From the Elders of SMBC December 10, 2024
Thesis:
The practice typically referred to as “Common Cup” is to be the preferred method of observing the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper (Communion).
Definition of Common Cup– The sharing of One Loaf broken and distributed, and in like manner, the sharing of One Cup of wine, passed throughout the congregants for consumption.
Confessional Considerations
1689 2nd LBCF Chapter 30 (Paragraphs 1-3)
1
The supper of the Lord Jesus was instituted by him the same night wherein he was betrayed, to be observed in his churches, unto the end of the world, for the perpetual remembrance, and shewing forth the sacrifice of himself in his death, confirmation of the faith of believers in all the benefits thereof, their spiritual nourishment, and growth in him, their further engagement in, and to all duties which they owe to him; and to be a bond and pledge of their communion with him, and with each other. ( Hebrews 9:25, 26, 28; 1 Corinthians 11:24; Matthew 26:26, 27 )
2
In this ordinance Christ is not offered up to his Father, nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sin of the quick or dead, but only a memorial of that one offering up of himself by himself upon the cross, once for all; and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God for the same. So that the popish sacrifice of the mass, as they call it, is most abominable, injurious to Christ’s own sacrifice the alone propitiation for all the sins of the elect. ( Hebrews 9:25, 26, 28; 1 Corinthians 11:24; Matthew 26:26, 27 )
3
The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed his ministers to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to a holy use, and to take and break the bread; to take the cup, and, they communicating also themselves, to give both to the communicants. ( 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, etc. )
All scripture KJV unless otherwise noted
The 1689 captures many important insights into the biblical practice of Communion itself. It is the 2nd of two ordinances laid out in scripture for the believer and the church corporate to participate in for the edification of both unto the glory of God Almighty.
Communion is to be regularly observed and given the general regulative principle of worship, should be practiced in a manner in accordance with the Scriptures. Note that the confession is intentional in laying out not only the origination of the practice, but the pattern of its implementation from biblical narrative- both Christ’s inauguration at the Last Supper and Paul’s application in 1 Corinthians 11. As such, we have a baseline for building our observation of the ordinance. It should be pointed out that the language of 1 Cor. 11 and utilized in paragraph 3 (bold emphasis ours) is of the singular “cup.”
As will be argued in the following section, dogmatic and staunch obedience is not required where no explicit command is given (i.e. in historical narrative texts in Scripture). However much good comes from a desire to receive the plain indication of the text. As such, biblical hermeneutics must be consistently applied as one seeks to rightly extenuate a faithful practice.
We believe Scripture should interpret Scripture, that the more clear should inform the less clear, and that a Christocentric lens should be applied with a proper understanding of historical context, grammatical structure, genre and author & audience in mind. As such, we recognize that unless genre or context demands otherwise that the most plain reading of Scripture is often the most fitting. With this as a reference point, we see good and necessary inference within the text of Scripture to pursue the practice of Common Cup while not holding that it is explicitly demanded for proper obedience unto God.
Introductory Considerations
Why bother with this practice if it may be controversial? First and foremost, as already argued, we desire to consistently inform our practice from Scripture primarily, but also from the history, tradition, and practice of our faithful fathers who, as lesser authorities, nevertheless have set precedent that should be duly considered before being resigned to the ash heap of outworn orthopraxy.
Before we lay out a biblical and historical defense of the project, the elders of SMBC want to explicitly lay out that this practice is one built upon the framework of answering the question, “What is most fitting?” As such, we recognize there is some liberty in this matter of doctrine. We practice weekly observation, others monthly and so on. Further, while we would argue that real bread and real wine is most fitting and should be used in most any case, we grant that substitutes may be warranted in some circumstances. This statement therefore, is not intended as an indictment upon another’s practice or conviction but rather laid out in faith as a clear expression of what the elders deem to be the most God-glorifying means of administration.
We seek to answer the question of “What is most fitting?” by answering from God’s word, and God’s people throughout time that the most fitting expression of observation is simply to do as is plainly depicted in Scripture– namely, the breaking of one loaf, and the passing of one cup.
