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

To keep others from His love (part four).

This is the letter I wrote to a church concerning their practice of communion:

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 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

To keep others from His love (part two).

According to many churches there are three basic requirements that a believer must meet to take communion. These are enforced to different degrees within separate congregations. I grabbed the form that labeled these qualifications from one church that tried to deny my participation in the Lord's Supper. It is transcribed below. I am currently working on a letter to send to that church and will post it as installment four of this series when I send it:

Visitor Participation in the Lord's Supper

The elders _____ have the responsibility to supervise participation at the Lord's Table. If you are visiting us today and wish to partake, we must, as much as possible, be assured of your biblical church membership, of your proper profession of faith, and your godly walk. To that end, are you able to answer yes to the following questions:

1. Have you been baptized into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (as an infant or an adult)?
2. Have you publicly professed your faith in Christ alone for your salvation in agreement with the articles of the Christian faith as outlined in the Apostles' Creed?
3. Are you a member in good standing of a Protestant congregation that bears the marks of a true church, that is, a local church wherein governing elders insure that:
a. the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached;
b. the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ are maintained;
c. and church discipline is exercised.

If you are able to affirm these things sincerely, then we welcome you to the table and ask that you print your name below, along with the name of your church and its location.

If you profess faith in Jesus but are disconnected from his church because you have not been baptized and/or received as a member of a true church, or if you are unsure, please abstain and speak with Pastor Brown or an elder after the service to discuss your relationship to Christ's church.

To keep others from His love (part three).

Though I have many disagreements over the church policy given in part two of this series, I will articulated only a few of them for now.

The governmental system of many churches is corrupt and Catholic in conduct. It places burdens of the law upon people and lacks grace. Elders have no authority that Jesus Himself did not use but claim to by their actions. For instance, whereas elders may seek to deny a person communion, Jesus GAVE Judas (the person He said would betray Him) the bread and wine. Jesus SHARED in communion with Judas (the son of perdition)! He did not WITHHOLD the cup from the man who planted the kiss of death on His cheek in the Garden of Gethsemane! The man was allowed by the Lord to eat and drink condemnation upon his own head!

Thus, as I understand it, we "examine ourselves" based upon the scripture and "eat and drink condemnation upon our own heads" if we eat the meal in an unworthy manner (as Judas did). It is a matter of one's own conscience. Nowhere does it say that it is the elders responsibility to determine the sincerity of a person's heart and so approve or deny them the meal. Read the passage from 1 Corinthians 11 for yourself:

The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, ²⁴and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." ²⁵In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." ²⁶For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

²⁷Therefore, 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.

As for examining others for communion it is important to remember that Satan is called the Father of Lies and his name means "tempter" and "deceiver." Who are we to think that a slave to such a swindler could not easily fake sincerity in his/her oaths of membership and thus penetrate the visible church? That person (a wolf in sheep's clothing) would be allowed to take the Lord's Supper and I would not, though I am a believer who simply, by my conscience, does not agree with membership. Yet, Jesus will build His church and even the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it! He has broken Satan's power.

Lastly, according to Romans 14:23, "everything that does not come from faith is sin." How ironic then, that in the very act of "protecting" those who would take the meal in an unworthy manner, some are encouraged to deny their own conscience! By my faith, I am clean and worthy before God to remember His sacrifice for me and eat the Supper. If you trust in the righteousness of Christ alone to save you from your sins and have a repentant heart then the meal is for you, as well.

To keep others from His love (part one).

I had a watershed moment in my life as a Christian today and what it means to be denied worship. For years I have supported organizations that provide for the persecuted church around the world. My favorite and probably most well known is Voice of the Martyrs. I actually got to visit their U.S. headquarters in Bartlesville, OK and meet their director, Tom White. He's the author of God's Missiles Over Cuba. My aunt who worked there introduced me to the man. It was quite an experience meeting someone who had been tortured in a Cuban prison camp for years simply for dropping Christian literature on the island. It is horrible that he was persecuted by non-Christians for his beliefs. How much worse is it when Christians try to deny the worship of other Christians?


I visited a church today and was told that I should not take the Lord's Supper because I am not a member of any church. I didn't obey the request and simply said that, according to my conscience, it would be wrong not to partake in the Lord's Supper and that regardless of what they believed I would take it anyway. To wit, I was told that I should, "respect the desires of the church" and refrain. What about their respect towards my conscience? Had I bowed to their pressure I would be sinning by doing something I thought to be wrong! I could only reply that I could not obey unbiblical desires of any church. The wine never tasted so sweet!

