Foundations: The Authority of the Church (Part 2)

"Hear the word of the Lord, obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you." This is God's word. Again, this morning, just a recap, we looked at the authority of the local church and how we balance the rule of elders with the authority of the local church as a whole, who remember they are given the keys of the kingdom. But all authority is ultimately Christ's authority. Now, Christ delegates a level of heavenly authority to each local church, but it's still his authority. The keys only work according to how the king has set up the keys to work. And within each local church, Christ's authority is administered through elders who are set apart in order to ensure the church functions according to the laws of Christ. And a fundamental responsibility therefore of elders is that they do not lord it over the flock, but rather they are an example. So they are not a dictator, but nor are they some powerless company head that is simply at the mercy of the board. They have a legitimate level of authority, and they are using that authority to preserve the unity of the congregation with transparency, consultation, and biblical persuasion. Remember we looked at that word, actually in fact both words in obey and submit, convey this idea that the elders are persuading the members from the word of God, not from their own impulses or their own ideas, but from scripture. Now tonight we look at the practical outworkings of this and how to maintain that balance of elders ruling with congregational consensus, particularly in those two areas of the admission and expulsion of members, and in the appointment of officers where we are required to have this consensus of the congregation. That is a sense of unity where everyone understands what the church is doing. Now let me offer some principles. Firstly, from that passage in Hebrews 13, 17, that I didn't really get to speak on, I expounded the verse to an extent, but there were some principles that I feel are helpful as a framework for how to understand elders ruling whilst maintaining the unity of the congregation and that balance between a dictator and the democracy. So three principles here. Number one, everything must be governed by God's word. The scriptures in the hands of every church member is the greatest safeguard to corruption in the church. The fact that every member must be a good Berean to understand the word of God is the greatest safeguard to elders domineering in an unhealthy way or also elders being passive and church members domineering over them. The scriptures in the hands of members is the greatest safeguard. So elders must not lead according to their personal preference or impulses nor should elders lead according to the personal preferences of members, particularly if there are very prominent members. If I was to know how much people give and if I found out someone, which clearly isn't our church, but someone was giving a massive amount of money and suddenly you realize that I'm doing whatever they want to happen. Elders must not be leading according to their impulses or the impulses of church members. So pastors cannot be people-pleasers where the congregation desires something unbiblical, pastors ought to have some level of backbone so that they do not bend over to those powerful members. The elders authority is always tied to the word of God. Where the words of the elders depart from scripture, there is no responsibility upon members to follow them. The elders must always be leading according to scripture. So Christ's design to ensure that neither elders nor members abuse their authority is that everything is governed by God's word. That's number one. Number two, elders must shepherd in a Christ-like posture. Now the scriptures clearly establish a particular posture that elders are to have whilst ruling. We looked at this in one Thessalonians chapter two. The way Paul uses that familial, that parent-like language as to how he operated to the Thessalonians, but particularly behind Hebrews 13, 17, the passage there says that they are keeping watch over your souls. Elders are watching over everyone who belongs to Christ's church, Taganong, watching over their souls. Just as a parent watches very carefully when their child is learning how to ride a bike in their three years old and it's the first time they're riding near a busy road, well, a parent is gonna watch very, hopefully a good parent is gonna watch very carefully as to where their child is going. In this way, the elders watch over the flock because they will give an account. So elders function like parents who have a great concern for the welfare of their children and who want the very best of them. In any healthy family, the head of that family, the father will take into consideration the needs of their family members. They will hear what their thoughts are on particular matters and they will consult members of the family in order to make the best decision for the overall goal of the family and the overall flourishing of the family. Now this means thinking about how elders are to function. As I mentioned this morning, that the congregation as a whole should be aware of matters within the church. Again, there are small matters that are insignificant but in terms of significant