The Battle for the Bread and Cup

Understanding Proper Lord's Day Worship

All right, we are continuing tonight in our lesson on the subject of understanding proper Lord's Day worship. Our series is entitled Decently and in Order, of course, coming from the passage in First Corinthians 14, which tells us that we are to do all things decently and in order.

And that's specifically in reference to worship. We are in the sixth week where we're looking at Lord's Day worship. Your paper says five. That's incorrect. If you might want to just add a little six there, that should say six.

And this is the second part of our looking at the ordinances of the church. And we're going to be looking tonight at communion in our last lesson. We address the first of two ordinances which Christ has given to the church, that being baptism.

Now we will examine the second, which is the celebration of the Lord's Supper. We noted in our study of baptism that there is a lot of diversity among believers regarding that ordinance. Well, this is even more true in regard to communion.

The Meaning of the Lord's Table

So for our outline tonight, we're going to look at three points of contention, three issues in regard to the Lord's table. The first we're going to look at the meaning of the Lord's table. Number two, we're going to look at fencing of the Lord's table or the fencing of the Lord's table.

And that's not what two people do with swords. That's not that kind of fencing. Well, we'll maybe putting a border around the table or protecting the table might be another way of saying that. But traditionally we've called it the fencing of the table.

And number three, we're going to look at worshiping at the Lord's table. So we'll begin with the meaning of the Lord's table. Letter. A regular participation in the Lord's Supper is ordained for all who have become members of the new covenant.

So the first word there is regular. If you want to open your Bibles, we're going to look at that passage that I quote every Sunday. You'll notice that I don't deviate, but I do read this passage every Sunday.

First Corinthians chapter 11, verses 23 to 26. I don't do that just because it is something that I just simply like to do, but I do it because I think it's valuable to read these words and I want to read them again tonight.

First Corinthians 11, verses 23 to 26 says, For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed, took bread and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, This is my body, which is for you.

Do this in remembrance of me in the same way. Also, he took the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this as often as you drink it in remembrance of me, for as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

Jesus in this passage, and we're going to stop there, we're going to go on in a minute, but we're going to stop there for now. Jesus tells us in this passage that communion is the sign of the new covenant.

He says this is the new covenant in my blood. We talked about the fact last time we were in this lesson that baptism is also a sign of the new covenant. How are they different? How is baptism different from the Lord's table?

If they're both signs of a person's participation in the new covenant, how are they.

Differential? Yes, that's exactly right.

Baptism is a one time right. It is a one time action. It's a one time ordinance that we participate in as Christians. Now, I do realize that there are times when people are rebaptized. I was rebaptized, but the reality is I only received one baptism, even though someone could say, well, Keith, you were baptized three times.

I was baptized once when I was eight because I thought that's what people were supposed to do. I saw other people do it. I was excited and said I should do that. And I did it. I was baptized again when I was 13 because of the church that my mother was attending.

They were teaching very strongly that once a person is over 12 years of age, they've reached the age of accountability. And because you reach the age of accountability at age 12, at age 13, you're hell bound if you are not right with God.

So she encouraged me rather forcefully to be baptized in her church. And I was again, though in that one, I don't I can honestly say I had no intentions that were positive. At least at eight years old, I had somewhat of a positive intention of trying to be a part of the church.

But at 13, I was just really trying to placate that situation because I was being encouraged to. No, that was my mom was that's not my step mom. My mom was at a church down in Stark where she lives. No, I was baptized in this church when I was eight.

OK, and then you went to your mom at 13. I was baptized there. Yeah. And there was, you know, not to get into my story too much, but yes, it was here when I was eight. It was there when I was 13. Neither one of them were real baptisms, though, because neither one of them were in faith.

Both of them were simply outward weddings, they were not true immersions. And so when I was 19 years old and I received Christ as savior at that point, I didn't even realize because I was so ignorant as a young Christian, I didn't even realize that my baptisms from the prior were really not valid, true baptisms.

So I felt at that point I began sort of a study in a time of real self-examination. And it was only later, a couple of years later, that Brother Jim Dutton, I don't know if you guys even know this, but Jim Dutton, Nathan's dad, baptized me in a swimming pool at a youth event that we were at.

