Can there be accountability without a relationship?

This is my longest post to date. It is a compilation of a number of emails I exchanged with a pastor at a church I visited some time ago. I mean to make no statement about it but will let the exchange speak for itself. I posted the first a few months ago here but for the sake of having all the correspondence in one blog I will re-post it. Feel free to contact me with any thoughts.

Dear Pastor,

I attended your service on Sunday, July 16 as a visitor and was thankful for your preaching. You taught very well of the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. I am close with many people in your congregation and their love for the Lord brings me great joy. It is also good that your church takes communion seriously and desires to protect those who would take it from eating and drinking condemnation upon their own heads, yet, I do not find the qualifications issued forth in the interview sheet entitled "Visitor Participation in the Lord's Supper" in scripture.

Thus, as I meditated upon your message of grace, I became greatly troubled over how I had been pulled aside to be interviewed on the issue of communion. I was told to avoid taking communion for lack of church membership though my conscience and faith says I may do so. The biblical qualifications for taking communion are a heart that is grounded in Christ and self-examined to determine personal worthiness according to the word and one's own conscience. The scriptures tell us in Romans 10:9-13 that,

"...if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. ¹⁰For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. ¹¹As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." ¹²For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, ¹³for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.""

Also in 1 Corinthians 11:27-32 we read,

"...whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. ²⁸A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. ²⁹For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. ³⁰That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. ³¹But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. ³²When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world."

With such a clear description of salvation and communion laid out, denying communion on grounds of baptism, church membership and a public proclamation of faith rings of taking people back to Mount Sinai (though public proclamations should be encouraged and baptism taught). Communion is not meant to determine who the sheep and the goats are but to have fellowship with our Savior and remember His love for us apart from our works of righteousness. Thus, I can find no where in Scripture where it is given to an elder to bind a person's conscience when we are told that whatever is not from faith is of sin. Your teaching was so good on Sunday that I have no doubt people should be able to make a well-informed decision about communion every Sunday. God alone judges the heart and allows for a personal choice.

Jesus offered Judas, His betrayer, communion. He was willing to share with the "son of perdition." He did not withhold the bread from the man who planted the kiss of death on His cheek. Scripturally, how do you get from Christ sharing the meal with His betrayer to a system of denying the meal to those who mirror Romans 10 and 1 Corinthians 11? Is it wise to deny communion when Jesus Christ Himself did not prohibit Judas? It is a burden of the law for one to add works of righteousness upon a foundation of grace that alone gives former enemies of God the right to partake in Christ's communion. Thus, we must "examine ourselves" based upon the scripture. If one is not a believer, has not reconciled with a brother or sister, or is living in unrepentant sin then they should be encouraged to refrain, yet even Judas could have refused the the bread though it was offered to him. Again, it is not the elder's responsibility to determine the sincerity of a person's heart and so approve or deny the meal for God judges the heart.

Lastly, Satan is called the Father of Lies and his name means "tempter" and "deceiver." We must understand that a slave to such a swindler could easily fake sincerity in his/her interview or qualifications and thus penetrate the visible church. That person (a wolf in sheep's clothing) would be allowed by your policy to take the Lord's Supper because of three works (baptism, public proclamation of faith and church membership) and those who have been cleansed by the renewing of their minds would not be for lack of works. That is why partaking in the Lord's supper must be an act of faith, grounded in the word and ultimately informed by one's conscience.

Thank you very much for allowing me to write to you, Pastor. Again, I greatly appreciated the preaching of the word and the hospitality of your congregants. The Lord has obviously put His blessing upon the work that it has pleased Him to allow all of you to partake in. May we all continue sharing the good news of the resurrected Lord!

Your brother in Christ,
Evan Bryan

Email 2:

Dear Evan,

I apologize for taking so long to respond to your email. It was simply a matter of prioritizing my labor and correspondence with others.