A secondary observation that does not trump Scriptural exegesis, but nevertheless carries weight, is “what has been the practice of the church historically?” It might shock some to learn that the practice of Common Cup in various forms has actually been the most predominant until recent history and the break in tradition being mainly found in the Western Evangelical church. This shall be considered in a later section on historical transition.
Importance of Symbolism
Before evaluating arguments exegetically and historically it should be established that theologically, there is great importance in Symbology with regards to properly communicating that which the ordinance describes as well as relating and conveying the most fitting picture. That is, that firstly, the picture of Communion is simultaneously oneness with Christ, as it is oneness one with another within the body of the bride and secondly, that the singular loaf and singular cup convey a singular source imaging the singular sacrifice of Christ. Put another way, one loaf is a picture or symbol of one body broken, and one cup (containing sufficient wine to meet the needs of each present as able) is a picture of the all satisfying and propitiating blood of Christ.
When we seek to develop a practice of communion, our practice speaks to what we believe about the intent and actual sacrifice of Christ. Is the oneness with Christ simply found in all participants partaking of the same substance (albeit perhaps from different sources i.e. crackers from a box) or in the one loaf shared? Which is more fitting? Likewise, is the oneness found in the simultaneous consumption of many small cups, or the individual consumption all from the same cup? Which is more fitting?
Please keep these images in mind as the following arguments are considered.
Exegetical Argument
Let it first be stated that we hold to Sola and Tota Scriptura and thereby lay the greatest weight and importance upon the clear command and inference of Holy Scripture (LBCF 1:9). However, let it also be known that there is no clear didactic text wherein explicit command with regards to observation is given. Rather, it is descriptive narrative genre wise that contains the primary teaching on this ordinance and therefore its implementation is by necessary means argued from inference.
Last Supper (Luke 22:17)
“And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:”
It is emphatically clear from what is known not only of the events of the Last Supper but of the Old Covenant institution of the Passover Meal that in its initial import as well as its New Covenantal administration, that a singular cup was passed and consumed by those present. The most plain reading of the text would infer this reality. Note, many modern translations render the word “divide” as “share.” The original Greek is διαμερίσατε ‘diamerisate’ which again carries the primary meaning of division. This has been interpreted by some to permit the dividing of the one cup into many cups. From this broader implication of the semantic domain of this word, one can infer that such practice may be permissible, but again the question that should be answered is, “Is it most fitting?”
Paul’s Argument for Orderly Worship (1 Cor. 11:25)
“After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.”
Here in Paul’s application of the Lord’s Supper as initiated by Christ in the upper room, emphasis is again placed upon the singular “cup.” One must then ask, is it emphasized in the singular simply because in this instance it was singular (due to size of gathering etc.)? One might argue that this is descriptive only, but obvious accommodations ought to be permissible. However, when compared with the practice of the Passover this seems highly unlikely. Traditionally speaking, Jews would utilize four cups of wine for various purposes during the Seder meal. These cups however were singular in their application, and would be consumed (as prescribed) by all present. So important and instrumental to the significance of the feast were these practices of preparation, prayer, hymn singing and consumption. It was not a thought to change this practice for pragmatic reasons, and further, even in this post AD 70 reality, modern Jews still follow this pattern and practice. As it would be unthinkable to pour multiple glasses for consumption of the “one” cup of praise, should we not consider it minimally unwise to flippantly devise new practices in the consumption of the Lord’s Cup?
There are in fact many passages where the singular cup is referred to and as such a clear biblical emphasis appears via pattern and repetition. Pastor J. Lewis in his article, “The Common Cup, A Command” observes the following:
Notice,“And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it” (Matthew 26:27). “And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it” (Mark 14:23). “And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come” (Luke 22:17). “Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you” (Luke 22:20). “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ” (1 Cor. 10:16)? “Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils” (1Cor 10:21). “After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me” (1 Cor. 11:25). “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come” (1 Cor. 11:26). “Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11:27).“But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup” (1 Corinthians 11:28). By quoting these texts, we find that in every case the singular article is used when referencing the cup. The same is found in the original Greek. Never do we find the Greek using the plural noun or the plural article in reference to the wine of the Lord’s Supper. By doing this, the Holy Spirit has made it very clear as to how He expects the element of wine to be distributed. The emphasis is on one cup (singular), not personal cups (plural).
