Lord's Supper guarded least in the church

[matt wade]

I was thinking today (yes, believe it or not) and it occurred to me that most churches that hold to close or open communion place more restrictions on who can sing in their church than on who can partake in the Lord's Supper. It seems odd to me that churches will not allows members of their own church to sing (because they require auditions, etc) yet these churches will allow any person walking in off the street to partake in the Lord's Supper.

Should our microphones be more closely guarded than the Lord's Supper?

 

[Tom Bryant]

I'm not sure they can be compared. If someone sings in the church they are taking a leadership position. Leadership positions demand something more than just being a believer in fellowship with the Lord. In the Lord's Supper, people are commanded to examine themselves.

I understand what you are saying, though. We can allow for someone living in sin (no matter what the sin is: gossip, bitterness, uncontrolled anger, adultery) to partake of the Lord's Supper when we wouldn't allow them to sing. But I am not sure they can be compared.

 

[matt wade]

I'm not sure they can be compared. If someone sings in the church they are taking a leadership position. Leadership positions demand something more than just being a believer in fellowship with the Lord. In the Lord's Supper, people are commanded to examine themselves.

I understand what you are saying, though. We can allow for someone living in sin (no matter what the sin is: gossip, bitterness, uncontrolled anger, adultery) to partake of the Lord's Supper when we wouldn't allow them to sing. But I am not sure they can be compared.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I'm not even necessarily talking about people in sin with singing. Many churches will not allow a member of the church to sing because they don't think they are talented enough, yet they will allow a person walking in off the street, whom they know nothing about, to partake in the Lord's Supper. Something just seems wrong about that.

 

[preacher4truth]

I was thinking today (yes, believe it or not) and it occurred to me that most churches that hold to close or open communion place more restrictions on who can sing in their church than on who can partake in the Lord's Supper. It seems odd to me that churches will not allows members of their own church to sing (because they require auditions, etc) yet these churches will allow any person walking in off the street to partake in the Lord's Supper.

Should our microphones be more closely guarded than the Lord's Supper?

If you were going to sing Matt, then we should gurad the 'phones! :laugh:

Seriously though, it is up to churches on open/closed.

But it is wise to screen who hits the platform. For instance, about 2 years ago we visited a church, an older gentleman walks in, the pastor talks to him, and this man asks to give his testimony. He hadn't been to that church for 40 plus years, and no one knew him. He gets to the microphone, and starts off so-so and procedes into vulgarities. Very embarassing!

The difference of the Lords Supper lies in the fact it is left to the person to examine themselves, not us. So, it is on their honor.

Singing? Well, we've all heard (perhaps) some who shouldn't.

- Peace

 

[TCGreek]

Some of these practices/traditions just trouble me.

Whatever happened to simple Christianity?

 

[preacher4truth]

Some of these practices/traditions just trouble me.

Whatever happened to simple Christianity?

What would "simple Christianity" have done?

 

[TCGreek]

What would "simple Christianity" have done?

Give thanks for the break, distribute, and do the same with the cup - not all the additives that we have that are causing so much confusion.

 

[preacher4truth]

Give thanks for the break, distribute, and do the same with the cup - not all the additives that we have that are causing so much confusion.

Gotcha. :godisgood:

 

[matt wade]

If you were going to sing Matt, then we should gurad the 'phones! :laugh:

Seriously though, it is up to churches on open/closed.

But it is wise to screen who hits the platform. For instance, about 2 years ago we visited a church, an older gentleman walks in, the pastor talks to him, and this man asks to give his testimony. He hadn't been to that church for 40 plus years, and no one knew him. He gets to the microphone, and starts off so-so and procedes into vulgarities. Very embarassing!

I agree that it should be guarded, but I don't think it should be guarded any more so than the Lord's Supper.

The difference of the Lords Supper lies in the fact it is left to the person to examine themselves, not us. So, it is on their honor.

Singing? Well, we've all heard (perhaps) some who shouldn't.

- Peace

I've heard plenty of people sing that weren't blessed with a great voice, but they were singing praise unto God Almighty. I was blessed by it and I'm sure God was pleased with it. Can only those with "good" voices sing pleasing praises unto God? Shouldn't it have more to do with the heart and attitude in which it is done?

 

[matt wade]

Give thanks for the break, distribute, and do the same with the cup - not all the additives that we have that are causing so much confusion.

Does your church guard the singing microphone more than the Lord's Supper? Do you allow any church member, regardless of talent, to sing, if they are honoring God?

If not, then what's so simple about that?

 

[TCGreek]

Does your church guard the singing microphone more than the Lord's Supper? Do you allow any church member, regardless of talent, to sing, if they are honoring God?

If not, then what's so simple about that?

Simple congregation singing and a solo every now and then, hopefully to the praise of God.

Talent is not the issue here.