And I was the speaker, and yet I was not properly baptized. So I submitted at that point in my life to scriptural baptism. And so having said all that, what I'm saying is when I say baptism is a one time thing, I'm saying that it only has one real time of purpose in a Christian's life.

That's not saying a Christian might not be rebaptized. But you should remember, the first baptism was not a true baptism. This was the argument of the Anabaptists when they were most of them had grown up in homes where they'd been baptized as infants.

But they came and they said, no, we are not re-baptizers because that's what Anabaptist means. It means to re-baptize. They said, we're not. This is a first real, true baptism for that which was done when I was an infant was not real and true.

This is real and true. That was the argument of the of the Anabaptists. So, again, my point is not that I've been baptized three times. I got wet twice and I was truly baptized on the time when Brother Jim baptized me.

So that's when we talk about the one time. That's what we mean. It's a one time thing. But as Rob pointed out, the continual sign of the new covenant is the participation in communion. That's the focus of tonight.

The Lord's Supper is to be administered continually to covenant members until Christ comes again. As I mentioned on Sunday, it does have an expiration date. Jesus said you will do this until I return.

But until then, it's to be done with regularity, it is to be done regularly. And here's another thing. It doesn't tell us how regularly. But there is great indication that the early church participated in it on the Lord's Day.

Acts 2 tells us that they met on the first day of the week and they broke bread together. And it's called the breaking of bread. And a lot of times we say, well, maybe they were just sharing a meal together.

Well, in Acts chapter 11, I'm sorry, in first Corinthians chapter 11, where we're reading, it says they had the feast, which they called the love feast or a feast, and it was accompanied by the participation of communion.

So it was a part of what was happening in the fellowship of the church. So I believe that the early church did participate on the first day of the week every week, the Lord's table. And historically, that is very much the historical record of the church.

It is only really relatively recently that we see the churches moving to a spread out time where people go sometimes months, even years without righteously and rightfully participating in the Lord's table.

Now, some people have argued and they have said, if you do it too much, it will lose its significance. And here is my response to that. And it's always been the same. So if you've heard it, you can hear it again.

My response to the argument of regular participation, if it's too regular, it becomes rote and meaningless. Here is my response. Every day for the last 15 years, I've woken up next to my wife and I have kissed her and told her goodbye as I left.

Never once has any one of those kisses had less of a meaning than the day before, and neither will tomorrow's kiss have any less meaning than today's kiss. Just because we do something with regularity does not mean that each time we do it, it cannot have special significance.

So regularly participating in something does not feel significant. I would argue this again, because we do participate in communion every week. I would argue that the other side is even more true. Those who participate in communion only once a quarter or once every six months or once a year are not participating enough for it to matter.

Reinforces your experience. Yeah. And there is a reinforcement and a forcing of having to be confronted with it on a weekly basis. So, you know, it could be argued from either side. I'm not saying a person has to participate in communion every week, but I do think it is defensible and certainly part of the reform tradition that that community is practiced practice regularly and by regularly we mean on the Lord's Day.

So regular participation in the Lord's Supper is ordained for all who become members of the New Covenant. Letter B, there are at least four historical positions regarding the meaning of this ordinance.

The first one is transubstantiation, transubstantiation, sorry, I gave you too small of a blank. I apologize. Transubstantiation means that the elements literally become the body and blood of Christ and are a propitiatory representation of the sacrifice of Christ.

This is where it becomes hugely blasphemous, because the idea is that Christ must again be sacrificed. This sacrifice must be represented to God on behalf of your sins for that week or that time period.

I want to read to you and some of you heard this before, but I find this to be one of the most telling paragraphs in regard to the teaching of Roman Catholics, because Roman Catholics are who teach transubstantiation.

This is from the book The Faith of Millions by Father John O 'Brien, and this is what he explains happens during the mass. I quote, When the priest pronounces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into heaven, brings Christ down from his throne and places him upon our altar to be offered up again as the victim for the sins of man.

It is a greater power than that of monarch or emperors. It is greater than of saints and angels, greater than that of seraphim and cherubim. Indeed, it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary.

While the Virgin Mary was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, the priest brings Christ down from heaven and renders him present on our altar as the eternal victim for the sins of man.

