you areteaching, then take the time. I usu-ally have to be very flexible when Ispeak about liturgy, baptism, andeschatology. Don’t be so rigid withyour material that you aren’t sensi-tive to the peculiarities of your audi-ence.

What this all means is that this ispastoral work in the most pregnantsense of that term. You need to be atheologian, an apologist, a polemi-cist, an evangelist, a shepherd, anda friend in membership classes. AsJames says, “Be quick to hear, slowto speak, slow to anger” (James1:19).

“Truth In Advertising”

The third part of the how is to beopen and honest with your class.Dr. Kim Riddlebarger calls this the“truth in advertising” principle.From the opening of the class youmust put your cards on the table: weare a Reformed Church. This meansthat we believe Reformed doctrine(confessional), worship in a Re-formed manner (liturgical), and liveas Reformed Christians (commu-nal). The reason this must be said isbecause you will be tempted as apastor (no matter how Reformedyou are!) to add quantitative mem-bers to your congregation and notqualitative! Resist this temptation!

I open my classes in this wayand conclude with a survey of our“Public Profession of Faith: FormNumber 1.”8 An example of “truthin advertising” is in reference tovow one, which basically says thatwe are a confessional church in

which the leaders and laity of thechurch subscribes to the ThreeForms of Unity. As well, in refer-ence to vow four, I let the classknow that the reality of discipline isshown in our elders’ follow-up withthem if they are not in worship reg-ularly or for a few weeks in a row.Because of this some people in theclass will not join the church. Thisis wise. One of our goals must be toactually keep people from joiningrashly. You must ask the class toconsider seriously what they are be-ing asked in these vows; if they arewilling and able to subscribe, praisethe Lord. If not, then I speak withthem about why.

The Role of the Congregation

The fourth part of the how is therole of the congregation. Becausewe are a communal institution andorganism the membership classmust not only teach this but alsomodel this. One way we can ex-press community is to involve thecongregation, providing a way forthe class to hear and see the Re-formed Faith. We involve our con-gregation by doing these fourthings:

First, the membership class isannounced two months in advanceso members can invite friends.

Second, the membership class isprayed for each Lord’s Day and is apart of our church’s “prayer chain.”

Third, several members are in-vited to take the class. This not onlyadds to the class size and introducesattendees to current members, but italso gives the pastor a way to con-tinue catechizing his flock.

Fourth, during the membership

TEACHING MEMBERSHIP CLASSES

êêêêêêêêêêêêêêê         On Weekly Communion -        Some Pastoral Reflections

by

Larry Wilson1

Most Orthodox Presbyterian con-gregations celebrate the Lord’s Sup-per quarterly or monthly. That’s beenmy own practice for most of my min-istry. However, I’ve come to believethat the weekly celebration of theLord’s Supper is both biblical and de-sirable. The congregation I presentlyserve celebrates the Lord’s Supperweekly. What were some high pointsin my own pilgrimage on this matter?

Christ’s Institution

For one thing, it became weighty tome that the King of the church himselfinstituted the Lord’s Supper as an ele-ment of worship. According to theWestminster Confession, “the readingof the Scriptures with godly fear; thesound preaching and conscionablehearing of the Word in obedience untoGod with understanding, faith, andreverence; singing of psalms withgrace in the heart; as also, the due ad-ministration and worthy receiving ofthe sacraments instituted by Christ,are all parts of the ordinary religiousworship of God” (21:5). I began towonder if it’s really right to routinelywithhold an element of worship whichKing Jesus himself commanded. Did Ithink myself to be wiser than my

Lord, who commanded what hedeemed best for his church?

I used to argue against having theLord’s Supper each Lord’s Day. Some years ago, the congregation Ipastored held morning and eveningworship services each Lord’s Day.We celebrated the Lord’s Suppermonthly, alternating between themorning and evening services. A fewmembers began requesting that wecelebrate the Lord’s Supper weekly.We discussed it in Session and decid-ed that it was best to retain our month-ly frequency. Around the same time,the deacons requested that we discon-tinue the collection of the offeringduring evening worship. They saidthat because most people had giventheir offerings during morning wor-ship, they didn’t put anything in theoffering plate during evening wor-ship. The deacons felt as if it was acharade to pass around virtually emp-ty offering plates during evening wor-ship. We discussed this in Session anddetermined that because the offeringis an act of worship, every worshipservice should include it. I agreedwith both decisions. I suspect thatmost OPC sessions would make simi-lar decisions. At the time I saw no in-consistency. But, in 20-20 hindsight,aren’t these decisions inconsistent?Isn’t the Lord’s Supper an act of wor-ship? Isn’t it strange that so manychurches insist that every worship ser-vice include an offering (where wegive God the glory due his name), butat the same time they object to weekly

communion (where God gives usgrace to help in time of need)? Even-tually it struck me that in order to beconsistent, arguments against weeklycommunion also have to equally ap-ply against weekly Scripture reading,weekly preaching, weekly congrega-tional singing, a weekly offering, etc.There’s no explicit command in theNew Testament to have the Lord’sSupper each week, but neither isthere an explicit command in theNew Testament to have an offeringeach week, let alone these other ele-ments of worship. We do these otherelements of worship weekly becausewe believe that there is implicitScripture warrant to do them.

The Apostles’ Example

Because the New Testament gives noexplicit command to have the Lord’sSupper each week, our Directory forPublic Worship leaves it up to localsessions to set the frequency of com-munion.2 I affirm that. Still, it doesseem that the apostles’ examplestrongly implies weekly communion.Acts 2:42 describes worship in theapostolic church, “And they devotedthemselves to the apostles’ teachingand to the fellowship, to the breakingof bread and to the prayers.” If “thebreaking of bread” does not refer tothe Lord’s Supper (compare Acts

Ordained Servant — Vol. 14, No. 1 15

1 The Rev. Dr. T. David Gordon, a PCAminister and a professor at Grove CityCollege, was especially helpful in con-structively critiquing earlier drafts of thisarticle and in offering suggestions. Thebenefits of his assistance go well beyondwhere I directly quote him.

2 “The Lord’s Supper is to be celebratedfrequently, but the frequency may be de-termined by each session as it may judgemost conducive to edification” (V:A:2).

16 Ordained Servant — Vol. 14, No. 1

ON WEEKLY COMMUNION - SOME PASTORAL REFLECTIONS

20:7; 1 Cor. 10:16–17; 11:17–26),then to what does it refer? Did theapostolic church eat a meal duringtheir worship? If so, what kind ofmeal was it? Surely, it was the Lord’sSupper! No less a student of Scrip-ture than John Calvin understoodActs 2:42 to have this implication —“No assembly of the church shouldbe held without the word beingpreached, prayers being offered, theLord’s Supper administered, andalms given” (Institutes 4:17:44). Ac-cordingly, in 1537, Calvin proposedArticles relating to the organizationof church life to the Geneva Council.Among other things, he said: “Itwould be desirable that the Holy Sup-per of Jesus Christ be in use at leastonce every Sunday when the congre-gation is assembled.”3

Acts 20:7 provides even morecompelling evidence because it saysthat the believers gathered on thefirst day of the week “to breakbread.” The Lord’s Supper was sucha significant part of early churchworship that their whole gatheringcould legitimately be designated byits climax, communion with the res-urrected Christ in his Supper.4

Clear and early references to thepractice of weekly communion in theDidache, in Justin Martyr’s FirstApology, in Hippolytus’s ApostolicTradition, and in Tertullian’s De-fense of Christianity confirm this un-derstanding that the apostolic churchcelebrated the Lord’s Supper weekly.

It’s true that this evidence doesnot carry the authority of God’sWord, but surely it is a significant

testimony to what the church under-stood God’s Word to teach! Isn’t ittelling that so soon after the time ofthe apostles the Christian communityobserved this practice, apparentlywithout controversy?

