Thou shalt fenceth thine Lord's supper table?
Recently some attention has come to a website which argues that the CanRC was wrong to consider any number of churches sister churches (for a response to this check out Bredenhof's Xanga). One of their reasons for this was the lack of fencing of the Lord's Supper.
I've been looking at Q&A 81 and 82 of the Heidelberg Catechism and the scripture passages referenced by them. Some thoughts: 1 Corinthians 11:28,29 seems to refer to personal responsibility and personal judgement (as translated in the NKJV - is this also the indication of the original text?). Of the other passages referenced 1 Corinthians 10:22 is the only one that references "we" in regard to provoking the wrath of God (and it's not quoted in association with this particular point). It makes sense that the church should exercise discipline over those sinners known to be unrepentant, but at the same time how should others such as visitors to the church be dealt with (as recently asked)? (Interestingly Bible Gateway is now referencing the NKJV for these requests when I don't know of a CanRC that uses some translation other than the NIV, RSV, or NASB in its worship services).
I recognize discipline to be an important thing, and do think that we should mutually encourage each other in this regard. I hold to the belief that amongst Christians the "none of your business" argument does not apply and that there is no statute of limitations other than repentance. When it comes to larger congregations, experience has rendered me cynical over this issue and the consistory's ability to exercise discipline appropriately. To quote Michael Horton, "In far too many cases, at least in my experience, elders are chosen because of their general leadership skills, success in business, high position in the community, and other worldly considerations. Surely an elder is not disqualified for possessing these gifts, but they do not necessarily qualify him either" (A Better Way, p. 236).
This has meant that over the past years I have existed largely outside the formal power structure of the church. The last time my district elder and I exchanged anything more than cursory greetings was back in either 2000 or 2001, although at the same time I have been seeking the wisdom and guidance of others (a group not void of consistory members). The issue of discipline also largely explains my current status as a nomad in more ways than one. Over the years I think that I have largely lost the ability to trust at any scale beyond a one-to-one basis.
Comments
Wes Bredenhof
Mon, 2006-07-03 16:15
Permalink
Next time
David, the next time you're in the Fraser Valley, please give me a call. We should really sit down and talk about this stuff face-to-face. I think that would be the most profitable way to address your concerns.
David
Mon, 2006-07-03 16:18
Permalink
How does coffee sometime
How does coffee sometime Friday morning sound? (I'm flying in Thursday night)
Wes Bredenhof
Mon, 2006-07-03 18:03
Permalink
Coffee
I'll e-mail you further on this...
Scott
Tue, 2006-07-04 15:02
Permalink
It is WAY too early for me
It is WAY too early for me to be able to comment on this issue, having just been introduced to it. Personally I'm a big proponent of consistency, but we don't even have that among the congregations within our Federation. For any given Canadian Reformed Church, I suspect you could find a congregation from one of our sister churches that has more similarities than a highly contrasting congregation from within our Federation. So far it's just a theory; I've never seriously looked into it.
In general, it's hard to make everyone do everything the same when there is more than one way to do things. To cite a specific example, in most Cdn Ref congregations the minister or reading elder says, "Our help is in the name of the Lord, the maker of heaven and earth. Amen. Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Amen." However, some congregations (Langley, Aldergrove, probably others too) have the congregation saying the "Our help... Amen." sentence. I don't like it, but I can't find anything against it. I don't disagree with what's being said, but I think it's not my place to be saying it. (Plus it feels like Gregorian chanting or something.) I told my elder I don't like it and I refuse to participate in it, and he said I could bring it up at a congregational meeting. He had no clue why it was the practice because he hadn't been there long enough to know.
It's definitely hard to get a good consistory together. In Cloverdale, most of the elders have strong personalities; one or two are good to have to keep everyone on their toes, but too many and they clash. In Aldergrove, we seem to be stuck in an endless cycle of the same people getting voted in every time. It's extremely rare for others to get enough votes to topple the regulars; I've been on a few counting committees and the numbers were astonishing. Elders and deacons are getting elected back in after being out for only a year. The weird part is that many people in Aldergrove agree it shouldn't be this way, but when it comes time to vote their brains switch off or something and they vote for the same people that always get in. Some of these guys are the "do as little as possible" types, causing things to take much longer than necessary. Not to say that Aldergrove is so much worse than others; I think you would be hard-pressed to find a consistory without problems.
