The Sacraments: Mental Immaturity / Disability

Disclaimer: This blog post is my thinking out loud, and as such, I am open to comments, critiques, and corrections on the topic.

I am concerned by what I have witnessed among Christian denominations that exclude individuals from participation in the Sacraments due to one’s inability to outwardly demonstrate faith in Christ, perhaps due to mental immaturity or disability.  When I say “concerned,” I mean I come close to tears thinking about it, which for those that know me is saying a lot.  

Baptist circles, for example, do not baptize someone unless they have made a public profession of faith.  Another example are Presbyterian circles (of which I belong), who tend to not allow someone to participate in the Lord’s Supper unless they have made a public profession of faith.  Regardless of why participation in a particular Sacrament is being denied, the result is a very real exclusion, a setting apart of that denied person from the rest of the Body of Christ.  That person must be reminded Sunday after Sunday that they are not like the others they sit next to.  Why?  Because they have not met their church leaders’ subjective standard of exhibiting an understanding of and faith in the Gospel.  

In the cases where one has been denied the Sacraments due to mental immaturity, i.e. children, I have often heard the explanation that the person has not yet reached the “age of accountability.”  Not only am I unable to find such a concept in Scripture, this age varies subjectively from church to church.  In the meantime, these children are forced to live in visible exclusion until they reach their church leaders’ prescribed magical age.

Regarding mental disability, I have seen men and women with Down’s Syndrome, for example, be denied the Sacraments for the same reason; their inability to articulate an understanding of and faith in the Gospel, which many of these people will never be able to do.

I believe a person with Down’s Syndrome in the church has as much of a right to the Sacraments as everyone else in the church.  Yes, I wrote “right” and notice I also qualified that this person is in the church.  This means they are attending every Sunday and likely the child of a believer.  This person is in all tense and purposes already part of the visible church and as such ought to receive the sign meant to be administered to the visible church; i.e. Baptism.

A person who has not yet met the local subjective “age of accountability” still has every right to the Sacraments as everyone else in the church.  Let us assume the following; the person is a child of a believer, has been Baptized, is a member of the visible church, and hears the Word preached every Sunday.  Why should that church member be withheld from participation in the Lord’s Supper, the Gospel in visible form?  We do not keep our children from hearing the Word preached prior to reaching an “age of accountability,” so why would we keep them from participating in the Gospel in visible form?  The same goes for those with mental disabilities; if they have received the sign of Baptism, they ought not be denied participation to the Lord’s Supper, as if they are under official church discipline.  In regards to “fencing the table,” I fear we are far too lenient with the sin of those without mental excuse and far too strict with those that are the most mentally tender and vulnerable.  Shame on us!

Perhaps it would help if we considered the means of grace, which are prayer, the Word preached, and the Sacraments.  We pray with and encourage those that are mentally immature or disabled.  We preach the Word to these people in our church, as well.  The Sacraments are effectual means of grace through the working of the Holy Spirit for those that have been given the gift of faith, which is a work of God, not man.  I caution that on the matter of the Sacraments, we too often sound more like Pelagians than proponents of the Gospel of Grace.  May we administer all the means of grace in such a manner that truly magnifies the grace and mercy of God in the saving a people unto Himself.

Presbytery: The Judicial Center of Gravity

I was recently asked by a co-worker which church I attended in town.  He was raised in a non-denominational church and still attended one, so he had many questions for me upon hearing that I am an elder in a Presbyterian church.  I went on to explain what a Presbyterian was and the distinguishing characteristics from other denominations.  My co-worker was most interested in hearing about Presbyterian church government as he found it to differ drastically from the independent, congregationalist style form of government he was use to.  His congregation is subject to no external jurisdiction.  There are no checks and balances between his local church and an external entity should an internal dispute arise.  For example, should his preacher begin preaching heresy, there is no external entity to deal with the pastor.  On the other hand, nor is there protection for his pastor should his congregation turn on the pastor.

In Presbyterianism, there are three levels of courts to deal with disputes.  The first level of court, or session, consists of elders elected by and from among the local congregation.  In addition to the administration of sacraments, the session is responsible for resolving local disputes and, if needed,  the exercise of discipline.  This much my co-worker was vaguely familiar with in his own congregation. 
 

What if the nature of a dispute boils over the ability of a session to handle?  What if the integrity of the session itself is called into question by one or several members of the congregation?  In such cases the regional church, or presbytery, the second level of court would address the issue.  A presbytery consists of a pastor and an elder commissioned from each congregation over a predefined geographic area.  This level of court is really the judicial center of gravity for Presbyterianism.