The Relation of the Word and Sacraments

It became increasingly apparent tome that this is what we might expectif, as we confess, the sacraments aresigns which seal God’s Word. Theyconfirm and reinforce the Word. Thisclose relation between the Word andsacraments is a big reason why we in-sist that only ministers of the Wordmay administer the sacraments.

We see this connection betweenthe Word and sacraments in the insti-tution of circumcision, the initiatingsign and seal of the old covenant(Rom. 4:11). First God gave his cov-enant promise to Abraham (Gen. 12& 15). Then he gave the sign of cir-cumcision to reinforce his promise,or to give the same promise in a dif-ferent form (Gen. 17). As Augustineput it, the sacraments are “the Wordmade visible.”5 Although more ra-tionalistic forms of Christianity deni-grate the sacraments, the historic,biblically Reformed faith takes thedoctrine of creation so seriously thatit is more wholistic, seeing the phys-ical side of being spiritual, includingthe sacraments, as vitally important.

It shouldn’t be hard for us to em-brace this. After all, we are covenant

creatures. When two men make anagreement, they don’t merely saytheir promises; they seal them with ahandshake. When a man and a woman pledge their troth, they don’tjust say their vows, they reinforcethem with a ring and a kiss. If littlechildren are insecure, their parentsdon’t just say, “I love you;” they sayit with words and with hugs and kiss-es. And this is precisely what ourheavenly Father does. He does sayhis gospel promises (through thepreaching of the Word), but hedoesn’t stop there; he signifies andseals them in the sacraments of bap-tism and the Lord’s Supper. He couldsay, “You’ve got my word and Ican’t lie, so that should be enough.”And it really should. But our heaven-ly Father pities us; he remembers thatwe are dust (Ps. 103:13–14). And sohe condescends both to declare hisgospel promises and to reinforcethem with the sacraments.

The Scriptural Pattern of Worship

God’s gracious condescension isevident in the entirety of worship.The more I studied Reformed wor-ship, the more persuaded I becamethat, scripturally, worship is to mani-fest and renew the covenant bond offriendship between God and his peo-ple. Scriptural worship is covenantalthrough and through. The Bible oftenuses marriage to illustrate the cove-nant relation between the Lord andhis people — Jehovah is the husbandand Israel is his wife; Christ is thebridegroom and the church is hisbride. Sometimes people say, “I canworship God anytime and anywhere.So why is it important for me to ‘goto church’?” I point them to Scrip-tures such as Psalm 87 or Hebrews10:19–25. But I also use this illustra-tion: husbands and wives are to loveeach other all the time, but some-times it’s important for them to have

3 Cited in Howard Hageman, Pulpit andTable, John Knox Press, 1962, pg. 25;emphasis mine.4 T. David Gordon, in personal corre-spondence

5 Ronald Wallace’s book, Calvin’s Doc-trine of the Word and Sacraments, Wipf &Stock, was especially helpful to me in pur-suing this theme. Because Wallace seesCalvin as primarily a student of God’sWord, he quotes copiously from Calvin’scommentaries to show where Calvin sawthe biblical basis for his teaching.

17Ordained Servant — Vol. 14, No. 1

ON WEEKLY COMMUNION - SOME PASTORAL REFLECTIONS

some special romantic time just tothemselves in order to renew theircommitment to each other in the mar-riage bond. That’s what worship ser-vices are — special romantic time be-tween the heavenly Bridegroom andhis bride, the church (and individualbelievers).

The Lord’s Supper consummatesthe renewing of the covenant bond.The Lord revealed this pattern in OldTestament worship. Although therewere subcategories, the offerings fellinto three basic categories — sin of-ferings (for cleansing), whole burntofferings (for consecration), andpeace offerings (for communion withGod). These offerings were alwaysoffered in that order.6 Leviticus 9gives an example of an old covenantworship service. First, God calledthe people to worship and they gath-ered together at the Tent of Meeting.Then we see these elements of wor-ship in verses 15–22: “15Then he pre-sented the people’s offering and tookthe goat of the sin offering that wasfor the people and killed it and of-fered it as a sin offering, like the firstone. 16And he presented the burnt of-fering and offered it according to therule. 17And he presented the grain of-fering, took a handful of it, andburned it on the altar, besides theburnt offering of the morning. 18Thenhe killed the ox and the ram, the sac-rifice of peace offerings for the peo-ple. And Aaron's sons handed him theblood, and he threw it against thesides of the altar. 19But the fat piecesof the ox and of the ram, the fat tailand that which covers the entrailsand the kidneys and the long lobe ofthe liver—20they put the fat pieces onthe breasts, and he burned the fat

pieces on the altar, 21but the breastsand the right thigh Aaron waved fora wave offering before the Lord, asMoses commanded. 22Then Aaronlifted up his hands toward the peopleand blessed them, and he came downfrom offering the sin offering and theburnt offering and the peace offer-ings.”

This pattern — call to worship,cleansing, consecration, communion,benediction — formed the back-ground for New Testament worship.Apparently (perhaps even instinc-tively after centuries of old covenantworship) it guided early church wor-ship. A study of liturgies will showthat, historically, Christian worshipbasically followed a similar pattern— call to worship, confession of sinand assurance of God’s grace inChrist, consecration by the ministryof the Word (John 17:17), commun-ion at the Lord’s Table, benediction.Reformation liturgies — for exam-ple, those of Martin Luther, MartinBucer, John Calvin, and John Knox—restored these general contours (cf.Bard Thompson, Liturgies of theWestern Church, and Charles Baird,Eutaxia, for the complete texts of theliturgies of the magisterial reformersand others).7

These contours make theologicaland psychological sense. Thereforethey make for meaningful worship.Scripturally, when God’s peoplegather for worship they enter intoGod’s special presence. They con-sciously recognize that they are un-worthy sinners, yet they enter God’sholy presence in confidence by theblood of Jesus, by the new and livingway, consciously trusting the media-

tion of their Savior. They cometrusting his promise, “Draw near toGod and he will draw near to you”(James 4:8). They come to receivegrace to help in time of need and, inresponse, to give to the Lord the glo-ry due his name. They hear the voiceof the Good Shepherd and they casttheir cares on the one who cares forthem. The Lord’s Supper caps off afull-orbed worship service as God’speople eat in peace with their Lordand each other at his Table, and thenare sent out with his blessing, re-freshed and renewed for service inhis kingdom.

I suspect that a return to the scrip-tural practice of weekly communioncould help to solve the practical di-lemmas which plague modern wor-ship. We have our so-called “wor-ship wars” where some want“traditional” worship while otherswant “contemporary” worship.Those who want “traditional” wor-ship generally are most concernedfor reverence, holiness, sound doc-trine, and godly living. Those whowant “contemporary” worship gener-ally are most concerned for joy, fel-lowship, vital communion with God,and evangelism. Does God reallywant us to choose between thesethings? Is it possible that a return toweekly communion would help us toembrace each of these emphases?

For one thing, it would help toemphasize the centrality of JesusChrist. Now that I’m practicingweekly communion, I appreciate twopractical benefits which I hadn’t an-ticipated. On the one hand, even if Ifall short and preach dos and don’tsrather than the gospel, the Lord’sSupper helps to remind the congre-gation of the gospel basics—thedeath, resurrection, ascension, ses-sion, and second coming of Christ.But, on the other hand, no matter

6 See The NIV Study Bible, Zondervan,1985 for a helpful chart explaining theseofferings, pg. 150.)

7 See also Worship: The Heavenly Patternby Peter Wallace (http://www.michianacovenant.org/sermons/church11.html).

18 Ordained Servant — Vol. 14, No. 1

ON WEEKLY COMMUNION - SOME PASTORAL REFLECTIONS

what text or topic I preach, theLord’s Supper keeps reminding meto keep Jesus Christ central. Ishouldn’t gloss over this, as if weekly communion somehow excus-es failure to preach Christ. Havingcommunion weekly is actually pain-ful in certain respects because it ex-poses my own preaching as less gos-pel-oriented than I ever imagined. Ifind it to be a salutary discipline thatevery sermon I preach from everyscripture must so proclaim Christthat it naturally leads the congrega-tion to the Lord’s Table.8 T. DavidGordon rightly warns: “Any pastoror Session that studies the matter ofweekly communion should seriouslyconsider the demands it makes on thepreacher. Calvin said: ‘For we oughtto understand the Word not as onewhispered without meaning andwithout faith, a mere noise, like amagic incantation, which has theforce to consecrate the element.Rather, it should, when preached,make us understand what the visiblesign means.’ (Institutes, IV:14:4).But how can the preaching help usunderstand what baptism or theLord’s Supper mean, unless the

preaching is essentially and pro-foundly Christological?”

