Fencing the table

[Free]

First, a reminder that this discussion is only for those who hold to Reformed theology.

So, something has been deeply troubling me as of late. It first came up later in summer, but then again just a week ago because of a friend of my wife's from church, who grew up Reformed Baptist. We have been going to a PCA church for 11 years and became members about 8 years ago.

One of our elders, who came within the last three years or so, came from an OPC church. Also, we had always had one pastor, but installed an associate pastor about a year ago, who came from the same OPC church and had been attending our church for about three years (started during the pandemic).

The issue that came up in summer was the sudden appearance of an insert in the bulletin titled "Should I take the Lord's Supper here?". One of the five points a person is to consider is:

"You are recognized as a communing member of a church that proclaims the gospel.

We are communing today with the Lord, and with one another. We do not approach this meal as unaccountable individuals. If you are not a recognized member, then we invite you to make the vows of membership here. If you would like more information, please see one of our pastors."

This had never even been brought up previous to this past June or July, when it first appeared. Previously, anyone who was a believer was allowed to participate in the Lord's Supper. Now, they are beginning to fence the table by limiting it to believers who are members of a church. In Presbyterianism (maybe all Reformed denominations?), a member is a person whose name is on a membership list, not just someone who is committed and attends regularly, like some other denominations.

I am not sure if they have actually enforced it yet. But, the problem, to me, is obvious--there is no biblical basis for preventing believers from participating in the Lord's Supper on the basis of church membership. I find that it makes church membership idolatrous, as Scripture then becomes subject to that. I cannot, for the life of me, understand how something like this is actually in both the PCA and OPC books of church order, other than being carryover from Roman Catholicism.

Why they have chosen to do this now, I can only guess, but it is likely coming from the new associate pastor, supported by the elder. The PCA book of church order states:

"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."

(Just to clarify, the elders and pastor(s) are referred to as the Session, for those who don't know.) I didn't even know about this clause until the issue first came up, so I'm assuming that previously it was a decision by the Session to simply approve everyone who professed Christ. In the OPC book of church order, however, there is no "discretion of the Session;" it just straight-up states that the minister is supposed to say:

"If you are not trusting in Jesus Christ as your Savior, if you are not a member of a faithful Christian church, if you are not living penitently and seeking to walk in godliness before the Lord, then I warn you in the name of Christ not to approach the Holy Table of the Lord."


What I find so deeply troubling, is that this effectively prevents any new or long-time believer, who, for whatever reason, is not a member of a church from partaking of the Lord's Supper. They could just be visiting or looking for a church, but then are suddenly told that even as believers, they are barred from the Lord's table. It also prevents, or will prevent, long-time congregants who aren't members from partaking. And that is what has happened with our friend. She talked to the Session, but as a single woman, felt like she couldn't push too hard and so didn't really get any clarification. As a result, she has decided to just stay home on Sundays we do Communion.

I want to respect the leadership, but for me and my wife, if we weren't members, we would walk. Two days ago I reached out to a retired Reformed Baptist minister who, up until a year and half ago or so, attended my church for quite a long time, but left due to the growing formality and rigidness. He fully agreed with my take on things, so I'm assuming that this isn't a Reformed Baptist position. He said others had approached him as well about it. I had mentioned that we may talk to the Session about our concern, but he recommended not doing so as they have made up their minds. And, I tend to agree. I'm quite certain it won't end well if I bring it up, as I won't back down if I don't see any clear biblical support (I'm sure none of you are surprised by that, lol), and since it is in both books of church order, they're likely not going to change either. If we ever decide to leave, we will certainly let them know why.

Any insight from any of you? Have any of you experienced this?