Occasionally, disputes are not resolvable even at the presbytery level.  In these cases the general assembly, the third and highest level of court, would address the issue.  This level of court consists of a number of pastors and elders from among each presbytery.  While the potential power of a general assembly is great, it rarely flexes such might unless it is truly needed.  Instead, a general assembly, acknowledging that the judicial center of gravity resides at the level of presbytery, provides counsel to a presbytery in which the dispute arose.  In short, the general assembly tends to just tell a presbytery to man up and do their job with a bit of advice thrown in.  I exaggerate only a little.

While biblical and the best form of church government available to fallible men, I told my co-worker that the Presbyterian judicial system only works as well as those running it.  We are far from perfect.  I have noticed recently the very issue of presbyteries not living up to their judicial role, although perhaps this has been an ongoing problem for years.  Complaints are brought before presbytery and are ignored.  Charges are brought forward only to be adjudicated without trial.  Well meaning judicial committees and politically powerful clerks of presbytery are tempted to sweep issues under the rug as they may be viewed as an embarrassment if made known at the general assembly level.  In some respects, this embarrassment is warranted as it is a testament to a presbytery’s failure to “do their job.”  The result, however, is a tolerance for the intolerable, all in an attempt to maintain a false front of unity.  The problem is that such false fronts and the neglect of judicial proceedings are more likely to only cause real fractures within a presbytery.  Yet, that is why the general assembly exists; to provide presbyteries counsel and wisdom from a wider pool of individuals, objective in their discernment.  May general assemblies keep presbyteries living up to their judicial responsibilities.  The ultimate health and welfare of the visible church is at stake.

Note: The above picture is of the Jerusalem Chamber located in Westminster Abbey.  The Westminster Assembly met in the Jerusalem Chamber from the Winter of 1643 until its dissolution in 1653.  In this room the Assembly debated the form of Presbyterian church government in addition to the drafting of the Westmister Standards, the Westminster Confession of Faith, and other documents.

My Report on the 83rd GA of the OPC

The Rev. Matthew Kingsbury and I attended the 83th GA of the OPC as commissioners on behalf of our regional church, the Presbytery of the Dakotas, at Sandy Cove Conference Center in North East, MD from June 8-13, 2016.  The meeting of the GA also coincided with the 80^th anniversary of the OPC as a denomination.  The GA is the governing body of the OPC and the highest court of appeal in judicial matters.  

The Assembly was addressed by delegates from denominations with which the OPC enjoys fraternal relations. The delegates represented denominations from Austria, Switzerland, Australia, Brazil, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand, and several others here in the United States.  The Committee on Diaconal Ministries highlighted the opportunity for our deacons to attend Diaconal Conferences.  The Committee on Home Missions and Church Extensions now provides updates on Facebook in an attempt to provide churches with timely prayer request information about mission works.  There is also a monthly bulletin, Home Missions Today, which is posted on the committee’s website.  The Statistician reported that while total membership of the OPC reached 31, 191 members this last year, a new record high, this is only a 0.22 percent increase from the year before.  While this stagnation is concerning, we can give praise that God continues to gather in His own!

The Assembly asked the Committee on Christian Education to return to next year’s GA with recommendations on the preparation of a “Modern English Study Version” of the Westminster Shorter Catechism, which would modernize the language of the catechism without changing its meaning.  The Assembly agreed to move forward in publishing the new Psalter Hymnal, a collaboration between the OPC and the URCNA.  The Committee for the Historian reported that there is a book project in progress titled Choosing the Good Portion: Women of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.  This anthology, scheduled to be published fall 2016, will feature 52 essays highlighting the lives of dozens of women in the OPC.  We give thanks to our Lord for the faithful service of these women over the last 80 years!

The Assembly received a study report on the topic of Republication, which will be distributed to presbyteries and made available to interested parties for study.  In light of the report, the Assembly recommended that presbyteries examine a candidate’s understanding of the covenant of works, the Mosaic Covenant, and the specific topics enumerated in the report.  May this report be an aid in crafting more biblical shepherds charged with the preaching of His Word to the flock!

The OPC Pension Plan will now change from a trustee-directed plan to a participant-directed plan, allowing members the flexibility to choose an investment allocation that best fits his unique circumstance.  A new Committee on Ministerial Care will now be created, which will take over the duties of the Committee on Pensions, oversight of the OPC Obadiah Fund, and provide advice or resources regarding financial risk management and planning to OPC ministers.  May these coming changes meet the temporal needs of our ministers, who have so fervently labored after our eternal needs!

Praise God for His eternal faithfulness to His own as we see the Gospel of Jesus Christ lived out through the many efforts of the OPC and her fraternal denominations, all to the glory of our God and our enjoyment of Him forever!