A further benefit is that the Lord’sSupper accents the corporate aspectof our salvation. While saving faithin Christ is indeed very personal,biblically it is never private. TheLord’s Supper reminds us that be-cause we all partake of one bread (Je-sus Christ), we who are many areone body (1 Cor. 10:17). Because weare united to Christ, we are united toone another in the body of Christ; weare members of one another in Christ(Rom. 12:5). This reminds church-hoppers of the importance of churchmembership. It encourages fellow-ship. It promotes peacemaking andthe restoration of broken relation-ships. It furthers Christian unity.What church and what believerdoesn’t need this every week?

What church and what believerdoesn’t also need to be called to aright walk in the world, to be in theworld and yet not of the world? Weever need to be called simultaneouslyto holiness and to evangelism. Ac-cordingly, we need to see the con-trast between the church and theworld, between believers and unbe-lievers. A primary purpose of thesacraments is “to put a visible differ-ence between those that belong untothe church and the rest of the world”(Westminster Confession 27:1). Forthis reason, weekly communion hasat least two further practical benefits.On the one hand, it reinforces churchdiscipline. Discipline can involvesuspension from the Lord’s Table, oreven excommunication from the visi-ble body of Christ. One purpose ofsuch discipline is to make the unre-pentant sinner aware of the gravity ofhis condition so that he might repentand be restored. But how effectivecan this be if the Lord’s Supper iscelebrated infrequently? Weekly

communion provides an unremittingwitness of the offender’s need to berestored. On the other hand, theLord’s Supper also gives an opportu-nity for evangelism. Actually, this isthe biblical form and place for the“altar call” in worship. By so plainlysetting forth the work of Christ onthe cross, and by fencing the table,the Lord’s Supper calls unbelieverswho are present to repentance andfaith. Weekly communion provides aregular and natural opportunity tobeckon visitors to respond to thegospel of Jesus Christ.

As I reflect on these things, I have towonder whether our neglect ofweekly communion has actuallycontributed to our modern dilemmas.I’ve become increasingly convincedthat, because it serves God’s pur-poses for worship, weekly commun-ion can actually help us to transcendsome of the dilemmas over whichwe tend to polarize.

The Holy Spirit’s Use of Means

I became increasingly convincedthat the main reason weekly com-munion would have these benefits isnot because it would give us ameans by which we could pick our-selves up by our own bootstraps. It’sbecause the Lord’s Supper really is ameans of grace by which the HolySpirit supernaturally and powerfullyworks. The Lord gives the bread andwine in order to tangibly and visiblyassure everyone who partakes infaith “first, as surely as I see withmy eyes the bread of the Lord broken for me and the cup given tome, so surely his body was offeredand broken for me and his bloodpoured out for me on the cross. Sec-ond, as surely as I receive from thehand of him who serves, and tastewith my mouth the bread and cup ofthe Lord, given me as sure signs of

8 Even if we do not practice weekly com-munion, we do well to adopt this as a ruleof thumb — that each sermon so proclaimChrist that you could seal it with theLord’s Supper. It seems that scripturallywe preachers should prepare and proclaimour sermons with two intersecting man-dates simultaneously in mind. First, wemust “preach God’s Word” (1 Tim. 4:2).What we proclaim should be the Word ofGod and not the wisdom of man. There-fore, the people in the pew should be ableto follow our emphases in their own openBibles. At the same time, we must “preachChrist” (1 Cor. 2:2; 2 Cor. 4:5). The sub-ject of the entire Bible is Jesus Christ(Luke 24:27; John 5:39). Therefore, everysermon must preach Christ — and notmerely as a “Jesus ex machina” but as anatural explanation and application of thetext in its context.

19Ordained Servant — Vol. 14, No. 1

ON WEEKLY COMMUNION - SOME PASTORAL REFLECTIONS

Christ’s body and blood, so surely henourishes and refreshes my soul foreternal life with his crucified bodyand poured-out blood” (HeidelbergCatechism #75). But these benefitscome not just by our self-disciplinein using a tool the Lord has given us.They come above all by the supernat-ural working of the Holy Spirit.

God’s Word says, “The cup ofblessing that we bless, is it not a par-ticipation in the blood of Christ? Thebread that we break, is it not a par-ticipation in the body of Christ?” (1Cor. 10:16). Our Larger Catechisminsists, “the sacraments become ef-fectual means of salvation … by theworking of the Holy Ghost, and theblessing of Christ by whom they areinstituted” (#161).

And yet, for much of my ministryI didn’t really believe that. I af-firmed it. I thought I believed it. Butin practice, I didn’t really believe it.I dare say that in practice most peo-ple in our churches don’t really be-lieve it, either. We can theoreticallydescribe four different views of theLord’s Supper — Roman Catholic,Lutheran, Reformed, and Zwin-glian.9 But most of us have grownup believing that in practice theyreally boil down to two views — aRoman Catholic superstitious viewand the view that at bottom theLord’s Supper is a God-ordained de-votional tool by which we rememberwhat Christ has done for us on thecross, and by which we renew our re-pentance and commitment to pursueJesus. This practical belief domi-nates our expectations. Consequent-ly, for many of us, Lutherans are just“left-handed Catholics.” We’re quite

certain that we hold the Reformedview because, after all, we are Re-formed! But what utterly escapes usis that in our practical expectations,we tend to out-Zwingli Zwingli.

We know that our Standards takepains to distinguish their affirma-tions from the Roman Catholic andLutheran views. But we tend to over-look that they also take pains to dis-tinguish their affirmations from theZwinglian view, that they do insiston some sort of very real supernatu-ral presence of and feeding upon thebody and blood of Christ. When wefilter their affirmations through thegrid of our deeply ingrained practicalexpectations, they sound “supersti-tious” to us. If an Orthodox Presby-terian minister merely quoted thesesalient sections — “Worthy receiv-ers outwardly partaking of the visi-ble elements in this sacrament, dothen also inwardly by faith reallyand indeed … spiritually receive andfeed upon Christ crucified and allbenefits of his death: the body andblood of Christ being … really …present to the faith of believers inthat ordinance…” (Confession ofFaith 29:7) — insisting that “theywho worthily communicate feedupon his body and blood, to theirspiritual nourishment and growth ingrace…” (Larger Catechism #168),he probably would be accused ofteaching a Roman Catholic view!Most of us have grown up with apractical Zwinglianism and we findit virtually impossible to conceive ofthe Supper in any different way. Thispractical Zwinglianism is the foun-dational assumption behind the argu-ment most commonly made againstweekly communion.

