Worship by the church in the Bible takes place in the congregation, in families, and in individual devotions. Practices that are not given in the bible should not be part of any Christian worship.

Congregational worship in the New Testament and the early church consisted of the reading and preaching of God’s word, prayer and singing praise to God, the celebration of the sacraments (Baptism and the Lord’s Supper) and the collection of offerings for the service of His people (Acts 2:42). Congregational worship in the Bible included all of God’s people. There is no biblical warrant for dividing His people into gender, age, or social groups for congregational worship and instruction (Deut 16:11, 14; 31:12-13). It is particularly important for families to be together in congregational worship so that they can discuss the preaching of the word at home (Acts 2:46-47).

The family should worship in the home. The head of the household should strive to lead his wife and children in bible study (Eph 5:26; 6:4). It is the task of the elders to equip the men to be spiritual leaders (Eph 4:11-12). Family worship also may include prayer and singing.

Individual devotions or bible study should be a regular part of every Christian’s life. The church should encourage and assist its members in developing their personal devotions (Acts 10:2).

Acceptable Christian worship is instituted by God and so limited by His revealed will that He should not be worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of people or in any way not prescribed by Scripture or deduced from Scripture by good and necessary consequence. It is our belief that many contemporary worship practices are unbiblical and tend to promote a subjective atmosphere where the worshiper’s emotions and feelings take precedence over his or her humble acknowledgment of God’s greatness, glory and majesty. Worship is not primarily for the one who worships but rather for the one who is worshipped (God alone).

Notwithstanding, we also believe that there is much freedom in the order and form of worship and that such things as the forms of musical praise must be practiced according to the understanding and the inspired conscience of all believers. A certain liberty must exist among Christians who hold differing convictions about this issue (as in the case of musical accompanyment).

We believe the best and necessary route to take is expressed by the Reformed slogan: "In essentials, unity. In non-essentials liberty. In all things, charity."
We hold that biblical, apostolic worship is, by itself and on its own merit, convicting and liberating, reverential and joyful. It is a rich experience of the power of God working in and through His people.

{Back}

A Note About Musical Praise
We believe that theologically sound and rich musical praise, characterized by spirit and truth (John 4:21-24) is acceptable to God regardless of the specific form of such praise. We use both the Psalter (in different versions) and the hymnbook in our praise and sing from our hearts to God, there being no necessity for instrumental accompaniment except as an aid to singing the melody.

The medium for musical worship used in the church was, until recent times, the Psalter or book of Psalms. There is no conclusive evidence of songs or hymns in the writings of the early church that were not already found in the Psalter. (Incidentally, we can see from reading both Philo and Josephus that it was common usage around NT times to refer to a spiritual song or hymn by the word psalmos or a psalm. These terms were interchangeable.)

In all occasions where worship is described in the NT in the context of song, it is the singing of psalms, and with voice only. While we believe that Christ has fulfilled all the obligations of the previous dispensation (the OT laws) in Himself, including the obligation to sing psalms, we also believe that we are now at liberty to sing the psalms, if we so choose. The NT requirement is for worship in spirit and truth, the actual form of the musical praise being somewhat optional. Having said that, we maintain that musical praise must be suited to its subject, in this case God. It must be reverential, theologically sound and passionate. If we can teach it or pray it, we can sing it.

The question really at issue is not the form of our expression of worship but rather the underlying theology or truth expressed by our acts of worship. Because Christ has fulfilled all the requirements of the law, He has rendered any obligations we might have outside of Him as null and void, and this includes the requirements of worship (John 4:21-24).Rather, He now requires us to worship Him in spirit and truth.

To worship in spirit means to worship in a manner that is befitting God as the triune, covenant making, saving God. Such befitting qualities include Reverence and Awe (Heb. 12:28), Humility and Contrition (Ps 51:16-17), Thankfulness (Col. 3:17) and Generosity (Heb. 13:16), among others.

Since God is a spirit, (“There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body…” WCF 2/1) we are only able to worship Him by, with, or in our own spirit. The spirit in man is that part of Him which is invisible and immaterial and which can comprehend and relate to God, especially God as Holy Spirit. Consequently the place, physical circumstances, postures and so on are not part of the spirit and therefore are not important (or have only relative importance at best) and do not play a significant or necessarily meaningful role in our worship.

