Note: While the intent of this blog is mainly to focus on how Sunday worship and preaching informs the week, I may occasionally take the liberty of focusing on worship practice and how the week meets Sunday.
In this second post of this unofficial series on Sunday worship practice, I want to direct our attention to what it means to be a confessional church and some of the things that I'm wrestling with because of that. As I mentioned last week, I have grown up in the Christian Reformed Church (CRC), a denomination which officially affirms and utilizes three ecumenical creeds and three Reformed confessions. We recognize that these six confessions do not have the same inspiration or authority as Scripture, but we affirm that they fully agree with the Word of the Lord. The new Covenant for Officebearers (a document signed by all ministers, elders, and deacons who hold office in the CRC), which was passed by Synod (our governing body) this summer, goes on to say,
These confessions continue to define the way we understand Scripture, direct the way we live in response to the gospel, and locate us within the larger body of Christ. Grateful for these expressions of faith, we promise to be formed and governed by them. We heartily believe and will promote and defend their doctrines faithfully, conforming our preaching, teaching, writing, serving, and living to them."That's all good and well," was the response of the majority of delegates at Synod, and would probably be the response of most who have grown up in the denomination or in similar denominations that adhere to the confessions. But why am I asking the question, "What's the trouble at the dinner table?"
As I was flipping through a copy of the Heidelberg Catechism last week, I stumbled across questions and answers (Q&A) 80-85. These come at the conclusion of the second part of the catechism, which focuses on deliverance (or salvation or grace, depending on who/when you were taught), and in a series of Q&A on the Lord's Supper. Here's a quick summary:
- Q&A 80 differentiates between the Lord's Supper and the Mass, which was condemned as idolatry by the CRC until 2006.
- Q&A 81 opens the table to those who recognize their sin, believe they have been pardoned by Christ, and desire to change.
- Q&A 82 closes the table to those who are unbelieving by the "official use of the keys of the kingdom."
- Q&A 83 terms the keys of the kingdom as preaching of the gospel and Christian discipline toward repentance.
- Q&A 84 discusses how preaching opens and closes the kingdom of heaven, mainly through the acceptance or denial of the testimony of the gospel of Christ.
- Q&A 85 discusses how Christian discipline opens and closes the kingdom of heaven, and orders that that those who are confronted by fellow believers and then church officers but refuse to change be withheld from participation in the sacraments. Furthermore, they are excluded by God from the kingdom of Christ until they promise and demonstrate genuine reform.
How do you wrestle with this as church members or church leaders? Did the authors of the Heidelberg Catechism limit God's grace too much on this one or are they right on par with Paul's writing in 1 Corinthians 5 and 2 Thessalonians 3 that Christians may judge others in the church and are to avoid associating with them? How do the words of Q&A 85, which says, "And God himself excludes them from the kingdom of Christ. Such person [upon change] are received again as members of Christ and of his church." fit with the concept "Once saved, always saved"?
I appreciate you wrestling with this issue. While I think discernment is needed by the elders when approaching the table, I worry about what standard we use for admittance at the table. The RCA has the elders ask at consistory before communion whether there is any reason to why someone should not come to the table. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, requires the highest level of adherence doctrinally so that it is completely closed to non-Catholics.
ReplyDeleteThere might be weaknesses to the 'believe in Jesus and accept him as Lord and Savior' approach to openness at the table, but what standard would you propose? I've been in churches where people decide to come to the table based on whether they are having doubts, struggles, sin, or not. Often, they don't come to the table - which is tragic.
You always have the potential for problems when you have non-members taking communion because the elders do not technically have oversight over them and there is a possibility that someone is taking communion improperly. I get all of that and I'd like to continue thinking about how to open the table in a way that respects the second half of the words of Institution. However, I'm not able to close communion.
Thanks for the thoughtful post. I has been thought-provoking, for sure.
Thanks for perspective, Stephen. It's great to hear that the RCA has this discernment process (I'm assuming that's typical of most Reformed denominations, but that's something that a lot of people without having served in leadership probably wouldn't know). I honestly am wrestling with what my standard is. This is one of those things that I have gone with the flow depending on where I'm at, but reading the Catechism I was drawn mainly to the discipline part and its connection to the Lord's Supper.
ReplyDeleteI wonder along with you on the point that its being a "means of grace", how strict should officers be but also how do we encourage people to the table. Obviously I'm not contending that those without any sin are the only ones who may participate (empty table) but maybe then the conversation lends itself to how today's church can handle accountability and discipleship both through leadership and laity.
Thanks again, the comments always help me to think deeper!