The argument most commonlymade against weekly communion —and I’ve made it myself — is that ifwe have the Lord’s Supper that of-

ten, it will cease to be meaningful.To be fair, this argument reflects afear which is motivated by sincerelove for the Lord. It’s right to resisttaking lightly the privileges of ourLord’s ordinances, to resist merelygoing through motions outwardly.But, to be honest, this argument alsoexhibits a subtle form of practicalunbelief. It assumes that the Lord’sSupper is just a God-given visualaid, a reminder, a devotional tool bywhich we subjectively rememberChrist’s atonement and we rededi-cate ourselves to our Lord. In fact, ifthat really is the essence of theLord’s Supper, then the fear is well-founded — having communionweekly will make it harder for us tokeep working ourselves up to thesame level of intensity in renewingour repentance, faith, and commit-ment. But if the Lord’s Supper ismore than that, if the Lord’s Supperreally is what God’s Word and theWestminster Standards say it is, ifthe Lord’s Supper truly is a meansof grace, then we don’t have to workup our own renewal. The Holy Spiritwill supernaturally work it as wepartake of the Supper in faith. ThankGod, the renewing of our covenantwalk is not of works; it is all ofgrace. It doesn’t depend on us, it de-pends on God! The argument thathaving communion weekly willmake it less meaningful actuallyflows from the practical assumptionthat the meaning of communion isprimarily something that we impart,that the renewing of our covenantwalk is of works, and that at bottomit does depend on us! Do you seewhy I came to be convicted that thispractical expectation, which I es-poused, is subtle form of practicalunbelief?

Praise God, the Lord’s Supper ismuch more than a devotional toolthat we use to restore our own souls!

9 For a very helpful explanation of thesediffering views, see “Communion andChrist’s Body” by Charles Wingard(http://opc.org/cce/QandA/64.html#1).

20 Ordained Servant — Vol. 14, No. 1

ON WEEKLY COMMUNION - SOME PASTORAL REFLECTIONS

It’s a God-ordained means of gracethat the Holy Spirit supernaturallyuses to restore our souls! Becauseit’s a God-ordained means of grace,we can expect the Holy Spirit towork by and with the Supper in be-lievers who partake with the mouthof faith. We can expect the HolySpirit to use this means of grace toprovide God’s supernatural help forgrowth in sanctification. Sinclair Fer-guson writes: “No new revelation isgiven; no other Christ is madeknown. But, as Robert Bruce (1554–1631) well said, while we do not get

a different or better Christ in the Sup-per from the Christ we get in theWord, we may well get the sameChrist better as the Spirit ministersby the testimony of the physical ele-ments being joined to the Word.”10

An Appeal to My Fathers and Brothers

Most of our Orthodox Presbyteriancongregations celebrate the Lord’sSupper quarterly or monthly. I want

to humbly suggest the possibilitythat our ministers and elders mightwell serve their Lord, their congrega-tions, and the Kingdom of Christ ifonly they will prayerfully considerwhether the weekly celebration ofthe Lord’s Supper might be both bib-lical and desirable, that it might evencontribute toward revival and refor-mation in lives, in families, and incongregations. After all, how can be-ing supernaturally fed the Bread ofLife week after week be anythingless than beneficial to those whotrust their Savior? 10 The Holy Spirit [IVP, 1996], pg. 204

Larry Wilson is currently serving as pastor of Christ

Covenant Orthodox Presbyterian Church, in India-

napolis, Indiana. He previously served as General

Secretary of the Committee on Christian Education

which is responsible for this publication.

[Addendum: continued from page 10]

me, but it didn’t take root until myearly 20’s when I began traveling ex-tensively for my job. It was then thatI discovered that pornographic mo-vies were available at nearly everyhotel in the world. This began a 15-year addiction to pornography.” Tofeed the fantasy life that pornographyencourages, says Mike, he became in-volved in chat-groups on the Internet.“By the grace of God, I have nowbeen free from pornography for two-and-a-half years,” he adds.

Steve highly recommends thePure Freedom program, cautioning

that people are not set free from por-nography just through the course,but only through the work of God inthe heart. Another participant sharedthe following testimony: “My wifeand I are doing great. I can’t believehow much our relationship hasgrown since I have been porn free.God has really blessed me with awoman that has stood by me throughall the junk that I have brought inour lives. I think that I am under-standing how Christ loves thechurch, because I am so passionatelyin love with my wife and would doanything for her.”

According to Mike, “We have peo-

ple come to this ministry who havebeen enslaved to pornography andsexual impurity all their lives. Wework with pedophiles, prostitutes andhomosexuals—and have seen somefrom every category become com-pletely changed. While it is impossi-ble for man to change man, it is asmall thing for God and He can do it.If you have been addicted to pornog-raphy for 10, 20 or 45 years, havehope that you can be changed.”

—By Janet Chismar, Editor of Religion Today.

*Names have been changed for obvi-ous reasons.

êêêêêêêêêêêêêêê “Drink of It, All of You”

Revisiting Elements of the Traditional Reformed Fencing of the Table

by

T. Nathan Trice

Some time ago, after administer-ing the Lord’s Supper in my congre-gation on a Sunday evening, I re-ceived an email with the followingsentiments (I have condensed itsomewhat):

Dear Pastor Trice,

I have a dilemma. Pleasehelp me. I have heard preach-ers say from the pulpit that ifanyone is living in unrepen-tant, unconfessed sin then theywill be judged if they partakeof the Lord’s Supper. When Ithink of this, it makes methink that it would be betterfor me to abstain altogetherthan to partake and provokeGod's judgment. Last Sunday,however, you said to the con-gregation, “If you’re one ofChrist’s disciples, he invites youto come and receive a blessingat His Table: don’t turn downsuch a wonderful invitation!”That made me think that itcould actually be sinful of meas a Christian NOT to partakeof the Table when Jesus has in-vited me! How do I resolve thisdilemma?

It has become my conviction thatthe dilemma felt by such spirituallysensitive individuals as this one isactually created by certain elementsin the customary fencing of the Ta-ble within Reformed churches. De-spite our proper insistence in the Re-formed tradition that Christ and hisbenefits are received in the sacra-

ment by faith, we have, I believe, bya misguided emphasis on warning,needlessly created doubt in the heartsof many of the faithful members ofour churches. And it is not thosemost spiritually sensitive brethrenalone who are affected. I believe thatthe typical fencing of the Table inour circles all too often undermines ajoyful, believing expectation ofblessing on the part of the entire con-gregation as they approach theLord’s Table.

It is the purpose of this article torevisit the typical Reformed fencingof the Table in light of 1 Corinthians11:17-34. In what follows, I willseek first to make a few exegeticalobservations about this passage inlight of common misconceptions;then, I will make a few practical ob-servations about the effects of thesemisconceptions; and in conclusion, Iwill make a proposal regarding amore proper fencing of the Table.

I. Exegetical Observations

1. Secret Sin?

In the typical Reformed fencing ofthe Table, an emphasis is placedupon not partaking when there is thepresence of secret, unrepentant sin,and Paul’s exhortation in 1 Corinthi-ans 11 to “examine oneself” is pre-scribed as the way to discover and re-pent of such sins. But however real aproblem it is to come to any act ofworship with secret sin, it should be

obvious that this is certainly not theproblem in Corinth that the apostleis addressing. The sin of the Corin-thians was of such an outward andscandalous nature that news of it hadfound its way all the way back to theapostle (!): “I hear that there are di-visions among you. And I believe itin part…” (vs. 18). As the apostlethen recounts what he has heardabout their meetings, he shows thatthe sectarian spirit which pervadedthe congregation had caused them toabandon any effort to eat the meal ofthe Lord together; rather, they wereeating regardless of whether all werepresent or not, and regardless ofwhether all had food or not. Even ifwe should see hyperbole in Paul’scomment, “One goes hungry, an-other gets drunk” (vs. 21), the criti-cal issue for Paul is that those withthe means to bring an abundant partof the elements for the Lord’s Table(apparently the practice in thatchurch) were unwilling to share withthose too poor to bring any. Thisshameful division between the“haves” and the “have-nots,” suchthat only a part of the congregationat any one time actually partook ofthe Table, leads Paul to make the ob-vious assessment that such obser-vances could not be viewed as “com-munion” services at all: “it is not theLord’s supper that you eat” (vs. 20),i.e., it is not the meal that Jesus or-dained and intended.

