Who May Commune as a FIRST TIME Visitor?

[N. Eshelman]

First time visitors are often problematic when it comes to the Lord's Supper. My question- what do you do with a first time visitor that would like to commune at your church? Who is able to?

 

[Rufus]

The Presbyterian (PCA) church I attended once a couple months ago required that you where a member of a bible believing church that believes in the exclusivity of Christ or something along those lines.

 

[jogri17]

My pastor encourages our members to email the pastor a couple of days in advance so a small talk/interview can take place over coffee, phone, email, skype, etc... or at least arriving early. When we welcome visitors, we make an announcement/warning saying that the requirements are members of a Church that preaches the Gospel. Only the elders distribute the elements so we will presume to skip over them unless they motion or signal somehow to them that they want to participate and even if they are not interviewed, we will serve them.

 

[Scott1]

There would be a verbal "fencing" of the table to effect of warning off unbelievers and being a member of a church where "this gospel is preached." There might also be admonition toward not being in major unrepentant sin.

Unless something came to the attention of the elders, that would be all.

Those who bring guests might also provide admonition to their guests, e.g. someone a member of the Roman Church, or not in fellowship in any church might be informally advised not to partake.

 

[he beholds]

At my church, while the pastor is explaining the Lord's Supper, he explains that it is for believers and members of an evangelical church. I personally don't believe that you must be a member of a church to take communion, but it seems like a standard thing in PCA churches. I think if one believes in Christ as his savior then one is a member of the invisible church--I think if you are in Christ's body you should NOT be kept from eating of the Lord's Supper, since it is for you, too.

 

[Scott1]

At my church, while the pastor is explaining the Lord's Supper, he explains that it is for believers and members of an evangelical church. I personally don't believe that you must be a member of a church to take communion, but it seems like a standard thing in PCA churches. I think if one believes in Christ as his savior then one is a member of the invisible church--I think if you are in Christ's body you should NOT be kept from eating of the Lord's Supper, since it is for you, too.

The word "member" can be difficult, because some churches seem to have no formal membership process.

The biblical idea would be committed to, and accountable to a local church. Hence, someone who professes to be a believer but is not participating in a local church, or is only an irregular attender is, really, walking a disorderly life pattern and ought abstain from communion until they are back, committed.

Someone "outside" of the visible Body of Christ is not worshipping God corporately, not tithing, not under any sort of church discipline, not taking the sacraments, not serving the saints, etc. I've come to understand this as a disorderly life pattern (for a believer, one who professes Christ, but denies His Body and part in it).

But, it's difficult to explain that during the Lord's Supper in worship.

 

[Southern Presbyterian]

There would be a verbal "fencing" of the table to effect of warning off unbelievers and being a member of a church where "this gospel is preached." There might also be admonition toward not being in major unrepentant sin.

The Lord's Table is to be "fenced" not walled off, gated, double locked and barred.

 

[Dearly Bought]

One major downfall of the personal interview as a means of guarding the table is that the consistory/session relies solely upon the word of the individual professing faith. How would consistories/sessions be able to respect the discipline of other congregations if they rely on this testimony alone? Is a consistory/session really in a position to judge the profession of a visitor?

I prefer the early church practice of letters of attestation instead. It has fallen into disuse, but the Canadian Reformed Churches have managed to preserve this practice in North America. It prevents your congregation's administration of the Supper from becoming a "loophole" for members of other churches under discipline. It also avoids creating a situation where one's profession/Christian walk must be judged based upon a brief conversation. Instead, we accept the testimony of those officers of another true church of Christ who directly oversee the individual in question.

That being said, personal interviews are to be preferred if the alternative is merely a "verbal fencing." Guarding the Lord's Table is simply a logical conclusion of the exercise of church discipline.

 

[Edward]

I personally don't believe that you must be a member of a church to take communion, but it seems like a standard thing in PCA churches.

Not just standard, but required unless restricted further by the session:

"Since, by our Lord's appointment, this Sacrament sets forth the
Communion of Saints, the minister, at the discretion of the Session, before
the observance begins, may either invite all those who profess the true
religion, and are communicants in good standing in any evangelical church,
to participate in the ordinance; or may invite those who have been approved
by the Session, after having given indication of their desire to participate."
BCO 58-4

 

[sdesocio]

Nathan, Im guessing you are just wondering about different positions. I know the RPCNA requires some sort of prior examination, though in recent years a written affirmation has been accepted by some presbyteries. I think the way the table is fences and who takes it as a first time visitor depends on how often you participate in the supper and how often you get first time visitors. I try to fence the table from both perspectives, this is a meal for those connected to Christ and to his people, but it's not just meant for the super Christians without doubts or struggles. I try to explain to people that the fencing is meant to protect people from perjuring themselves, and saying in their participation something they are not ready to say. With all of that said those who have examined themselves after the fencing can come forward.