 

[Whatever]

I was in the OPC for years. But I was never a leader. I don't remember them fencing the table.
This is from the Book of Church Order. It has a section on The Directory for Public Worship.
Under that is The Administration of the Sacraments. Then it has this:

3. Invitation and Fencing the Table
The minister shall then declare who may come to, and who are excluded from, the Lord's Table according to the Word of God. He may use the following or like words:

It is my privilege as a minister of Christ to invite all who are right with God and his church, through faith in the Lord Jesus, to come to the Lord's Table. If you have received Christ and are resting upon him alone for salvation, as he is offered to you in the gospel, if you are a baptized and professing communicant member in good standing in a church that professes the gospel of God's free grace in Jesus Christ, and if you live penitently and seek to walk in godliness before the Lord, then this Supper is for you, and I invite you in Christ's name to eat the bread and drink the cup.

At the same time, God's Word says, "Whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth [eats] and drinketh [drinks] unworthily, eateth [eats] and drinketh [drinks] damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body" (1 Cor. 11:27-29). If you are not trusting in Jesus Christ as your Savior, if you are not a member of a faithful Christian church, if you are not living penitently and seeking to walk in godliness before the Lord, then I warn you in the name of Christ not to approach the Holy Table of the Lord.

This warning is not aimed to keep the humble and contrite from the Table of the Lord, as if it were for those who were free from sin. In fact, it is for sinners that our Lord gives this Supper as a means of grace. Through the elements of bread and wine, our Lord graciously gives himself and all his benefits to everyone who eats and drinks in a worthy manner, discerning the body of the Lord. It is one thing to eat and drink in a worthy manner. It is very different, however, to imagine that we are worthy to eat and drink. We dare not come to the Lord's Table as if we were worthy and righteous in ourselves. We come in a worthy manner if we recognize that we are unworthy sinners who need our Savior, if we consciously discern his body given for our sins, if we hunger and thirst after Christ, giving thanks for his grace, trusting in his merits, feeding on him by faith, renewing our covenant with him and his people.

Let us examine our minds and hearts to determine whether such discernment is ours, to the end that we may partake to the glory of God and to our growth in the grace of Christ. Come then with joy and thankfulness to the Lord's Table. The Lord's Supper is medicine for poor, sick souls. Come to Jesus and find rest, refreshing, and nourishment for your weak and weary soul.
[end]

The Trinity Hymnal we used has a section in the back that the Pastor would read that sounded like the above.
We only had it once every 3 months, so I don' know if they talked to new people beforehand.

I know anybody could come to worship, but anybody wanting to be a Elder or Deacon or Teacher etc., would have to subscribe to the WCF.

 

[electedbyHim]

First, a reminder that this discussion is only for those who hold to Reformed theology.

So, something has been deeply troubling me as of late. It first came up later in summer, but then again just a week ago because of a friend of my wife's from church, who grew up Reformed Baptist. We have been going to a PCA church for 11 years and became members about 8 years ago.

One of our elders, who came within the last three years or so, came from an OPC church. Also, we had always had one pastor, but installed an associate pastor about a year ago, who came from the same OPC church and had been attending our church for about three years (started during the pandemic).

The issue that came up in summer was the sudden appearance of an insert in the bulletin titled "Should I take the Lord's Supper here?". One of the five points a person is to consider is:

"You are recognized as a communing member of a church that proclaims the gospel.

We are communing today with the Lord, and with one another. We do not approach this meal as unaccountable individuals. If you are not a recognized member, then we invite you to make the vows of membership here. If you would like more information, please see one of our pastors."

This had never even been brought up previous to this past June or July, when it first appeared. Previously, anyone who was a believer was allowed to participate in the Lord's Supper. Now, they are beginning to fence the table by limiting it to believers who are members of a church. In Presbyterianism (maybe all Reformed denominations?), a member is a person whose name is on a membership list, not just someone who is committed and attends regularly, like some other denominations.

I am not sure if they have actually enforced it yet. But, the problem, to me, is obvious--there is no biblical basis for preventing believers from participating in the Lord's Supper on the basis of church membership. I find that it makes church membership idolatrous, as Scripture then becomes subject to that. I cannot, for the life of me, understand how something like this is actually in both the PCA and OPC books of church order, other than being carryover from Roman Catholicism.