To worship in truth must mean primarily and pre-eminently two things: to worship Christ as God (John 1:14; Heb. 1:1-4 etc.) and to worship according to the “word of Christ” which we take to be equivalent to the “word of God.” The word of God refers to both the actual words of Scripture and the revealed will of God as is found in those, His words, particularly those of the NT (John 1:17, 17:17, which constitutes the fuller revelation).

Doing this with diligence is in keeping with the Reformation principle of sola Scriptura as well as solus Christos. The “truth” spoken of in John 4:24 includes Christ as the object of our worship (as God the Son) standing as mediator for God the Father (we can only worship the Father through His Christ/Son—John 1:18; 6:57; 8:42; 10:38; 14:6, 9). It also refers to the practice of worship; our worship—our “spiritual service of worship” (Rom. 12:1) “must” be done according to God’s word and will and not according to what we might want it to be (Mark 7:6-9).

We do not consider musical accompaniment of sung praise as an “element” of worship, but rather as a “circumstance” thereof. The WCF defines an element of worship as something that has been biblically ordained and is therefore essential or integral to the act and meaning of worship. For instance when and where we offer worship (i.e. in the early morning, afternoon or evening; in homes, halls or church buildings) is considered to be “circumstantial”; or of indifference. And in celebrating the Lord’s Supper, the cup or vessel is considered circumstantial, whereas the drinking or sharing of wine (in one or more cups) is considered elemental; that is, fundamentally necessary (for multiple reasons).

If we make music the reason, end or purpose of our praise, we are in essence committing a form of idolatry since we are substituting what God has not prescribed in the Scriptures, for something that He has prescribed (John 4:21-24).

We believe the legitimate purpose of musical accompaniment is for assisting the singers to follow a given melody with a minimum of difficulty, thereby freeing them to concentrate on the words of praise and so fulfill the requirements of NT worship given by Christ in John 4:21-24. In such a context, musical accompaniment is considered as a circumstance of worship and may be used or dispensed with according to the needs and discretion of the congregation.

The Structure of a Typical Worship Service

1. Call to worship: from the Bible, usually from Psalms
   (alternately, reciting the Apostles' Creed or the Lord's Prayer)
2. Musical praise (Hymn or Psalm)
3. OT Reading
4. Musical praise (Hymn or Psalm)
5. NT Reading
6. Congregational prayer (any and all): Thanksgiving, Supplication, Intercession
7. Musical praise (Hymn or Psalm)
8. The Teaching
9. Musical praise (Hymn or Psalm)
10. Announcements/Offerings/Dismissal
11. Blessing
    
    The Teaching *
    (Paradosis, Kerugma or Propheteuo)

    Principle and practice based on:

    • 1 Corinthians 14

All members may contribute to the Teaching, but only one person at a time may lead the Teaching. The format of the teaching is informal but orderly. All members of the congregation should feel empowered to contribute. The Teaching is often more like a typical bible study session than a formal sermon.

The Exercise Meeting

Reforming Your Bible Study
Dr. Roy Blackwood

There is evidence in early church history and in Medieval and Reformation history of the existence of a particular kind of Bible study. It is prescribed by God in I Corinthians 14. Wherever or whenever Christ was building and reforming His Church, this kind of Bible study could be found. Conversely, when this kind of group Bible study lapsed, the Church somehow fell into the hands of men and stopped growing or reforming.

It was a "most important" factor in Reformation history. John Calvin in his Ecclesiastical Ordinances (15-41) prescribed such a meeting every Friday evening. Knox required it for the English congregation in Geneva (1556). John Lasco (1550) required it in London. Calvin probably learned of it from Martin Bucer in Strasbourg. The French Book of Order called it a "Colloquy". For the Dutch it was an important part of their "Consistory". The Scots called it first the "Exercise" and then the "Society" meeting. Zwingli and Kuiper warned about abuses that must not be allowed to creep in, just as does the Apostle Paul in I Corinthians 14.

John Knox, with reference to I Corinthians 14, in his first Book of Discipline called it "The Exercise" and required it be each Thursday night in every parish.