Not once, but a thousand times the priest speaks and low Christ, the eternal, omnipotent God bows his head in humble obedience to the priest's command of what sublime dignity is the office of the Christian priest, who is thus privileged to act as ambassador and vice regent of Christ on Earth.

He continues the assertion ministry of Christ. He teaches the faithful with the authority of Christ. He pardons the penitent sinner with the power of Christ. He offers up again the same sacrifice of adoration and atonement, which Christ offered on Calvary.

No wonder that the name which the spiritual writers are especially fond of applies to the priest is that of alter Christus, for the priest is and should be another Christ, end quote. Would you say that?

No, this is the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. OK, so is yes, the faith of millions of people. Let me tell you. No, this is what it's taught. And if you look in the Council of Trent and other places, you'll see this is very clearly expressed.

But I'll give you an even more good example. When Dr. White was debating a Roman Catholic on this issue, he read this and the Roman Catholic who he was debating said, I pray that one day you will be able to say those words.

I think most of them don't understand this, but I will tell you this. The the the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church is absolutely opposed to biblical Christianity. I've said it a thousand times. I'll say it again.

If people are saved in Roman Catholicism, it is in spite of what they are taught. Because what they are taught is not a saving gospel, I mean, that what I just read to you is repugnant, it is it is terrible and yet it's what is believed.

So transubstantiation is the first that when you can put a big X next to it, that's not the proper view, but it is a view. The second view is called consubstantiation, probably didn't give you enough of that either because it's the same size line consubstantiation.

The body and blood of Christ are present alongside the elements and are not a propitiatory sacrifice. This is typically the view held by many Lutherans. That Christ is present in, over, around and through the bread that he's there and it's with it where the transubstantiation view says the bread becomes it.

The consubstantiation view says he's really present all around it and through it, it really is sort of a capitulation view. It's saying he's there, but we don't think it's a sacrifice. That's the big step.

Yeah, this is sort of, yeah, I think this is a this is a capitulation. Now, I do want to say this. Luther never used the term consubstantiation and some Lutherans would argue this is not what they teach.

However, Luther did hold to a real presence view because that's what separated him and Euric Zwingli. Euric Zwingli and Martin Luther came together at the Marburg Colloquy. I have a hard time saying that one.

They came together. They met on 15 points of doctrine. They agreed on 14. But the 15th one was the real presence of Christ in the Lord's table. And Luther kept saying, Hoc est corpus meum. This is my body.

And that was his argument. He wouldn't hear of anything else. And he and Zwingli parted ways because Zwingli did not believe in the real presence of Christ in the communion elements. So, yes, Luther taught real presence.

We had a Lutheran family here. I don't know even if Jack remembers this, but we have a family here that was from a Lutheran church. And when the man would serve, he served communion for us at one time.

And he went around telling people this is the body of Christ. This is the body of Christ. No, no, no. But that was his, you know, that because that's what he had been taught, we had to correct that. So but that that consubstantiation is saying that it's not a sacrifice.

And that's hugely important because it does take away a lot of the damaging parts of transubstantiation, which makes it a representation of the sacrifice, a propitiatory sacrifice that dangerous. Consubstantiation, I don't think it's true, but it's less important as far as the division there.

The third one is what we would call spiritual presence. Spiritual presence is the body and blood of Christ are not literally present, but rather spiritually present in the elements for all who receive them by faith.

And the difference here between consubstantiation is consubstantiation argues for literal presence and spiritual presence is obviously not literal, but spiritual. The person who held this view and continues to hold that view is John Calvin, and typically Reformed churches hold the view of spiritual presence.

OK, wouldn't you say we're two or more gathered among us?

No, because that would be a misunderstanding of that passage. That passage is about church discipline. That is not about church gathering. Matthew 18 is not about gathering, I promise you contextually, it's been misunderstood when anyone has the Holy Spirit with them, God is there.

But when two or three are gathered in the reference to the fact that we've gotten two or three together because this person is in sin, that's the context of that passage and that's context of what Jesus has said.

So I'm not trying to just throw that out there, but that's important because that passage is often used, but it needs to has to be addressed in context. Matthew 18. All right, so we have spiritual presence.