Why they have chosen to do this now, I can only guess, but it is likely coming from the new associate pastor, supported by the elder. The PCA book of church order states:

"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."

(Just to clarify, the elders and pastor(s) are referred to as the Session, for those who don't know.) I didn't even know about this clause until the issue first came up, so I'm assuming that previously it was a decision by the Session to simply approve everyone who professed Christ. In the OPC book of church order, however, there is no "discretion of the Session;" it just straight-up states that the minister is supposed to say:

"If you are not trusting in Jesus Christ as your Savior, if you are not a member of a faithful Christian church, if you are not living penitently and seeking to walk in godliness before the Lord, then I warn you in the name of Christ not to approach the Holy Table of the Lord."


What I find so deeply troubling, is that this effectively prevents any new or long-time believer, who, for whatever reason, is not a member of a church from partaking of the Lord's Supper. They could just be visiting or looking for a church, but then are suddenly told that even as believers, they are barred from the Lord's table. It also prevents, or will prevent, long-time congregants who aren't members from partaking. And that is what has happened with our friend. She talked to the Session, but as a single woman, felt like she couldn't push too hard and so didn't really get any clarification. As a result, she has decided to just stay home on Sundays we do Communion.

I want to respect the leadership, but for me and my wife, if we weren't members, we would walk. Two days ago I reached out to a retired Reformed Baptist minister who, up until a year and half ago or so, attended my church for quite a long time, but left due to the growing formality and rigidness. He fully agreed with my take on things, so I'm assuming that this isn't a Reformed Baptist position. He said others had approached him as well about it. I had mentioned that we may talk to the Session about our concern, but he recommended not doing so as they have made up their minds. And, I tend to agree. I'm quite certain it won't end well if I bring it up, as I won't back down if I don't see any clear biblical support (I'm sure none of you are surprised by that, lol), and since it is in both books of church order, they're likely not going to change either. If we ever decide to leave, we will certainly let them know why.

Any insight from any of you? Have any of you experienced this?

I do not agree with this and do not see it as Biblical.

I am not sure if they have actually enforced it yet. But, the problem, to me, is obvious--there is no biblical basis for preventing believers from participating in the Lord's Supper on the basis of church membership. I find that it makes church membership idolatrous, as Scripture then becomes subject to that. I cannot, for the life of me, understand how something like this is actually in both the PCA and OPC books of church order, other than being carryover from Roman Catholicism.

Agreed.

"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."

What is meant by "good standing"?

"If you are not trusting in Jesus Christ as your Savior, if you are not a member of a faithful Christian church, if you are not living penitently and seeking to walk in godliness before the Lord, then I warn you in the name of Christ not to approach the Holy Table of the Lord."

The underlined is concerning.

She talked to the Session, but as a single woman, felt like she couldn't push too hard and so didn't really get any clarification. As a result, she has decided to just stay home on Sundays we do Communion.

That is wrong and will do more harm than good.

The Reformed Baptist church I have attended as a non-member did nothing like this.

Even when I attended Alistair Beggs church, Parkside, did not do this.

It almost seems like they want new members.

Is membership low in the church?

I would question the the session about their mandate.

probably off base here, but does the newere elder have control issues?

 

[Whatever]

As a member of the PCA you do have the right to take it to the Session and then the Presbytery and then General Assembly.

But that can take years. First you need to talk to other members and see what they think.

 

[jasonc]

First, a reminder that this discussion is only for those who hold to Reformed theology.

So, something has been deeply troubling me as of late. It first came up later in summer, but then again just a week ago because of a friend of my wife's from church, who grew up Reformed Baptist. We have been going to a PCA church for 11 years and became members about 8 years ago.