It is helpful at this point to bear inmind all that we know about the Co-

Ordained Servant — Vol. 14, No. 121

22 Ordained Servant — Vol. 14, No. 1

REVISITING ELEMENTS OF THE TRADITIONAL REFORMED FENCING OF THE TABLE

rinthian church from this first epis-tle, in order to recognize why theirbehavior warranted such a severe re-sponse from Paul. The Corinthianchurch was one notorious for its var-ious problems, as a cursory readingof the first letter will reveal. How-ever, throughout the book the great-est source of concern to the apostleis the measure of division presentwithin the church. Corinth was astrife-ridden church. That this wasso is evidenced - after his openingwords of greeting - by the very firstconcern which the apostle takes up:the report he has heard of their quar-reling among themselves (1:10ff).The church had become divided intovarious schools of thought, each ofwhich claimed for itself the reputa-tion of men such as Paul, Apollos, orCephas. Paul’s opening appeal tothem, therefore, is “that all of youagree and that there be no divisionsamong you” (1:10). Especially rele-vant to our considerations is the factthat this apostolic consternation andappeal becomes a refrain throughoutthe whole book. In chapter 3 Paul re-bukes them for being fleshly (carnal)and spiritually infantile because“there is jealousy and strife amongyou” (3:1ff). In chapter 6 Paul ex-presses outrage that this strife hasled to lawsuits against each other insecular court, to which he respondswith exasperation, “Why not ratherbe defrauded?” (6:1ff). And in chap-ter 8, where Paul takes up the matterof dealing graciously with a weakerbrother, he makes the devastatingstatement that by “sinning againstyour brothers and wounding theirconscience when it is weak, you sinagainst Christ” (8:1ff).

In order to understand the apos-tle’s words in 1 Corinthians 11,then, it is important to recognizefrom the context the utterly scandal-ous nature of the divisions in Cor-inth. The apostle’s consternation re-

garding the strife in the Corinthianchurch reaches its apex in the pas-sage here, and that for a very goodreason: manifestations of open strifebetween brothers could not be moresinfully conspicuous than in that or-dinance of God expressly intended tomanifest and perpetuate the commun-ion of the saints! When the apostleeventually asserts that God’s judg-ment of illness and death had comeupon some of them for their unwor-thy partaking of the Table (vs. 30),he does not leave his readers in anydoubt regarding what kind of sinwarrants such a severe censure ofGod, as if various secret sins of indi-viduals within the congregationmight be the cause. No, it is the sinproblem for which the Corinthianchurch had become notorious thathad provoked God’s wrath, and whenthey brought their shameful partisan-ship right to the Table of the Lord,God was moved to inflict upon themthe severest of consequences. Thenotion is common among us, and fos-tered by a typical fencing of the Ta-ble, that an “unworthy” eating anddrinking and the consequent judg-ment of God all pertain to secret, un-confessed sins. Yet nothing could befurther from the apostle’s mind. Heis addressing open patterns of sin inthe life of the Corinthian congrega-tion that manifested themselves mostegregiously in the way they werepartaking of the Table. Whatever un-derstanding, therefore, that we ac-quire for expressions like “unworthyparticipation” and “eating and drink-ing judgment,” it must be informedby the circumstances Paul is address-ing. They do not refer to inward andsecret sins, but to the more scandal-ous manifestations of outward sin.Every faithful Christian struggleswith various “secret sins,” and, strictly speaking, is guilty from timeto time of secretly and impenitentlyliving in such sins—until by thework of the Spirit his sin is revealed

to him and fresh repentance is grant-ed. However, it is not to this experi-ence, common to us all, that the apos-tle aims his warning. Rather, it is forthe outwardly scandalous professorof Christ that the apostle reserves thefearful warnings of 1 Corinthians 11.

Therefore, in the first place, I thinkit should be apparent that the sin be-ing addressed in the apostolic warn-ing was not inward and secret, butoutward and scandalous.

2. “Eating and Drinking in an Un-worthy Manner”

In the history of Reformed exege-sis of this text, key phrases such asthis one have become freighted witha meaning broader than that intendedby the apostle. One way that the con-cept of “eating and drinking in an un-worthy manner” has been understoodis by identifying it with the danger ofan individual’s coming to the Lord’sSupper who is not a true Christian, ortruly regenerate. But the apostle isnot speaking of this reality at all. Theapostle nowhere suggests that the un-worthy partaking of the Table is dueto the unregenerate state of certainmembers of the Corinthian church. Infact, he presumes that even the worstoffenders among them are regeneratepeople, because he identifies theLord’s “judgment” upon them as hismeans of preserving them from beingcondemned with the world (vs. 32).The apostle’s understanding of “un-worthy partaking” is something beingdone by those whose regenerate con-dition he does not question. Howeverprofitable it is to review from time totime the evidences in one’s self of asaving work of God, such an exerciseis simply foreign to the apostle’s con-cern in 1 Corinthians 11. There is nonecessary connection made here be-tween a due preparation for theLord’s Table and the serious enter-taining of the question, “Am I really

23Ordained Servant — Vol. 14, No. 1

REVISITING ELEMENTS OF THE TRADITIONAL REFORMED FENCING OF THE TABLE

a Christian?”1 Indeed, I would sug-gest that the typical Christian shouldbe seriously entertaining this ques-tion far less frequently than heshould be coming to the Table! Yetdue to this popular misconception ofthe apostle’s words, there is an un-wholesome level of introspectionthat often accompanies our obser-vance of the Lord’s Supper.

The other way that partaking “inan unworthy manner” is often under-stood is by identifying it with thedanger of participating in the sacra-ment without a sufficient level ofspiritual preparedness, i.e., sensitivi-ty to sin, felt love for Christ, and aspiritual frame of mind. Of course,spiritual preparations are importantfor participating in any of the corpo-rate means of grace, but the tendencyin our tradition to think of “unwor-thy partaking” as relating to whetheror not we have been “doing wellspiritually” is far removed from theapostle’s intent. It was not a generalspiritual malaise that was the Apos-tle’s concern, but rather specificscandalous sins that were beingbrought, of all places, right to theTable of the Lord.

What then is the unworthy eatingand drinking that Paul is warningagainst? If we resist abstracting these

words from their context, we willrecognize that he is speaking of atti-tudes and behavior that flagrantlycontradict the meaning and purposeof the Lord’s Table itself, therebymaking the observance of the Table afarce. The apostle refers to specificthings in a man’s life which openlycontradict that which he professes inthe Table: love for Christ and for hisbrethren. The Corinthians wereguilty of what we would call “disci-plinable offenses.” Therefore, whilein an absolute sense no one of us canpartake of the Table “worthily,” yetin the sense in which the apostlemeant it, all of us who are maintain-ing a Christian walk that is consistentwith our profession may eat anddrink “in a worthy manner.”

Therefore, in the second place, Iwould insist that the words of theapostle regarding eating and drinking“in an unworthy manner” have inview, not the danger of partaking ofthe Table in an unregenerate state,nor the danger of partaking in a stateof general spiritual ill-health, but tothe danger of partaking of the Tablein a profane and scandalous manner.