I'm reminded of the movie "Chariots of Fire" when Eric Liddell (a Christian running in the 1924 Olympics) is told by many of England's most powerful and influential men to run the qualifying heat for the 100 meter dash on a Sunday. He believed that doing so would be against God's law of resting on the Sabbath. When Liddell refuses these men, Lord Cadogen spits, "Don't be impertinent, Liddell," to which Liddell retorts, "The impertinence lies, sir, with those who seek to influence a man to deny his beliefs!"

As the situation is resolved and upon this vein, the Duke of Sutherland says to Lord Birkenhead, "The "lad", as you call him, is a true man of principles and a true athlete. His speed is a mere extension of his life, its force. We sought to sever his running from himself."

"For his country's sake, yes," responds Lord Birkenhead.

The Duke's final response is, "No sake is worth that, least of all a guilty national pride."

I find that, among many churches, the "pride" is not guilty so much as it is arrogant. It is similar to national pride yet infinitely more grotesque. Does it not serve to divide God's universal children? It reveals a gross split from the life of grace that Christ teaches and the life of works that is preached. To tell a man how to worship is to deny the condition of his heart and make him a liar. Christ changes us by writing His law upon the flesh of our own hearts and makes a broken and contrite heart an inward reality for those who love Him. Thus, obeying the law written on stone at Mount Sinai does not save; trusting in Christ who obeyed that law and gives us His obedience by coding it into us does.

It is so important that the gift the founding fathers gave us was the ability to live according to our own conscience in liberty, free from oppression. It is so easy for us to oppress! As for myself, my conscience is directed by the Holy Scriptures and I will spit in the face of any man-made institution that desires to add to or subtract from the principles upon which Christ builds His children.

I was shocked and incredibly angry from all of this but the Lord redeemed the experience and made it very good. I am blessed to be able to worship according to my own conscience as taught in the scriptures. The Lord's Supper is something amazing, for I am able to physically enjoy my relationship with the God of the universe. I have never truly appreciated the gift until today when others tried to strip it from me. Ultimately (learning from those who have been persecuted to the point of death), had they been successful, it would not have mattered. We feed on every word that proceeds from the mouth of God and the Spirit of the Lord is with us wherever we go. As Romans 8:31-38 says:

If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written:
"For your sake we face death all day long;
we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered." No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

How shall we boast?

As I've continued to consider the issue of elders and the authority they are given I thought about Paul and the sort of authority he took. After all, being a follower of Christ (with the mind of Christ), what he teaches in the scriptures comes from the Spirit of Christ. What I found gave me a rare insight into Paul's character: He was not above using LOTS of sarcasm to convey deep truths. Read 2 Corinthians 11:16-21 and tell me if you agree.

I repeat: Let no one take me for a fool. But if you do, then receive me just as you would a fool, so that I may do a little boasting. In this self-confident boasting I am not talking as the Lord would, but as a fool. Since many are boasting in the way the world does, I too will boast. You gladly put up with fools since you are so wise! In fact, you even put up with anyone who enslaves you or exploits you or takes advantage of you or pushes himself forward or slaps you in the face. To my shame I admit that we were too weak for that!

Paul is talking as a fool when he likens himself at the end to one who is "too weak" to have taken advantage of the believers of Corinth. He could have easily done so but, having the mind of Christ, it was not his desire to force action from people when their hearts would not be in it. Christ wants a heart that willingly serves him. Actions are a byproduct of a changed heart. Paul could not be a fool and ask for the actions without the heart change and still be Christ's ambassador! Be wise and go with the spirit of what Paul is saying: In your wisdom, do not "put up" with fools.

A conversation on church elders and their responsibilities (Part two)

This is a continuation of the conversation I have been having with my friend about elders. You will find part one posted on 8/3/09. I feel in these two letters that we are getting to the heart of the matter, however. We are given elders as people worthy of being followed for their Christ-like comportment. Should we consider our own conduct as non-elders in the same way as we consider theirs? I don't think so.

In short my friend writes:

...the roles of elders are subject to debate because I don't think the Bible is super specific as to what tasks are their responsibilities. I definitely think they need to be prayer warriors, check on members, continue to live righteously and lead their own families, be available to talk to people/ counsel them. I also think they need to meet as a group and pray and plan the vision of the church, hold the pastors accountable among other things. I think they should oversee the ministries of the church...