Let us consider a couple of these passages further.
Mark 14:23:
καὶ ἀπολύσας τοὺς ὄχλους ἀνέβη εἰς τὸ ὄρος κατ’ ἰδίαν προσεύξασθαι. ὀψίας δὲ γενομένης μόνος ἦν ἐκεῖ. “And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.”
This is rendered likewise in critical texts as, “And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it.” (ESV)
Note again the singular “a cup” and “of it.” This demonstrates the clear practice of Christ and his disciples.
One final correlating passage is Matthew 26:23. This verse as well as parallels in the other Gospels shows that the meal included the obvious use of a common dish.
ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν, ὁ ἐμβάψας μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ τὴν χεῖρα ἐν τῶ τρυβλίῳ οὖτός με παραδώσει. “And he answered and said, He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me.”
This text demonstrates the sharing of not only the contents, but the vessels themselves.
Note: While intinction (the act of dipping and then serving) can be inferred from the rendering in John’s account, it need not be assumed to be prescriptive. Again, while these texts are descriptive in nature, this paper seeks to derive what practice is most fitting in principle based upon the clear teaching and depiction across Scripture.
With the exegetical argument made, that is, that the most plain reading of the text demands a respect for the emphasis upon a singular cup to be honored in a meaningful way, let us consider the practice of those who have come before us.
Historical Practice
Early Church up to Reformation:
The earliest recording of church practice known to the modern audience is known as the Didachē. This collection of orthopraxy, liturgy, and church custom could be as early as the late first century. It is not authoritative and does contain some questionable content (namely positive statements on Montanism or New Prophecy) but is a light into early church practice and wisdom pertaining to not only the Lord’s Table, but Baptism, and even abortion. The section on the table states the following prayer:
“Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let your [God’s] church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into your kingdom.”
This speaks to the common loaf, but also the oneness of the church. Other fathers built upon this concept and 4th century bishop Augustine of Hippo wrote,
“Brothers and sisters, just remind yourselves what wine is made from; many grapes hang in the bunch, but the juice of the grapes is poured together in one vessel. That too is how the Lord Christ signified us, how he wished us to belong to him, how he consecrated the sacrament of our peace and unity on his table.”
The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century
From the Westminster Assemblyman John Durry, consider the following:
Lords supper administered by Reformed churches – John Durry, Westminster Divine, 1647
8. At every time the Table is filled, the Minister doth repeat the words of Consecration used by Christ, or the Apostle Paul, or to that effect; and distributeth first the Bread, on both hands, to those that sit next unto him; and then doth shove the Vessell which containeth the consecrated bread, unto the rest along the Table as they sit in order, every one taking of it as it comes before him a morsell; and the Elders of each side stand behind the Communicants to shove the Vessell along the Table, for the quicker dispatch of the action, and to bring up the Vessell from the lower to the upper end where the Minister doth sit, when all have eaten of the bread that is in it.
9. The Bread being distributed, the Cup in like manner is consecrated, and given by the Minister on each hand one cup, to go all along from one to another; every one when he hath tasted of the wine, setting it down upon the table before his neighbour, and he taking it up, drinking of it, and setting it down again; and when all have drunk, the Elders carry up the Cups to the end where the Minister sits, and set them filled before him; and a Blessing being pronounced upon each Table-full, the Communicants rise in order, and go to their seats, and another Table-full doth come in their room, till all have received.
Note the practice in Durry’s observance is to have two cups (likely due to size of gathering) but that nevertheless the imagery of a singular cup being passed through the congregants is maintained. Wisdom in scalability of the Common Cup practice as well as permissible modifications is to be discussed in the Appendices.
“To drinke of one cuppe representeth a communion in one common benefite, but not that communication of mutuall dueties of love, and freindship, as doth the reaching of the cuppe from one to another.” – David Calderwood, Presbyterian, 1674. ch. 2 – Luke 22:17-
Here Mr. Calderwood is emphasizing the importance of dividing the elements amongst the congregation and NOT by the minister to each.
