I was informed last week that the North American Mission Board has suspended the practice of serving the Lord’s Supper at its Worldchangers camps. This is a move for which I would like to commend NAMB. I believe it is a bad practice for the Supper to be practiced outside of the local gathering for at least three reasons.
First, the Supper is an ordinance that is to be practiced by believers. As a pastor, when I administer the Supper to my congregation, I emphasize this. As my students participated in the Tuesday evening service, the Supper was served to 3 of my students who had not accepted Christ. Therefore, they participated in an ordinance that was not intended for them and that, in contradiction to what their pastor has taught.
Second, the Supper is an ordinance which is restricted from those who are under church discipline. The church at Corinth had been infiltrated by pagan practices and immoral lifestyles. The Supper plays a prominent role in the book of 1 Corinthians, especially for the practice of church discipline. By administering the Lord’s Supper, Worldchangers runs the risk of serving the Supper to someone who may be under church discipline. If the first danger undermines the authority of the pastor of the local church, this one undermines the authority of the local church itself.
Third, it is a direct disregard for the Baptist Faith and Message. The primary definition of the church in Article VI says in part “A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel; observing the two ordinances of Christ.” The students that gather at youth camps or missions endeavors are not covenanted together. The practice of covenant belongs to the local church, and not to a mission board, youth camp, or any other organization outside of the church.
I am pleased that NAMB has suspended this practice and believe that they have made a decision to honor the local congregation, respect the leadership of the pastor, and show agreement with the Baptist Faith and Message. I see far too many detriments to the practice of the Supper outside of the local congregation, and no benefit.
John:
NAMB should be commended for doing the right thing. Such teaching of doing what is biblical is an ongoing effort without end. It is easy to become lax and slip into a indolent approach to the Lord’s Supper. Do “Home Study Groups/Cell Groups” apply to the same teaching? Over the years they have become more popular as an extension of a church’s discipleship efforts. What about an individual family of believers led by a believing father? Both examples have “three of more” believers in attendance.
I believe scripture does not cite examples of any participation of the Lord’s Supper outside of corporate worship, except of the misuse found in I Corinthians. Any pastors allow either of the two examples to be performed outside of the main corporate body?
Paul,
In each of the cases you have cited, I would say that it is not the proper place for the ordinance to be administered. Though there may be 2 or 3 gathered, those 2 or 3 are not covenanted together to form a local church body. The same goes when a youth group goes on a ski trip.
Brother John,
It certainly can be that the “Worldchangers” may be a slightly different context (evangelistic) than the missionary journey of Paul at Acts 20 (where Paul and his company, were meeting together with the church at Troas and observing the Lord’s table). Would you also suggest that Paul and his company may not be observing the Lord’s table rightly, or is it possible that since He and His company were confessors of the Lord Jesus and were with the church at Troas, this was a normal activity in the first century churches?
I am not defending “Worldchangers” as an organization recognized to do what the church is commissioned to be doing because that may not be their purpose…. But I was not sure if you also would consider the Apostle Paul’s actions as deviating from the norm in this circumstance in Acts.
Blessings,
Chris
John,
I agree that Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are Ordinances of the local church. The Southern Baptist Convention, its agencies, state conventions, associations are simply not qualified to observe the Lord’s Supper.
I appreciate NAMB correcting this practice.
David R. Brumbelow
Brother Chris,
I am not John and will allow him to answer your question. However, I just want to get straight in my mind what you are saying. Are you saying that since Paul is not a member of the local church there at Troas he (Paul) should not be partaking of the Lord’s table, (According to John’s understanding).
Just a question that I would like to throw into this mix. How do you know that Paul isn’t a member of this Body of Believers?
Blessings,
Tim
Chris, I think the answer lies in the context, though for a different than you have cited.
First, Paul was the “planting pastor” of the church at Troas, thus he shared a special relationship with them making communion acceptable.
Second, Paul was an Apostle, part of the foundation of the church, giving him a special relationship to all churches.
Though your question is well-founded, I am afraid the evidence is far too scant in the episode you mention to tilt the scales the other direction. Blessings, my brother.
Brother Tim,
That is an excellent question and yes I am trying to dig that out a bit.
Personally, I believe the Apostle Paul by his very actions and encouragement partook of the Lord’s table in many places. He may have had a “portable” membership card. :)
My take on the Apostle and his friends (others in ministry with him) is that they are commanded to partake of the Lord’s table and it is a privilege to do so as the church gathers (Acts 20).
Blessings,
Chris
I was just looking for the words “Lord’s Table” in Acts 20. Is geuomai normally used to describe the observation of the Lord’s Supper, or the consumption of a full meal?