David
Tue, 2006-07-04 19:00
Permalink
It is WAY too early for me
It is WAY too early for me to be able to comment on this issue, having just been introduced to it. Personally I'm a big proponent of consistency, but we don't even have that among the congregations within our Federation. For any given Canadian Reformed Church, I suspect you could find a congregation from one of our sister churches that has more similarities than a highly contrasting congregation from within our Federation. So far it's just a theory; I've never seriously looked into it.
Excluding the Book of Praise of course I suspect that you could find such a more-similar church even outside the (small) circle of (small) officially recognized sister denominations.
have the congregation saying the "Our help... Amen." sentence. I don't like it, but I can't find anything against it. I don't disagree with what's being said, but I think it's not my place to be saying it.
I personally find it a little weird for the congregation NOT to say it - after all the word 'our' is in the statement.
(Plus it feels like Gregorian chanting or something.)
Is there something intrinsically wrong with speaking in unison? What's the difference between speaking in unison and singing in unison?
Wes Bredenhof
Tue, 2006-07-04 22:55
Permalink
the votum
The votum (Psalm 124:8, "Our help...") is a confession of faith on the part of the congregation. If you were going to be consistent about this confession of faith not belonging on the lips of the congregation, then the Apostles' Creed should also be recited by the minister. And while we're taking things away from the congregation, why don't we have the minister do all the singing too, especially if he's going to pick so many stanzas? :-)
As for elders, Dr. C. VanDam (our OT prof in Hamilton) has made a good Biblical case for lifetime eldership. You can find it in the Proceedings of the ICRC, 1989, "The Elder as Preserver and Nurturer of Life in the Covenant." All the arguments that I've heard against lifetime eldership are pragmatic and not Biblical.
Scott
Wed, 2006-07-05 14:19
Permalink
Yay some feedback! Singing
Yay some feedback!
Singing the Apostles' Creed is the congregation's confession of faith. I don't disagree that Psalm 124:8 is also a confession of faith, but one could say it is redundant for the congregation to confess their faith twice in one service. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but there are a lot of things that aren't wrong but also not necessary I think. It would not be wrong to sing 20 psalms per service, but it's also not necessary. I know that you are poking fun, but we can't take the singing away from the congregation because it is part of worship. The first song (not including pre-service) is responsive to the votum and salutation. It is more than a little bit strange to be responding to oneself. Speaking in unison just feels wierd to me, and maybe it's just because I'm used to things being the old way. But if having the congregation participate in the votum is so much better, why isn't every congregation doing it?
I know someone who is so much in favor of lifetime eldership that he refuses to sign the form because he has already signed it before. However, what if someone who previously did meet the Biblical criteria were to no longer meet the criteria anymore?
David
Wed, 2006-07-05 16:35
Permalink
I know someone who is so
I know someone who is so much in favor of lifetime eldership that he refuses to sign the form because he has already signed it before. However, what if someone who previously did meet the Biblical criteria were to no longer meet the criteria anymore?
My landlord's church does practice lifetime offices. I read through a book that they had describing their practices at some point, and I think that there was a provision for them to be removed from office were they found to be engaging in unrepentant sin or arguing contrary to the Bible.
The first song (not including pre-service) is responsive to the votum and salutation. It is more than a little bit strange to be responding to oneself.
What is the Biblical basis for the current liturgical style of "action-response"? (I just can't think of a good way to describe the style at the moment).
But if having the congregation participate in the votum is so much better, why isn't every congregation doing it?
It seems to me that the practice is spreading in the CanRC.
The "if _______ is so much better why isn't every congregation doing it" isn't necessarily the best line of reasoning to follow IMO.
