Session-Controlled Communion

[Kaalvenist]

No, you are conflating the issue. No power goes to the individual - it is his Session that admits him to membership, and admits him to the table. Session controlled communion replaces the determination of his actual shepherds with a theological construct. It denies the elders the authority given to them by Christ - to shepherd the flock over which they are placed. Would we let a Session discipline a person over whom they had no authority? Could they bar him from the table? Excommunicate him? Depose him from office? Of course not! And yet you are willing to let them bar him from the Table, and overturn the pronouncement of Christ's Church (as represented in its branch).

A Session can do that, but it ought to stop pretending that it is Presbyterian.

You haven't yet given Scripture for your position, or explained how your practice is consistent with 1 Corinthians 5.

6. Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
7. Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
8. Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
9. I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
10. Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for them must ye needs go out of the world.
11. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

How is your church's practice consistent with this portion of Scripture?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Our session holds examination before every communion service. There is no waiting and the communion service is in the evening. So if you attended the morning worship you were informed of the practice. BTW, I imagine there is really truly nothing standing in the way of someone partaking since the bread and wine are passed down each row. There is no one specifically standing over someone to tell them they can't partake. If a person has not be examined they encouraged to not take part.

I actually believe this practice is just good shepherding. It is also a way for the Session to protect the Church and its attenders. The Church is suppose to protect the souls of the people.

(1Co 11:29) For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

(1Co 11:30) For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

(1Co 11:31) For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.

(1Co 11:32) But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.

I have no problem in submitting to this practice in light of this passage.

(Heb 13:17) Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

It didn't take long for my sons to be examined last month and it was quite revealing to me also. I got to hear things I didn't know. It was very edifying and helpful to me as a Parent.

 

[fredtgreco]

No, you are conflating the issue. No power goes to the individual - it is his Session that admits him to membership, and admits him to the table. Session controlled communion replaces the determination of his actual shepherds with a theological construct. It denies the elders the authority given to them by Christ - to shepherd the flock over which they are placed. Would we let a Session discipline a person over whom they had no authority? Could they bar him from the table? Excommunicate him? Depose him from office? Of course not! And yet you are willing to let them bar him from the Table, and overturn the pronouncement of Christ's Church (as represented in its branch).

A Session can do that, but it ought to stop pretending that it is Presbyterian.

You haven't yet given Scripture for your position, or explained how your practice is consistent with 1 Corinthians 5.

6. Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
7. Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
8. Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
9. I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
10. Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for them must ye needs go out of the world.
11. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

How is your church's practice consistent with this portion of Scripture?

It is consistent in that I require participants to be members in good standing in their own churches. Somehow, I think that a home Session is a better judge than a 5 minute "interview" done completely in a vacuum.

We are not called to exercise authority over those who are not under us. You keep saying it, over and over again in different ways, but it is still wrong: your position is that each individual congregation is called to judge the profession of every Christian that walks into their building, regardless of the fact that they have no spiritual authority over such Christian. If we are talking about unbelievers, that is one thing (they can be barred from the table). But when we say that we will not accept the decision of elders with whom we have ecclesiatical relations (or even union!) that denies the connected nature of the Church.

You might also want to consider that your opinion leads to the logical conclusion that you should not take communion in any other denominational church.

(Heb 13:17) Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

It didn't take long for my sons to be examined last month and it was quite revealing to me also. I got to hear things I didn't know. It was very edifying and helpful to me as a Parent.

Who watches the souls, Randy? Who must give account? Is it those who have rule over you, or those who do not?

I'll bow out now and let whomever have the last word.

 

[tcalbrecht]

Speaking as a little-p presbyterian, one Session does not have the right or responsibility to unilaterally excommunicate the members who are subject to another Session (Heb. 13:17). The Session of congregation A does not have rule over the conscience of the members of congregation B. Communion is the Table of the Lord, not that of a particular congregation. That is what connectionalism is all about; respect of one Session for another.

And any denomination that raises it peculiar idiosyncrasies (membership in secret societies, exclusive psalmody, etc ) to the level of standard for salvation borders on cultish behavior, in my opinion. If one believes they are then they ought to be practicing tightly closed communion within that group. Frankly, I would no more wish to take communion in that sort of fellowship that at the popish altar.