One of our elders, who came within the last three years or so, came from an OPC church. Also, we had always had one pastor, but installed an associate pastor about a year ago, who came from the same OPC church and had been attending our church for about three years (started during the pandemic).

The issue that came up in summer was the sudden appearance of an insert in the bulletin titled "Should I take the Lord's Supper here?". One of the five points a person is to consider is:

"You are recognized as a communing member of a church that proclaims the gospel.

We are communing today with the Lord, and with one another. We do not approach this meal as unaccountable individuals. If you are not a recognized member, then we invite you to make the vows of membership here. If you would like more information, please see one of our pastors."

This had never even been brought up previous to this past June or July, when it first appeared. Previously, anyone who was a believer was allowed to participate in the Lord's Supper. Now, they are beginning to fence the table by limiting it to believers who are members of a church. In Presbyterianism (maybe all Reformed denominations?), a member is a person whose name is on a membership list, not just someone who is committed and attends regularly, like some other denominations.

I am not sure if they have actually enforced it yet. But, the problem, to me, is obvious--there is no biblical basis for preventing believers from participating in the Lord's Supper on the basis of church membership. I find that it makes church membership idolatrous, as Scripture then becomes subject to that. I cannot, for the life of me, understand how something like this is actually in both the PCA and OPC books of church order, other than being carryover from Roman Catholicism.

Why they have chosen to do this now, I can only guess, but it is likely coming from the new associate pastor, supported by the elder. The PCA book of church order states:

"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."

(Just to clarify, the elders and pastor(s) are referred to as the Session, for those who don't know.) I didn't even know about this clause until the issue first came up, so I'm assuming that previously it was a decision by the Session to simply approve everyone who professed Christ. In the OPC book of church order, however, there is no "discretion of the Session;" it just straight-up states that the minister is supposed to say:

"If you are not trusting in Jesus Christ as your Savior, if you are not a member of a faithful Christian church, if you are not living penitently and seeking to walk in godliness before the Lord, then I warn you in the name of Christ not to approach the Holy Table of the Lord."


What I find so deeply troubling, is that this effectively prevents any new or long-time believer, who, for whatever reason, is not a member of a church from partaking of the Lord's Supper. They could just be visiting or looking for a church, but then are suddenly told that even as believers, they are barred from the Lord's table. It also prevents, or will prevent, long-time congregants who aren't members from partaking. And that is what has happened with our friend. She talked to the Session, but as a single woman, felt like she couldn't push too hard and so didn't really get any clarification. As a result, she has decided to just stay home on Sundays we do Communion.

I want to respect the leadership, but for me and my wife, if we weren't members, we would walk. Two days ago I reached out to a retired Reformed Baptist minister who, up until a year and half ago or so, attended my church for quite a long time, but left due to the growing formality and rigidness. He fully agreed with my take on things, so I'm assuming that this isn't a Reformed Baptist position. He said others had approached him as well about it. I had mentioned that we may talk to the Session about our concern, but he recommended not doing so as they have made up their minds. And, I tend to agree. I'm quite certain it won't end well if I bring it up, as I won't back down if I don't see any clear biblical support (I'm sure none of you are surprised by that, lol), and since it is in both books of church order, they're likely not going to change either. If we ever decide to leave, we will certainly let them know why.

Any insight from any of you? Have any of you experienced this?

My church is arp ,we only hold that you are:

In right standing with your church if a visitor
Not a child to young to understand salvation

 

[Free]

What is meant by "good standing"?

I'm assuming they mean not currently being disciplined by the church for something or having been barred from taking communion for some reason.

The underlined is concerning.

Yes, quite.

That is wrong and will do more harm than good.

Exactly. It's already started doing harm with our friend and I can only imagine there are others who will either follow suit or just leave.

The Reformed Baptist church I have attended as a non-member did nothing like this.

Even when I attended Alistair Beggs church, Parkside, did not do this.

That's how it should be.

It almost seems like they want new members.

Is membership low in the church?