“That as One bread is made of many grains and One cup of wine made of many grapes, so the church is One body made of many members” Richard Vines,1677. p82-83
In his commentary on the practice, Mr. Vines rightly observes the solidarity found not only in the singular cup shared, but in the very process of wine production to be brought into the cup in the first place.
Congregationalist Jeremiah Burroughs also offered this exhortation for consideration,
Sermon XIII
“Keep to the Institution of the Sacrament”
“A third thing that is to be observed for the institution of this, that all the while the communicants are taking, eating, and drinking the bread and wine, they should all of them, that while, have their thoughts exercised about the death of Jesus Christ, for that’s the institution, “Do this in remembrance of Me.” There should be no action intermingled in the time of the receiving of the sacrament, nothing but minding the work that you are about, that is, to remember the death of Jesus Christ, and to discern the body of the Lord, not only when you take yourselves the bread and wine, but when you see the bread and wine broken or powered forth, and you see others taking the bread and wine, all that while, you should be thinking of the death of Christ, and discerning the Lords body, and consider what these outward elements do signify, and that they do seal the great benefit of the covenant of grace. Therefore, it is not according to the institution to be singing of Psalms in the meantime while the sacrament is receiving and so to have your thoughts about other things. Singing of Psalms in its due time is a good thing, but for you to do it at that time when as the death of Christ is presented before you, and Christ calls you to look upon His body, and to think upon what He hath done and suffered, this is no seasonable time of singing. And if you read the institution, you shall find that Christ, after all was done (the text saith) they sung an hymn, so that according to the institution it is after the action is done of eating and drinking, then for the Church to join together and sing a Psalm in the praise of God. And then they must mind all the same thing together, for that’s the thing to be done in the sacrament, that look what one doth, all must mind together; for when one part sings, and the other are waiting for the bread and wine, this is not suitable to the holy Table action, and that communion that God requires of us. Though the things in themselves are both good that are doing, yet when we are about this holy ordinance, being it is an ordinance for communion, all are to be doing the same thing at the same time; and so, when all have done eating and drinking, then for all to join together in singing to the praise of God.”
This exhortation from Burroughs not only depicts the practice but lays emphasis on orderly service and observation of focus upon the elements themselves.
Particular Baptists:
We of course are Reformed and Baptistic, so what of our particular tradition? The practice of Elias Keach, the son of Benjamin (author of the Baptist Catechism) is described as follows,
“Second, Elias Keach’s customs were similar to those of his father. He first delivered the bread and the cup to the deacon, and the deacon delivered it to the communicants. Like his father did, he usually concluded communion by singing a hymn. Then he offered prayers committing the congregation to God” Baptist life and thought, 1600-1980
It can be derived from this, that Common Cup from a Common Table was fairly standard practice amongst Particular Baptists.
Transition to Individual Cups:
One may be asking, “So just how did the tiny cups of grape juice become a thing?” This is a good question to ask, and may shed light on the prudence of thought employed in the practice.
Two factors seem to play a role in the rise in popularity of the practice– The Rise of Modern Germ Theory and the Teetotaler movement. The earliest recorded instances of individual cups seem to stem from the late 19th century (1890s). Outbreaks of various diseases were cited as instigating factors. Once implemented, this only gained steam as innovation is often wont to do. Before further consideration on cleanliness, it should be noted that a few decades prior, a Wesleyan Methodist, Mr. Welch in 1869 developed “unfermented wine” (grape juice), a modern innovation given the rapid fermentation of grapes. This movement, generated by the former minister’s understanding of the doctrine of Holiness and an extension of the already growing and thriving temperance movement (to combat alcoholism). Charles Welch, son of the inventor is on record as saying,
“Unfermented grape juice was born in 1869 out of a passion to serve God by helping His Church to give its communion ‘the fruit of the vine,’ instead of the “cup of devils.”
This growing temperance movement coupled with fears of transmission of disease contributed in large part to the growth in popularity of individual cups. While sacramental wine was technically permitted later during the Prohibition era, the practicality and availability of mere grape juice likely played a factor in transitioning practice as well.
