Good morning to everyone,
I'm new to this thread and haven't read all of the posts yet, but I have a general statement about your post.
I think both churches have missed the boat on this one. It used to be in Reformed churches that the elders were in charge of the table. But now it seems that the man in the pew has the final authority as to whether he is a worthy taker of the supper and therefore allowed to come forward and receive the elements. This practice is fairly new in our modern times.
I'm well aware that the Bible teaches that an individual can bar himself from the table for reasons I will not discuss here. But that is not the same as saying he may allow himself, of his own will to partake. A privledge that always was and should be in the hands of the elders.
In former times most Church practices I am familiar with required that a man be both a member of the church where he is receiving the supper and pre-approved by the elders for this particular supper. Today's model is twisted and puts the individual, who is not at all an authority in the church, to make up his own mind to partake or not partake of this most important sacrament. The Elder's job, it seems, to to that of a servant who does the bidding of the parishioner. He hands out the communion but has little say over who should partake. This is a modern innovation. Many Reformed churches, no most, of the past, interviewed each would be partaker asking questions about his personal and families Spiritual health and practices. Does he have children? Are they being Faithfully catechized? Does his family have regular devotions with the head of the household presiding? These and like questions the elders would ask and then after deliberation decide if this man may or may not partake of the supper. I think I've said enough here to get the ball rolling so for now I will leave out the whys and wherefors, of the whole. Many churches had tokens that would be given to the ones who had been accepted for the supper and who handed in the proof before they could partake. At any rate, I'm just trying to stir the waters a bit and get us thinking a little bit more historically and covenantly.
If I visited either of these churches I might find myself asking, even if subconsciously, these five questions:
- Who's in charge around here?
- Who do I report to?
- What are the rules?
- What happens to me if I obey or disobey?
- And finally, does this outfit have a future?
EW
One evening service, they were going to serve communion at FBC, and the Chairman of the Board of Deacons sides up to me and says "Your girlfriend cannot take communion because as a Presbyterian she was not properly baptised." To which I responded: "Dad, if you had paid attention at the supper table, you would recall that she was baptised by immersion, in the creek behind Blackjack Presbyterian Church, on profession of faith when she was 12 years old. Presbyterians baptise on profession of faith and will use immersion too, ya know." Dad got big-eyed, but my girlfriend took communion that evening. Good times!