matters, the congregation ought to be aware of all of these matters and feel the ability to voice their concerns and have the elders truly listen to them and even be willing to change. Elders are to work toward greater unity in a Christ-like manner that is gentle and approachable. Elders must never be unapproachable. Now the third principle I wanna give here is gonna be a little bit more detailed. Listen to this carefully. Church members must obey their leaders in all that is consistent with scripture but elders must not bind members' consciences where scripture does not bind them. Let me say that again. Church members must obey their leaders in all that is consistent with scripture but elders must not bind the consciences of their members where scripture does not bind them. That's the responsibility of elders. So members have a duty to obey the directions of their pastors so long as those pastors are not asking them to sin or binding their conscience where scripture permits liberty. So it's obvious that church members ought to follow the instructions of their pastor where the pastor is merely calling them to what the Bible calls them to. Just as there might be a situation where a church member calls a pastor to obey something because it's in the word of God and the pastor ought to obey that member as they are obeying scripture. So everything is governed by God's word. I hope we've established that. But what about areas that are not explicitly commanded or forbidden in scripture? What about those areas? Church members have a duty to obey their leaders where it does not bind their conscience in a way that scripture does not bind it. That's behind the principle of Hebrews 13 or other passages, one Peter five where Peter says be subject to the elders in 1 Corinthians 16. Paul says you be subject to these leaders in the household of Stephanus. So there's this principle where you need to actually be submissive. Now as an example, the constant exhortation I give to gather with the saints, to gather on the Lord's day and to not forsake the gathering, I feel that complete liberty to bind your conscience to that because scripture binds your conscience to that. So I will continue to give the exhortation. No one ought to be without reasonable excuse for saking the gathering of the saints as we are called to gather. And as I'm binding your conscience to that, I'm hoping that your conscience is not bound to what Tom says, but to what the word of God says and the trajectory that disciples ought to have to desire to gather as often as is possible. Now, in contrast to that, I cannot offer an invitation to dinner at my place and bind your conscience and say, no, no, no, I'm the pastor. You need to come to my house for dinner. I can't bind your conscience to that. I can't bind your conscience to have your shirt tucked in. You're a complete liberty to have your shirt out. It really doesn't matter. So long as there's a principle of respectability and modesty, but at the end of the day, clothing is a matter of liberty of conscience. So I cannot bind your conscience to those things. So pastors must be very careful to bind the conscience of members only where scripture does, that's the goal. Now, with that said, there are areas where pastors may call the flock to obedience that is neither forbidden nor commanded. As a simple example, there's nothing in scripture that says that we are to gather at five o'clock on the Lord's Day. So there's an element of flexibility. And yet we as pastors, to bias no, we call the church to gather at five o'clock. Now, you can't, at least you ought not, to claim liberty of conscience and say, "Well, Tom, I see that I'm called to gather with the saints, "but because there's nothing in scripture "that says I need to gather at five o'clock, "I'm gathering at seven o'clock. "And you can't tell me otherwise. "You can't bind my conscience." Now, that is evidence of a very rebellious and stubborn heart. So that's an area where members ought to just say, "Well, it's neither forbidden nor commanded, "but for the sake of unity, "for the sake of the good of the flock, "I'm gonna gather at five o'clock "because that's when we've agreed to meet." Now, as a very practical example of something that falls within the area that is neither forbidden nor commanded in scripture, consider the practice that we have as a church, of letting the church know if you're not able to make it. Now, I wanna be very clear again, this is an opportunity for me to hopefully ground everything in the Word of God and to help you understand why you ought or ought not to do certain things. Now, I have hopefully said it before, I wholeheartedly believe that the practice of letting the church know if you're not able, and letting the church know why you're not able to gather is a God-glorifying practice that fosters love, unity, and accountability within the body of Christ that we are called to have. It's a wonderful practice to have so that we are aware of people who, like Oscar and Martha, whose car battery broke down, or whatever the reason is. It's nice to be aware so that we can commit them to prayer and know where our brothers and sisters are. And I would say to not be in the practice of letting the church know, again, not simply that you're unable to make it, but why you're not able