Scott
Wed, 2006-07-05 18:50
Permalink
The "if _______ is so much
The "if _______ is so much better why isn't every congregation doing it" isn't necessarily the best line of reasoning to follow IMO.
What's wrong with that line of reasoning? Do you have a better one? Do you think the term "better" is too vague? I'm still in the process of trying to figure out what "better" means with regards to the reasons why certain things have changed. If these reasons are universally good, as opposed to being specific to a congregation/situation/etc. then to me it would make sense for the corresponding changes to be universally adopted.
Being progressive isn't inherently wrong, but I don't like the idea of churches within the same Federation growing apart.
David
Wed, 2006-07-05 19:04
Permalink
Some things I think aren't
Some things I think aren't necessarily better - they may be more situationally appropriate. This could refer to some liturgical revisions that take place in mission situations (although some like me would like to see some of these elsewhere as well).
Some things I think are also a matter of preference - perhaps also pertaining to the outlying culture and how it sets out things. Consider 1 Corinthians 11:4,5 and how these practices may or may not occur in all our churches. For some reason a fair number of men seem to think that they should pray without a hat, but at the same point in time very few women seem to don a hat in order to pray. (By the way, the reference to women prophesying and praying in this verse was taken in Stackhouse's book Finally Feminist as an indication that women might have been more actively involved in worship).
Being progressive isn't inherently wrong, but I don't like the idea of churches within the same Federation growing apart.
It's one thing to share commonality in belief, but another to insist upon uniformity in worship. Consider the language of worship for example. I think it would be pretty silly to argue that you could only consider another church a sister church if they also conducted worship services in English. (You might think this example rather silly, but think for example of how worship in the Roman Catholic church was conducted in Latin, even if the people did not understand it). Consider also that worship services in Dutch persisted longer in some Canadian Reformed churches than others.
Wes Bredenhof
Wed, 2006-07-05 18:14
Permalink
More on votum
The first song is only a response to the greeting, not to the votum. And the votum itself is a response to the call to worship.
As for redundancy, one could use that argument and say that it is redundant for the congregation to sing more than once in a worship service. Or pray more than once. Not really necessary, right? ;-) One has to begin asking about the purpose of the confession of faith, its place in the order of worship, and its content.
As for your second question, if someone were an elder for life and no longer met the criteria, we would do the same with him as we would with a minister in the same situation.
Great discussion! I'm thankful for your interest in worship.
Scott
Wed, 2006-07-05 18:43
Permalink
The call to worship is also
The call to worship is also something that doesn't seem to be widespread yet, and IIRC it doesn't appear in the order of worship in the Book of Praise so the votum is not always a response to the call to worship.
Ok maybe redundant was not the best word. To turn it back around on you, why not confess our faith three or more times per service? Whether it be singing, prayer, or confessing our faith, you can always add one more; the hard part is figuring out where to draw the line. Why do we need/want to add one more? Is the current number not enough?
I'm not against adding things to the order of worship, but I think there should be some sort of reason behind it and I'm curious to know what those reasons are.
Wes Bredenhof
Wed, 2006-07-05 20:09
Permalink
more on votum
Yes, it's true that the call to worship is not widespread in the Canadian Reformed churches. It's a pity, because with the votum as the first thing in the order of worship, man has the first word. That does not fit with a people who confess the doctrines of grace.
Actually, we do confess our faith many times in each service. We do so through the votum, the creed, but also through the prayers and songs.
As to why we have the votum, there is a long history to it. Though the exact form of the votum or invocation (as it's sometimes also called) has been variable, it's found throughout church history. It existed in the Roman Catholic liturgy of the Middle Ages. Calvin had it in his liturgy and he seems to have thought that this was the practice of the ancient church, drawing probably on John Chrysostom's commentary on Colossians 3:17. Chrysostom says that whatever is done in the name of the Lord (in this case worship) receives his blessing. That information comes from Hughes Oliphant Old. K. Deddens also discusses it in Where Everything Points to Him. He says that "it is an appeal for the LORD's help and an expression of the congregation's determination to look to him." In other words, it helps to set the tone and attitude at the very beginning of the service.