 

[MW]

I think if you are in Christ's body you should NOT be kept from eating of the Lord's Supper, since it is for you, too.

The key term there is "in Christ's body." Surely that has to refer to a particular church in order to mean something which approximates to the biblical use of the term. In 1 Cor. 12, for example, "Christ's body" consists of numerous parts which are tempered together. There is also explicit recognition of specific parts functioning in areas of teaching, government, helps, etc. It is difficult to see how one could be considered as being "in Christ's body" who has expressed no commitment to the other parts of the body and has no submission to those whose gifts are being exercised in positions of leadership.

 

[ADKing]

Most simply put: "One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you" (Exodus 12.49). This instruction God gave to Moses as to who could or could not partake of the passover and on what basis and provides a helpful basis for thinking through the question with relation to communion. There should be only one (biblical) standard for both the member and the visitor. Surely the Bible does not hold forth two standards for admittance to the table.

 

[Scott1]

One major downfall of the personal interview as a means of guarding the table is that the consistory/session relies solely upon the word of the individual professing faith. How would consistories/sessions be able to respect the discipline of other congregations if they rely on this testimony alone? Is a consistory/session really in a position to judge the profession of a visitor?

I think the assumption would be the home church would have already assessed the profession of faith, and that our view would be a charitable one toward that assessment, as befits the church universal, the Body of Christ.

I prefer the early church practice of letters of attestation instead. It has fallen into disuse, but the Canadian Reformed Churches have managed to preserve this practice in North America. It prevents your congregation's administration of the Supper from becoming a "loophole" for members of other churches under discipline.

If we are speaking here of the reason for letters of attestation being to ensure the person is not under church discipline that includes suspension from the Lord's table (not all church discipline is suspension from the Lord's Table) the verbal fencing is intended to do the same. Sometimes with the language, "member in good standing of a church where this gospel is preached."

Taking communion, as I have come to understand more fully in the last couple years, is a great privilege, and ought not be taken lightly.

The Lord Himself will chasten, and this for those who partake "unworthily." One ought not be so concerned about what the church authority does as what the Lord will do when the person is turned over to the Lord for his chastisement.

In my understanding, the biblical principles of who ought abstain are:

1) unbelievers,
2) people who are barred by lawful church authority from partaking, even if only for a time,
3) those who are living a disorderly life pattern

The church authority cannot perfectly judge these, yet must in ways that God causes to become known to them.

It is my understanding, for example, that someone who cannot be said to be committed or accountable to any local church, is a life pattern, a disorderly one that ought be repented of before one partakes.

All others, weak and imperfect, even without technical membership, are invited, commanded, encouraged and welcome to partake.

It also avoids creating a situation where one's profession/Christian walk must be judged based upon a brief conversation. Instead, we accept the testimony of those officers of another true church of Christ who directly oversee the individual in question.

That being said, personal interviews are to be preferred if the alternative is merely a "verbal fencing." Guarding the Lord's Table is simply a logical conclusion of the exercise of church discipline.

While I think verbal fencing is sufficient, unless God causes something to become known about the visitors that might otherwise bar,

a brief interview before the service is fine, if that is the local church custom. No believer ought be intimidated by that, in fact ought appreciate it.

I just don't think it is necessary to protect the biblical vital interests.

.

 

[fredtgreco]

One major downfall of the personal interview as a means of guarding the table is that the consistory/session relies solely upon the word of the individual professing faith. How would consistories/sessions be able to respect the discipline of other congregations if they rely on this testimony alone? Is a consistory/session really in a position to judge the profession of a visitor?

I prefer the early church practice of letters of attestation instead.

This is sound reasoning, in my opinion, and the reason that I agree with the PCA's practice of "close" communion (neither open nor closed). If a Session of a church that is recognized as a legitimate branch of Christ's Church (e.g. designated by the use of the term "evangelical" in the current PCA form; although that can be expanded upon - usually I use terms like "Bible-believing, gospel-preaching, Christ-exalting" in conjunction with that) has judged a person's profession of faith valid in the context of his life and Christian witness, I'm not sure why a church would consider a few minute personal interview more valid.