Your email is not put to me in a question, but as several paragraphs of monologue in which you seem to assume the role of instructing me on the Bible’s principles regarding admission to the Lord’s Table. Ordinarily, I may have responded to an email such as this by asking for further clarification on whether or not you have a question. But I am also aware that you posted this email to me on your blog, which you did not indicate in your email. This act of yours seems, to me, very self-serving and, quite honestly, narcissistic on your part, Evan. You give the impression of being more interested in attracting an audience for yourself and having others read your thoughts than you do with a) learning why we as a confessional Reformed church have the policy we do; and b) following the principles outlined in Matthew 18 for correcting one who is in sin, if indeed you are convinced that we (as elders of a church) are by adopting an unbiblical policy. Instead of coming to me personally (in person, phone call, or email), you chose to make your correspondence to me public – and didn’t even have the decency to tell me in the email that you did so. That is most unfortunate, Evan, for it is a bad witness for the faith you profess to believe. I know plenty of pagans who are hostile to Christianity who would not do such a disrespectful thing to another man.

For this reason, I would ordinarily dismiss your email as a rude and disingenuous attempt by a young, unlearned, and proud narcissist who craves attention. But you did ask the following questions in the midst of your monologue:

“Scripturally, how do you get from Christ sharing the meal with His betrayer to a system of denying the meal to those who mirror Romans 10 and 1 Corinthians 11? Is it wise to deny communion when Jesus Christ Himself did not prohibit Judas?”

This question is easily answered, and I will humbly oblige you with one, but only on the following conditions:

1. Publicly – on your blog – apologize to me and to your readers for sending me an email without telling me that you posted it on your blog, leading me to assume that this was a matter of personal correspondence. (This was done on my part here with never a response).

2. Keep further personal correspondence between you and me personal.

If you do those two things, Evan, I will happily answer you and even dialogue with you so that you can be further instructed in the Scriptures and Reformed ecclesiology, so that even if you do not agree with Reformed interpretation, you will at least have a better understanding of that to which you object. For it is clear to me that your problem is not with our understanding of fencing the Table of the Lord, but with the authority of the keys of the kingdom and of church discipline.

If you can’t do the above, however, then I won’t waste anymore of my precious time in dialogue with you, but only refer you to the following works:

Heidelberg Catechism QQ.65-82

Belgic Confession Arts. 27-35

Calvin, Institutes, Book 4.12.1-10 (including the footnote under para 5); 4.17

Turretin, Institutes, 3:293-306; 428-36

Daniel Hyde, “Table Manners: Whom We Welcome to the Lord’s Supper” in Called to Serve, ed. Michael Brown

Email 3:

Dear Pastor,

My letter to you was not meant to instruct but I wanted to understand how you hold to your position in light of the scriptures I quoted. I am open to correction and biblical (rather than confessional) teaching. You wrote, "Publicly – on your blog – apologize to me and to your readers for sending me an email without telling me that you posted it on your blog, leading me to assume that this was a matter of personal correspondence." Yet, the way the URC conducts communion is a public matter. It is something the elders believe and you teach from the pulpit to anyone who enters your doors or reads your confessions. Thus, my letter to you was not meant to be private and I never led you to believe otherwise.

Had you sinned against me personally, I agree that it would have been grossly sinful of me to post my letter to you and the elders on my blog. Still, I never attacked you in my letter and am appalled that you would respond by calling me (consolidated) worse than a pagan, self-serving, narcissistic, rude, disingenuous, young, unlearned, and a proud attention and audience seeker. Your opinion of me being a narcissist does not fit the definition of the word: "Inordinate fascination with oneself; excessive self-love; vanity." It does fit the meaning of the word opinion though: "A belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce certainty." I do not know any Christians who would admonish another with such a lack of humility and love. Besides that, Acts 17:11 states, "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." I am examining from scripture to see if what you say is true and you insult me while Paul (an Apostle) encouraged and called noble those who examined the scriptures to see if what he said was true.

