Return
to Question and Answers Page
(Arthur was asked to speak at a non-denominational, para-church
retreat and to administer The Lord's Supper to those who professed
belief, though not necessarily baptized. Arthur is not ordained
and was wondering what he should do, so he sought counsel.
First is a response from another minister, then Arthur's conclusion.)
Hi Arthur,
Sorry I couldn't give you a more definitive answer yesterday.
My first inclination was that Scripture is silent regarding
who administers the Lord's Supper, especially whether it was
limited to the ordained clergy, elder, or deacon of a church.
As a matter of fact, even ordination as practiced today is
not clearly taught in the NT. Yes, there is a recognition
by the "body" of certain individuals as called of God for
a certain ministry symbolized by the "laying of hands" (e.g.,
Acts 1-3), but does this establishes a biblical mandate to
do so. Even Acts 13 is not about men within that local church,
but those sent out for "missions" ministry. So the practice
of ordination and a "clergy" class of people are open to question
biblically.
Having said this, it also appears that the biblical material
does not suggest who administers the Lord's Supper, or whether
this is limited to the so-called ordained clergy, elders,
or deacons. Exactly how it evolved in church history to be
limited to the clergy is a mystery to me. It depends on the
practice of your particular church or denomination. Wayne
Gruden's Systematic Theology concludes that the NT does not
give any explicit teaching on who should administer the Lord's
Supper, so we are left simply to decide what is wise and appropriate
for a local body of believers. I think this is consistent
with the sources you consulted including MacArthur. However,
safeguards should be in place in that it be conducted by spiritually
mature believers with a clear understanding of what is the
purpose and symbolism behind the Lord's Supper, and proper
procedure is followed as recorded in 1 Corinthians 11. The
focal point is always centered upon the person of Jesus Christ
with an attitude of reverence, humility, and gratitude for
his atonement and abiding presence.
Therefore I don't have an issue regarding you administering
the Lord's Supper at the retreat as long as it is conducted
within the biblical guidelines. Also, I don't see it as an
expression of one's commitment to Christ. This would shift
the focus from Christ, his person and his finished work, to
ourselves and our making a commitment to Christ, as if we
are doing something that merits God's approval. So ask for
a clear statement of purpose from the retreat organizers on
why they want to have the Lord's Supper. Obviously, being
a traditional element of the retreat is not sufficient cause.
My pet peeve with para-church groups is they sometimes misrepresent
themselves as a substitude for the church. Then again, we
can get into a discussion on what constitutes a church biblically.
Have fruitful ministry at the retreat.
Regards,
Hey:
Thanks very much for your time and thought. I know how much
mind space and time it takes to think through someone's questions.
I appreciate it very much.
I think my conclusion, as of now, is to not administer it
- more for wisdom reasons than didactic ones. I'm not sure
the benefits are worth the cloud of uncertainty that comes
with it. Even though it may be permissible, it's not a "slam
dunk", and certainly carries concerns and precautions, at
the least (as you've shared).
So, the fact that the responses I've received from wise
counselors are mixed (some not totally comfortable with it,
yet acknowledging that there may be some latitude, to some
pretty strongly thinking it's not a wise thing to do) raises
red flags.
Secondly, I'm wondering if this will "open a can of worms"
and potentially negatively affect others (including those
I'd be doing it with) - either by giving them precedent to
be looser with the Lord's Supper ("since Arthur did it") ,
or disappointing or confusing them. I'm not sure that's worth
it.
Thirdly, as I think you've expressed, I don't know who I'm
participating with; I don't know their beliefs, understanding
of the Lord's Supper, or their covenant with each other. This
isn't a local church where members have covenanted to keep
each other accountable, can verify to the veracity of each
other's faith, and pretty much hold to the same beliefs.
One example of this is baptism. As I read through Acts 2,
those who went from house to house "breaking bread" were baptized.
The call to faith is repeatedly, "repent and be baptized."
Obviously, baptism doesn't save, but it is a requirement for
Christians with the opportunity to do so.
If someone at the retreat wasn't baptized, I'd wonder why,
and I'd say it'd be better to wait. (Leader) stated she didn't
believe that was a requirement.
Fourthly, as you've expressed, even though not stated explicitly,
wisdom would dictate that, if possible, an official minister
would be a better choice. It's no guarantee that he'd be more
spiritually qualified but there'd be a better chance of it,
having made more oaths and vows of faithfulness to God and
His work. If we were in an area of the world where that would
be most difficult, I'd likely do it; but that's not the case
here.
Thanks for thinking this through with me and for letting
me think out loud. Let me know if you have any further thoughts
about what I'm thinking. I appreciate your friendship through
the years.
Arthur
Return to Question and Answers
Page