Table Manners - Russell D. Moore

A few days ago I read a refreshing article by Southern Baptist Theologian, Russell D. Moore.  The article concerned the proper observation of the Lord's Supper.  Here is an excerpt: 


 
A man walked out of my church in protest. I didn’t notice it as it was happening, but he told me about it, in a note, a few weeks later. He was angered that he had been excluded. At first, I feared that maybe he hadn’t been spoken to. In a church this size, that’s certainly a possibility. Or maybe, I wondered, had one of our elderly church members looked askance at his wearing jeans or shorts? Turns out, he wanted the Lord’s Supper, and I’d turned him away.

On the Sunday in question, our visitor had observed my congregation take communion. I had explained the elements, and the act as a sign of the kingdom of Christ. I called the church to repentance from sin, forgiveness of one another, and renewed faith in the crucified and resurrected Jesus. Then I’d done what my grandfather’s generation of Baptist preachers called “fencing the table.”

As the bread and the cup were distributed, I announced that, while all were welcome to attend our church, only baptized Christians in good fellowship with a local congregation were invited to commune. Then I defined baptism the way our church does, along with Baptists all over the world, as the immersion of a believer in water as public profession of faith in Christ.

That’s what did it. The man told me in the letter that he had seethed in a quiet fury and then picked up his Bible and walked out.


I wasn't aware that Baptists (at least some Baptists) had this tradition, much less practiced it.  In every Baptist church I've attended "Open-Communion" was practiced (participation in the Lord's Supper was up to the discretion of the individual person).  Worse, wometimes people get the cart before the horse and take Communion (or allow their children to partake) before they have been baptized. 

As a Presbyterian I and my denomination would take issue with the mode of Baptism being the litmus test for partaking of the Lord's Supper.  We allow those to partake who have been baptized and made a credible profession of faith to the elders of their church. 

What's at stake in all of this?  Church membership to be sure, but something more profound and basic than that.  At the heart of church membership lies a credible profession of faith that must be expressed before the elders of a given church.  No Christian has the right or the authority to privately determine whether they are in the faith or not.  Total depravity can result in someone fooling themself into thinking that they are in the faith.  And allowing someone to partake of the Lord's Supper whose profession of faith has never been tested is showing dishonor to the sacrament (I Corinthians 11) and perhaps confirming someone's false profession of faith thereby condemning them to an eternity of wailing and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 7). 

Now here's a question for my brethren in the PCA.  If Baptists can fence the Lord's Table, why do some of you find it so hard?  
 

Touchstone - Table Manners

The Case for Church Membership - Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, Inc

A perpetual issue for churches and pastors is the matter of church membership.  Some downplay it because there isn't an ironclad statement from Jesus or the apostles about it.  Others ignore the issue choosing to attend church the way one chooses a restaurant.  Sadly, some deny any biblical basis for it resulting in all sorts of pastoral issues should scandalous behavior arise in the lives of those who attend. 

Over at The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals comes a helpful article on the matter.  The author, an ordained minister in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (ARP) provides three reasons why church membership is important.  Here is a snippet of the first two reasons:

Church membership is biblical

The Bible does not explicitly command Christians to join a church - it assumes it. The New Testament presupposes membership, for example, in the command, "obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account" (Hebrews 13:17). If you never join a church it is impossible for you to obey this command. Similarly, I Peter 5:2 directs elders to "shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight." How can elders identify the particular flock that God holds them responsible to shepherd unless Christians formally align themselves with particular congregations?

Church membership is good for you

We all need a group of Christians who will help hold us accountable. Taking vows of church membership invites fellow believers to hold you accountable to live as a disciple of Jesus Christ. Some may reply, "Well, that's all the more reason not to join a church. I don't want the church breathing down my neck if I fall into some sin." But the mutual accountability and discipline that flow from a covenant of church membership are intended for our ultimate good.

Go to this link The Case for Church Membership - Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, Inc to read the rest of this winsome article. 

If I were to offer any constructive criticism to the author I would have had him include the text of Westminster Larger Catechism #45:

Q) How does Christ execute the office of a king?

A) "Christ executes the office of a king, in calling out of the world a people to himself, and giving them officers, laws, and censures, by which he visibly governs them..."

Put simply, Christ governs his people in this age through the local church.  Unless you are a member of a church you are rebelling (either knowing or unknowingly) against the order Christ has established. 

A Generation of Bandwagon Jumpers – Kevin DeYoung

Kevin DeYoung, Pastor of University Reformed Church in Lansing, Michigan has a great article for the under 40 crowd, especially those who have begun to understand reformed theology. He has credibility for he is a member of that crowd. He writes...