 

[matt wade]

Simple congregation singing and a solo every now and then, hopefully to the praise of God.

Talent is not the issue here.

Great, if your church allows any member to sing a solo, without regard to talent, then your church is not one of the one's I'm talking about. I'm talking about churches that exclude members of their own congregation from singing, because of "lack of talent", yet will allow an unknown person to walk in off the street and partake of the Lord's Supper. I'm glad to know your church is not among those I talk about.

 

[TCGreek]

Great, if your church allows any member to sing a solo, without regard to talent, then your church is not one of the one's I'm talking about. I'm talking about churches that exclude members of their own congregation from singing, because of "lack of talent", yet will allow an unknown person to walk in off the street and partake of the Lord's Supper. I'm glad to know your church is not among those I talk about.

But it seems like you're comparing apples and oranges here. Why the need for this kind of comparison?

It seems to me that the Lord's Supper should be evaluated differently.

My take. I'm not trying to be contentious here.

 

[Tom Butler]

We might not make a big deal out of it had Paul not described the proper observance of the Lord's Supper as a matter of life and death.

In I Corinthians 11:2 he had admonished the church to guard the ordinances.

Later on, he rips them for their behavior at the Lord's Supper, and warned that taking it in an unworthy manner could bring "damnation." (I think he meant condemnation, not hell).

He then said that's the reason some of them are sick and some have even died.

The same Paul who said we must examine ourselves also gave the local church the burden of guarding the integrity of the ordinances. Churches can't get off the hook by leaving that up to individuals and exercising no discernment at all.

In I Cor 5 Paul further ripped the congregation over a member involved in an illicit affair. He told them to kick him out, and not even eat with him. I guarantee he was not welcome at the Lord's Supper after that.

 

[matt wade]

But it seems like you're comparing apples and oranges here. Why the need for this kind of comparison?

It seems to me that the Lord's Supper should be evaluated differently.

My take. I'm not trying to be contentious here.

Why do you feel that the Lord's Supper should be evaluated more lightly than who is allowed to sing solos in your church? Do you feel that singing solos is something that should be more closely guarded?

 

[TCGreek]

We might not make a big deal out of it had Paul not described the proper observance of the Lord's Supper as a matter of life and death.

In I Corinthians 11:2 he had admonished the church to guard the ordinances.

Later on, he rips them for their behavior at the Lord's Supper, and warned that taking it in an unworthy manner could bring "damnation." (I think he meant condemnation, not hell).

He then said that's the reason some of them are sick and some have even died.

The same Paul who said we must examine ourselves also gave the local church the burden of guarding the integrity of the ordinances. Churches can't get off the hook by leaving that up to individuals and exercising no discernment at all.

In I Cor 5 Paul further ripped the congregation over a member involved in an illicit affair. He told them to kick him out, and not even eat with him. I guarantee he was not welcome at the Lord's Supper after that.

True, but Paul's admonition has to do with the divisions that resulted from socioeconomics.

It seems to me that Paul would have approved of the person coming off the street and a total stranger eating the Lord's Supper.

 

[TCGreek]

Why do you feel that the Lord's Supper should be evaluated more lightly than who is allowed to sing solos in your church? Do you feel that singing solos is something that should be more closely guarded?

The LS should not be evaluated lightly at all.

Now singing a solo for the praise of God and the edification of the church is up to that believer.

Remember, I said talent is not the issue, though I do believe in excellence.

 

[matt wade]

It seems to me that Paul would have approved of the person coming off the street and a total stranger eating the Lord's Supper.

Can you provide anything from Scripture to back this up? Is there any instance in Scripture where the Lord's Supper was administered and people not part of the local congregation were present and partook?

 

[freeatlast]

I was thinking today (yes, believe it or not) and it occurred to me that most churches that hold to close or open communion place more restrictions on who can sing in their church than on who can partake in the Lord's Supper. It seems odd to me that churches will not allows members of their own church to sing (because they require auditions, etc) yet these churches will allow any person walking in off the street to partake in the Lord's Supper.

Should our microphones be more closely guarded than the Lord's Supper?

It is not an either or. In the case of who sings they are presenting a message that needs to be guarded in the truth so screenig might be a good thing. In the case of the Lord's table it has nothing to do with any one else. It is personal. The only restriction is that the person taking it be saved and they examine themselves not others excamine them.
The consequences of taking the table wrongly are for the saved who violate its intent, not the lost as the Lord gives no command to protect His table from the lost as only a believer can defile the table. While there should be some explanation prior to the giving the table it should never be withheld from any believer as they take any consequences on themselves if they violate its intent.

 

[TCGreek]

Can you provide anything from Scripture to back this up? Is there any instance in Scripture where the Lord's Supper was administered and people not part of the local congregation were present and partook?

By "people off the street" I have in mind other believers who are not a particular local fellowship but who will like to eat the LS.

Perhaps I should have made this clearer.