Now, the last one I want to make sure we understand the last one is called memorialism. Well, I'm going to explain what we believe in a moment. We you're going to hear in a moment, I want to make sure I help you understand.

Memorialism is that is that the body of Christ and the blood of Christ are not literally or spiritually present, but rather meant to memorialize his wants for all sacrifice. The elements are meant to memorialize his wants for all sacrifice.

Now, this is often said to be the view of Zwingli, but it was not. If you read Zwingli's writings, Zwingli held to the spiritual presence view. And Bruce Ware has done excellent work on that to demonstrate that Zwingli actually did not hold to the memorialism view.

He held to the spiritual presence view. Here's the thing. It's hard to tell these two apart. It really is hard to make a distinction. And this is where I would say that while I believe that memorialism is the primary answer as to which is correct, I think memorialism is first.

And I'll explain why in a moment. I don't think that spiritual presence is necessarily wrong. And let me read to you from the 1689 confession, because it expresses it in a way that I think makes a lot of sense and helps us to understand what we would teach.

Here is the it's in your notes so you can read along. The 1689 London Baptist Confession would succinctly express our teaching on the meaning of the Lord's Suffering. Number one, the sufferer of the Lord Jesus was instituted by him the same night on which he was betrayed to be observed in his churches until the end of the world for the perpetual remembrance and showing forth of the sacrifice of himself in his death.

It was also instituted by Christ to confirm believers in all the benefits of his death, for their spiritual nourishment and growth in him, for their further engagement in and commitment to all the duties which they owe to him and to be a bond and pledge of their communion with him and with their fellow believer.

So right there kind of gives an opening of what it's about. It's all those things. It's not just just a memorial, but it has meaning and purpose. And number two in this ordinance, Christ is not offered up to the father, nor is there any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sin of the living or the dead.

There is only a memorial of that one offering up of Christ by himself upon the cross. Once for all the memorial being accompanied by a spiritual oblation of all possible praise to God for Calvary, therefore, the pope ish sacrifice of the mass, as they call it, is most abominable being injurious to Christ's own sacrifice, which is the only propitiation for all the sins of the elect.

See, even in this document, which is written in the 1600s, they're already addressing the false teaching of Rome, which we've already mentioned. They're saying this is not what we teach. This is the opposite of what we teach.

Now, number three in the 1689 confession, this is actually, I think, number 11, because there's a couple other things that are mentioned about Lord's Supper. I just didn't put them all in here. But this one, I just put it as number three on your seat because that's what comes after number two.

But but number three, I think is important. Worthy receivers outwardly taking the visible elements in this ordinance also receive them inwardly and spiritually by faith, truly and in fact, but not carnally or corporally and feed upon Christ crucified and all the benefits of his death.

The body and blood of Christ is not present corporally or carnally, but it is spiritually present to the faith of believers in the ordinance, just as the elements are present to their outward senses. So here is what the confession is saying.

It's saying that this is a memorial, not a sacrifice. Rome was wrong. It is not a propitiatory sacrifice. However, when a person comes to the table and when they take the bread by faith and when they take the cup by faith, they are in a very spiritual sense participating at that moment in a fellowship with Christ in his sacrifice.

And it is a spiritual sacrifice at that point that you are receiving and participating in at that moment, that blessing. So I think that the writers of the 1689 confession stand by the memorial view. If somebody said, what is your primary view?

I would say memorialism is the primary view. Why? Because Jesus said, do this not to bring me down from heaven and sacrifice me again, but to do this in remembrance of me. So the primary view is memorialism.

However, that is not to deny the spiritual presence of Christ with his people, particularly in the participation of the Lord's Supper whenever they are gathered together in fellowship and worshiping in that.

And we understand. So we would say primary is memorialism, but we would not deny the spiritual presence of Christ with his people in the participation of the ordinance. Makes sense. Am I confusing? OK.

All right. OK. Now, I want to add something, because I always do. Those who would say, and there are many who say that the memorial view robs the table of its importance, because here's what I hear people say, well, if it's just a memorial, then it's not that important.

They deny what the scripture itself says about memorials and that is that memorials are meant to be perpetual reminders to the people of God, of God's faithfulness and promises to his people. When Joshua took the people through the Jordan.