 

[ADKing]

Somehow, I think that a home Session is a better judge than a 5 minute "interview" done completely in a vacuum.

We are not called to exercise authority over those who are not under us. You keep saying it, over and over again in different ways, but it is still wrong: your position is that each individual congregation is called to judge the profession of every Christian that walks into their building, regardless of the fact that they have no spiritual authority over such Christian. If we are talking about unbelievers, that is one thing (they can be barred from the table). But when we say that we will not accept the decision of elders with whom we have ecclesiatical relations (or even union!) that denies the connected nature of the Church.

You might also want to consider that your opinion leads to the logical conclusion that you should not take communion in any other denominational church.

A 5 minute interview in a vacuum is thoroughly inadequate, I totally agree. Ideally proponents of session controlled or close communion would do more than this.

You keep asserting that a session has no spiritual authority over a visitor from another church. Why? Is not the session called to protect the purity of the sacrament? Does it not have authority not to admit those who are ignorant or ungodly (WCF 29.8)? You seem to be saying that elders do not have the right to judge whether someone is ignorant or ungodly if a session of a church with "relations" says they are not. But I have given a concrete example of a situation in which there may be a different opinion on just that matter. While I love and value my brethren in other denominations, there are matters of doctrine and piety on which we disagree and it would be wrong of me not to insist on what I believe is true and the standards I have sworn to uphold just because others do not see the word of God the same way I do. Such a way leads to doctrinal and practical relativism or the denomination with the "least common denominator" standards for communion being able to control the practice of other churches. I am still very curious how someone who disagrees with this principle would answer the practical scenario I suggested.

You are absolutely correct in pointing out that close communion means communing only with others who share the same doctrine and practice. Without accusing you of this Rev Greco, I am concerned any other approach to communion reduces the sacrament to a mere show of unity without any actual corresponding substance of unity.

---------- Post added at 03:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:05 PM ----------

And any denomination that raises it peculiar idiosyncrasies (membership in secret societies, exclusive psalmody, etc ) to the level of standard for salvation borders on cultish behavior, in my opinion. If one believes they are then they ought to be practicing tightly closed communion within that group. Frankly, I would no more wish to take communion in that sort of fellowship that at the popish altar.

No one is saying that exclusive psalmody is a prerequisite for salvation. But exclusive psalmody adherents are saying it is necessary to be faithfully obeying God. I am curious about this: Is there ever an occasion when it would be appropriate to keep a true Christian from coming to the Lord’s Table? You seem to be suggesting there is not. On what basis? I am suggesting it is on the basis of such texts as 2 Thessalonians 3.14-15.

 

[Whitefield]

What started as protecting an individual from partaking in communion in a "unworthy manner" (1 Cor. 11:27), now seems to be protecting the Lord's Table. From what are we protecting the Lord's Table, and where in Scripture is this "protecting the Lord's Table" raised and resolved?

 

[sdesocio]

As someone who was seeking ordination in the RPCNA, each individual church is required to interview members. For the RPCNA this is a loosening. There understanding is that they moved from entirely closed (members of their congregation and their denomination only) to session controlled communion.
There was a time when one would could only take if one had a communion token(there are some examples at RPTS in Pittsburgh). I think the spirit comes out of a high view of the calling of the session as under shepherds I think the logic would follow: you'd never let a sheep eat something that might be poisonous to them so it is your responsibility to make sure they won't be poisoned.

While I appreciate their concern this was one of the two things that made me realize I had to seek ordination elsewhere. Paul's command to let everyone examine them self seems to be the mitigating factor.

It does become a major burden on some churches. I was a member at a church in Beaver Falls right across from Geneva College, when they had session often there were over 50 people needing to be examined. The session there went to a written document that was followed up by a short talk but it was still a major challenge, that I don't think was necessary.

(membership in secret societies, exclusive psalmody, etc ) to the level of standard for salvation

I don't know any RPs who would say you aren't saved if you don't sing Psalms...that might be a logical consequence but no one is that consistent.

I do think Fred is right about it creating disunity. It does seem to come across as suggesting that the examination of another session cannot be accepted.
I have many people I love in the RPCNA(including my father and step mother.)