"To the end that the Church of God may have a trial of men's knowledge, judgment, graces and utterances....And also such as somewhat have profited in God's Word may from time to time grow to more full perfection to serve the Church as necessity shall require.” And Knox added, "It is important that every town...one certain day every week be appointed to that exercise which St. Paul called prophesying."

The agenda for this meeting was carefully prescribed. First, the Scripture for that day is read (as appointed beforehand). Next, one man explains it and in doing so may not preach, must be "short,” and must be opening the mind of the Holy Ghost on that text. Then a second man "adds" (briefly), a third man may add (more briefly) so that everyone understands, and then all speakers are removed and "censured" (i.e. not so much criticized as questioned). Lastly, the whole group has a discussion and decisions or conclusions are made about "what we’re going to do about it.”

The format could be compared to three types of 20 century inductive Bible studies wherein" (1) No one comes really prepared and we share mutual ignorance; (2) One person is totally prepared, "preaches" as we give nodding assent or he "teaches" and we "learn", (3) Everyone comes prepared and we "share" our results with everyone else.

But Knox's Reformation "Exercise" study was more than any of these because everyone prepares in advance, three expound in detail and are critiqued, not only in terms of what God is saying, but also in terms of how it was studied, and then applications are made. So that everyone learns, not only what God is saying, but also how to study and grow on into maturity and conviction, They specified that, "The ministers each in turn, shall expound the Word of God, so that each may show how he practices the study of Scripture and the method and manner of treating same."

During the "Killing Times" (1660-1690) in Scottish Reformation history, when the church had to "go underground" and the pastors were "outed" or killed, the people revived Knox's "exercise" meetings and the Church not only survived, she multiplied and prospered. These exercise meetings came to be called "Society" meetings.

These Reformation Societies organized themselves into a "Correspondence". Each society would study the same passage and then the societies in one Shire would collect their "Conclusions" and send them to Loch Goin, John Howie's home, and there they would be reviewed and synthesized or condensed to form "The Conclusions of the United Societies of Southwest Scotland." This Correspondence of United Societies of Southwest Scotland held the Reformation Church together.

But individual societies continued to meet until well into the 18th century. Some societies later made up a Testimony out of those Conclusions and organized the Reformation Presbyterian Church. One congregation in that Church was made up of 26 Society meetings. And from them came, over a 50 year period, 30 ministers, 2 seminary professors, and 3 missionaries. One elder said these Society meetings were "admirable schools for training men to study and discriminate regarding divine truth.” Knox said, "the face of the Kirk must be constantly reforming."

If the face of the Church is to continue reforming today, she must find the kind of Reformation Society meeting that the Apostle Paul was calling for in I Corinthians 14, where men who are not exegetes or historians or philosophers can meet in the presence of an accurate exposition of God's Word to find God’s answers and plans for the current problems and opportunities of life. These will be meetings where men and women can come to "Conclusions" which will be so closely related to convictions that they would be willing, if necessary, to die for them. That “1 Corinthians 14 kind-of-study" would continue to be a very important factor in bridging the gap between history and theology, organization and paper testimony, personal profession and practice, political and moral truth. That would be a “Reformation Society" meeting.

The "Exercise" in Early Presbyterianism
Dr. Roy Blackwood

In 1579 the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland declared that "the exercise may be judged a Presbytery.” The history of Presbytery is inextricably intertwined with a practice known throughout the Reformed Church as the Exercise. And yet there are elements essential to the Exercise which are almost unknown in 20th century presbytery meetings. Many would say the 15th century Exercise more nearly resembled a 20th century Bible Study or Bible Class than a presbytery meeting.

One chapter of the First Book of Discipline, written largely by John Knox, for the new Reformed Church in Scotland is devoted to the Exercise and in the first paragraph he states their purposes.

To the end that the Church of God may have a trial of men's knowledge, judgments, graces and utterances; and also, that such as somewhat have profited in God's word may from time to time grow to more full perfection to serve the church as necessity shall require; it is most important that in every town where schools and repair of learned men are that there be one certain day every week appointed to that exercise which St. Paul calleth prophesying.