I had thought of that, but the church has been growing a fair bit for the last 5 years, once the current senior pastor came. Still, it could be a push for long-time adherent, non-members to become members. But, the pessimist in me leans toward legalism.

I would question the the session about their mandate.

I would, but it would likely end with us looking for a new church.

probably off base here, but does the newere elder have control issues?

Not that I'm aware of. He's very genuine and friendly; they all are. As I intimated in my post, the current senior pastor (since 2019) has been slowly making things more formal and rigid, but it wasn't until the new associate (former OPC) pastor that this came up, and the OPC seems to be more rigid in general than the PCA.

 

[Free]

As a member of the PCA you do have the right to take it to the Session and then the Presbytery and then General Assembly.

But that can take years. First you need to talk to other members and see what they think.

The issue is, since it's in the book of church order, it would essentially be going against the entire denomination itself. There would be no winning there.

I did a bit of research and it seems that this idea of needing to be a member in good standing goes back to at least the 4th or 5th century, from Chrysostom and Augustine.

https://tabletalkmagazine.com/article/2024/11/fencing-the-table/

 

[Free]

My church is arp ,

Sorry, but what is "arp"?

we only hold that you are:

In right standing with your church if a visitor

I agree with this, I think, as long as one can still partake if not currently a member of a church. I suppose that in all cases, the Session doesn't know what it doesn't know. So, one could be dishonest and still partake if they are a visitor not in right standing. But, to me, that is also the point--it is on the individual to examine their heart and not up to the leadership.

Not a child to young to understand salvation

I agree with this as well.

 

[electedbyHim]

The issue is, since it's in the book of church order, it would essentially be going against the entire denomination itself. There would be no winning there.

I did a bit of research and it seems that this idea of needing to be a member in good standing goes back to at least the 4th or 5th century, from Chrysostom and Augustine.

https://tabletalkmagazine.com/article/2024/11/fencing-the-table/

Interesting, never new this.

 

[jasonc]

Sorry, but what is "arp"?


I agree with this, I think, as long as one can still partake if not currently a member of a church. I suppose that in all cases, the Session doesn't know what it doesn't know. So, one could be dishonest and still partake if they are a visitor not in right standing. But, to me, that is also the point--it is on the individual to examine their heart and not up to the leadership.


I agree with this as well.

The Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church | Sola Deo Gloria!

arpchurch.org

 

[Fastfredy0]

Interesting question and of practical application to myself.
Me, the wife, son and daughter-in-law have been going to an OPC church now for a year. We are not members. I have NEVER been a member of any church though I have attended churches regularity since an infant.
Well, we have taken communion at the OPC church 5 or 6 times now. It was only at the last communion that I noticed them state among other things that you must be: "recognized as a communing member of a church that proclaims the gospel. I was a little perturbed but took communion anyways. I was tempted to inquire further, but didn't thinking I might be making a big deal over a trivial matter. Now you [Free] have got me thinking. Maybe, the next time they have communion me and the family should leave as the ritual begins or maybe just let the elements pass by.
Just spoke to my son for his opinion. He said there was nothing biblical about their request to which I replied that I agreed but we should comply with our hosts request. He thought we might be making a "mountain out of a mole hill" and I said that's a possibility.
I think I will call someone tomorrow in authority in the church and if they say that want me to comply with their prerequisite that I be a member of a church then I will simply not partake per their request.

I want to respect the leadership, but for me and my wife, if we weren't members, we would walk.

I don't think this issue is a "walking" offense, but than each to their own.

The issue that came up in summer was the sudden appearance of an insert in the bulletin titled "Should I take the Lord's Supper here?". One of the five points a person is to consider is:

"You are recognized as a communing member of a church that proclaims the gospel.

I didn't realize this was a new thing though 2 Sundays ago was the first time I consciously acknowledged the statement.

there is no biblical basis for preventing believers from participating in the Lord's Supper on the basis of church membership.

