Communion at home?

Maybe under Church approval, the Pastor could go conduct a Communion service with shut ins who are not able to come to Church. I must emphasize this should be under local church authority since the Lord's Supper is a Church ordinance.

 

Thats my thinking, too. Its definitly a church ordinance, so it needs to be done within that context. Shutins, I can see doing that.

Weddings? no way unless the whole group is participating.

When we were in Resort Ministry, we would take our summer staff on the beach at night and have communion/worship there. It was really a highlight of each summer for me. But looking back, I am not sure if we'd do that again~ we were all part of the universal church, but not a local body of believers. Thats my rabbit to chase...

 

We're having a little bit of that debate here in the church where i am serving, and previously in the local association.

There are some dead set against doing the Lord's Supper in the home and believe that it should only be done in the confines of the church. It went so far that a research committee was put together by the association to come up with a resolution. In typical Southern Baptist fashion it was chalked up as a "priesthood of the believer" thing and left at that.

For me personally, i have performed it in the homes of shut-ins, and i will begin to offer it to the shut-ins at this church.
I have also been part of the Lord's Supper at a couples retreat where we took the Lord's Supper after renewing our vows. The more i think about, the more i really can't say i object to it.

It's a touchy situation for some, so i'm going to go with our Southern Baptist motto...chalk it up to "priesthood of the believer".

 

What about those of us who are part of the Church, the Body of Christ, and fellowship with others in our homes instead of going to an institutional church? I don't believe a Christian has to have the permission or covering of any "pastor" to observe the Lord's Supper, in fact I believe in observing the Lord's Suppoer on a weekly basis, not just once a month or once a quarter. Here are some great links about this topic:

Some Considerations Regarding the Lord's Supper Today
Lord's Supper: Feast or Famine?
Lord's Supper: How Often?
Lord's Supper Is Not a Sacrament
The Early Christian Meal - A Jewish Tradition
Weekly Observance of the Lord's Supper
Observing the Lord's Supper
Communion in the Early Centuries
Table of the Lord
Eating Together
Lord's Supper
Why Weekly Communion?

 

Some traditional churches feel that only an ordained clergyman can officiate at the Lord’s table. This is evidently a holdover from Roman Catholicism. The New Testament makes no so such requirements. Acts 20:7-12 describes the breaking of bread as taking place in the intimacy of an upper room of a private home.

 

I am not even sure why communing somebody at home would be a question. Why deny somebody the Body and Blood because of their physical location?

 

Grape juice and crackers are not the body and blood of Christ.

 

Grape juice and crackers are not the body and blood of Christ. </font>[/QUOTE]No it's not...but they are sometimes used to "represent" the blood and the body. At least in the little Baptist church up the road from me thought the crackers and grape juice did a pretty good represetation of the supper. Also as the case as a missionary in another country and some children there who were trying to escape being captured and seen they could not get away. They had nothing but the dirt on the ground but was lead to have communion. (I can't remember, but I think I heard this on James and Betty Robinson's "Life Today" although it was several years back.) But to make a long story short...they were delivered and lived to tell the story how God had saved them.

 

Tam you have a good point there were no rules all we have is Christ example of the communion in Matthew 26:26-30.

Matthew 26:26-30
26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
30 And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.


If you notice we always omit something that is mentioned in verse 26 at the church communion. Why is that? BTW, I just noticed it myself.

 

The most extensive treatment of the Lord’s Supper is found in 1 Corinthians 10 - 11. The deep divisions of the Corinthian believers resulted in their Lord’s Supper meetings doing more harm than good (11:17-18). They were partaking of the Supper in a "unworthy manner" (11:27). Evidently the rich, not wanting to eat with the lower social classes, came to the meeting so early and remained there so long that some became drunk. Making matters worse, by the time that the working class believers arrived, delayed by employment constraints, all the food was gone and they went home hungry (11:21-22). Some of the Corinthians failed to recognize that the Supper as a sacred, covenant meal (11:23-32). The abuses were so bad that it had ceased being the Lord’s Supper and had instead become their "own" supper (11:21, NASV). Thus Paul asked, "Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in?" If merely eating ones own supper were the objective, private dining at home would do. Their sinful selfishness absolutely betrayed the very essence of what the Lord’s Supper is all about.

From the nature of their abuse of the supper, it is evident that the Corinthian church regularly partook of the Lord’s Supper as a true meal. In contrast, no one today would ever come to a typical Lord’s Supper service expecting to have physical hunger satisfied, nor could they possibly get drunk from drinking a thimble sized cup of wine (or much less, grape juice). However, the inspired solution to the Corinthian abuse of the Supper was not that the church cease eating it as a full meal. Instead, Paul wrote, "when you come together to eat, wait for each other." Only those so famished or undisciplined or selfish that they could not wait for the others are instructed to "eat at home" (1Co 11:34). Paul wrote to the Corinthian church some twenty years after Jesus first turned His Last Supper into our Lord’s Supper. Just as the Last Supper was a true meal, so too the Corinthians understood the Lord’s Supper to be a true meal.

Source: http://www.ntrf.org/supper.html

 

Crackers and grape juice? Never used those, have used unleaven bread and wine. True the bread and wine are not the Body and Blood. However, that does not change the promise that Christ's Body and Blood are physically present.

 

The purpose is as a memorial for the Body of Christ.
Would you conduct a church service at home? No of course not, it is for the Body.

 

We have worship, Bible study and fellowship with other members of the Body on a regular basis at one another's homes. We don't call it a "church service", but we are still part of the Church! I have yet to find a single scripture that says you have to be a part of some institutional church to be part of the Body of Christ.

 

I was told the church isn't the building the church is the believers. So acually church can be in your home if other believers are present. Just as Jesus also says in Matt. 18:20 -
For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
He didn't say go into a church building before he can show up. I think sometimes people confuse what "the church" and "church" is.
JGrubbs has it right.