to make it, as you would offer it to anyone as a level of courtesy, to not be in that practice is to resist the pathway of love, unity, and accountability within the body. Again, you don't need to tell anyone what you're doing on a Tuesday night, or on a Friday morning. These are the only times in your week where there's actually a tangible level of accountability so that your brothers and sisters are actually gonna be stirring you on, and that process of accountability is very helpful. But let me be really clear on this. This practice is neither something commanded nor forbidden in the Scriptures. So I do not authoritatively say from the Word of God that you must let the church know why you cannot make it or you're in sin. I do not say that. I cannot go where Scripture doesn't go. Now, it may be that you are in sin. It may be that the reason you don't want to come is that you don't wanna give yourself to Christian duties like prayer, and you'd rather sloth on the couch, and you're in sin in that sense. The resistance to let the church know is merely a manifestation of your resistance towards your Christian duties. But the actual practice of letting the church know is not something that we can authoritatively say from Scripture, you must do this every time or you are disobeying Scripture, because Scripture simply doesn't say that. And so we must be careful not to bind the consciences of members where Scripture doesn't. But here's the thing, brothers and sisters, and hear this falls within this area where it's neither forbidden nor commanded, and what should you do in those circumstances? So to those who do not engage in that practice of letting the church know why they can't come so that there's a call for prayer and so that people are aware of what's happening, you must ask yourselves, do you have biblical grounds to reject this practice? You must ask yourselves, can I maintain faithfulness in obeying and submitting to my leaders and still consciously reject this? Can I maintain obedience to Hebrews 13, 17, or 1 Peter 5, or 1 Corinthians 16? Can I maintain obedience to the call of Scripture and still reject this? And that is a matter for your conscience. But you must consider that. This is within the area of things that are neither forbidden nor commanded. Now my concern is that there are some who may have a stubborn nature that is prone to resist anything that will prick at their sinful desire to resist accountability where they desire to keep their faith private. And whenever anyone calls into question, they say my faith is none of your business. It's only up between me and God. Now the church is here to knock down those walls. The church is here to knock down those walls that we want to keep our faith private and say, don't touch this. How dare you question my use of pornography or use of this? That's between me and God. The church is here to knock down those walls. And not to say, you know, tell me what you're doing every time. I'm so much better than you. But rather to say, I know my own sinful heart. I'm sure you're going to struggle with things. So let's hold each other accountable. So the local church is here to actually foster greater faithfulness that requires vulnerability and healthy practices that will foster the faithfulness. Now, before we look at obtaining congregational consensus, so I hope that's clear in that last principle that members have a responsibility to obey their leaders, but elders and their leaders must never bind the consciences where scripture does not bind them. Now, I want to just hopefully go out of my way to safeguard all of the abuses that could happen here by just giving some clear warnings, very briefly of tyrannical elders and anarchist congregations, tyrannical elders like dictators, and then anarchist congregations. So three for elders. What's the sign of a tyrannical elder? Number one, where elders command what is not commanded in scripture. So again, if I start commanding people that you must wear a suit to church, I think I've succumbed to a form of tyranny where I'm going beyond where scripture goes. Secondly, where elders create a culture of defensiveness and unapproachability. Brothers and sisters, you all must feel free to raise any concerns that you might have and to have us as elders sincerely take them into consideration. Now, I know that I've probably come across as quite stern and serious in the pulpit. I cannot help it to do otherwise. We'd be going against my conscience. I simply cannot take this lighthearted when I am dealing with God's word. And I hope that that doesn't give across the idea that I cannot come to Tom with anything 'cause he's gonna get his big Bible out and beat me over the head with it. You must all feel the ability to come and to to bias or myself to raise anything and not have us be defensive or unapproachable. So if we ever shut ourselves off to criticism and if we immediately jump into defensive mode by saying you can't touch the Lord's anointed, don't you know who I am? I'm called to preach. We must never do that. If we do, we have succumbed to a form of tyranny. And then thirdly and finally, the other sign of tyranny where elders do not show their work from the scriptures. Even in matters that are not explicit in scripture, elders must work hard to guide the congregation