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

[Jerome]

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

 

[mont974x4]

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.

 

[InTheLight]

I'm not sure I have enough information to give an opinion. So I have questions.

Isn't a church plant still a church?

I would think so. As of right now we do not have our own building, we are meeting in a city-owned facility.

If the pastor baptizes, into what church is he baptizing them? That one or the "mother" church?

Excellent question. I don't know the answer. But I have heard the pastor say things like, "if you are a member or a regular attendee, you may: [be listed in the church directory], [attend a special function], etc. On the other hand, I've never heard a whisper from the pulpit or otherwise about how one 'joins' the church.

If the plant is not yet considered a church, why not go to the mother church for communion?

It's about 225 miles away.

Why doesn't the mother church cut them loose if they're functioning as a church?

I don't know. Should I ask for a meeting with the pastor and ask these questions?

If baptism and the Lord's Supper are church ordinances, why is there any thought of doing communion outside the authority of the local church?

I have real problems with "Lone Ranger" communion.

It doesn't seem like something I would do.

Another thing that bothers me is that there is scarcely a mention about the need to be baptized, or any sermons on baptism, which I find extremely odd seeing that it is a BAPTIST church. They do baptize people but since they don't have their own building they have to ask other churches if they can use their facilities or else they have baptized at indoor pools. It could be that baptism is not mentioned very much (almost never) because we don't have a building and it's difficult to get baptismal facilities.

 

[InTheLight]

You need to find out what hoops this faraway sponsoring church has erected for your mission station to jump through to prove itself worthy to become an independent local church and thus capable of having its own Lord's Supper.

Yes, that's probably what I need to do. <sigh>

 

[annsni]

Except her opinion and decision-making rights are suppressed and ignored, which is abusive. We are to mutually submit to each other.

You just made the biggest jump I've ever seen in this kind of an argument. Going from a loving, sacrificial headship like Jesus had to abuse? I'm sorry but that's just the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

 

[annsni]

To the OP - I think the "pastor" is dishing up a big dish of rotten beans. He can't serve communion because he hasn't been given permission to? Jeepers - we have communion in our home groups at times, on the ladies' retreat (served by women, no less!) and at all of our campuses. Something sounds really fishy there....

 

[glazer1972]

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

 

[Tom Butler]

I don't know. Should I ask for a meeting with the pastor and ask these questions?

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

 

[SaggyWoman]

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.

 

[InTheLight]

All right, I have an update. Through email exchanges here is the rationale for not having communion:

1. They believe in closed communion. This means:
a. Only saved individuals may participate
b. Only church members may participate
c. Participants must be right with God and fellow men
d. Participants must not have "known" open sin in their life
e. Participants must have a sober mind about the event

2. They are not yet "organized". (I don't know what this means, can anyone shed light on this?)

The pastor said he had spoken with the senior pastor of the planting church and said even though they were not organized they will likely have communion before the 4th anniversary of the church start-up date.

As to baptism, the reason why I haven't heard anything about it is because I must have missed the 9:30 Bible Study he did on it. Same answer for the topic of church membership. He said that he doesn't actively talk about or promote church membership because he prefers people to voluntarily seek him out and ask him about it. He believes the Holy Spirit will move people to ask about church membership and therefore it's not up to him to promote it.

He also said that the main Sunday morning church service was evangelistic in nature, and not meant to be instructive in church doctrines. He says he knows there are people in the main Sunday morning service that "have not gotten saved yet." From a practical standpoint this means that every sermon is a salvation message or has a good segment that is about salvation. I don't know if that is a good thing or not, probably a good thing. However, it means I've heard the same sermon (or parts of it) over 150 times.

 

[Alive in Christ]

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

Except her opinion and decision-making rights are suppressed and ignored, which is abusive. We are to mutually submit to each other.

Agree completly

 

[Tom Butler]

All right, I have an update. Through email exchanges here is the rationale for not having communion:

1. They believe in closed communion. This means:
a. Only saved individuals may participate
b. Only church members may participate
c. Participants must be right with God and fellow men
d. Participants must not have "known" open sin in their life
e. Participants must have a sober mind about the event

2. They are not yet "organized". (I don't know what this means, can anyone shed light on this?)

The pastor said he had spoken with the senior pastor of the planting church and said even though they were not organized they will likely have communion before the 4th anniversary of the church start-up date.

As to baptism, the reason why I haven't heard anything about it is because I must have missed the 9:30 Bible Study he did on it. Same answer for the topic of church membership. He said that he doesn't actively talk about or promote church membership because he prefers people to voluntarily seek him out and ask him about it. He believes the Holy Spirit will move people to ask about church membership and therefore it's not up to him to promote it.

He also said that the main Sunday morning church service was evangelistic in nature, and not meant to be instructive in church doctrines. He says he knows there are people in the main Sunday morning service that "have not gotten saved yet." From a practical standpoint this means that every sermon is a salvation message or has a good segment that is about salvation. I don't know if that is a good thing or not, probably a good thing. However, it means I've heard the same sermon (or parts of it) over 150 times.

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.

 

[Tom Butler]

In the Light also wrote this:

The pastor said he had spoken with the senior pastor of the planting church and said even though they were not organized they will likely have communion before the 4th anniversary of the church start-up date

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.

 

[InTheLight]

I hold to closed communion, so I'm in basic agreement with points a through e.

Well, I would be excluded because I'm not a member of the church. Even though I've attended since Day 1 and rarely miss a Sunday.

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.

Would it possibly have something to do with the the pastor not being ordained and/or not having attended seminary?

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.

Yes, that seems sensible. But the attitude and tone of the email response indicates to me that suggestions are not to be entertained. This is THE WAY WE DO THINGS.

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

I don't know, I'm not privy to that information, but my guess would be, yes.

 

[InTheLight]

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.

Just to be sure we are on the same page, the pastor of the my start-up church called the sending church's pastor and they decided it would be OK for the start-up church to have communion before the 4th anniversary.

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

It's caused me a lot of heartache. So I have to go to a church with open communion to get the Lord's Supper? Even if I were to join the church I'm attending, I wouldn't get an opportunity for communion until the spring of 2014. How do you think I feel for not having communion for over 3 years now?

 

[saturneptune]

Well, I would be excluded because I'm not a member of the church. Even though I've attended since Day 1 and rarely miss a Sunday.

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.

 

[Tom Butler]

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.

Even if I were to join the church I'm attending, I wouldn't get an opportunity for communion until the spring of 2014. How do you think I feel for not having communion for over 3 years now?

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.

 

[webdog]

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.

 

[SolaSaint]

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!

 

[webdog]

It is more than just a meal!

Of course, I never implied otherwise.