3. “Let a Person Examine Himself”

The words “Let a person examinehimself” (vs. 28) have come to beunderstand by many as a prescriptionby the apostle for a preparatory exer-cise of introspection uniquely re-quired by the Lord’s Table. The Puri-tan expositor Matthew Poole fairlyrepresents our tradition when he en-larges upon the meaning of that ex-pression as follows:

He is to examine himself abouthis knowledge, whether he rightlyunderstands what Christ is, whatthe nature of the sacrament is,what he doth in that sacred ac-tion; about his faith, love, repen-tance, new obedience, whether hebe such a one as God hath pre-

pared that holy table for; it is thechildren’s bread, and not fordogs; a table Christ hath spreadfor his friends, not for his ene-mies.2

It is my contention, however, thatthe apostle does not in this passageprescribe a broad exercise of self-examination that is uniquely a pre-requisite to a proper partaking of theTable. Rather, his call is for due con-sideration and contrition over spe-cific sins which he has alreadynamed! That is to say, the apostle’scall for self-examination is made inthe context of his having made spe-cific charges of guilt regarding theCorinthians’ behavior. After rebuk-ing them specifically for their scan-dalous degree of schism, and afterdeclaring to them that such sin in-volves a profaning of the Table, hethen makes the poignant observa-tion, “Let a person examine himself,then, and so eat of the bread anddrink of the cup.” Bearing in mindthis context, we can see that theapostle is not calling for self-examination apart from any and allpastoral direction. Rather, he is say-ing in so many words: “In light ofthis sin that is in your midst as acongregation, every one of youought to consider what guilt youshare in that sin, repent of it to Godand to each other, and only thencome together to the Table again.”The urgent need of self-examination,lest one eat and drink judgment uponhimself, is not, therefore, held outindiscriminately to every believer inevery circumstance, as if this were aspiritual exercise uniquely requiredbefore the Lord’s Supper. Rather, itis a form of introspection that is ur-gently necessary and incumbentupon those who are guilty of profan-ing the Table by ongoing, egregioussin.

1 After suggesting that “the want of right un-derstanding this scripture has been a stumblingblock to many,” the Puritan John Flavel goeson to say regarding Paul’s words “let a personexamine himself”: “It seems clear, by the occa-sions and circumstances of his discourse, thathe does not intend we should examine our stateof grace; whether we are true believers or no,and sincerely resolved to continue so; but hespeaks of the actual fitness and worthiness ofthe Corinthians at that time, when they came toreceive the Lord’s Supper. And therefore,verse 20, he sharply reproves their irreverentand unsuitable carriage at the Lord’s table:they coming thereunto disorderly, one beforeanother” (“A Familiar Conference Between aMinister and a Doubting Christian,” vol. 6 ofWorks, p. 467-8).

2 Mattew Poole’s Commentary on the WholeBible, Vol III, p. 581.

24 Ordained Servant — Vol. 14, No. 1

REVISITING ELEMENTS OF THE TRADITIONAL REFORMED FENCING OF THE TABLE

It is of course true that the apostlespeaks in universal language here—“whoever,” “let a person,” and “any-one who eats”; and it is true that hedoes so in order to underscore a vitalprinciple that transcends the Corin-thian situation. However, a properdiscerning of what that transcendentprinciple is can be gained only by un-derstanding the circumstances whichprovoke these statements. Often inour tradition, the transcendent, uni-versal principle has been understoodto be something like this: “Self-examination (of a general kind) is anecessary prerequisite to properlypartaking of the Lord’s Supper.” Isubmit that this is not the apostle’sconcern at all. Rather, it is the princi-ple: “Anyone guilty of conduct whichby its nature profanes the Lord’s Sup-per must stop, consider his peril, andrepent of his ways before participat-ing further in that ordinance.”

As an illustration, suppose that I asa pastor learned through a counselingsituation that a man in the congrega-tion had been guilty for many monthsof defrauding other businessmen inthe congregation. Under such circum-stances, it would be most appropriatefor me to say to him, with all due se-verity, “You had better examineyourself before coming again to theLord’s Supper, or you will be eatingand drinking judgment upon your-self.” On the other hand, however, itwould be a grave error on my part toapply that same severe warning to theentire congregation on each occasionof the Lord’s Supper, apart from anyknowledge of sin in their midst, i.e..:“You had better examine yourselvesbefore coming again to the Lord’sSupper, or you will be eating anddrinking judgment upon yourself.”The first instance would be a faithful,pastoral use of the universal principlecontained in 1 Corinthians 11, whilethe second instance would be a mis-guided, abusive use of the apostle’s

words, and one that is foreign to hisintention. I am afraid, however, thatas a result of this fundamental mis-conception about 1 Corinthians 11,the faithful people of God in manychurches hear again and again sternand fearful words that were never in-tended to be applied to them.

Therefore, I submit, thirdly, thatthe apostle’s call for self-examination is not a universal pre-scription for an exercise of introspec-tion uniquely required for the Table,but rather a particular exhortation tothose guilty of certain identifiablesins to consider their ways and to re-pent prior to returning to the Table.

4. “Discerning the Body”

Without the exercise of “discern-ing the body,” Paul tells his readers aperson “eats and drinks judgment onhimself” (vs. 29). Reformed exposi-tions of this text have typically seenin this phrase an explicit requirementfor a certain level of understandingregarding the nature and purpose ofthe sacrament: “discerning the body”therefore means having an adequateunderstanding of the spiritual reali-ties which set this meal apart fromordinary meals. This belief is re-flected in the wording of the OPCform which warns that the Table isnot for the “uninstructed.” To admitany to the Table without adequateunderstanding is viewed as makingthem liable to judgment.

But once again I wish to ask: Isthis in fact what the apostle means bythis phrase in the context in which heuses it? Does he intend to teach as auniversal principle that insufficientunderstanding on the part of partici-pants in the Lord’s Table, and thatalone, makes them liable to the wrathof God? Is the apostle indeed teach-ing that God’s anger is directed to-ward such believers simply because

they don’t understand well enough?And, finally, exactly how much ofan understanding of the mystery ofthe sacrament is necessary to avoidGod’s wrath and displeasure?

These questions point us to theconclusion that the failure of the Co-rinthians to “discern the body” wassomething far more serious than amere failure intellectually to graspcertain doctrinal truths. The Corin-thians had been guilty of a flagrantdisregard for one another in theircelebration of the Lord’s Supper,and here the apostle calls this spe-cific sin a failure to “discern thebody,” that is, a failure to considerone another in love as they partooktogether. A growing number of com-mentators today view the “body”that Paul refers to here, not as thephysical body of Christ, but as hisbody, the church. They note thatPaul has already used this expres-sion in reference to the church, inchapter 10, verse 17, which reads:“we who are many are one body.”For example, F.F. Bruce writes:

When they broke the bread,which was the token of the bodyof Christ, they not only recalledhis self-oblation on the cross, butproclaimed their joint participa-tion in his corporate body. If,then, they denied in practice theunity which they professed sacra-mentally in the Eucharist, theyate and drank unworthily and soprofaned the body and blood ofthe Lord; if they ate and drank“without discerning the body”they ate and drank judgmentupon themselves. To eat anddrink “without discerning thebody” meant quite simply to takethe bread and cup at the sametime as they were treating theirfellow-Christians uncharitably inthought and behavior.3

3 Apostle of the Heart Set Free, p. 285.

25Ordained Servant — Vol. 14, No. 1

REVISITING ELEMENTS OF THE TRADITIONAL REFORMED FENCING OF THE TABLE

In this interpretation, which I findquite persuasive, the “discernment”that the apostle requires in verse 29is simply the opposite of the attitudeand behavior he forbids in verse 22:“Or do you despise the church ofGod and humiliate those who havenothing?” By despising the church inso scandalous a way they were notdiscerning the body, and werethereby eating and drinking judg-ment to themselves.

Neither is Paul calling for alearned understanding of the muchdisputed relationship between thesign and the thing signified in thesacrament, or for the precise natureof the presence of Christ in the meal.Rather, Paul is calling for a lovingconsideration of the body of Christ,the church, and, for the participantsin the sacrament at Corinth, thatbody was represented by those seatedaround them with whom they werenot on good terms. To convey to ourcongregations that partaking of theSupper apart from a certain level ofinstruction and resulting comprehen-sion incurs the judgment of God is tomiss entirely the apostle’s concern. Itleads the people of God to ask aquestion of themselves that is foreignto the apostle’s concern, namely: DoI understand well enough what thissacrament means? rather than thequestion he intends to raise: Do Ihave a right attitude toward mybrothers and sisters as I come to thissacrament? Instruction of an ongoingkind regarding the nature and pur-pose of the Lord’s Supper is cer-tainly important, but it is not such alack of understanding acquired by in-struction that the apostle warnsagainst. It is a lack of regard for oth-ers acquired by love that he warnsagainst, and which constitutes “notdiscerning the body.”