by showing where the principles come from in scripture. And it must be consistent with scripture as a whole rather than me simply grabbing a few proof texts to show why I should be paid more or something like that. We must work hard to show our work from the scriptures so that ultimately your allegiance is not to us. It's to the word of God and Christ your King. Now this is the classic theme within cults. Really, most cults usually are centered around one charismatic leader that holds superior knowledge that no one else could ever have. And so they have this idea, they create this idea that everyone needs them because I have the superior knowledge. I can go into the languages that you'll never be able to understand and unlock secrets. Elders must not do that. They must work hard to show their work from the scriptures so that you as members are persuaded biblically why you ought to do the thing or to not do that thing. Now, what about the signs of anarchy in church members? Let me offer two. One is a pattern of resisting authority and less forced by scripture. There is a great difference between someone who is joyfully looking to submit to their leaders and then someone who is looking to resist until they are absolutely forced by scripture. As though they're looking to resist anyway until finally their hands are tied and they realize, well, if I deny you, I've got to deny the word of God. So I guess I'll submit. That is a form of anarchy. You want to be your own leader. You don't like being told what to do. Now, if you don't like being told what to do, you won't like Jesus. It's just that simple. Second sign of anarchy is a failure to offer the appropriate respect to those whom the Lord has appointed over the church. Now, we Australians are riddled with tall poppy syndrome where we really do not like anyone asserting themselves in a place of authority. Even I as a pastor, I fully admit, my reaction when anyone addresses themselves as pastor so-and-so or doctor so-and-so, I immediately want to find a nickname for them and not call them by their title because you need to come down to my level and you're asserting yourself. Now, that's just what I've had my whole life in that environment. And that posture can easily lead us to an anarchist spirit where we do not want to offer respect to those in positions of authority. We do not want to obey what Paul says in 1 Thessalonians 5 verses 12 to 13 where he says, "Respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord." Again, a position of authority and admonish you. And he says, "Asteem them very highly in love because of their work." Asteem them. Recognize the God-ordained position. So be wary, brothers and sisters, of a failure to offer the appropriate respect to your leaders because it will often give way to an anarchist spirit. Now, these have been matters where the elders are exercising their authority, but we've established from this morning that there are certain occasions where decisions must be made by the church as a whole under the guidance of the elders. But nevertheless, it is a congregational matter. And I would call this the need for congregational consensus, the need to come to an agreement. So how do we obtain congregational consensus in particular areas, these areas of the admission and expulsion of church members, those coming in and those going out and then the appointment of officers? How do we do this? Commonly in congregationless churches, the way to do this, and if you've hung around Baptist churches long enough, Baptist churches are often known for having a vote about everything. If we want to move a chair two centimeters, you need to get the congregation together and have a vote on it. So we're commonly known for voting. Now, there are no explicit passages in scripture that speak of the church voting on anything. There are implicit ones, but the only time the word to vote is explicitly used is actually Acts 2610, where Paul is recounting of him casting his vote to have Stephen put to death. So voting, the only time we have explicit voting, it didn't end well. It was where Paul was voting for someone to die. Otherwise, the closest thing we have to a vote is passages like 2 Corinthians, chapter two, verse six, where Paul refers to the punishment by the majority. And some people believe in 2 Corinthians two, six, that this assumes that there was a majority vote, and it could be that there was a majority vote, or it could be that Paul is simply saying to the Corinthians, where there's been a case of discipline, and Paul is saying, you must now reaffirm your love to this person. And he says, the punishment by the majority is enough, which could be a way of him simply saying, the majority of you in the church have upheld this disciplinary process, where you've actually ostracized yourself, and he's felt that. And so because the majority of you have actually been engaging in this, that's enough. If there was only one or two of you doing it, then it wouldn't be enough, but Paul is saying the majority of upheld the punishment, and so that's enough. Now, some would also turn to the word used for a point in Acts 14, 23. Remember, we looked at that passage this morning in Acts 14, 23, where the apostles are appointing elders. And the word there for a point literally means to stretch