And he brought stones out of the Jordan and he set them up as memorials. There's an entire chapter, Joshua chapter four, which is which is specifically about that memorial time and how important that memorial was.

Why do we celebrate or not? We but why did Israel celebrate the Passover every year? They weren't leaving Egypt every year. They had already left Egypt. The exodus had already happened. But why did God say do this so that you do not forget that your father has taken you out of Egypt and end to the promised land?

Yes, the cross. Yes. Yeah, it's a visible. Yeah, absolutely. We have these reminders, these visible reminders. And of course, communion as a memorial to the death, burial and resurrection of Christ as a memorial to the gospel, it is not losing its meaning.

God gives us memorials because we are apt to forget his blessings. And he does not want us to forget the greatest of his blessings, which is the gospel and the work of Jesus Christ on the cross. So that therein is our our understanding of the meaning of the table.

It is a memorial. It is a time wherein God's people come together and they remember what Christ has done on the cross and at that time fellowship with one another and with him spiritually through the communion table.

Fencing the Lord's Table

Now, number two, the fencing of the Lord's table. The Bible teaches. That the Lord's supper is for believers only, the Bible teaches that the Lord's supper is for believers only, I again call your attention to First Corinthians 11, we stopped reading earlier at verse 26.

I want to start now at verse 27. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself then and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

We'll stop right there. The Bible teaches that it's for believers only because certainly a person who is an unbeliever would not be able to participate in a worthy manner because they're not a faith. They could not participate in a worthy manner.

Something also to consider is this term worthy manner. It does not say and this is important. It does not say whoever, therefore, eats of the bread and drinks of the cup of the Lord must be worthy in and of himself because we're not.

We are not worthy in and of ourselves to participate in the body and blood of Christ. We are not worthy in and of ourselves of the grace of God. But when it says a worthy manner, what it is referring to at that time is that the Christian has looked at his own heart and primarily has looked for anything of which he needs to repent before again participating in this fellowship with his Lord.

One of the things I think one of the passages we often forget, the Bible says, if you come to the the altar to lay your gift and you realize that someone has aught with you, leave your gift at the altar and go and be reconciled to your brother and then come and offer your gift.

I mean, we remember that. Remember that passage? How often do we come to the Lord's table? And we have anger in our hearts with a person, and yet we take the bread and we drink the cup without thinking.

That is an unworthy manner. That's the idea that's in this passage. How many of us come into church and our minds are 10 ,000 other places and we're just doing this to satisfy our weekly religious exercise and we're thinking more about the beach and bonos and everything else that's going to happen after church?

And we're not focused on what's happening. That is an unworthy manner. And that's why he says in verse 28, let a person examine himself and then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. I try to make a point every Sunday when I come to that table.

This is a time of personal introspection. This is a time of personal evaluation. This is the time to repent. If you've come this far and you have sin in your life, repent now. I don't wait until the end of the sermon.

I call you to repent. Then people say, you don't give an invitation. I sure do. It starts as soon as the call to worship begins. You are invited to repent. And I remind you, repentance throughout the service.

No, I don't stand at the end of the sermon and play 48 verses of just as I am hoping somebody will come down so I can release everybody to go to lunch as they do in some churches. Somebody's got to go down because we got to go to lunch, you know, but we're not doing that.

But we do certainly have throughout the service the invitation to repent, to to let go of your sins, to turn from your sins and turn to Christ. That invitation is always going on. The call to repentance is part of the whole service and certainly is part of the communion.

All right, so the Bible teaches that the supper is for believers only, the Bible teaches that it is not safe for unbelievers to participate in the supper. So the next one should have two blanks, not safe.

It is not safe for unbelievers to participate. I again call your attention to the text. It says in verse twenty nine, for anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

That is why many of you are weak and ill and some have died. Now, the Bible is either true or it's not. I believe that it's true, and because I believe that it's true, I believe this. There have been people who have died as a result of having misparticipated or inappropriately participated in communion because Paul didn't say some might die.

He said some have died. Is that not a serious either Paul's right or wrong? And if he's right, some people died. And that doesn't mean they choked on it on the way down because they just couldn't get it down.

Well, I don't know. They might have, but they didn't happen. But the point is what he's saying is they ate and drank judgment on themselves. Jonathan Edwards, one of the greatest theological minds of the past, certainly.