There are two ironclad rules of Gen XYZ Americans: (1) They like to be trendy, (2) but only until everyone knows what they’re into is trendy. We want to be like everyone else but, at the same time, different. So we gravitate to whatever people are into as long as it doesn’t feel like everyone else is into it.

This leads me to a few thoughts on the young, restless, reformed movement. I believe God is at work in the under-40 generation, doing something doctrinally, ecclesiologically, and doxologically healthy among many youngish Christians. Further, I believe this work of God is being mediated through a remarkable network of like-minded pastors, preachers, and scholars. I don’t know when there have been so many folks, often friends, saying and writing more or less the same things about the gospel, the atonement, the Scriptures, the glory of God, the doctrines of grace, the centrality of the church, the importance of preaching, the roles of men and women, and on and on it goes. We are blessed with an inordinate and growing number of good teachers, good books, good blogs, and good conferences.

But our desire for biblical truth, as understood (for the most part correctly, I believe) by Calvin, Edwards, Piper, Carson, etc. must be a passion for God, not a passion for trendy.


We must embrace historic protestant orthodoxy in general and, for many of us, particular Reformed expressions of it, not because it makes us feel superior to them (whoever them is), but because it is the best way to know Him. The goal is not to be a T4G-TGC-CHBC-ACE-PCA-SGM-DGM groupie. The goal is to know God, love God, and serve God–all of which can be helped, and is being helped, by the love for gospel truth in these groups (and many others).

Now, what interests me in all of this is the opening sentence of this last paragraph.  What does it mean to 'embrace historic protestant orthodoxy' and 'a particular Reformed expression of it'?  Does it mean to simply affirm that one follows a particular teacher or pastor (take your pick)?  Does it mean that one consciously says that "I am a reformed baptist, a reformed charismatic, etc."?  Or does it mean that one do more than give intellectual assent to a tradition or even give permission for others to label them as a certain type of Christian, but that one actually puts shoe leather to his/her profession and actually joins a church in that tradition?  I would hope that DeYoung has this in mind but I'm not sure. 

I, for one, am a bit tired of all of the talk about how much the younger crowd loves reformed theology.  Visit where they choose to worship (note I didn't say the church where they are a member) and you often find little that relates to historic reformed piety or practice.  Ask a few questions and it becomes clear that they are there for the music, the programs, the entertaining preaching, the big screens, the success, and the big budgets. 

There are real reformed churches out there -- places where pastors spend more time over their books than chewing the fat over a Starbucks.  You just need to look for them.  Are they perfect?  Hardly.  Do they have all the trendy things of the larger churches?  No, but they have what is essential: the true preaching of the Word, the right administration of the sacraments, and church discipline. 

Here's an analogy.  What's a more authentic dining experience?  Going to the mall and eating at a national chain restaurant or finding some hole in the wall place run by immigrants that serves food based on family recipes from the old country, with huge portions, and a propreitor that genuinely cares about your well-being?  That's the difference between the franchise model mega-church and the authentic reformed church. 

Hey Generation XYZ.  Do something counter-cultural.  Join an authentic reformed church that subscribes to reformed creeds and confessions.  You won't be disappointed. 

A Generation of Bandwagon Jumpers – Kevin DeYoung

To the Evangelical Nicodemites « Heidelblog

Dr. R. Scott Clark of Westminster Theological Seminary (California) has a thought-provoking piece today. He addresses something that has puzzled (and frustrated) me for some time -- people who affirm reformed theology but stay in churches that do not or sit under pastors who only affirm reformed soteriology.

He writes...

"First, there are lots of folks who attend congregations which, shall we say, are part of the problem more than they are part of the solution, where the gospel is not preached purely, where the sacraments are not administered purely, and where discipline is not practiced. These folk also attend Reformed conferences. They attend because they are “fed” there, because they can fellowship with like-minded folk there, because, in some cases, it’s a relief from their congregation. Still they stay in their congregations.

I know this happens because I’ve heard the stories and I’ve met such folk. In some cases I’ve seen some of the same folk at more than one conference."

He goes on to define the term "Nicodemite" as a reference to John 3 and the secret meeting Nicodemus had with Jesus at night. His point is quite simple: Just as Nicodemus didn't want to publicly identify with Jesus so there are many in our day who don't want to publicly identify with a confessional and reformed church. This isn't a new problem, as Clark shows, for the same thing happened during the Protestant Reformation with people privately affirming reformed theology but publicly attending Mass.