I have brought a solid case against your teaching from the Bible, yet you respond not to show from scripture what you believe but only to instruct me by the words of man as written in the Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession Arts., Calvin, Institutes, Turretin, Institutes, and Daniel Hyde. Not only have you referred to extra-biblical sources in refuting my scriptural argument, but you have deemed it necessary to attack me on personal grounds as well as on my standing before God when you, as I stated previously, wrote that I was worse than a pagan, self-serving, narcissistic, rude, disingenuous, young, unlearned, and a proud attention and audience seeker. You redirected attention away from my argument and towards my character. This should not be! Please, help me understand how you can be justified in such accusations when my email and blog are non-accusatory and simply state your churches PUBLIC views! By posting my blog I questioned a publicly taught practice of your church and not your heart, but in your response to me, you did judge my heart and left, biblically unaddressed, my defense of my beliefs. Who is guilty of the greater offense?

Lastly, you wrote that my, "problem is not with [your] understanding of fencing the Table of the Lord, but with the authority of the keys of the kingdom and of church discipline." More so, not only do I disagree with your understanding of fencing the table, the keys of the kingdom and discipline in the church; I disagree with the authority you think you have over other men but am open to biblical teaching.

Pastor, I can offer no apology for my public blog posting about your public stance so, according to you, this correspondence must end. I also cannot abide by your severe attacks on my character and standing before God so, unless we can reconcile that bitterness, this correspondence must end. Should we reach common ground as brothers in Christ in these regards as I sincerely hope for, I humbly ask again that you offer me scripture to clarify your beliefs. Thank you and God bless.

Email 4:

Evan,

Your comments are in italics:

My letter to you was not meant to instruct but I wanted to understand how you hold to your position in light of the scriptures I quoted.

You never asked that question in your email. Rather, it was in the form of an instructional monologue.

Yet, the way the URC conducts communion is a public matter.

First of all, you are making assumptions here without knowing the facts. You are taking our practice in ****** and assuming that it is the same standard for our whole federation (i.e. "the URC"). It is important that you get your facts straight here.

Secondly, while it is true that the way we fence the table is a public matter, it is made public for guests to our church. Making your email to me public is quite inappropriate in light of the fact that you, as a guest to our church, flagrantly disrespected the policy of the elders in authority by partaking of communion after you were humbly asked to abstain.

Thirdly, you never told me in your email that you intended to make this a matter of public debate by posting it on your blog and facebook page.

Thus, my letter to you was not meant to be private and I never led you to believe otherwise.

You most certainly did lead me to believe otherwise.

"I...am appalled that you would respond by calling me (consolidated) worse than a pagan, self-serving, narcissistic, rude, disingenuous, young, unlearned, and a proud attention and audience seeker."

If you go back and read my email to you, you will see that I did not call you those names; rather, in one place I used adjectives to describe your actions, not your person, which is no more of an attack on your character than anywhere where Scripture identifies sinful or unwise behavior. In another place I described a hypothetical situtation, which is no more of an attack on your character than Paul telling Titus to having nothing to do with a person who stirs up division knowing that such a person "is warped" (Tit 3.11).

My point about knowing pagans who are hostile to the Christian faith who have more decency than to do what you did, was simply to make the point that your actions were a bad witness for Christianity. Again, go back and read carefully what I wrote before you start indicting me on false charges.

"I am examining from scripture to see if what you say is true."

Well, Evan, that is hardly the impression you made upon me. Your email did not seem to express much desire in learning, only in teaching. And again, this is after the fact of your disrespect to the Lord and violation of the fifth commandment by disobeying your leaders and those appointed to watch over your soul (read Hebrews 13.17).

"I have brought a solid case against your teaching from the Bible."

I disagree. If I may say so, I have two advanced degrees in theology from WSC, and I would hardly call your case solid.

"yet you respond not to show from scripture what you believe but only to instruct me by the words of man as written in the Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession Arts., Calvin, Institutes, Turretin, Institutes, and Daniel Hyde."

I did this, my friend, because these works present arguments from Scripture already written down. What is said in the HC and BC are not only written down, but also confessed by Reformed churches. The other works will present a lot of helpful teaching for you so that you can better understand our position, if that is what you are genuinely interested in. I do not need to take time out of my week to reinvent the wheel in dialogue with you when these things have already been shown from Scripture. Sorry, but I have higher priorities. And honestly, as a pastor of souls, I think it would be very good for you to sit and read carefully the arguments of others who have gone before you and who may actually know the Scriptures better than you. You would be surprised what you can learn about the Scriptures from teachers God has appointed for his church.