The agenda for the Exercise was specified. Each group might choose their own day of the week and the book of Scripture to be studied, but beyond that they must follow the outline as, Knox and other Reformers interpreted it, from I Corinthians 14:19ff. The Scripture for the day was read. One man explained it and “in that exercise may not take to himself the liberty of a public preacher, yea, although he be a minister appointed; but he must bind himself to his text, ‘use no invective,” be "short” in exhortations or admonitions, "that the time may be spent in opening the mind of the Holy Ghost in that place” and "in following the style and dependence of the text." Then a second man “adds” confirming, correcting or further explaining. A third man spoke briefly “in case some things were hid from one and from the other.” All speakers were then removed and "censured" or "admonished,” apparently by their peers (that did not necessarily mean adversely criticized) and lastly came the discussion of questions and doubts by all present. Strict warnings were directed against “debate and strife, curious, peregrine and unprofitable questions, all interpretations leading to heresy, repugnant to charity,” or in plain contradiction to any other Scripture.

The exercise was not invented for the Reformed Church in Scotland. It was a common practice, with some variations, throughout the Reformed Church at the time of her greatest growth. In the “form of prayers” book that Knox had used for the English Congregation in Geneva Switzerland (1556), There is a paragraph which requires that once every week the congregation shall assemble to hear the Scriptures “orderly expounded.” At which time it is lawful for every man to speak or enquire, as God shall move his heart.”

Calvin’s meetings, proscribed in the Ecclesiastical Ordinances (1541), took place every Friday. An eyewitness described how one minister expounded, then another followed and then all members were allowed to make observations. He too said it was an imitation of the custom of the Church of Corinth as described by Paul. Zwingli, writing on the subject in Zurich in 1525, denounced the Anabaptists and described the prophet as the teacher-scholar of Acts 13:1. In his weekday meetings all people and ordinary citizens could make criticisms or additions.

In 1550 John Lasco, pastoring a Reformed Church for Protestant refugees in London, made provision for members of the congregation to bring in questions through their leaders. In France the Discipline or Book of Order (1559) prepared for the Reformed Churches throughout the nation, specified that at the meetings of the Colloquies, “the ministers each in turn, shall expound the word of God, so that each may show how he practices the study of the scripture and the method and manner of treating the same.” There is no reference to participation by other church members. A similar practice was introduced in Holland in the 17th century.

The Puritans in England (1571-1574) revived the practice, specifying that the entire meeting last no longer than two hours: first speaker three-quarter of an hour, second and third not to exceed one-quarter hour with a conclusion by the “moderator.” In England and perhaps in France it appears that the Exercise was primarily for the purpose of maintaining or upgrading the competency of the ministers. “As iron sharpeneth iron, so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.”

Whether or not the rank and file member could participate is important because of the influence of the Anabaptists. They too based their right to “prophesy” according to their “inner light,” on 1 Corin. 14. Whereas the Reformed Churches insisted that the work of the Holy Spirit now is not to give new light in the form of more revelation, but to interpret the one and only Revelation which came through Jesus Christ. This was to be done via diligent study of the languages in the texts of the Old and New Testaments, Romanists too were looking at anabaptistic "prophesyings" as the logical development of the Reformation with its insistence on personal Bible study and the resultant breaking down of the partition between clerical and lay.

The anabaptist influence helps to account for the early abandonment of these meetings in many areas of the new Reformed Church. The risk of being identified with their excesses was too great to be tolerated. And this risk has continued to influence men's attitudes toward the Exercise. H. H. Kuyper, for example, is anxious to insist that laymen were not allowed to participate in Calvin's meetings in Geneva and cites as evidence the case against Bolsec in 1551. But the charges state that Bolsec had "presumptuously, rashly and contrary to order, risen in the sacred congregation accustomed to be held in the city every Friday morning by the local ministers." His sentence says he “very audaciously rose in the sacred congregation of our ministers and there proposed opinions that were false and contrary to the sacred scriptures and the pure evangelical religion.”

The minutes of the meeting on 16 October 1551 state that one man preached on John 8, another added and then Bolsec argued his point, which called forth a long response from Calvin and led to Bolsec’s arrest at the close of the meeting. It seems to me the facts do not warrant Kuyper’s conclusions. The objection was to the heresy not to the speaking. If Bolsec's views had been correct there would have been no objection to his speaking. But the point is that in spite of the real risks and dangers inherent in repeated incidents such as these, Zwingli, Calvin, Knox and others throughout the Reformed Church continued to prescribe the Exercise as “most expedient” or “most necessary.”