He continues...

"There are discontinuities, of course, between 16th-century Roman Catholics and 21st-century evangelicals, but there are continuities too. There are strong external reasons not to leave the local mega-church. There is a comfortable anonymity and safety in the theater seating, at the coffee bar, or on the couch with the candles. The services might not be great but the small groups are fantastic. It’s the place to be. The band is hot. One can dress casually. All one’s friends attend. There’s a peer pressure or family pressure to conform.

There are things to be lost in walking away from one’s comfortable evangelical congregation. Indeed, I’ve known more than a few Reformed folk who, upon leaving their evangelical congregation have been shunned, have lost business or business opportunities and have hurt family connections."

He promises a series on a pamplet written by John Calvin addressing this very topic. I will post updates and comments as I see fit. Click here to read the entire post.

Are Church Members “Free Agents”? Pt 3: Questions Answered « Heidelblog

Here is the third and final installment of Dr. R. Scott Clark's short series on church membership. He devotes himself to answering common questions/objections to this topic. Here is an example:

Sean asks,
Is there any consideration that the elders of a church have to be worthy of being submitted to? And should they abuse their posts, they abdicate their authority? Aside from gross sexual sin, I rarely see elders brought under discipline or called to account for incompetent and slothful leadership?

Answer: There is at least one false premise in the question. The first question is not whether the elders are “worthy” of submission. The first question is whether a congregation has the marks of a true church. Is the “pure gospel” preached? Is there a “pure administration” of the sacraments? Is discipline exercised? These functions are discharged by sinful officers. If those officers have disqualified themselves by gross sin, they should find themselves under discipline and removed from office. If we predicate our submission to elders and ministers on the degree of their sanctity we shall have accepted the Donatist view that the efficacy of ministry of the church is dependent upon the personal qualities of the minister. This is contrary to Philippians 1:15-17.

Read the rest here:

Are Church Members “Free Agents”? Pt 3: Questions Answered « Heidelblog

Are Church Members Free Agents? (pt 2) « Heidelblog

The entire topic of church membership is one that most evangelicals would prefer to avoid. Even among those who consider themselves 'reformed' you will a spinelessness when it comes to church membership. Many prefer to sit in their mega-church and be anonymous (or at least unaccountable).

To those folk who embrace reformed theology please do yourself a favor by reading Question 45 of the Westminster Larger Catechism:

Q. 45. How doth Christ execute the office of a king?
A. Christ executeth the office of a king, in calling out of the world a people to himself, and giving them officers, laws, and censures, by which he visibly governs them; in bestowing saving grace upon his elect, rewarding their obedience, and correcting them for their sins, preserving and supporting them under all their temptations and sufferings, restraining and overcoming all their enemies, and powerfully ordering all things for his own glory, and their good; and also in taking vengeance on the rest, who know not God, and obey not the gospel.

What's astonishing is that Jesus Christ, the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords, exercises his reign and rule in this age through the lowly institution called the visible church. All across the world He has raised up officers (pastors and elders) to shepherd His people. Moreover, He expects His people to submit to those faithful (yet flawed) officers who serve in His place. This is the bone that most people choke on. They would prefer to change the subject yet there it is in black and white -- you really cannot submit to Christ as King if you are not submitting to the institution that He has ordained to serve in His place.

Dr. R. Scott Clark chimes in with another post in his series on church membership. For all you 'free-agents' out there please read it and think through the implications of keeping your options open.

Are Church Members Free Agents? (pt 2) « Heidelblog

Are Church Members “Free Agents”? « Heidelblog

Dr. R. Scott Clark of Westminster Theological Seminary in California has a sane word about church membership:

"One of the biggest developments of the modern era of sports is the rise of the “free agent.” Under “free agency” an athlete is bound to a team only for a short period at the end of which he becomes a “free agent” and a sort of commodity on the open market in a given league. As a result most players move about freely during their careers playing for several teams. Free agency has been with us long enough that it is now a significant question as to which uniform a player will wear when he enters the hall of fame.

American evangelicals, however, could teach professional athletes a thing or two about free agency. They have been roaming from church to church a lot longer than ball players have been switching teams. This relative churchlessness or serial membership is the product of a radical egalitarian modernist self-identity, doctrine of the church, and view of the Christian life. As Nathan Hatch noted in The Democratization of American Christianity, the driving spirit of much of American Christianity has been the revolutionary American spirit of autonomy and leveling. Every man a pope. Every family a congregation."

Read the rest here...
Are Church Members “Free Agents”? « Heidelblog