The view of paedocommunion advocates, however, is that the benefit of the sacrament can be conveyed without any active subjective reception by the recipient. In other words, the receiver can be “worthy” (as a baptized child of the covenant) and yet be “ignorant” of the sacrament’s meaning. Our elders reasoned that this different theology of the sacrament itself would make it impossible for an officer of the church to uphold and protect the confessional standards from which they depart on this vital issue.

The Lord’s Supper is a sign and seal of our mystical union with Jesus Christ. It is also a means by which Jesus unites the different members of his church into one body. Our “coming together” (1 Cor. 11:17) at the Table of the Lord isn’t just a moment on our calendar—the Supper constitutes the church as the body of Christ.
So, what happens when the Supper divides the church rather than unites the church? I’m not focusing on how the heirs of the Reformation have not been able to bridge the differences that first appeared at the Colloquy of Marburg when Luther and Zwingli tangled. I’m focusing on how differences on the Supper sometimes divide the local church at the very point we should find the most intimate unity with our brothers and sisters in Christ every Lord’s Day.
In this essay, I’m reflecting on and lamenting a painful experience in the life of my church to illustrate this point. The real people who were involved are good and honorable, and I remain friendly with many of them. My intention in telling the story isn’t to call them into question or rehash the decisions our elders made. It is simply to lament the divisions in the church—locally and globally—and to help other churches and pastors who may be facing similar difficulties.
The Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) congregation in which I serve as a pastor regularly solicits elder and deacon nominations from our members. The nominees are trained and examined by the current elders to ascertain their fitness for ministry. Those who are found qualified are put forward to the church for a vote. Over the years, our elders have occasionally disqualified men for a variety of reasons: an insufficient grasp of theology, biblical or doctrinal issues, personal issues, or otherwise. Recently, we disqualified two men because of their commitment to paedocommunion.
Adherents of paedocommunion reject the traditional practice of admitting children of believers to the Table only after making a profession of faith to the elders. Some churches set a minimum age for such an interview, while others require children to attend a communicants’ class or participate in a confirmation class. Although my church admits young children to the table, our elders interview every child and evaluate their age-appropriate profession of faith before admitting them to the Supper.
Our two candidates asked to make an exception to those portions of the Westminster Confession of Faith and Larger and Shorter Catechisms that speak to this aspect of our doctrine of the sacraments and Communion. Specifically, they objected to the language of the Larger Catechism, question 177:
Wherein do the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper differ?The sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper differ, in that Baptism is to be administered but once, with water, to be a sign and seal of our regeneration and ingrafting into Christ, and that even to infants; whereas the Lord’s Supper is to be administered often, in the elements of bread and wine, to represent and exhibit Christ as spiritual nourishment to the soul, and to confirm our continuance and growth in him, and that only to such as are of years and ability to examine themselves.
The biblical text for this catechism question is 1 Corinthians 11:28. Our candidates did not believe the Westminster Divines properly interpreted or applied that passage in using it to support the restriction of covenant children from the Supper. Our elders could respond in one of three ways:

We could judge that their stated exception was merely semantic. That is, the candidates believed the same thing our confessional standards express, but they used different language to state their beliefs.

Read More
Related Posts:

One example can be seen in larger bodies where both teaching and lay elders once governed the church; they’re called “ruling” elders.  Today, some churches reduce the role of ruling elders to merely shepherding and have established a smaller group of men, including possibly non-ordained staff members, to govern and exercise authority over the church.  One of these unbiblical innovations is called a “Governance Commission.” 