Finally, therefore, I would arguethat the “discernment” called for by

participants in the Table consists, notin an intellectual comprehension ofthe nature of the sacrament, but in aloving regard for those with whomone enjoys fellowship in the sacra-ment.

Practical Observations

1. A Dampening of Celebration atthe Table

The most immediate practical ef-fect of these misconceptions is thecreation of a general atmospherearound the Lord’s Table which islargely incompatible with true cele-bration. The sheer repetition of thewords of the apostle, apart from theircontext, has produced a subtle butreal tendency among us to identifythe observance of the Lord’s Supperwith an introspective focus (“exam-ine yourself”), a consideration of oursins (“if we judged ourselves”), inthe context of possible judgment(“eating and drinking judgment”).But these stern words were never in-tended to set the tone for the regularobservance of the sacrament! Theyare lifted from what is essentially anapostolic tongue-lashing given to agrievously errant congregation andshould not be made paradigmatic forevery congregation’s approach to theTable. Under what kind of circum-stances would any pastor fairly makethe assessment of a congregation,“Your meetings do more harm thangood” (vs. 17, NIV)? Clearly, onlyunder circumstances involving fla-grant, egregious sin. The applicationof this point is simple: in our routinefencing of the Table, it is a gravemistake to adopt the same severitytoward our own congregations as thatfound in the apostle’s warnings inthe absence of the kind of sin whichwarranted it in the Corinthianchurch. By quoting extensively andeven exclusively from this passage inour pre-Supper exhortations, we have

imposed upon essentially healthycongregations and their orderly ob-servances of the Supper the heavi-ness of the apostle’s rebuke to a seri-ously errant congregation. Theopening words of the current OPCform could hardly illustrate better thesetting of such a tone of heaviness:

It is my solemn duty to warn theuninstructed, the profane, thescandalous, and those who secret-ly and impenitently live in anysin, not to approach the holy ta-ble lest they partake unworthily,not discerning the Lord’s body,and so eat and drink condemna-tion to themselves (OPC Direc-tory of Worship, IV:C:2, empha-sis mine).

In light of such sober warnings givenby the minister immediately preced-ing the meal, it is highly understand-able if our members tend to view thetime of receiving the elements as atime more for lamenting sin than en-joying and rejoicing in their salva-tion. The fact that often in our tradi-tion “celebrations” of the Lord’sSupper feel anything but celebratoryis due to more than our Western per-sonal reserve. It is due, in part, to atheologically imbalanced view of theTable itself, perpetuated by a com-mon fencing of the Table.

2. Private Abstentions from the Ta-ble at Will

The unfounded hesitation on thepart of some believers to come to theTable has given rise to the commonbut highly questionable practice ofmembers in good standing voluntar-ily, for undisclosed reasons, abstain-ing from participation in the Lord’sSupper. If questioned, such personsmay confess to feeling “unprepared”for the Table, perhaps due to feltconviction for some moral failingthat week. The conviction of manyseems to be that a sense of spiritualwell-being is a prerequisite to com-

26 Ordained Servant — Vol. 14, No. 1

REVISITING ELEMENTS OF THE TRADITIONAL REFORMED FENCING OF THE TABLE

ing to the Lord’s Table, and, whenthey honestly acknowledge a seasonof spiritual lethargy or struggle withsin, they become convinced that theyare unprepared for the Table. It caneven be thought a matter of piety torefrain from the Table from time totime under these circumstances. Theproblems with this way of thinkingare manifold.

First of all, it practically turns ameans of grace into a reward ofgrace, as if the spiritual food of theTable were reserved for those whowere already well nourished! Jesuscompares His body to food, indicat-ing that the sacrament is a means bywhich the people of God are nour-ished in grace. Therefore, it is pre-cisely at times of spiritual leannessand struggle with sin that it is mostneeded, and should be most eagerlysought. In the second place, this wayof thinking overlooks the fact that theLord Jesus, in spreading the Table,calls his people to it, and that it is aserious thing for a professing discipleto resist that call. His words are“Drink of it, all of you” (Matt.26:27), and however gracious that in-vitation is, compliance with it shouldnot thereby be construed as some-thing merely optional, any more thancompliance with his call to assemblefor worship as a whole is optional.Third, this way of thinking ignoresthe serious implications of a commu-nicant member’s abstaining from anygiven celebration of the Table. Sinceit is by barring a person from the Ta-ble in discipline that the church ulti-mately removes him from its fellow-ship, this practice amounts toindividuals “excommunicating them-selves for a day.” Not only does suchan act deprive the rest of the congre-gation of the full fellowship with thebody that the Table is intended to af-ford; it also subtly shifts the authorityto extend or withdraw fellowship inthe Table from the officers of the

church to the individual.

The solution, therefore, for thosewith hesitations about coming to theTable is to remember that only will-ful patterns of sin which are incom-patible with a profession of love toChrist and the brethren give rise toan unworthy partaking of the Tableas it is defined by the apostle. Itshould be noted that where such pat-terns of sin exist, it is still a sin notto come to the Table, yet it is a great-er sin to profane the Table. The\proper recourse in such a situation isnot simply to “sit out” all Lord’sSupper celebrations, but immediatelyto repent, reform one’s life, and re-turn to the Table. The apostle no-where tells the Corinthians not topartake of the Table. Rather, in lightof their sin, he tells them to examinethemselves before coming to the Ta-ble. His objective is not for any ofthem to abstain from the Table, butfor all of them to partake of the Ta-ble rightly. When a member of thechurch has good reason to be con-cerned about his coming to the Ta-ble, it will be due to some area ofnotable inconsistency in his profes-sion, and, as a general rule, faithfulelders will have already begun tobring warning and admonition to himregarding it, as the apostle did withthe Corinthians.

3. An Individualistic Approach tothe Table

Yet another practical effect of ourmisconceptions of 1 Corinthians 11,as embodied in a typical fencing ofthe Table, is the obscuring of the pri-mary point of the passage: the hori-zontal dimension of the Lord’s Table.The Lord’s Supper is a time for thefelt enjoyment of our relationshipswith each other as a church, as wellas with Christ. It is an expression ofour love for one another, as well asfor Christ. The failure of the Corinthi-

an church to recognize this is the sumand substance of the apostle Paul’sgreat angst. To be sure, they wereprofaning and offending God himselfat the Table, but precisely by meansof their disregard for their brethren.The fundamental principle underly-ing Paul’s severe words to the Corin-thians is in fact the same one madethroughout Scripture: you cannot beright with the Lord without beingright with your brothers in the Lord.It is on the basis of this principle thatthe Old Testament prophets repeated-ly warn the people that their worshipand sacrifice, if offered apart fromfairness and goodness toward theirbrothers, constitute a stench in God’snostrils, and only provoke his wrath(see, for example, Amos 5:21ff). It isthe same principle that Jesus reiter-ates when he calls for a man, uponremembrance of an offense betweenhimself and a brother, to “leave hisgift at the altar” and, only after beingreconciled to his brother, to resumehis worship (Matt. 5: 23-24). It is thesame principle that the apostle hasunderscored earlier in this epistlewhen he states: “sinning against yourbrothers and wounding their con-science when it is weak, you sinagainst Christ” (1 Cor. 8:12). The useof abstracted portions of 1 Corinthi-ans 11 can suggest that “getting rightwith God” is the primary issue of thepassage, when in fact “getting rightwith your brother, in order to be rightwith God” is the issue. As GordonFee has put it:

One wonders whether our makingthe text deal with self-examination has not served to de-flect the greater concern of thetext, that we give more attentionat the Lord’s Supper to our rela-tionships with one another in thebody of Christ.4

Yet the typical observance of the Ta-ble in our churches, ironically, is the

4 Fee’s Commentary on 1 Corinthians, p. 569.

27Ordained Servant — Vol. 14, No. 1

REVISITING ELEMENTS OF THE TRADITIONAL REFORMED FENCING OF THE TABLE

most individualistic part of our ser-vice. In the quietness of the distribu-tion and partaking of the elements,each member is essentially alonewith his reflections and prayers, incontrast with the rest of the servicein which all join with each other insome common hymn, prayer, or re-ceived Word from the pulpit. In other words, an introspective orienta-tion has undermined the very pur-pose of the meal: fellowship (com-munion) with God and each other.