Well, if I was a lawyer looking for a loop hole I might state:

1) Romans 13:1-7 says, "Obey the rulers who have authority over you"
or
2) For he that eateth [eats] and drinketh [drinks] unworthily .... where the church establishment can define "unworthily"

... hey, I admit a weak case

Interesting question ...

OK.... sent the following letter to the 2 pastors of my church. Let's see what they say.


Hi Guys:

I noticed last communion that there was a statement something like the following concerning qualification for partaking in communion:

"If you are not trusting in Jesus Christ as your Savior, if you are not a member of a faithful Christian church, if you are not living penitently and seeking to walk in godliness before the Lord, then I warn you in the name of Christ not to approach the Holy Table of the Lord."

I and the 3 members of my family who attend your church are not “members of a faithful Christian church” though I believe we meet your other qualifications. From highlighted section of the statement above I believe you do not wish me and my family to partake in the Lord’s Supper. Is that correct?

Thank you

Hopefully you won't get me ex-communicate Free *giggle*

 

[Who Me]

the sudden appearance of an insert in the bulletin titled "Should I take the Lord's Supper here?". One of the five points a person is to consider is:

"You are recognized as a communing member of a church that proclaims the gospel.

If a new instruction has appeared in a news letter, notice sheet etc, I think one has grounds for asking was this approved by the church membership.

 

[Free]

Interesting, never new this.

Yeah, I didn't think it went back that far. Still doesn't make it biblical, of course.

 

[Free]

Interesting question and of practical application to myself.
Me, the wife, son and daughter-in-law have been going to an OPC church now for a year. We are not members. I have NEVER been a member of any church though I have attended churches regularity since an infant.

This is the first time I've been a member at a church. We decided to do so because we were fairly involved anyway, so it really made no difference to us, although it was a bit weird.

Well, we have taken communion at the OPC church 5 or 6 times now. It was only at the last communion that I noticed them state among other things that you must be: "recognized as a communing member of a church that proclaims the gospel. I was a little perturbed but took communion anyways. I was tempted to inquire further, but didn't thinking I might be making a big deal over a trivial matter. Now you [Free] have got me thinking. Maybe, the next time they have communion me and the family should leave as the ritual begins or maybe just let the elements pass by.
Just spoke to my son for his opinion. He said there was nothing biblical about their request to which I replied that I agreed but we should comply with our hosts request. He thought we might be making a "mountain out of a mole hill" and I said that's a possibility.
I think I will call someone tomorrow in authority in the church and if they say that want me to comply with their prerequisite that I be a member of a church then I will simply not partake per their request.

I would have suggested just leaving it until someone says something, but, you do you. lol I didn't mean to actually start something for someone else.

I don't think this issue is a "walking" offense, but than each to their own.

The way I see it is that it is one of two sacraments and one that we are commanded to do on regular basis. It is also seen by the PCA and OPC as a means of grace. Paul also states that because some were partaking in an unworthy manner, they had even died or become sick as a judgement from the Lord. This makes being able to participate in the Lord's Supper a significant honor.

As I think I stated, it becomes a judgement by the leadership that someone isn't worthy to partake solely on the basis of not being a member, as they define membership. But, that is not only not a criteria for determining worthiness, we are to examine ourselves and judge ourselves (1 Cor. 11:29, 31) as whether we are partaking in a worthy manner. So, to block believers from being able to partake is, to me, a very serious issue.

I didn't realize this was a new thing though 2 Sundays ago was the first time I consciously acknowledged the statement.

It's only become a new thing at my church, but it has been an option in the PCA book of church order for a long time, likely even since the denominations inception. I suspect the same for the OPC, except, as I stated, it doesn't seem to be optional for the Session.

Well, if I was a lawyer looking for a loop hole I might state:

1) Romans 13:1-7 says, "Obey the rulers who have authority over you"
or
2) For he that eateth [eats] and drinketh [drinks] unworthily .... where the church establishment can define "unworthily"

... hey, I admit a weak case

Interesting question ...