out one's hand, which in extra biblical data we have, sometimes that was used for the idea of a vote. Now, the only other time that word is used in the Scriptures is in 2 Corinthians 8, 19, where the well-known brother was appointed by the churches in order to handle the gift that was going around. And so it could be that there was a vote by multiple churches, or it could merely be that they were appointed, and we don't know how they were appointed. The only other time the word for a point, which is to stretch out one's hand, the only other time a form of the word is used is in Acts 10, 41, where the apostles were chosen by God. That probably doesn't mean to have a vote because God wouldn't really be voting within himself. It simply means that God appointed these apostles. So I want you to have that background for how these decisions are being made. Now, those are the strongest passages that I would say in Scripture that we have for anything like a vote, this idea of appointment coming from potentially stretching out one's hand and churches being involved in this, but that's the biblical data for that. Now, I don't believe that that means we shouldn't vote. I think if voting is the best means to determine congregational consensus, then we should vote. But the point I want to drive home, and I hope you hear this very clearly, brothers and sisters, the point I want to drive home is that the goal of congregational decisions is to have the greatest sense of unity and agreement within the congregation in that decision. That's the goal, otherwise we shouldn't be doing it. The goal is to work towards this sense of unity so that we are all united in this. And quite often, a simple vote does not actually serve that purpose. It doesn't get to the heart of the matter. Now, let me just point out one of the main issues of the process of voting, and then an issue with a strict congregationalism that says whatever the congregation wants, regardless of what it is, we should respect the authority of the congregation. I want to just point out this in two ways. So number one, when it comes to a vote, often with a vote, the number required is arbitrary, as in what constitutes the majority, 75%, 67%, 51%. Inevitably, there's a level of being arbitrary in that. We just have to pick something that seems like a majority if you're not going with 100%. So there's a level of a sense of being arbitrary, but it does not adequately ascertain true unity. It does not actually get to the heart of it to understand what does the congregation want and why do they want it. So unless you say that we're going for 100%, you're instantly conceding that you're not actually going to be truly united. Now, that's not necessarily a big deal. Unity doesn't mean that we have to think the exact same way on everything. But to those who would promote the need for a majority vote, must concede that there will always be a portion of the church that does not agree entirely with what is going to happen. You have to concede that. So as an example, we're looking at appointing James at some stage, we haven't even really formally brought him to the church yet, we're still assessing, but Lord willing, we will bring him to the church and there will be a time where we need to come to a consensus. Now, if we say that all we need is a 75% vote, which is in my experience in churches, that's the highest number I've ever come across for a church being comfortable to basically get the decision over the line, 75%. That means that we could potentially have 24% of the church that do not want James as a deacon. And we just have to say, well, we got the 75%, we're moving ahead. Now, 24% is a substantial number. And the vote itself doesn't give any indication as to why that 24% didn't want James as a deacon. It doesn't actually tell us why. They could simply say, we don't like moustaches. We don't want James as a deacon. Like it could be to that level of stupidity. And we would just say, well, that's the process. Or in a congregation our size, if you add one more person who votes no, suddenly the decision goes from yes for James and you add one more person who votes no, and then that would take it to 26 or 27%. And suddenly James doesn't get over. And it could be because a bunch of them literally thought the moustache was a bad idea or something crazy like that. So a minority of the church holds the majority hostage because they don't want something to happen. Now I literally know of a church in the last few years where that has happened, where 26% of the church didn't want something to happen and they held the church hostage and it went really, really bad. Now, how does that process of voting actually achieve the kind of unity that the scriptures present? And how does it maintain the level of integrity that we are meant to have in the church when we're coming to a consensus? See, I would say, brothers and sisters, if there were only 5% of you that felt like James should not be a deacon, even if it's only 5%, which is really like two of you, I would wanna know why. The vote isn't enough for me. I wanna know why. Maybe we've missed something. Maybe there could be a genuine reason that we just haven't thought of and the Lord has ordained that you would have that reason. I wanna understand that. So we should not simply go to