4. Impediments to Frequent Com-munion

One final effect of this mistakenperspective is that it has created psychological impediments to morefrequent celebration of the Lord’sSupper. When coming rightly to theLord’s Supper involves a regimentof self-examination and an emotionaland spiritual preparation distinctfrom what is required by the otherelements of worship, then it is easyto think that the observance of theTable should be reserved for moreinfrequent, “special” occasions. Iron-ically, however, 1 Corinthians 11provides what is probably the clear-est biblical evidence for a weeklycelebration of the Table by the apos-tolic church. It is the obvious as-sumption of the apostle as he beginsthe passage that their meetings to-gether as a congregation are accom-panied by the observance of theLord’s Supper: “When you come to-gether, it is not the Lord’s supperthat you eat” (vs. 20). It was clearlythe practice of the Corinthianchurch, when they gathered, to bringfood with them from which the ele-ments of the Table would be taken.We can of course assume that cele-brating the Lord’s Supper is not allthat they did, but we must concludethat they did identify meeting to-gether with eating together at theLord’s Supper. None of the apostle’s

words of reproof are directed at thefre-quency of their celebrating theTable. In fact, in directing them firstto satisfy their hunger at home with aregular meal before gathering (vs. 22,34), he implies that he expects themto continue to celebrate the Lord’sSupper in those gatherings, though ina more appropriate way: they willstill “come together to eat” (vs. 33).Therefore, while the Lord’s Suppershould in fact be viewed as requiringpreparation and consecration of our-selves afresh to the Lord, is shouldalso be recognized that this is partand parcel of a weekly preparationfor the Sabbath and all its corporatemeans of grace. The Table is argua-bly the climactic part of worship, butit was clearly an ordinary part of wor-ship in the apostolic church.

A Proper Fencing of the Table

With a proper understanding of ICorinthians 11, as well as a bibli-cally balanced view of the Lord’sSupper, of what should our routinefencing of the Table consist?

In the first place, we should take itas axiomatic that the proper purposeof the “fence” which we maintainaround the Table is to keep out, in thefirst place, “those who are not sheep,”and, in the second place, “those whoare not acting like sheep.” This firstcategory, those who “are not sheep,”represent those who are not communi-cant members in good standing of alocal congregation of the visibleChurch.5 They are not of the numberof the recognized saints of God, sucha number being determined by the ob-

jective criteria of membership in thevisible church. The Lord’s Supper isthe Church’s ultimate expression ofthe communion of the saints, and is tobe guarded from all those who are notsaints. Such people present in thecongregation should be graciously butclearly informed that this meal is notfor them.

The second category, those who“are not acting like sheep,” repre-sents those members of the visiblechurch that, while still at present re-taining their membership, nonethe-less have manifested patterns of sinwhich are incompatible with a faith-ful Christian walk. Such individualswithin the congregation are identi-fied through the ongoing oversightof the congregation by the pastor andsession. When such patterns of sinare discovered, and repentance forsuch sin is not forthcoming, the eld-ers should take steps to warn such aperson from coming to the Table un-til that sin is dealt with. This warn-ing should be with the full severityof the apostle’s words to the Corin-thians, inasmuch as the sin involvedis of the magnitude of the Corinthi-ans’ sin. Because of the seriousnessof such a situation, the congregationas a whole should be informed ofthis action, and all should recognizeit as an intermediate form of disci-pline: that which is commonlyknown as “suspension from the Ta-ble.” Such discipline should be car-ried out toward members who havefallen into conspicuous patterns ofsin—i.e., they are not acting likesheep. The Table is not for them ei-ther.

It should be clear from this that Iam directly challenging the practiceof routinely setting before the con-gregation the notion that the Table isfor them if they meet a set of criteriathat only they can apply, i.e., thatthey have examined their hearts suf-

5 It is my conviction that all those who arecommunicant members in good standing of anevangelical church should be admitted to theTable in any particular congregation, as op-posed to the practice called “closed commun-ion,” which limits participation to the membersof that particular church or denomination. It isnot my purpose, however, to argue that pointhere.

28 Ordained Servant — Vol. 14, No. 1

REVISITING ELEMENTS OF THE TRADITIONAL REFORMED FENCING OF THE TABLE

ficiently, they are spiritually pre-pared, they really understand whatthey are doing, etc. This has the re-grettable effect of erecting a “fence”around the Table that is subjective,indefinite, and up to the members ofthe church ultimately to establish forthemselves, when, in fact, the fencearound the Table should be quite ob-jective, definite, and established bythe elders themselves as leaders ofthe Church. I believe that this ele-ment, when it appears in the fencingof the Table in our circles, is entirelywithout biblical warrant and is con-trary to God’s intention for the meal.In fact, I would argue that it is con-trary to the very nature and purposeof the sacraments according to ourReformed confessions. The Westmin-ster Confession (27:1) provides anexcellent definition of the sacramentsas:

…holy signs and seals of the cove-nant of grace, immediately institutedby God, to represent Christ and hisbenefits; and to confirm our interestin him: as also, to put a visible dif-ference between those that belongunto the church and the rest of theworld; and solemnly to engage themto the service of God in Christ, ac-cording to his Word” (emphasismine).

I would ask the question: How canthe Lord’s Supper serve to put a visi-ble difference between those that be-long to the church and the rest of theworld when, in the fencing of the Ta-ble, we encourage members of thevisible church to absent themselvesfrom it according to the state of theirheart at any given time? The very or-dinance which is intended to pre-serve the boundaries of the visiblechurch in an ongoing way ends up, inthe typical Reformed practice offencing the Table, obscuring thosevery boundaries.

With what words, then, should wepreface the celebration of the Table?As we have seen, those who are notmembers of the visible Church, andthose who are members under disci-pline, should be clearly forbidden topartake. All others, however, shouldbe assured that as members of thecovenant community, the covenantmeal is for them. Our words to theassembled saints, prior to the cele-bration of the Supper, should bewords of warm invitation to come tothe Table. In fact, in light of the mis-conceptions which church membersin our tradition commonly labor un-der, they should be encouraged—

even strongly—to come to the Ta-ble. It is for them! Despite theirmany struggles with sin, and evenprofound sense of spiritual failure,they should be reminded that the Ta-ble, as Calvin expresses it, “is medi-cine for poor sick souls.” It is theSavior’s desire that they shouldhave it, and God’s people should beexhorted not to resist the mercy andgrace offered therein. He has said tohis people: “Drink of it, all of you,”and the only appropriate responsefor each of us is humbly and grate-fully to comply, by faith expectinggreat blessing.

T. Nathan Trice iscurrently servingas pastor of theMatthews Ortho-dox PresbyterianChurch, in Char-lotte, North Caro-lina.

The Westminster Larger Catechism

Q. 174. What is required of them that receive the sacrament of the Lord's Supper inthe time of the administration of it?

Ans: It is required of them that receive the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, that,during the time of the administration of it, with all holy reverence and attentionthey wait upon God in that ordinance, diligently observe the sacramental elementsand actions, heedfully discern the Lord's body, and affectionately meditate on hisdeath and sufferings, and thereby stir up themselves to a vigorous exercise oftheir graces; in judging themselves, and sorrowing for sin; in earnest hungeringand thirsting after Christ, feeding on him by faith, receiving of his fullness, trustingin his merits, rejoicing in his love, giving thanks for his grace; in renewing of theircovenant with God, and love to all the saints.