Whose responsibility - The Lord's Supper

[dms1972]

Ok, a local denomination has broken with its sister church in another part of the UK (Presbyterian Church in Ireland with Church of Scotland) - that's how its being reported but as often in these things Newspaper coverage can fall short on detail, nuances - so I don't know for sure that its a complete break. Anyway the issue unsurprisingly has been over same-sex couples receiving communion, and also baptism of children adopted by same-sex couples.

How is a church to be both loving and remain faithful to scripture in this?

I want to ask about whose responsibility is it when it comes to taking the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. Scripture warns about receiving these in unworthy manner, and admonishes participants to examine and judge themselves first. The dangers or disciplinary judgements in the New Testament seem to have been weakness, sickness and premature deaths (falling asleep). The book of Common Prayer has a lengthy admonition which can be read before the communion service along the same lines.

Because no one is completely free from sin in this life, these warnings cannot mean a person must be perfect in faith and free from sin before receiving the Lord's Supper, because the sacraments are a means of grace to strengthen faith and enable us to make progress against sin. So it would seem to me that one must be engaged in a fight against sin in ones life, even while not yet victorious.

Is it enough for a minister to read the scriptural admonitions and then let the recipient be responsible for self-examination, or should churches take a decision to bar some from communion who are openly living in unrepentant sin?

The issue would seem to be wider than homosexuality.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

For any sin, if a man calls himself a believer in fellowship with Jesus,
and refuses even after repeated warning to repent,
they are to be put out from among the believers
and not even greeted, not to be shared food with,
as Yahweh says.

To love Yahweh and to do the best for anyone, (is not feelings, nor emotional) , but
is to DO what Yahweh says, NOT to approve of gross perverse sin or any disobedience.

 

[HTacianas]

"Put from yourself the evil person".

We are to be charitable to all people, but we are not to allow scandal in the church.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

"Put from yourself the evil person".

We are to be charitable to all people, but we are not to allow scandal in the church.

Jesus was accompanied with scandal, so the church may be.

We are not to allow sin in the church, willful, willing, continued, unrepentant sin.

Churches that expose perverse sin and put out the ones guilty of it (or tell others to)
GET scandal in the news.... (as widely seen, anyway) ....

 

[TuxAme]

Both have responsibility. Primarily, the person receiving needs to have examined their conscience and determined that they are fit to receive, lest they be guilty of "profaning the body and blood of the Lord". If one refuses to repent of their sins or even admit that they are guilty of serious sin, the church should step in and tell the person that they are no longer welcome to receive.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Did Jesus not say we'd face persecution for His name? For being obedient to the Father's will? Call sin by it's right name in love and grace...

 

[dms1972]

I suspect that is the tough but loving answer in the case of stubborn unrepentance. It will either result in a softening followed by repentance and forgiveness or tragically in hardening one's heart. But its a task for the elders in a church, not ordinary members.

I would not say that an individual struggling with homosexual temptations would be the sort of person scripture is speaking of when it says "put from yourself the evil person."

 

[dms1972]

I mean we are all being bombarded by this propaganda in regard to same-sex marriage at times - for that reason I watch much less in the way of TV. It has been fed into the minds of gay and lesbian folks I believe and isn't something most would have sought having being granted same-sex civil partnerships which are regarded as equal in many places.

 

[Paidiske]

I think there is responsibility on all sides, and more broadly with the community to be sensitive to scandal.

I can tell you that I have never refused communion to an individual at the rail. But I once was taking a service with a community so badly divided by bitter conflict and bad behaviour that I refused to celebrate communion with them until they moved towards reconciliation.

 

[XRho]

My humble opinion is that the priest/minister has an obligation to make all persons aware of the requirements to partake. After that he should give to whoever asks....unless he, for some reason, has indisputable personal knowledge that someone is not properly disposed to partake of the sacrament. Then I would say it is his duty to refuse to serve that person.