 

[JBaldwin]

Along these lines, at what point do session members go from examining believers who will participate in the Lord's table to judging them? By what standards?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I personally think you guys are making way to much of this. And there seems to be some hypothetical situations that are being asked about that are just rabbit trails in my opinion. Plus, it seems like some extreme situations are being presented here. Should we base our decisions on extreme situations? I don't think so.

As far as asking for standards by which to examine someone, the early Church practice of catechumens was way more intrusive and time consuming.

Does anyone here know if there is a set of standards. I can find out. But I don't really know.

Fred,

I believe an Elder should be respected as an Elder. I think everyone should be cautious and render due honor to anyone that is ordained. As St. Paul recommended that we even honor Civil magistrates I would think it important to honor any Biblically ordained elder of any Church. I might be assuming too much but the average local congregations I have been a part of do assume some care and responsibility over those who might not be regenerate and or who are guests looking for a church home.

If one is made an administer of the sacrament then their must be some responsibility as to how and to whom it is administered. If there is a possibility that it might be harmful to someone wouldn't you think it to be a loving act to make sure it is going be a benefit to the person in the first place? I believe it is an act of love and concern. You might disagree with me on this one.

 

[Idelette]

I was just thinking about paedocommunion.... how would those of you that don't agree with session-controlled communion address a visiting family that wanted their children to partake in the Lord's Supper? Given that their own church practices paedocommunion and they are members in good standing, and their children feel worthy to partake. I'm not trying to argue, just sincerely wondering how you would deal with this situation if we are to respect other sessions because of the connected nature of the Church?

 

[dudley]

I am a Presbyterian and im my congregation we celebrate the Lords Supper once on month on the first Sunday.
The Sunday before an announcement is in the church bullitin saying the following. and a similar announcement is made on the Sunday we celebrate the Supper.
We will be observing the sacrament of the Lord’s
Supper during our morning worship service next Sunday.
We welcome to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper all baptized persons who have
made a credible profession of faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and
Savior, who are members in good standing in a Bible-believing
Christian Church, and who are seeking to live in obedience to God
and at peace with fellow believers. May we all take time this week
to examine ourselves before the Lord so that we might partake of
the sacrament for our own spiritual growth and edification and for
the glory of God.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Such a practice undermines the connected nature of the Church, especially within a denomination, or NAPARC (for example). It says to elders of a sister congregation, essentially, "I don't trust your spiritual discernment."

I was just thinking about paedocommunion.... how would those of you that don't agree with session-controlled communion address a visiting family that wanted their children to partake in the Lord's Supper? Given that their own church practices paedocommunion and they are members in good standing, and their children feel worthy to partake. I'm not trying to argue, just sincerely wondering how you would deal with this situation if we are to respect other sessions because of the connected nature of the Church?

Outstanding question and it has everything to do with this discussion in my opinion.

I know that NAPARC denominations have for the most part stood against paedocommunion.

Children at the Lord’s Table? (1)

 

[kvanlaan]

I think a balance between the two works well. In our church, we have two elders replace the greeting family at the door, and they meet the guests and take requests for partaking of the Lord's supper. There is a brief discussion, filling out a form, and that's it. That way they are also 'greeted' from the pulpit at the beginning of the service.

 

[Kaalvenist]

No, you are conflating the issue. No power goes to the individual - it is his Session that admits him to membership, and admits him to the table. Session controlled communion replaces the determination of his actual shepherds with a theological construct. It denies the elders the authority given to them by Christ - to shepherd the flock over which they are placed. Would we let a Session discipline a person over whom they had no authority? Could they bar him from the table? Excommunicate him? Depose him from office? Of course not! And yet you are willing to let them bar him from the Table, and overturn the pronouncement of Christ's Church (as represented in its branch).

A Session can do that, but it ought to stop pretending that it is Presbyterian.

You haven't yet given Scripture for your position, or explained how your practice is consistent with 1 Corinthians 5.

6. Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
7. Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
8. Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
9. I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
10. Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for them must ye needs go out of the world.
11. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

How is your church's practice consistent with this portion of Scripture?

It is consistent in that I require participants to be members in good standing in their own churches. Somehow, I think that a home Session is a better judge than a 5 minute "interview" done completely in a vacuum.