Considered to be the greatest theological mind ever born in America, preached the sermon of sermons, the one sermon that has probably been more influential as far as sermons go as any American sermon centers in the hands of an angry God.

If you've never heard it, I encourage you to listen to it. Max McClain does an excellent reading of it and is a fantastic message, a convicting message. But this man, Jonathan Edwards, greatest theologian in the history of America was kicked out of his church.

He was removed from the pastorate of his church. You know why? Because he wouldn't serve communion to unbelievers, because at that time they had a rule in the church that you could be, I want to say it was associate membership that I might be wrong.

There was a you could you were either a member of the church by faith or you could be an associate member, meaning that you had not expressed faith, but you were still a member of the church because that was important socially to be a member of the church.

So you could be not a believer and express yourself as not a believer. But yet still come to church and participate because it had social influence, it was important socially to do this. And Jonathan Edwards, this was done under his predecessor when Jonathan Edwards took over as the pastor, he said, we can't do this.

We cannot give the the the bread and the cup, the very elements of the communion. We can't give these to unbelievers. And he did an entire lesson series on it to say why it was important that we don't do this.

And when the lesson series is over, he was canned. He was trying to do something for their own good. This passage tells us the person who eats and drinks without discerning himself, discerning the body, meaning the body of Christ, without without without understanding what this is and having faith in it is eating and drinking judgment upon himself.

And Edwards was concerned with that person, with all of those persons. So am I. When I stand in the communion table, when I stand on addict at the community, I won't stand on it. I stand at the communion table.

I implore people, search your heart. Yes, sir. I do not believe that anyone who has not come to faith should participate in community. I'm going to mention that in just a minute, but I want to add something.

A small child might may come to faith, but I still believe that baptism should precede the participation in communion. So if the child has not been baptized, I would I would encourage the family not to allow the child to participate in communion.

And even within churches that baptize infants, the Presbyterian Church specifically, they don't allow them to take communion until they come to a faith where they can express their faith and they use this passage as the reason why they have to be able to discern the body of Christ.

They have to be able to discern this. So, yes, I would say this passage is what I would tell a parent. I would say it's not snack time. You know, this is this is this is this is this is something for believers only.

If your child has not expressed faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and demonstrate in our church demonstrated that faith through baptism, then I would strongly discourage them from participating. I would tell them they're not allowed.

I would go that far. They're really not allowed. I don't want them to do it because it's dangerous. It's not for them. So it says in the text. So, yes, that's what I would say. And we and I know we've experienced that here.

We've had people who say, well, my child, my my, you know, little little Susie. We don't have a Susie, do we? Little Susie loves Jesus. Susie, you know, they say little Susie loves Jesus. Well, little Susie also loves Big Bird.

You know, I mean, we've got to be a little serious about this. And this is a serious thing. Yeah. Yeah. You're supposed to share. So, yeah, honestly, I would I would I would tell them that they shouldn't.

And typically they don't because of what I say in the communion, as I say about being a believer and being baptized. And I say that every Sunday. This is for people who have been baptized and in accordance with their faith.

And that's sort of my way. And that's the next thing I was going to say. We do fence the table in a sense. Because we tell people this is for believers only and this is for baptized believers only. This is not for unbelievers.

And we say that now the next thing I want to add is let her see some churches limit the supper to church members only. This is somewhat of a debatable issue. Because some churches limit it to church members only, and that is what is typically known as fencing the table.

Fencing meaning when it's time for communion, if you're not a member here, you can't participate. I've seen it done in Baptist churches, I've seen it done in various types of churches, no particular denominations.

And now I was at a Roman Catholic funeral once where it was said, if you're not Roman Catholic, you're not allowed to participate. It was basically said just that many words. It was a little bit more eloquent, but that was what was said.

And I was like, well, I wasn't going to anyway. So, hey, no big deal. You know, but that's sometimes it said just that explicitly, that if you're not a member here because that's our way of protecting you, that's the way of protecting the church, then we don't allow it.

Now, our church doesn't practice that. But go ahead. I thought you said a while ago that they actually allow people to become members and they're not, they haven't been saved. Well, that happens a lot.