"You redirected attention away from my argument and towards my character."

I did no such thing. Look, this is not a high school debate class, OK? You took a cheap shot at me by posting an email to me on your blog and facebook page without telling me in the email. When you do things like that in the real world, Evan, there are consequences, such as people thinking less of your character.

"Should we reach common ground as brothers in Christ..."

That can only begin, Evan, with you making a credible profession of faith in a true, visible church of Christ in which you become a member and submit to the authority of Christ as he has delegated it to his appointed officers. Until then, it is impossible for us to have communion as brothers in the Lord, for you do not belong to his visible church. I will pray for you and ask the Lord to cause you to humble yourself to his authority very soon, and become a professing member of his visible body in the world.

Email 5:

Dear Pastor,

I have spent the last week reflecting on our correspondence. I have applied myself diligently to prayer and meditating on the word. As such, I must agree with you that I did make an assumption when I declared that your policy of communion was the same as "the URC's" policy. Forgive me for that. In light of my assumption (and agreeing also that much wisdom can be gleaned from the teachings of other Christians), I have studied what the Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, Second Helvetic Confession, Westminster Confession of Faith, Westminster Shorter Catechism and Westminster Larger Catechism declares concerning the Lord's Supper. The closest statement I could find that would possibly match what you have shared with me is Q. 82 from the Heidelberg Catechism where it asks: "Are they also to be admitted to this supper, who, by confession and life, declare themselves unbelieving and ungodly?"

The answer states:

"No; for by this, the covenant of God would be profaned and His wrath kindled against the whole congregation; therefore it is the duty of the Christian church, according to the appointment of Christ and His apostles, to exclude such persons by the keys of the kingdom of heaven till they show amendment of life."

By confession and life I do not declare myself unbelieving and ungodly. May I ask if you equate lack of church membership in a local congregation as you have defined it to be a sign of unbelief and ungodliness? If yes, would you please send me scripture to reveal why this is so? I ask this because I can find no other reasons in my studies for which a person should be excluded from the table. You did mention having authority that the "keys of the kingdom" gave to you, though. It seems that the keys are used to bind and loose but what do they give you the authority to bind and loose? The only reference I can find of the "keys of the kingdom" is in Matthew 16 referring to where Jesus gives Peter the keys.

Most importantly, though I remain unconvinced of your position concerning the practice, I did come to the conclusion that there would have been a better way for me to pursue the matter in accordance with Matthew 18. In counseling, it is good for the counselor to ask many questions to determine where a person's heart is and why it is there. I did not give you that opportunity before launching into my brief. I should have asked why you fenced the table the way you did and I should not have done it over email. It would have been more profitable on my part to have at least called you. It would have been wiser of me to write down what I believe only after discussing your position in person or over the phone. Publicizing my thoughts on a public blog that even unbelievers read and addressing you and your church by name and denomination was absolutely the wrong way to start off before I had even had the slightest bit of communication with you. Please, forgive me of this as well.

I mentioned us finding common ground in Christ and you responded by writing:

That can only begin, Evan, with you making a credible profession of faith in a true, visible church of Christ in which you become a member and submit to the authority of Christ as he has delegated it to his appointed officers. Until then, it is impossible for us to have communion as brothers in the Lord, for you do not belong to his visible church. I will pray for you and ask the Lord to cause you to humble yourself to his authority very soon, and become a professing member of his visible body in the world.

I hope that the steps I have taken to publicly humble myself on my blog and to ask your forgiveness in the areas where I was wrong are enough for us to find common ground. For the time being, according to my conscience, I will still avoid church membership in the manner you describe and will, by my baptism and continual, public profession of faith, maintain my walk in Christ's visible church. Insofar as scripture allows, I will also submit to the biblical authority of those who have been appointed as undershepherds of Christ and take it upon themselves to disciple and guide me in my walk. I ask only that you would please teach me, from scripture, where I must become a member of a local congregation in the manner you have described to be a "professing member of his visible church in the world." Thank you very much and may God richly bless you and your flock.

Your brother in Christ,
Evan Bryan