Studies have since shown that such concerns are unwarranted, even by modern scientific standards. (Links in Appendix C)
So again, what is most fitting? Should one abandon common practice for innovation based on personal and communal piety convictions? Should one do so out of perceived health benefits? With these factors in mind, let us then consider objections to the traditional method. It is granted that multiple cups and/or use of grape juice may be exegetically permissible, but certainly not exegetically prudent or preferrerable.
Objections Considered
Weirdness Perception:
It should be first noted that the perception that the Common Cup is the outlier or strange practice. Quite the opposite is not only historically true, but even true in the modern age. It is primarily in the American west that deviation occurs, and even then not equally so across all traditions. Catholics and their abominable practice aside, many mainline denominations within Lutheranism, Episcopalianism, Anglicanism and Methodism still practice Common Cup. Further, we see the practice in some corners of the Reformed tradition as well.
Simply put, it is our modern sensibilities that are out of sorts with the historical reality and preeminence of this practice. Some 150 years ago, most any church would have had similar methods. So again, why innovate?
Hygiene and Cleanliness:
This is probably the most cited question or concern especially on the heels of 2020. With that being said, as previously stated, multiple studies conducted in the 20th century as well as post 2020 have concluded negligible correlations of germ transmission let alone increased sickness.
Personal testimony and observation over the course of nearly two years (after serving 6+ years at my former church) would corroborate as I have not observed any perception of increase of sickness or transmission of sickness within the church.
A few things of note. Wine, being alcohol of a higher percentage is naturally germ killing and furthermore the copper (which the cup is made of) is naturally antimicrobial. Genuinely, small traces of saliva aside, you are more likely to transmit disease through handshakes, hugs, and common exposure in close quarters than through the Cup.
With this in mind, it is wise and prudent that those experiencing fever or severe sickness out of respect for the body, remain home. Anyone with mild symptoms who wants to care for the conscience of those around them, can also courteously be served last or simply abstain as needed.
(A discussion of accommodations and variations in practice is discussed in Appendix B.)
Pragmatism:
Objections are also often raised over the practical administration and efficiency of Common Cup. Namely, large churches would struggle to reasonably serve all from Communal Cups (assuming multiple Cups were used even). Additionally, variances in practice wherein the substance or observance are unaltered but merely multiplied (i.e. multiple tables with single loaf and cup each) are perhaps less fitting to the symbol, but nevertheless preserve it all the same. Transitioning to completely alternate practices is akin to changing the substance itself (i.e. substituting other foods or beverages for the prescribed bread and wine). It changes the symbol, or minimally refocuses the symbol in such a way that the picture of unity is obscured. This ought to be avoided when possible.
Churches of exceeding size should consider whether the administration of the elements in accordance with their size should be subordinate to the expression of faithful observance laid out in Scripture. In short, when churches begin to struggle with applying and observing this ordinance, rather than a change in practice, a church plant would be most likely necessary.
Appendix A: SMBC Practice Defined
At SMBC, the elements, a basket with leavened bread (a sign of the new covenant community wherein the kingdom is growing like a leavening agent) and a single copper chalice of wine are placed at the front of the church gathering on a table.
Following the sermon and singing of the Lord’s prayer, an elder “fences” the table by describing Scriptural requirements for partaking and gives an exhortation, often tying the sermon to the practice of Communion. He then reads from 1 Corinthians 11 and the passage instructing on the supper. He pauses to pray over the bread before breaking it in front of the congregation gathered. He then takes and eats before passing to his fellow elder to distribute through the church. The basket of bread, one loaf broken as Christ’s body, is handed one to another throughout the church as a picture of oneness in Christ.
Likewise he prays and consecrates the Cup prior to drinking and passing in like manner through the church assembly.
Our current practice is to then sing a response hymn after all have partaken.
Appendix B: SMBC Considerations for Exceptions, Accommodations and Growth
In extreme cases that may warrant it, wine may be poured from the common vessel into a smaller cup to serve those who, due to health conditions would not be able to partake otherwise (i.e. mouth sores, motor coordination difficulties etc.).
