Where do you stand on communion

Sorry Ann, and others, it's 11:2. "...and keep the ordinances as I have delivered them unto you."

To me, Paul is saying, there's a right way to observe the ordinances and be sure to take care to do it right.

Later in the chapter, he points out how they're doing it wrong.

 

Can we agree it is after the supper that the bread is broken, and the cup of wine is consumed? It appears to be completely separate from the Passover Supper.

I believe this is an indication of a change that will occur that only God knew about. Paul confirms this fact of remembrance for we today. Want to eat a big supper, and drink a lot of wine, then do it at home.

 

Open. ........................

 

In the gospels, I believe the Passover meal preceded the instituting of the Lord's Supper. But I would not make that inflexible guideline. Besides, I don't know of a single congregation which has a meal prior to or right after the Lord's Supper.

You're probably right about the church at Corinth. I'm guessing (and it is only speculation) that the Corinthians were getting a little tipsy at their fellowship meal, and maybe overeating. So they were in the wrong frame of mind to take the Lord's Supper, which to me is the ultimate worship. That's how I imagine it, anyway.

Given the love we Baptists have for pot-luck, maybe we ought to. My congregation would want to substitute iced tea, coffee or soft drink for the wine, though.

 

Ann, I agree with webdog's comment earlier that no one is worthy to take communion. We are all sinners. So it's not a question of determining who is worthy. As I said elsewhere, when Paul used the term "eat and drink unworthily," he is speaking of the manner in which the Supper is taken.

I am glad you also agree that the church should exercise some discretion as to who will be offered he Lord's Supper. Even though you favor "open" communion, you don't favor opening it to everybody (the one under discipline, for instance).

So we agree in principal that the Lord's Table should be limited. Where we disagree is on what those limits should be.

 

In all my churches, I laid down the biblical principles of partaking of the Lord's supper. Then, "As baptized believers we will partake of the cup and bread. Let a man examine himself........"

I never policed the table. So, if you wish to call that open communion, then so be it.

My wife remains Anglican and she refrained because she was not immersed. One church board approached her and personally invited her to partake. She did, and I said nothing except "thank you."

Cheers,

Jim

 

Well, of course,you can't. An announcement at the start laying out the church's policy is about the best you can do.

Of course, you could invite the non-members to leave, but you're not going to do that. And I wouldn't either.

If a church really wants to practice closed communion, there are ways around the logistical problems. Since your church is open, the main logistical problem is how to serve 400 people with 8 deacons.

 

Jim, your wife sounds like a gracious and sensitive lady. She was correct to refrain, not being immersed.

The church board was also trying to be gracious to your wife, but I believe it was wrong to invite her to participate. This is a classic example of not guarding the ordinances.

But, at the same time, each congregation may decide what restrictions, if any, it will place on the Lord's table. I respect that right.

 

That's pretty efficient. We do it that way in a much smaller congregation.

As far back as my memory will take me, every church I've been in served the elements while the organ played in background. My current pastor changed that, and now the deacon serve the elements in complete silence. At first it took some getting used to, but now I like it.

Oh, with one exception. I went with an old high school classmate to her charismatic church one Sunday. They had communion. During the serving of the bread, a young man walked to the piano and began playing. Very nice touch, I thought. When they served the juice, another young man walked up and began singing to the song the pianist was playing.

My classmate leaned over and said "that wasn't supposed to happen."

After the service, I asked her, "I thought you charismatics sorta went with the flow, followed the Holy Spirit's moving, that sorta stuff."

She grinned and said, "well we do, but he was supposed to get the pastor's permission first. Our pastor knows the spontaneous stuff can get out of hand, and his Methodist upbringing prompts him to have as much of the spontaneity planned in advance."

I fell out laughing, and she did, too.

 

As a minister of music I certainly like the music. Singing during the passing of the elements is new to me, but I like the idea.

 

I like music sometimes. Also, complete silence is very effective. It's counter-intuitive to our culture, but it can be a wonderful, palate-cleansing effect. We are usually silent at the beginning when our instrumentalists are at the front receiving communion. After they return to their places and the choir makes its way back to the chancel, the choir begins singing Christocentric hymns very softly.

 

I usually sit during communion.

 

Tom you are correct as to my meaning, which pointed to the Corinthians. Also one of the points I perceptively wished to make was what they were eating, and drinking was not in error. You picked up on this.