...I'm not disagreeing with you in the qualifications. I think it's great that you want to hold people accountable, Evan... I think it is important to ask yourself though if you know the whole story. Have you made an effort to get to know the elders? Or have you invited them over for dinner? Maybe their wives are burnt out with family responsibilities. I bet if you made your desire known to them you would get a different response.

My response to her, in short, is:

Hold with me on this because it is important. It's not my responsibility to get to know the elders. My hospitality is not significant to our argument. They are given as an example for me to follow, not vice versa.

The critical point of my argument stems from the definition of hospitality. In its Greek meaning it describes a great love to entertain guests and especially strangers. It is not loving simply to entertain those you love. Christ extended His wedding feast to strangers on the street after all! What I mean to say is that if a man does not love or entertain strangers he should not even be considered to be an elder! Begging the question, why is it so important for elders to love strangers? Would the church pull in desperate people if the elders who are given as an example for us to follow did not pull those people in themselves?

I'm saying that hospitality is a duty to be fulfilled by many rather than a joy that overflows from a grateful heart. Am I just supposed to assume that strangers are ministered to when I don't even see such love towards the believers? How could I ever be expected to put myself under such a system? Is submitting to the elders not the focus of our discussion?

A conversation on church elders and their responsibilities (Part one)

I've been writing to a friend of mine for a couple weeks on the topic of elders. I feel like the last exchange we had was particularly good if you would care to read it. In it, my friend is discussing how we show grace to others and how we are to call out others (even elders) on their sin. What should the consequence for elders be when we do so? My response follows these lines of thought as well. Some thoughts are not fully fleshed out in this post so if you have any questions feel free to ask! Enjoy!

My friend writes:

I definitely agree that we can see Christ in others. I have been so blessed by the people God has put in my life, and I think the Lord speaks through people too. But, I think we can also get into trouble if we depend on others to show Christ's love, because we are so imperfect. That's why so many are turned away from Christianity...because of the hypocrisy. I do agree that elders are called to very important responsibilities but that does not mean they don't need the same grace we do. Yes, they should be awesome examples of what it means to live a righteous life, but does that mean if they aren't perfect they should be kicked out of their responsibilities?

It's kind of hard to talk about this so broadly because there are so many circumstantial situations, but I guess I struggle with calling people out on their sin because I have so much of my own, and most of the time I don't know the whole story. That's not to say I shouldn't at times, but I would rather error in grace and love and let God deal with convicting hearts. Again, this is a very broad comment I am making and sometimes, yes, we do need to stand up for what we know is right in order to protect and uphold a righteous church.

You asked to what capacity are they called to lead? Well I guess that is subject to debate which is why there are so many denominations today, and why it is neat that we can choose a church. Ultimately I think we need to ask ourselves, is it a salvation issue? So many little things can be argued over when no one really knows! Everything will be revealed one day in heaven.

My response:

Many people are turned off from Christianity because of the hypocrisy in the church. There can be no argument there. However, this is where the need for healthy elders is so important and why it is absolutely necessary to hold them to a higher standard of conduct than non-elders. They are to reflect Christ and be able to contend for the faith.

We are given qualifications on how to choose elders precisely because they are held to a higher standard to effectively represent the church and feed the flock. Do you know any elders who are forced to take that responsibility? They should accept the standard to which they are held because they are already holding it! That being the case, if an elder no longer meets the qualifications laid out in scriptures they should no longer be an elder. Otherwise, why would we need them (scripture and elders)?

Of course elders need the same amount of grace as other believers but that grace is not given in relation to the position they hold. It is given in the love we have for that person. Consider this for instance: Would you show the same amount of love to a new believer who committed adultery as you would show to an elder who committed adultery? Would you allow the elder to maintain his position after such sin?

In such a case, it is absolutely necessary to call people out on their sins. It is loving to do so and unloving not to. Remember, the church was called to cast from their midst the man who took his father's wife in order to eventually restore him to a faithful walk instead of condoning his sin within the body of God's visible church.

If you had little kids and an under shepherd were leading them what standard of conduct would you hold that man to? If you found out that he was/had been a sexual predator would you be comfortable having that man around your kids? If you approached that elder and he shrugged his shoulders and said, "We're all sinners" would you agree with that sentiment? I ask these questions in order to call you to figure out what you believe in. Don't be content to say that for these reasons churches have fractured into different denominations. Don't give room for people who shepherd you to excuse their sins. We may not be talking about a salvation issue concerning ourselves and those we call out on sin, but we are talking about a salvation issue for those who consider God and turn from Him because of the misconduct they see in His children.