Featured My Church Hasn't had Communion for Two and a Half Years!

I found that this article in the Spring 2012 Mutuality magazine explains a lot:

pp. 7-9 "Moving Away from Subtle Extremity: A Journey Out of the Shame-Filled World of Christian Patriarchy"

http://www.cbeinternational.org/files/u1/membership/members-only-mutuality-19-1.pdf

 

Men and women are equally sinful. Men and women are saved the same way. Men and women are designed by God for different, equally important, roles in the family and the church. We see this clearly in Scripture. Men and women, slave and free, and rich and poor are equally saved. However, Scripture then goes on to state how we live within our given roles...husband and wife, parent and child, and slave and master. It is not abusive to support and affirm the things God has called us to.

 

Lord's Supper should be done often. Baptisms too. Sounds like some correction is called for.

 

Yes. And I hope you will share his answers with us.

 

I am sorry, but I have been a part of church plants, and we still did communion. I can't say that I have ever been in a church except a pentecostal holiness church, that did not have communion at least a few times a year.

 

THIS WAS POSTED...regarding the traditional" "Man in charge of the house" view....

Agree completly

 

I hold to closed communion, so I'm in basic agreement with points a through e. That said, I find it strange that the "mother church" would create a situation that effectively precludes observance of the Lord's Supper by members of the church plant.

Since I'm already on record as opposing "Lone Ranger" communion, that is, independently of the local church body, I propose a solution:

The church plant should immediately vote to become an autonomous Baptist church. The planting church should give its blessing, and pledge its assistance in making it happen. It it won't, too bad. Unless there's something in writing to prevent it, the new church can do what it wants to.

The new church should also elect at least a couple of deacons.

One other question out of curiosity: Is the church plant financially dependent on the mother church? If so, that explains a lot.

 

In the Light also wrote this:

See, this is the problem with Lone Ranger communion. The way it's set up, only a small part of the planting church will have communion, independently of the rest of the church 225 miles away. How does that promote any kind of unity? No wonder we have posters here who are willing to split off from the rest of the church family to have their own family communion.

Frankly, I'm saddened that we even have to have this discussion.

 

I agree with all of your points a to e except b, because I am against closed communion for a number of reasons. (another thread) That would solve that problem.

As far as advice goes, I would have a church business meeting in the plant church. I would vote to become autonomous, draft a Constitution and bylaws, form a budget, and inform the parent church you are now an independent New Testement Church. Also, as was suggested above, elect deacons, church officers, and call a pastor that is willing to lead. In this case, it will take one with thick skin. Then, when the church has an idea how the finances are going to go, I would hold communion, open or closed, depending on how the church voted, and not worry about the parent church. It will be bumpy at first, but as time passes, with the help of the Lord, your church will grow and be what the Lord would have it to be. It seems like the parent church is nothing but a millstone tied around your church's neck.

The type of communion is only a small element of the problem, but I have never seen anything positive come out of closed communion. I guess in a way I do believe in closed communion, it is closed to those who do not believe in Jesus Christ as their God, Lord and Savior, like the Mormons, JWs, and the like.

God bless you and your church in future endeavors as the Lord leads.

 

As you have read, SN and I disagree over who is admitted to the Lord's table. We are fellow deacons who serve the same church, and we do agree on this: That a local congregation makes that decision.

I'm having trouble understanding why you've been a faithful attender of that church and refuse to establish a covenant relationship with it. If it's because of the Lord's Supper thing, then I suggest, join it and help make it an independent, autonomous church, and establish guidelines for communion.

I'm sure it's not that simple, it ought to be.

 

Why are there more regulations for churches to administer the Lords Supper than what the Bible gives? Many of the problems I have with today's church is the business structure mentality over the simple biblical model. I don't even see anywhere that someone has to become a "member" as opposed to attending. I'm a member of our church not because I agree with that practice, but due to serving requirements of the church. If this were me I would rather be obedient to Christ than the manmade extrabiblical requirements of the parent church. I believe communion is for believers, hence anyone who fits the requirement should partake. Its not up to us to deem who is worthy. I would either leave this church or partake on your own. The Lords Supper was a meal, anyway, not the trivial commercialized event we have reduced it to with tiny crackers and plastic shot glasses of grape juice.

 

It is more than just a meal!

 

Of course, I never implied otherwise.