those two people who say we don't think James should be a deacon and simply say, well, 95% of us have already said our yes, so we're going for it. I don't think that's the elders taking seriously their responsibility to shepherd the flock well. We as elders should then be actually saying, well, tell us, brother or sister, your concerns. Are they biblical? Are they not? We wanna understand. So the process of voting, although it may be helpful to obtain a superficial sense of what a congregation wants, it simply does not get to the heart of the matter. It doesn't get to the heart of why people are voting a certain way. And we have not even touched on whether a vote should be anonymous or open. And that's of course the issue a lot of churches have. Now that's the issue for voting. Let me just point to why I don't believe that the scripture calls local churches to always operate under a congregational rule where whatever the congregation wants, they get. I don't believe that is mandated biblically. A congregation's decision must never result in anything that goes against scripture. That must never happen. Now where there are two possible outcomes of a decision we're making, and they're both biblical, then I believe whatever the consensus of the congregation should be, even if Tobias and I's elders have a preference toward one, if it seems like the consensus for the congregation is this way and both are biblical, then I believe Tobias and I should then submit and recognize well this is the consensus and we can see that it's a good option. And we should go with whatever the majority consensus is. But where a congregation may be leaning towards something that is unbiblical. Let's say some wise guy here gets the idea to say actually, Jasmine's a way better person than Tom. We think she'd function as a pastor a lot better. And all of a sudden two or three others say actually, that's not such a bad idea. And suddenly there's a majority of the congregation saying, let's appoint Jasmine as a pastor. That should not be happening. We simply cannot allow unqualified people to take office. We cannot allow that. We can't put our hands up and say, well the congregations decided. We have plenty of examples of this in scripture. In Numbers 13, recall how the spies are sent into the land and 10 of the 12 spies give a bad report. And it corrupts all of the people and they start saying, oh, we shouldn't go into the promised land. This is a bad idea. Let's just stay over here. Let's go back to Egypt. And the consensus of the people was that they shouldn't go in. Now was God pleased with that? No. He was not pleased with the consensus of the congregation or consider the issue amongst the Galatian churches. The Galatian churches had deteriorated to such a level of unfaithfulness that they were legitimately considering going back to Judaism. And the way of the law of Moses as maintaining our right standing with God and these Judaizers who are preaching to us, they're better than the apostles. And they were legitimately considering that. Now did Paul, when he came along, come and say, right, let's get the churches together and let's have a vote. And let's see whether you'd like the way of Judaism or the way of Jesus. And we'll leave it up to the congregation. No, he doesn't say this. He says, you foolish Galatians, what are you doing? Come back to the way of truth. You're so misguided, you're bewitched. Come back to the word of God. Now that's what elders are set apart to do. They must guide the process to ensure that nothing unbiblical happens as much as is possible. Now I must again assert that I'm actually not against voting. I think there are certain occasions where a vote may be very helpful just to get a sense of where a congregation is at. But what I am saying is that voting simply does not get to the heart of the matter, nor is it biblically mandated. It is simply not biblically mandated to do. Getting a congregational consensus on these matters, I believe is. So in these major areas where the congregation ought to give their consent, I want to go deeper than where a simple vote goes. So what ought we to do just as I finish and wrap this up? What ought we to do to maintain the biblical principle of congregational consensus in these particular matters and to do it in a way that gets to the heart of the matter? Well, what we've put forward so far in this church is to take a longer consultative process where the congregation is made aware of a matter and that's what we are slowly trying to do, particularly even with the admission of members to make it known who is looking to join membership and to eventually have their testimony given out and to have the congregation afford an opportunity to get to know that person and to raise any concerns and where there are legitimate concerns then we must deal with those. Now this will require wisdom as to how the concerns should be handled. But to suggest that the elders are not equipped with sufficient wisdom to handle these concerns is either to say that these men should simply not be elders. They're not qualified to be elders or at worst it is to despise the word of God as those who have been appointed to care for the flock. So thus when it comes to admission and expulsion of members the process that we want to do is to put people