We are not called to exercise authority over those who are not under us. You keep saying it, over and over again in different ways, but it is still wrong: your position is that each individual congregation is called to judge the profession of every Christian that walks into their building, regardless of the fact that they have no spiritual authority over such Christian. If we are talking about unbelievers, that is one thing (they can be barred from the table). But when we say that we will not accept the decision of elders with whom we have ecclesiatical relations (or even union!) that denies the connected nature of the Church.

You might also want to consider that your opinion leads to the logical conclusion that you should not take communion in any other denominational church.

Fred,

How do you require participants to be members in good standing of any church? Theoretically, you hold to a restricted communion (only communicant members in good standing of evangelical churches may partake); but practically, you administer an open communion -- you don't even attempt to find out if visitors are members in good standing of any church before the elements are passed around, free for the taking. I adhere to a stricter theory (close communion); but is it really so hard to find out before the service from visitors if they are communicant members of a congregation affiliated with your own, or in fraternal relations with your own? I'm not saying that you should debar people from the Table; I'm saying that you should admit people to the Table, instead of allowing them to admit themselves.

And I don't take communion in non-Covenanter churches.

 

[Kaalvenist]

What started as protecting an individual from partaking in communion in a "unworthy manner" (1 Cor. 11:27), now seems to be protecting the Lord's Table. From what are we protecting the Lord's Table, and where in Scripture is this "protecting the Lord's Table" raised and resolved?

I was just reading the following from Turretin the other day. (I should point out that the text he discusses, Matthew 7:6, was one of the original proofs of the last clause of the Westminster Confession of Faith, 29.8: "Wherefore, all ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Him, so are they unworthy of the Lord's table; and cannot, without great sin against Christ, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto.")

From his Institutes, Loc. XVIII, Qu. XXXII, Sec. XVIII (Vol. 3, p. 303):

Sixth, (ecclesiastical discipline is proved) from Mt. 7:6, where Christ forbids to "give that which is holy unto the dogs." Now by the words "that which is holy" are meant the mysteries (mysteria) of which the servants of God are stewards (1 Cor. 4:1). The terms "dogs" and "swine" square with none better than with those whom, admitted into the church, experience has proved to be such and the church has judged. Therefore the Lord forbids the giving of his mysteries and consequently the dispensing of the sacraments to such. And although this is not said directly with respect to the Eucharist or excommunication, still the general rule is elicited from it, concerning the not tolerating the profanation of sacred mysteries, which is done by impure swine and dogs. Nor ought it to be replied that the bad cannot corrupt the good with whom they communicate. A great scandal is created thence to pious souls who cannot without a holy indignation see these sacred mysteries polluted by the profane and themselves associated with them at the same table and that no distinction is made between the good and bad, the penitent and impenitent. Again, these mysteries are made common when the holy things which are intended for the holy are distributed promiscuously to the profane. Third, although no harm should come thence to the good and pious, still the greatest evil is in this -- that the profane themselves pollute the sacred table and bring down upon themselves most certain destruction, eating and drinking their own condemnation. Now it is the duty of pastors to hinder as far as they are able pollution of this kind, lest they also themselves be guilty of the holy things being polluted by others through their negligence. Would it not be cruel mercy to give to a profane person free access to the sacred mysteries by which he would contract new guilt? Nay, compassion alone (by which it is just to be moved towards the miserable one increasing his crimes and in this way casting himself headlong into the gulf of perdition) would be sufficient for denying him th esacrament, even if there were no other reason for it.

And yes, I brought all three volumes of Turretin with me to Afghanistan... it made my ruck sack just a little heavier.

 

[MLCOPE2]

Such a practice undermines the connected nature of the Church, especially within a denomination, or NAPARC (for example). It says to elders of a sister congregation, essentially, "I don't trust your spiritual discernment."

I was just thinking about paedocommunion.... how would those of you that don't agree with session-controlled communion address a visiting family that wanted their children to partake in the Lord's Supper? Given that their own church practices paedocommunion and they are members in good standing, and their children feel worthy to partake. I'm not trying to argue, just sincerely wondering how you would deal with this situation if we are to respect other sessions because of the connected nature of the Church?

Outstanding question and it has everything to do with this discussion in my opinion.

I know that NAPARC denominations have for the most part stood against paedocommunion.

Children at the Lord’s Table? (1)

I would still like to see this issue addressed as well. Any takers?