 

[he beholds]

I think if you are in Christ's body you should NOT be kept from eating of the Lord's Supper, since it is for you, too.

The key term there is "in Christ's body." Surely that has to refer to a particular church in order to mean something which approximates to the biblical use of the term. In 1 Cor. 12, for example, "Christ's body" consists of numerous parts which are tempered together. There is also explicit recognition of specific parts functioning in areas of teaching, government, helps, etc. It is difficult to see how one could be considered as being "in Christ's body" who has expressed no commitment to the other parts of the body and has no submission to those whose gifts are being exercised in positions of leadership.

I just think that you can be a Christian and not be a member of a church. Maybe we could say it's less than ideal that someone not belong to a church, but I say that it DEFINITELY does happen. There are definitely Christians who are not members of churches. When I was in h.s. and college, I was not a member of a church as I went to church on my own. But I was definitely a Christian. I was definitely in Christ's body. And when I went to a PCA church that said "a member of Christ's body," I took communion. I have been told since that they probably actually meant a member of a church, but I did not know that. I assumed they meant that if you believe in Christ, communion is for you. I feel like it should be, "Sure, we can talk about membership after the service, if you'd like, but right now, it's important that you receive what Christ freely offers in his supper."

Sure, in our world we may like the pragmatic things like membership, but I do not believe that membership precedes belief. And I think belief is what is required for communion.

 

[raekwon]

We provide verbal instruction to both members and visitors alike. We warn unbelievers, and those who may be in unrepentent sin, of the dangers involved in partaking of the Supper. We do not feel compelled to go beyond this.

sent from my most excellent Motorola Atrix.

That's where I'm at. I can see no Biblical requirement for a church or her leadership to prevent unworthy participation in the Lord's Supper. Yes, we are to give the Scriptural warnings against unworthy participation, but that's where our responsibility ends. Of course, we may be required to take a "prevention" stand if someone under discipline and unrepentant tries to come to the Table, but as far as visitors go, the verbal warnings are enough.

 

[E Nomine]

My former pastor in a non-denominational Baptist church would read 1 Corinthians 11:23-29 verbatim at every Lord's supper and clearly place the burden of discernment upon the participants. I prefer that practice to the pre-worship interrogations common in reformed and Lutheran churches. Strict Presbyterian "fencing" feels Roman Catholic to me. I'm much more comfortable with God determining who is worthy to eat and drink than I am with elders having the final say.

 

[Scott1]

My former pastor in a non-denominational Baptist church would read 1 Corinthians 11:23-29 verbatim at every Lord's supper and clearly place the burden of discernment upon the participants. I prefer that practice to the pre-worship interrogations common in reformed and Lutheran churches. Strict Presbyterian "fencing" feels Roman Catholic to me. I'm much more comfortable with God determining who is worthy to eat and drink than I am with elders having the final say.

I'm not sure "interrogations" are common in reformed churches, a few churches will do a brief interview, but that seems to be the exception, not the rule.

Regardless of how it "feels," God has placed lawful authority in His Church through officers.

It is not infallible (contrary to the Roman assertion), but it is God ordained authority, that God places for the benefit of His people. That's what church discipline is about. Mr. Calvin implicitly taught that it is a mark of the 'true' church.

The church visible has a right to determine a credible profession of those who would seek to represent that they are part of it.

 

[Jack K]

I'm not sure "interrogations" are common in reformed churches, a few churches will do a brief interview, but that seems to be the exception, not the rule.

It seems to me that a brief interview was the rule when I was growing up (many decades ago now) in the CRC, but perhaps it's the exception now. I remember that when I started attending a PCA church after college I approached the pastor to ask if I needed to be interviewed, fully expecting it to be the case. To my surprise, he looked at me as if he'd never heard of such a thing.

If I were to have a vote here, I'd opt for the brief elder interview. I don't think it necessarily provides greater assurance that the visiting partaker is a believer in good standing, but it does mean he and my church have been personally introduced. Given the communal aspect of the Supper, that seems like a good thing. It wouldn't and probably shouldn't have to feel like an interrogation, just an extra welcome that's necessary given what we're about to do together.

 

[a mere housewife]

I think if you are in Christ's body you should NOT be kept from eating of the Lord's Supper, since it is for you, too.

