Sermon Tone Analysis

1 Corinthians 11:17-20

*There Must be Factions*

 

“In the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse.

For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you.

And I believe it in part, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.

When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat.”[1]

 

| T |

he Lord’s Table is meant to be a celebration of unity.

To be sure, participation at the Lord’s Table is worship, but it is corporate worship that is stressed in passages presenting the Meal—not personal worship.

Nowhere should there be greater harmony than when we are met at the Table of the Lord.

If we approach the Meal as taught in the Word, undoubtedly the Table will provide opportunity to declare our unity.

However, a subtle transformation had occurred among the professed people of God in Corinth.

Likely, the Apostle’s instruction to the Corinthians will prove beneficial to worshippers in this present time.

In Corinth, there was a significant number within the congregation who saw their actions at the Lord’s Table as unrelated to what others were doing.

They would have contended that they were worshipping as long as they felt worshipful.

In their view, it did not matter what others did at the Meal, so long as they felt good about themselves.

These “worshippers” failed to see that this was a congregational meal in which the participants declared their fellowship.

They had reduced the Meal to an opportunity for private worship without concern for or attention to the impact of their actions on fellow worshippers.

These Christians had decided that the Meal was a declaration of their personal faith—nothing more and nothing less; they were convinced that participation in the Meal was their right.

What had been meant to be a congregational observance was reduced to a private rite that only incidentally was hosted by the church.

In far too many instances, churches today have unwittingly transformed the Lord’s Table into private worship.

The Meal is frequently, if not usually, seen as an opportunity for every individual to participate whether they are subject to the discipline of the host congregation or not.

Those present almost always anticipate that what they are doing is private worship, or perhaps in some instances, family worship.

However, there is little sense that it is corporate worship of a most intimate sort.

Consequently, we will do well to review the instruction Paul provided, applying it in our own lives.

*Worship—Private or Corporate?*

The Corinthians were increasingly focused on private worship.

The Spirit of God, speaking through the Apostle, thought it necessary to refocus the vision of the Corinthians.

The instructions that Paul would provide began with an emphasis upon the corporate nature of the act of worship.

The Apostle wrote, “*/When you come together/* it is not for the better but for the worse.

For, in the first place, */when you come together as a church/*, I hear that there are divisions among you.”

Though it is certainly possible, and even desirable, for Christians to worship individually, worship at the Lord’s Table is always presented in the context of the congregation met in assembly.

There is no warrant to be found for participation at the Lord’s Table other than as part of the congregation in which the Meal is hosted.

There is no example to be found in Scripture of a group of Christians getting together and deciding to observe the Communion Meal.

There is not a single example of an individual in the New Testament who worshipped by eating bread and drinking wine alone.

Always the worship of the Lord’s Supper is a congregation event.

It is difficult to justify through appeal to Scripture the current evangelical fad of Open Communion.

Open Communion refers to the practise of inviting everyone present to participate in the Communion Meal.

It leaves the decision of whether to participate or to refrain to the conscience of the individual, removing oversight of the Meal from the local congregation.

This practise views the Communion Meal as a Christian ordinance rather than a church ordinance, as detailed in the New Testament.

Christ entrusted the Meal to the churches, and not in a general sense to Christians.

The Meal is to be observed congregationally, rather than individually.

In the New Testament, worship at the Lord’s Table is a corporate act in which those participating are subject to the discipline of the congregation hosting the Meal.

Is this not obvious through reading the opening statements of our text?

And is it not apparent when we review the examples provided in the Book of Acts, which gives us the most complete history of the actions of the apostolic churches?

Close Communion is the term describing the practise of permitting only those who have received baptism as believers to participate at the Lord’s Table.

It could be stated that only those of like faith and practise may participate in the practise of Close Communion.

Closed Communion advocates that only members of the local congregation may participate at the Table of the Lord.

Perhaps those who argue for close communion, as opposed to closed communion, may be able to justify their belief through biblical precept; however, it is impossible for those advocating open communion to advocate that position intelligibly from Scripture.

Unquestionably, in New Testament practise the Lord’s Table was restricted to those individuals who had received baptism as believers.

Since there was no infant baptism, even the unbaptised children of believing parents were excluded from the Meal.

And those who had received baptism upon their confession of faith in the Son of God were subject to the discipline of the congregation with which they worshipped.

There is neither precept nor example of a congregation imposing discipline on anyone other than a member of the particular Body.

Neither is there a single example of an unbaptised person sharing at the Lord’s Table.

Though we can find Scriptural precedence for inviting outsiders to observe our worship, other than the example of the missionaries who had established the church, one is hard-pressed to find an example in Scripture of inviting non-members to share as partners in worship.