Knox rested his case for these meetings on a study of 1 Corin. 14:29ff, and quotes it in the Chapter on the Exercise. They appear to have been an important outworking or development of the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, closely coupled to the conviction that a “knowledge of God and of ourselves” is basic to all Christian growth. Matters of faith and worship are not matters of emotional magic which benefit ex opere operato. The early reformers had seen in these verses a means, a type of meeting ordained by God, whereby men might learn to respond to His Invitation to come to reason together with Him, that "in understanding" they might become men.

In summarizing, it seems fair to say that the Reformed Church, at the time of her greatest growth, believed that God had designed this type of meeting to accomplish four things. (1) To develop leadership. They believed the Exercise provided the setting and situation which would identify and further develop those gifts and graces which God had built into the lives of men whom He was adding daily to His Church, and so call them to the attention of the church-as-a-whole that they would be promoted to the positions of leadership and responsibility which He intended them to have. (2) To help young Christians to grow up into spiritual maturity. Not only could they learn actual doctrine and content by listening and asking questions, they also could learn how to learn more by observing the study methods and growth patterns of older Christians and thus as Knox put it, "be encouraged daily to study and proceed in knowledge.” (3) To recruit new leadership by giving everyone a sense of personal responsibility for the continuing development of the Church as a whole, and to keep the Church mindful of the practical needs and developing maturity in the lives of the individual Christians who were being rapidly added to the church in those days. (4) To continue upgrading the competency of the teaching ministry.

In making 20th century comparisons we see some similarities between the Reformation Exercise and "Trials" or "Student Preaching" by seminarians today. But what fully ordained and perhaps aging Pastor today would welcome "censure" even by his peers, for his methods of study, preparation and delivery, and his doctrinal content?

There are similarities between an Exercise and a 20th century Bible Study, but exceptions must be made. If we classify modem Bible Studies under three types: (1) Where no one comes prepared and we share mutual ignorance about the text. (2) Where only one "professional" comes prepared and all others give a nodding assent, (3) Where all come prepared and we "share” equally; then we still have not described the Exercise. For in it all came prepared, but one who was recognized by others as specially qualified and spiritually mature expounded the Word and explained how he got it as well as what the doctrine was. The two others who were also recognized as being specially qualified and mature "added." Finally others asked questions, added, and the church as a whole learned together. In some ways the Exercise was more like a 20th century Bible Class or a Seminar than a Presbytery meeting. And it must be remembered that in spite of 15th century communication and transportation problems, and the extraordinary responsibilities weighing heavily on every member of the Reformed Church in lands as yet unreached by the Gospel, the Exercise meetings were held each week.

The Lord's Supper (Table)
We celebrate the Lord's Supper on the first Sunday of each month.

The Lord's Supper (sometimes called Communion, or the Eucharist) is (for the time being) its own worship service and replaces what would be a regular service for that day. This is because we include a pot-luck lunch as part of the service and to incorporate that along with the Lord's Supper would be logistically too difficult for many households and the whole service could become a burden rather than a blessing.

Our Supper is a table meal; we sit around the dining room table and share the elements of the Supper (bread and wine) with one another.

Celebration Outline

1. Members arrive for the service, bringing whatever they are able to contribute to the lunch;
2. Preparations are made for setting up the lunch;
3. Lunch is served and eaten;
4. Lunch is cleared away from the table (if eaten at the table); the table is reset with white linen cloth and individual cups/glasses;(a)
5. A pitcher of wine and a plate with unleveaned bread are brought out and placed before the leader; (both the wine and bread having been previously consecrated);
6. The Table is then "fenced"; (b)
7. The words from 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 are recited by leader;
8. The leader then distributes the bread;
9. The leader, as she/he breaks the bread, says "The body of Christ, broken for you." and then distributes it. The first recipient takes a piece of bread and passes the plate to the next person who, when ready, eats and so on; (c)
10. Finally, the leader recieves the bread and eats;
11. Next, the wine is distributed in the pitcher, the leader saying "The blood of the new covenant, poured out for you" before passing the pitcher to the first celebrant, who pours his/her own glass/cup, passes the pitcher along, then drinks;
12. The pitcher returning to the leader, he/she pours his own glass/cup and drinks.
13. A Psalm 118 is sung by all to conclude the Supper. (d)
    

Thoughts on the Common Cup

We believe that celebrating the Lord’s Table with a common cup is not strictly biblical; that those who do so are substituting a human tradition in place of a clear biblical injunction. For some, this practice has created the problem of limiting their liberty to celebrate the Lord’s Table, by not allowing them to partake from an individual cup that they might choose to do for reasons of health and good conscience. We support this position, thinking the matter of the cup in the celebration is more a matter of Christian liberty than obedience.