The key term there is "in Christ's body." Surely that has to refer to a particular church in order to mean something which approximates to the biblical use of the term. In 1 Cor. 12, for example, "Christ's body" consists of numerous parts which are tempered together. There is also explicit recognition of specific parts functioning in areas of teaching, government, helps, etc. It is difficult to see how one could be considered as being "in Christ's body" who has expressed no commitment to the other parts of the body and has no submission to those whose gifts are being exercised in positions of leadership.

I just think that you can be a Christian and not be a member of a church. Maybe we could say it's less than ideal that someone not belong to a church, but I say that it DEFINITELY does happen. There are definitely Christians who are not members of churches. When I was in h.s. and college, I was not a member of a church as I went to church on my own. But I was definitely a Christian. I was definitely in Christ's body. And when I went to a PCA church that said "a member of Christ's body," I took communion. I have been told since that they probably actually meant a member of a church, but I did not know that. I assumed they meant that if you believe in Christ, communion is for you. I feel like it should be, "Sure, we can talk about membership after the service, if you'd like, but right now, it's important that you receive what Christ freely offers in his supper."

Sure, in our world we may like the pragmatic things like membership, but I do not believe that membership precedes belief. And I think belief is what is required for communion.

Jessi, I tend to feel the same; but Ruben explained to me the other day about the church having been specifically entrusted with the authority to allow or not to allow to the table (hence church discipline, non paedo-communion). I agree that there are reasons why not everyone can be an 'official' member of a church (sometimes the church itself makes that difficult by adding extra-biblical requirements for membership); but wonder if a person's 'home church' (whether that tie is official or unofficial, it is quite real) allows them to commune, if it is not essentially the same thing -- basically though they are not a 'voting', they are a 'communicant', member of a local body?

 

[MW]

When I was in h.s. and college, I was not a member of a church as I went to church on my own. But I was definitely a Christian. I was definitely in Christ's body.

It is difficult to respond to a personal anecdote, but, in the abstract, being "in Christ's body" has nothing to do with being on one's own. If the New Testament is permitted to speak for itself, "Christ's body" must be understood as a particular, visible body of people, in some form of connection with one another and some form of submission to specific functions which God has appointed. If there is a "body" there must be "members" of the body all "joined together" in some way, shape, or form. The body does not exist apart from the members and members do not exist apart from the body. Please see especially 1 Cor. 12:12.

 

[dudley]

My former pastor in a non-denominational Baptist church would read 1 Corinthians 11:23-29 verbatim at every Lord's supper and clearly place the burden of discernment upon the participants. I prefer that practice to the pre-worship interrogations common in reformed and Lutheran churches. Strict Presbyterian "fencing" feels Roman Catholic to me. I'm much more comfortable with God determining who is worthy to eat and drink than I am with elders having the final say.

I agree. I was allowed to take communion in the OPC church I was studying to become a Presbyterian in 2007 before being formally accepted. However I did need to make a private confession of faith to the minister and renounce before him my Roman Catholicism and the pope which I did. A few months later I officially became a Presbyterian before the entire congregation.

 

[he beholds]

When I was in h.s. and college, I was not a member of a church as I went to church on my own. But I was definitely a Christian. I was definitely in Christ's body.

It is difficult to respond to a personal anecdote, but, in the abstract, being "in Christ's body" has nothing to do with being on one's own. If the New Testament is permitted to speak for itself, "Christ's body" must be understood as a particular, visible body of people, in some form of connection with one another and some form of submission to specific functions which God has appointed. If there is a "body" there must be "members" of the body all "joined together" in some way, shape, or form. The body does not exist apart from the members and members do not exist apart from the body. Please see especially 1 Cor. 12:12.

You know, when I was writing that I knew that my anecdotal evidence would be, unfairly, difficult to argue against. It made me think of the White Horse Inn's admonitions to preach the Gospel using words, not experiences. But I really was a Christian LONG before I was a church member, and I really do think that Christ's grace was to be shared equally with me via communion. I think the body of Christ extends far outside of the membership of my own church and I consider every single Christian to be united. I don't think that the body that I'm part of excludes you, even though you are in another country, denomination, and church.

Heidi, I for sure think that it could mean very little in effect whether a membership is formal or informal. I'd act the very same toward my brothers and sisters at my church regardless of my--or their--membership status. So since that's the case, I don't see a huge issue in having memberships and I am a member at my church. But I think if I weren't, I'd still be due communion. If that makes any sense!