I agree that we are to obey the rulers and authorities, but we do so as far as they don't require us to go against Scripture. There is also this:

Heb 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you. (ESV)

Yet, even Paul opposed Peter, although that was an issue of primary importance. I just don't know if this is a primary or secondary issue.

OK.... sent the following letter to the 2 pastors of my church. Let's see what they say.



Hi Guys:

I noticed last communion that there was a statement something like the following concerning qualification for partaking in communion:

"If you are not trusting in Jesus Christ as your Savior, if you are not a member of a faithful Christian church, if you are not living penitently and seeking to walk in godliness before the Lord, then I warn you in the name of Christ not to approach the Holy Table of the Lord."

I and the 3 members of my family who attend your church are not “members of a faithful Christian church” though I believe we meet your other qualifications. From highlighted section of the statement above I believe you do not wish me and my family to partake in the Lord’s Supper. Is that correct?

Thank you

Hopefully you won't get me ex-communicate Free *giggle*

That's a bold move. Just don't blame me. lol

 

[Free]

If a new instruction has appeared in a news letter, notice sheet etc, I think one has grounds for asking was this approved by the church membership.

Well, that's thing with the governance of Presbyterian churches--it's up to the leadership (the Session), as long as it's in the book of church order. It's much like every other form of government--the membership votes for the leadership, and whatever issue might be brought forward by the leadership, but generally, the leadership has freedom to govern as it sees fit, as long as it's in accordance to the established laws.

 

[Fastfredy0]

I would have suggested just leaving it until someone says something, but, you do you. lol I didn't mean to actually start something for someone else.

How's the Christian song go? .... "It only takes a spark to get a fire going" *giggle*
It would be dishonest to disobey the host's (the church's) request by taking advantage of their ignorance of my situation

The way I see it is that it is one of two sacraments and one that we are commanded to do on regular basis. ..... it becomes a judgement by the leadership that someone isn't worthy to partake solely on the basis of not being a member

good points ... hadn't thought on that
Oh, you are should a trouble maker *giggle*

That's a bold move. Just don't blame me. lol

OH, I am going to blame you ... lol
Aside: They have not responding to my query yet. Too bad I made my yearly donation last week. *giggle*

 

[Free]

Well, I have a bit of a correction to make. I completely forgot that this had come up some time ago, I just can't remember when (could have been earlier this year or some time last year). The last time I ended up having to go back through the church bulletins (thankfully sent out as PDF since the pandemic), and it all began on Dec. 4, 2022. So, two years ago. lol

However, then it was just a sentence and easy to miss. It was this summer when the full insert came out with five expanded points and a couple of additional paragraphs, on yellow paper to make sure it got your attention. lol It's just been this subtle increasing of formality and rigidness, which isn't necessarily bad, but it doesn't suit me so much.

My significant disagreement is not changed however. I simply cannot see a biblical basis for barring someone from the Lord's Table based on church membership.

 

[Free]

How's the Christian song go? .... "It only takes a spark to get a fire going" *giggle*
It would be dishonest to disobey the host's (the church's) request by taking advantage of their ignorance of my situation

Yes, it would be dishonest and I would recommend obeying them, now that you know.

good points ... hadn't thought on that
Oh, you are should a trouble maker *giggle*

Too much time spent debating online has tended to make me pull things apart and want to debate the issues offline. It's a good thing I'm highly prone to keeping quiet (offline only).

OH, I am going to blame you ... lol
Aside: They have not responding to my query yet. Too bad I made my yearly donation last week. *giggle*

Lol! If it was a good one, they might just keep quiet. Now who's being dishonest? lol

 

[Dave...]

By OPC, do you mean Orthodox Presbyterian Church?

 

[Fastfredy0]

By OPC, do you mean Orthodox Presbyterian Church?

If the question is addressed to me, then the answer is YES.