Based on the relevant Scriptural references our belief is that in the celebration of the Lord’s Table the essential external elements are the bread and wine, which in themselves are symbols of the Lord’s body and blood. The cup is merely used as a secondary symbol for the blood, which it represents through the wine it contains. The cup, in and of itself, has no significance. The cup is merely an accessory for holding that which is of importance: the wine. Whatever importance the cup has, it has by association. Just as the gift was important because of the altar by which it was sanctified (Matt. 23:18-19) so the cup is important because of the wine which it holds.

We believe those who demand the celebration with a common cup do so for the following reasons: 1.) Since we are all members of one Body, sharing a common cup is presumed to be a symbol of belonging one to another. It is thought to be a demonstration of the fellowship and kinship we have in Christ. 2.) Matt. 26:27 indicates that the drinking from a common cup is what is being commanded by the Lord because the preposition “ek” means “out of” or “from” in reference to the one cup being passed around and not to the wine. 3.) Simple tradition.

In answer to the first reason for the common cup, I maintain that the virtue of the Lord’s Table does not reside in the cup, but in the blood (Lev. 17:11, 14) symbolized by the wine of which we all partake in Communion! It is because we partake of the wine together that we belong one to another, not because we all drink from a single cup. In truth, the blood is a symbol of Christ’s penal and sacrificial death. We are united in this death through the sharing of the blood. The blood in turn is symbolized by the wine. So it is actually in the partaking of and the sharing in Christ’s death—which is symbolized by the blood and the wine—that unites us with Him and consequently with other believers. In this way, by sharing in the blood symbolized by the wine, we are properly celebrating the Lord’s Supper whether or not it is with a common cup, because it is Christ’s blood (His death) that confirms our kinship, not the ritualized drinking from a single cup. This is made plain by 1 Cor 11:26 where Paul says, “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew [that is, proclaim, announce, promulgate, make known] the Lord's death till he come [italics mine].

In answer to the second reason, I believe that the context of Matt. 26:27, along with the passage of which it is a part, as well as all parallel passages, clearly indicate that what is important is not the common cup itself but what the cup contained, for in the very next verse (Matt. 26:28) Christ says “For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” [italics ours] indicating the true nature of the memorial action the apostles were about to share in. It is erroneous to confuse the secondary symbol (cup) for the primary symbol (wine).

In Matt. 26:27, “And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave [it] to them, saying, Drink ye all of it.” The word of translates the Greek preposition “ek.” The preposition ek should not be translated “of” but rather “from” or “out from.” Interestingly, newer translations are actually more accurate here. For instance, the NASB, the NKJV and the NIV all translate the word ek as “from” not “of” making these versions closer to the original than the KJV (at least in this instance).

According to a literal reading of the Greek text of Matt. 26:27, we are to drink wine from a cup, not wine of or belonging to a cup. The cup is unimportant to the sharing of the element of the wine, which stands for the blood of Christ, which stands for the death of Christ. Except for the fact that we are told to drink the wine from a cup there is no theological importance in the cup itself. And this is where this little word ek comes into its own. No matter how you slice it, we are told by Scripture that we are to drink from a single cup. In the Greek, the word ek does not denote a possessive quality, in which the wine would belong to the cup, thus giving the cup some spiritual significance, but rather denotes a movement out or away from, in which the wine moves from the cup to our waiting lips. We consume—we drink—the wine, not the cup.