Undoubtedly, when travelling, an infrequent occurrence in New Testament days, believers did seek out a fellowship with which they could worship.

However, it is only by assumption that one can argue that they would have been permitted to participate in the Communion Meal since the local congregation would not have been able to ascertain in timely fashion their status as believers or to their good conduct or even whether they had received baptism as believers.

The picture Paul presents of the Corinthian church is that of a dysfunctional congregation.

In particular, the membership of the church appears to have been focused on personal rights rather than corporate responsibilities.

The congregation was in peril, and they failed to recognise the signs of danger looming before them as result of their doctrinal aberration.

Any congregation that becomes so focused on the felt needs of individual members that they neglect or forget corporate responsibility is a congregation that is in grave danger of drifting from the secure foundation of biblical certainty.

The danger facing the Corinthian Christians menaces modern churches as well.

At the heart of this particular discussion concerning our approach to the Lord’s Table is a distinguishing doctrine for Baptists—regenerate church membership.

Historically, Baptists championed the concept of the Believer’s Church, or a regenerate church membership.

When doctrine is sacrificed for the sake of fulfilling felt needs, the result is a congregation that views the business of the church as an opportunity to advance conflicting agendas and a congregation that no longer serves Christ.

The concept of the Believer’s Church demands participation by each member as the Body seeks to both know and implement the will of Christ for the people of God.

Let me ask you to think with me as we ask and seek the answer to a few questions.

Do we go to church?

Or are we the church?

The difference is the difference between practising a formality designed to make us as individuals feel good about ourselves, and truly worshipping and serving the Son of God.

The difference between the answers to these two questions is the difference between doing and being.

Because we are the Body of Christ, we participate in the worship of the Son of God; we do not participate in worship in order to be the Body of Christ.

The Corinthians had forgotten that they were the Body of Christ met for the purpose of mutual edification, encouragement and consolation [see *1 Corinthians 14:3*].

In a similar manner, when we forget that we are the church and begin to go to church, we will cease to build up one another in the Faith, to encourage one another, and to console one another.

Consider the following question also.

Is participation at the Lord’s Table a right?

Or is it a privileged responsibility?

If it is a right, we will need to determine what restrictions, if any, should be placed on the right.

Should we be permitted to partake of Communion wherever we desire to share in the Meal?

Or should we recognise that we must place ourselves under the discipline of the assembly with which we share the Meal?

It follows from this question that if the congregation refuses to hold those participating accountable for faith and practise, they are for all practical purposes ceasing to hold to the concept of a regenerate church membership.

If the Meal is a privileged responsibility, am I negligent if I fail to participate with those who share in my growth and development as a follower of the Son of God?  What are the consequences of failure to share in participation, if the Meal is a responsibility?

Many of the difficulties alluded to will be avoided if the congregation adopts the practise of publicly reading the Church Covenant on a continuing basis.

That document addresses practical aspects of Christianity, especially stressing the corporate nature of the congregation.

Not only should each member be required to indicate agreement with the document by signing it upon entering membership, but they should also be required to renew publicly their commitment to the Body through signing the Church Covenant on at least an annual basis.

Furthermore, each member must hold every other member accountable to fulfil the responsibilities accepted with membership.

The important lesson to be drawn is that worship at the Lord’s Table is corporate and not individual, if it is to meet the standard set within the pages of the New Testament.

To neglect Scripture in favour of pursuing individual agendas is to open the church to a variety of errors that turn us from biblical practise and into a growing morass of contemporary heresy.

Despite the temptation to adopt error in order to avoid hurting the feelings of theological lightweights, the wise congregation will adhere tenaciously to the Word of God, knowing that it is far more important to please God than to please man.

*Goals for Worship* — What, then, are the goals for worship at the Lord’s Table?

Perhaps it should be stated that the goals for worship at the Table of the Lord are essentially the same as the goals for worship in every other circumstance.

While there are a multitude of issues that are vital in understanding true worship, in our text, Paul clearly indicates that one goal for worship is that those worshipping are to be better instead of being made worse for the experience.

Also, the Apostle stresses, as he does in so many places throughout his letters, the unity that should result from worship.

Let’s consider these vital goals for worship in their turn.

First, Paul laments that when the Corinthians “come together it is not for the better but for the worse.”

Worship should result in worshippers being made better, not worse.

Let’s consider this worthy goal by considering the teaching of the Word of God.

Understand that when I speak of worship, I am confining myself to consideration of those who “worship in spirit and in truth” [e.g.

*John **4:23*].

It is not the liturgy that is in view, but the knowledge of the Holy One among His people that is here considered.