As a general practice, those with minor ailments are encouraged to partake last, and those of compromised immunity or weaker conscience are encouraged to partake first. This is not due to any cleanliness concerns necessarily, but out of love for neighbor and the potential consciences of a weaker brother (Romans 15:1-2).
Growth Considerations:
Churches in the past were designed to grow to a certain point and then plant other churches. This is why there are such churches named ‘the First Baptist’ and ‘the Second Baptist.’ While large churches have existed in the past, it is only a modern innovation of thinking for churches to reach the size of ‘mega.’ All Churches, SMBC included, should have a goal of eventually splitting to plant other churches, not as a means of disfellowship but rather as an expansion of the Kingdom.
Communion is a reflection of community and table fellowship in general. It is the conviction of the elders of SMBC that should the church expand beyond the reasonable accommodation of this practice, that church planting is the proper outcome. As such, SMBC is committed to be a church that plants churches and should be thinking proactively rather than reactively and pragmatically about Communion administration as an indicator of “when to plant?”
The practice of multiple tables officiated by individual elders is common in many traditions. While this does diminish in some sense the ultimate corporate church body (one loaf, for one people) it does still maintain the image and analogy in general. As such, this practice may become necessary for a season due to church size. However it should be noted that one loaf is capable of serving a large number of people, and the practice of refilling the cup during administration is preferable to multiple cups.
Should multiple tables become necessary, a church planting plan should already be in place and as such, these accommodations would be only temporary for a season.
Irregular Circumstances:
Communion is not to be observed at weddings, or other social gatherings and should not be administered in the home by one family only (not constituting a gathering of the saints). Remember, communion by definition is to be administered “as often as you gather.” This “gathering” however is not limited by geographic location, or building, but is to be implemented with liturgical regularity primarily through Lord’s Day worship. Neither Scripture, nor the 1689 prohibit administration of the elements outside of a church building, however do prohibit administration apart from the assembly of believers. Therefore, communion is to be administered amongst the gathered saints only.
Communion is intended as such, to be an act of the whole congregation communing with Christ and one another, as well as officiated by elders (LBCF 28:1-2) however it is to be noted that through occasional dark providence, there may be circumstances in which the church may be mobilized to gather with an ailing saint (i.e. the terminally ill) or other such irregular circumstances. On such occasions, all efforts to commune corporately should be pursued.
In like manner, the elders of SMBC recognize that the inability to participate in Communion is used by God to increase the faith and need of saints. There are therefore times where an abstaining from the table whether by necessity of sin, or by providence (being physically unable to attend the gathering) does occur. These times of abstaining or removal of opportunity are designed by God to increase longing, prayer and need for Communion. For example, a group of believing soldiers in a foreign campaign would be right to pursue fellowship through prayer, Scripture, and the general edification of Christian brotherhood (i.e. singing of psalms/hymns and conversation) but would likely not be able to rightly administer the elements in such cases. This should not serve to prick their conscience that they are being unfaithful by not partaking, but rather serve to increase their love for the fellowship and increase their faith even in times of deprivation. Obviously, deployment in circumstances may provide opportunities for communion through local church fellowship or through chaplaincy, but is not to be expected.
The same principles would apply to those working in remote locations etc. The desire of the saints should be to limit these seasons, and pursue opportunities for employment that does not remove their ability to participate in corporate local worship, and the deprivation of Communion serves to demonstrate this lesson.
It is not possible to anticipate all potential considerations for exceptions and for accommodations, the Elders at SMBC would like to remind the reader that reaching out and having conversations is the best way to address a particular circumstance.
Appendix C: Resources for Further Consideration
We encourage you to peruse and read papers from which arguments and claims above are substantiated and cited.
https://reformedbooksonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/the-cup-of-blessing-bobby-phillips.pdf
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/A17573.0001.001/1:4?rgn=div1;view=fulltext
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/A81924.0001.001/1:5.10?rgn=div2;view=fulltext
https://books.google.com/books?id=Ee02AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA82#v=onepage&q&f=false