It may be just me, but with regard to the family observation of the LS or the ski trip observation of the LS, I am reminded of the admonition that the church wait on all to arrive. This at least means (IMHO) that all of the congregation ought to be invited to participate and welcome to participate and reasonably able to participate. Having the LS observed by cliques in the church is a bad thing, I think.
And finally, to speak to the main point of the post, let’s suppose that we all set aside our differing opinions of when the Supper should or should not be observed and by whom. With regard to WorldChangers:
1. We have a group of people who agree with the BF&M that it is not right and permissible for WorldChangers to have administered the LS in this particular manner.
2. We have a group of people who would find it permissible for WorldChangers to do so.
3. We have no group of people anywhere speaking in this conversation who believe it is necessary and mandatory for WorldChangers to include any observation of the Lord’s Supper.
So, if NAMB cares about the churches, serves the churches, and wants to do the right thing, which will it choose? To observe the Lord’s Supper at the event and offend group #1, or not to observe and not to offend anybody?
I think that they made the right choice. Nobody’s conscience is offended by what they have done. I agree with the author: Thank you, NAMB.
I’m not a fan of a family doing the Lord’s Supper or other such venues. While a father may, and should, shepherd his family, they are not a church.
It’s not the location per se, but there’s a vast difference between a church that meets in a home and a home acting as a church.
Great post John! This isn’t about open, close, or closed communion. It’s about whether the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance or a Christian ordinance. Should the Lord’s Supper only be observed in a church setting or at any random gatherings of Christians?
What saith the Scriptures?
“For first of all, when ye come together in the church”
“When ye come together therefore into one place”
“What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God”
“Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat”
1 Corinthians 11:18a, 20a, 22a, 33a
Answer: The Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance to be observed by baptized believers in church capacity.
Brother Ben,
You have said well and perhaps have even strengthened the entire argument for the LS being observed within the confines of the local gathered body of Believers.
Blessings,
Tim
Ben,
Just dropped in this evening to catch up on the comments here and ran into your gem. Well said, my brother.
Sola Gratia!
Brother Bart,
To answer your question in #8, the context puts this in the LS category.
And, I agree with your analysis and with Tim that the church gathered is the place that we as believers are commanded to partake and remember our Lord.
NAMB did a good and consistent thing, I believe.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother John,
Thanks for the reply,… I was not trying to undo the conclusion of your post. I think that NAMB did the right thing in this instance.
Yet, the Apostle Paul and his companions also did the right thing (which does not compare to the WC situation) … and in the context of what is written in the scriptures as Ben has pointed out very well citing the 1 Cor. passage,…the men partook of the Lord’s Table in Acts. The words used by Luke at the Acts 20 writing is the same structure as is conveyed at 2:42. There is little doubt and much evidence that this meant that all the men were engaged in remembering our Lord together at Troas as would be expected.
Blessings,
Chris
OK, Now that the issue of NAMB and the Lord’s Supper is settled, I have a question.
Who births/starts/plants churches? Do churches start churches or does NAMB start churches?
CB, CB, CB…
I start churches! Or didn’t you here Paul when he said…wait that wasn’t him. He said he was nothing as was Apollos, etc. God causes the growth.
Bottom line, churches plant churches.
Sola Gratia!
OK, Now that the issue of who has the authority to administrate the Lord’s Supper and start churches, I have a question.
Who is going to pay for health care in this country?
CB–
You are.
SG!
Scott,
You are wise beyond your years.
No matter what happens, I am going to be paying for it, as will you.
Therefore, I am going to lock down on Psalms 46, seek to fulfill the mandate of the Great Commission, and seek to finish well for Jesus.
(In the meantime, I am going to write three more papers and take a test.)
Good night Scott. I enjoyed the little break by reading this post and the comment thread.
CB,
Good to see you out and about. Come on back anytime!
Don’t let the wild geese light on your roof tonight.
SG!
Chris,
I don’t know that context settles this one. Unless one stakes out the Campbellite position that New Testament churches never shared meals with one another, the context has to allow for the possibility that this congregation was enjoying a “love feast” rather than the Lord’s Supper. We know that even as early as the Jerusalem church our spiritual forefathers were providing entire meals to widows.
Given the sequence of events for the evening—It appears in Acts 20:11 that the meal came after the worship service, and not during it—I think one can make a strong case that this particular “breaking of bread” refers simply to a fellowship meal among the church family.