forward to offer a time for conversation to happen to see whether there are any issues and to work toward a genuine consensus. And in that time as we are putting these people forward you as the congregation should know there's a responsibility that you have on your part to understand who this person is. Of course you're not going to get to know them perfectly but to at least understand where are they from what's their testimony, are they a genuine believer and can I with a good conscience receive this person in and take up those vows that you make to say yes we receive this person in as a brother or sister in Christ and that should be happening. Now to me that achieves a far greater sense of consultative unity rather than if we simply had a vote for people to say yay or nay. And when it comes to the appointment of officers we would give an even greater period of time. We've given several months to say we're even just to say we're hinting at the thought of putting James forward and when it comes to us as elders saying well actually we feel we have made the assessment that James is qualified. We would then want to put it forward to the congregation so that you have a period of time at least a month to this is the last opportunity to raise any concerns and where there are legitimate concerns again we should be taking those into serious consideration. And we must use that time to work toward a genuine consensus. So this is how the authority of the church I believe ought to function. Again Christ has given a wonderful privilege to the local church the keys of the kingdom where what is bound on earth will have been bound in heaven where what is loosed on earth will have been loosed in heaven. And both elders and members must function according to the word of God within the local church. Now we must remember the weightiness of these matters as I said this morning this is a very important these are very important themes to go through. Christ doesn't simply again give His church to function as they please however they want and say eventually I'll come back to get you and pick you up. He says that we must order ourselves with integrity that we must walk in a manner of holiness and since God is a God of order we must ensure our practices are biblical that they are grounded in the scriptures. Now one of the responsibilities as I lead into the Lord's supper one of the responsibilities that I did not get to speak on but I must either the members meeting or before then speak on is the principle of restricted communion that I've mentioned a number of times that I would love to move towards but I believe it's something that we as a congregation should think about. One of the clear responsibilities of elders is to administer the sacraments that is to administer baptism and the Lord's Supper. And the Lord's Supper I believe reminds us why we should care about matters like this pertaining to the church. Why should we care because the bread symbolic of the body of Christ and the cup symbolic of the blood reminds us that Christ died for his church. He died to purify his church. He died so that one day Lord willing very soon he will return for a spotless bride to enjoy the marriage supper of the lamb. And whilst we are waiting for that day we must conduct ourselves with the utmost integrity and unity. Recall the words of Peter in one Peter two where he says Christ died, Christ bore our sins on the cross so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. Christ did not merely purchase the forgiveness of our sins. He purchased our righteousness. He purchased us to live lives of integrity. Now if you haven't been born of God hearing about these matters of the church will just be unintelligible to you. It won't make sense. Why are we focusing on these things? Who cares? But those who have been born of God realize that what he has purchased for us is to live in a manner of righteousness and that involves living in this way within the church. So as we come to the Lord's table now we must remember Christ's great love to offer himself up in the place of sinners to establish his church to wash us clean and to purchase us living for righteousness to purchase our lives of integrity to purchase us living with this joyful obedience. We're Lord willing whatever Tobias and I are teaching is consistent with the word of God. And so you are joyfully able to submit because your obedience is ultimately not to us but it is to Christ and Christ purchased that. And the Lord's Supper is here to strengthen us in this. It is here to remind us that whatever our lives look like though we must be very careful of sin in our lives, we must remember it this time as we come to the Lord's table that Christ has washed us clean, that his blood is sufficient to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. But it is also to strengthen us so that as we come to the table shortly we remember that Christ offered himself up in the most humiliating excruciating pain so that we would not live however we please but that we would live according to his standard and that day by day we would be conformed to the pattern of Christ. So that light and momentary afflictions are preparing us for an eternal weight of glory. We are meant to take the Lord's Supper to strengthen us so that we persevere in this time.