What about the Regulative Principle of Worship? Does it bear on this issue? If so, it must surely apply to the bread and wine as when Paul says for instance, “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come” (1 Cor. 11:26). If the RPW applies it must apply to the eating of the bread and the drinking of the wine, for that is what we are told to do. We all understand that the “cup” is a metonymy for the wine which it holds. We are not actually to drink a cup, which is a solid object, but we are to eat the bread. And certainly the parallel construction of this verse would seem to bear this out; if we must eat the bread, then we must drink the wine (which was being distributed in a common cup).

The third reason for using the common cup is from simple tradition (or to use a better word, custom). In this case, no one tries to maintain that there is any spiritual or theological justification for the common cup. It is merely what has been done for a very long time. There is nothing inherently wrong in this position, except when the practice of celebrating with a common cup is preventing those in the congregation from partaking from individual cups for reasons of health, conscience or whatever. There is simply no ecclesiological justification for the exclusive practice of the common cup and to practice this is to possibly place a burden upon those who in their self examination and with a clear conscience cannot share in the practice, as well as to create divisiveness within the Body of Christ. This is to contravene the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 20, Article 2 which states, “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to his Word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship. So that to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience; and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.”

Notes:

(a) The first Lord's Supper was part of the important Passover seder. The meal was celebrated by Christ and His apostles as part of the OT ceremonial law. Toward the end of the meal (at the third or fourth cup) the Lord changed the importance and meaning of the occasion forever. At this point, the Lord changed the Passover into His Supper. This then became separated from the earlier Passover portions of the meal. Yet while Passover was a theological re-enactment and memorial to the original exodus from Egypt, it was nevertheless still a proper, though ritualized, meal. We separate out the Christian Supper from the meal in order to be consistent with the NT accounts of this occasion. Yet we retain the meal as such partly for integrety and partly as an opportunity for fellowship and edification.

(b) "Fencing the table" means to prepare the celebrants to better understand the significance and meaning of the Supper or Table as well as to warn those who may not be worthy to take this Supper. Those who are not worthy are those who, for whatever reason, have not expressed a sincere profession of faith to the church elders or who may be under church discipline from a previous congregation. The words of the fencing are taken from 1 Cor. 11:27-32.

A sincere profession of faith, for us, is nothing more than answering the following six questions in the affirmative:

1. Do you accept the Bible (all sixty-six books of both the Old and the New Testaments) as the single, uncontested and sufficient rule for the Christian life?
   
2. Do you acknowledge yourself to be a sinner in the sight of God, being dead in your sin, justly deserving His displeasure and without hope of salvation on your own?
   
3. Do you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and Saviour of sinners, and do receive and rest upon him alone for salvation as he is offered in the gospel?
   
4. Do you now resolve and promise, in humble reliance upon the grace of the Holy Spirit, that you will endeavour to live as becomes the followers of Christ?
   
5. Do you promise to support the (one, holy, catholic and apostolic, both visible and invisible)) church in her worship and work, beginning with this congregation, to the best of your ability?
   
6. Do you submit yourself to the government and discipline of the church, and promise to maintain its purity and peace?

(c) Although not strictly biblical we say "The body of Christ, broken for you." and "The blood of the new covenant, poured out for you" in order to reinforce in people the importance, significance and essential meaning of the ritual they are enacting.

(d) Psalm 116 is sung to conclude the ceremony because it is likely to have been at least part of the "hymn" which was sung by Christ after the Supper was concluded and before He and His disciples (less Judas) left the upper room for the Mount of Olives. It is a wonderful song of joyful praise and is completely suited to the occasion.

Suggested Opening hymn (Josiah Condor, 1824)

Bread of Heav’n on Thee we feed,
For Thy flesh is meat indeed:
Ever may our souls be fed
With this true and living Bread;
Day by day with strength supplied,
Through the life of Him Who died.

Vine of Heav’n, Thy blood supplies
This blest cup of sacrifice,
Lord, Thy wounds our healing give,
To Thy cross we look and live:
Jesus, may we ever be
Grafted, rooted, built in Thee.

{Back}

A Note About Musical Praise

The Structure of the Worship Service

The Lord's Supper (Communion)

Sermon on the Lord's Supper
(Maurice Roberts)

Worship Resources:

• Thoughts on Christian Worship: 2004
• Further Thoughts on Worship
• Continuing Thoughts on Worship: 2008
• Early (Apostolic) Worship

3 Opinions of Christ