The term “deep state” is ubiquitous in today’s parlance and used by many to signify political control and power in the United States.  While driving my car just a while ago listening to the program, Issues, Etc., on the Lutheran Missouri Synod radio station KFUO, reference to the “deep state” occurred several times.  It was explained as the bureaucratic control and secret manipulation of government policy behind the scenes by certain influential members of government agencies.  When I finally heard a clear definition of what it is, I couldn’t help wondering if something similar is taking place in some churches and denominations throughout Christendom?  In other words, is there a “deep church” in the body of Christ?
Many would probably recognize or perceive its existence especially in the hierarchal churches or denominations.  But what about Protestant, Evangelical, or Reformed Faith churches?  The more I thought about it, the more I recognized its increasing presence, even in Reformed Faith churches.  However, it’s important to first attempt to recognize the source, that is, is it biblical or something else?  The early Church led by the apostles did not represent bureaucracy or hierarchy as so many churches do today.  The apostles did not represent highly educated men who were paid based on their levels of education or their degrees attained.  Some of the early leaders continued to support themselves by their trades.  Others were modestly supported by other believers, as they traveled evangelizing wherever they went.  Requests for donations appeared to focus not on support for leaders or an institution, but for the poor and persecuted believers.
The Western Church—whether hierarchal, Evangelical, or Reformed—today does not closely resemble that early church.  In many respects, today’s churches, denominations, and branches are a far cry from the early Church.  In fact, most forms seem to be distanced from the biblical image and norms given to us. With the increasing bureaucracies in most church bodies, is it possible that the world’s ways and means have invaded Christ’s Bride, surreptitiously?
Unfortunately, as a Reformed Faith Christian, I admit I can’t ignore that something close to the “deep state” in politics is evident in Reformed Faith churches.  I am reluctant to admit this, but truth requires that we acknowledge facts, history, and reality.  Below are just a few indications that some Reformed Faith churches have acquiesced and embraced the world in polity and practices.
One example can be seen in larger bodies where both teaching and lay elders once governed the church; they’re called “ruling” elders.  Today, some churches reduce the role of ruling elders to merely shepherding and have established a smaller group of men, including possibly non-ordained staff members, to govern and exercise authority over the church.  One of these unbiblical innovations is called a “Governance Commission.”  Placing so much power over a particular church in the hands of a few select individuals is always questionable and risky.  Smaller groups can become elitist and political, exercising unchecked power and possibly abuse or manipulate their authority that would not happen with the larger group of ruling elders or overseers.
As organizations receiving charitable and voluntary contributions, year-end in-depth financial statements of income and expenditures were once provided to all members.  This transparency included staff salaries, additional perks, and individual expenditures or overhead expenses that were easily understood.  Some churches no longer provide such detailed statements to their memberships.  Today, financial transparency is essentially absent to the congregation. Of all institutions and organizations, Christian churches and organizations should be the most transparent.
In bygone days, pastors were paid for the work they did for the church–as most pastors carried the same burdens and duties regardless of level of education.  Today in many churches, pastoral salaries relate to level of education and degrees received.  Pastors with more degrees are paid more than pastors with a seminary only degree.  In other words, remuneration appears to be based on what has been received rather than what is given, and many pastors’ seminary expenses were either supported or paid for by their churches. It must be recognized some are simply more privileged than others.  Even in the world, remuneration based on work performed, rather than privilege received, is more just and fair.
Churches previously relied heavily on voluntarism to perform many duties in the church, as opposed to a large paid staff.   Many of our contemporary Evangelical churches have large paid staffs and even pay people for services that were once volunteered freely as service unto God.  Both natural and spiritual gifts voluntarily bolstered churches ministries; however, today many of those services are monetarily remunerated.  Paying staff for work that could be voluntarily performed by the laity consumes limited funds that could be directed to proclamation of the Gospel or needed charity.
It’s doubtful early Christian pastors or priests received housing allowances that were tax-exempt.  Today, pastors expect to receive salaries plus housing allowances.  This practice appears based upon indirect government assistance. Allegedly, one pastor requested a reduction in salary with an equivalent raise in housing allowance in order to pay less taxes.  This practice appears to be manipulative.
In the past, congregations nominated candidates for office in Reformed Faith churches.  This too appears to be diminishing, where committees of a few elites are authorized to select candidates for church office. This “central planning” or “deep state” model creates situations whereby candidates can be selected who are more controllable, rather than based upon their qualifications, character and experience to direct activities on behalf of the church.  In some instances, the pastor has final authority to approve or disapprove candidates, without giving explanation to the ordained lay overseers. Selecting officers or committee members without congregational responsibility gives inordinate power to the staff, and over time, and will lead to diminished participation of the congregants in the life of the church.
The above discussion shows, unfortunately, that the world and worldly practices as—opposed to biblical practices and principles—have entered the Church, and there appears to be a “deep church” as well as a “deep state.”  Are we willing to acknowledge and recognize how much the world has been allowed into the Church?  Are we even willing to address the issues biblically?  In the Reformed Faith, the laity once had the responsibility for oversight, which appears to be decreasing in many churches.
Isn’t it time for both leadership and laity to take control of their churches and denominations to ensure genuine transparency, doctrinal integrity, and biblical practices and principles?  God’s Word and Church History demand it.   “Deep church,” as “deep state,” is unhealthy and merits addressing.
This is written by a former missionary.  Missionaries in general make great sacrifices to serve Christ, to proclaim the Gospel, and to disciple others out of great love for the Lord.  Remuneration is generally a pittance of what could be earned in other fields.  This writer has also served her church in many areas using both natural and spiritual gifts with no expectation of remuneration.  Today, she writes this monograph seeking no remuneration because serving God is a joy and a privilege.
Helen Louise Herndon is a member of Central Presbyterian Church (EPC) in St. Louis, Missouri. She is freelance writer and served as a missionary to the Arab/Muslim world in France and North Africa; this article originally appeared in October 1991 in her church newsletter.
Related Posts:

Consider him who endured from sinners such hostility against himself, so that you may not grow weary or fainthearted. In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood. (Heb. 12:3–4)
Every year in the Atlanta area, thousands gather to participate in the 10K Peachtree Road Race. For the novice runner all goes well until “Cardiac Hill.” It’s a steep incline in front of Piedmont Hospital where an unprepared participant will grow tired because of the difficulty. They may also become distracted by the hotdogs and doughnuts that are available throughout the race. It’s easy to allow faintheartedness to set in when the distance is long and there are diversions along the way.
The writer of the book of Hebrews warned against this in the Christian life. Some of the professing believers who received the letter were being pressured to abandon Christianity and withdraw to a respectable Jewish religion. They were about to stop short of the finish line. They were spiritually sapped, given what was going on around them. And so often, as Christians, that can happen to us. We can become fatigued and disillusioned on our journey from this life to the next. That can be true for the person dealing with declining health, parents raising children, or as we wrestle with sin. Weariness is something we all face.
What are we to do when it occurs? Our tendency is to focus on our problems or to let our eyes be directed to worldly comforts. Doing these things only makes matters worse, however. But in Hebrews 12:3–4, we are told how the remedy to weariness is affectionately meditating on Jesus, particularly in two ways.
Consider Christ Who Endured Hostility
First, as we encounter many dangers, toils, and snares, we must remember that Jesus also went through them. Specifically, He endured opposition. His life from beginning to end was filled with conflict. Not long after Jesus was born, Herod tried to kill Him (Matt. 2:15–16). Religious leaders sought His demise (Mark 3:6). The Romans crucified Him (John 19:16–23). He felt the animosity of many. Yet Jesus kept going. He didn’t let the enmity of enemies deter Him from His course.