However, I want to clarify what I am not arguing. I am not saying that Acts 20 could not possibly be referring to a celebration of the Lord’s Supper. I am merely saying that the matter is not clear at all in this passage, at least not to me. The verb employed and the sequence of the narrative cause me to wonder whether this passage is referring to the Lord’s Supper at all.
I should mention, for the benefit of everyone, that our earliest sources indicate a strict separation between the “agape feast” and the Lord’s Supper. Check out the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church for more details. For example, Pliny the Younger was born while the New Testament was still being authored—while the Apostle Paul was still alive—and his writings about Christian worship pointedly state that the Christian gathering to celebrate the agape feast was a regular practice of the church and that it took place in a totally separate meeting from the Christian worship services (where the Lord’s Supper was observed).
Bart,
Brilliant and interesting insights.
Chris,
I must say that Bart’s arguments prove to be very persuading to me.
Ben,
Great words. Thanks for interacting.
Gunny,
“It’s not the location per se, but there’s a vast difference between a church that meets in a home and a home acting as a church.” Precisely.
Brother Bart,
Thank you for clarifying your thoughts a bit more for me and supplying Pliny’s historical perspective….and as you have said, and I agree in part as well…. there is room to allow for other possibilities. After all, we were not there with them and can only beg for understanding from the information we have today to try and understand how these guys were interacting. Additionally, I certainly expect the Texans (John) to hang together on this one as well :) You rascals you….
To add a bit more context and structure to the scripture in question though, I do find it comforting that Luke (not Pliny) would point to the first day of the week. I certainly don’t expect Pliny the younger, also pagan, to understand the significance of Luke’s writings and his evangelical contexts. So for the time being I will have to side with Luke to pursue the intent of the scriptural writers to lead us toward the context, so that when these men came together with the congregation to break bread, Luke’s depiction of “when” this was occurring in the Acts 20 account is important,… since it is already known that during the early church it was common to experience feasts and the remembrance of our Lord together (Acts 2:42). The eating of meals and the Lord’s Supper were commonly experienced together allowing Paul to explain the difference between gathering to remember Christ and discouraging the wealthier/selfishly motivated folks from eating the best food and not waiting on the “blue collar” workers of the day to gather as well, such as in the case where Paul was rebuking the Corinthians. In the Acts account…Luke’s mention of the first day of the week is a good indication of proper context for the gathered church. I would be more inclined to express the 2:42 passage as one of common feasts, while in the same matter, at various times remembering the Lord with bread and the fruit of the vine while meeting daily and remembering their Savior.
When you read Pliny’s translated letters to his peers and leaders… the quantitative mentioning of the Christ followers is to the tune of a needle in a haystack and without any real context for explanation….only his pagan view of some folks paying homage to a God.
It is interesting though to read what was going through the guys mind throughout the letters.
John,…for what it’s worth,…I still like the point you make in the post though….
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
I would not take Pliny as an authority on the Christian doctrine of the atonement or the historicity of the resurrection. However, I no of know reason to doubt his testimony that the early Christians typically met twice on the Lord’s Day: Once to worship and a second time to share a family meal…the agape feast. Since Paul’s event at Troas took place at the end of the day, I think Pliny’s observation is highly relevant, even without Pliny knowing beans about the theology of the Lord’s Supper.
Brother Bart,
As I agreed with you earlier, there is a rare possibility that the men were simply there to eat something. Yet there is better evidence, at least in my mind and seen throughout the NT, of a greater aspiration of these men to go beyond the mere eating of a meal together with the gathered church,..surely they remembered the provider and peacemaker. Their main objective was to worship and remember their Lord. Surely it is clear today, that we don’t keep those things (eating of a meal and remember the Lord) as close together as in the early churches. We don’t understand that very well.
Corinth is a better example of what we do today. Since the Lord’s table is becoming more and more rare, and is treated in many congregations as something of an event to “produce”, rather than a meal where near the end the Lord instructs His disciples (Mark 14:22…). After all, those in Corinth were told to eat at home since they were eating up all the meal and not waiting on the rest of the church who were left with nothing..Cor.11:33(it wasn’t that they were told not to eat a meal with the Saints when they were gathered), so in other words, he was telling the Corinthian gluttons to eat at home….and then to boot…. because of their gluttony and drunkeness, they were not remembering the Lord. They left Him completely out of their lives at the time. Is it any wonder that the Apostle had to remind them of why they come together to share in all things and remember the Lord.
Pliny probably did write correctly about what he saw (I am not challenging that)… but he certainly does not supply context nor help us understand in any meaningful way what the early churches were doing in and around their meals as Luke has given and as Paul has shown in his correction to those in Corinth.
Again, there certainly is a possibility that it is all about the food. But, I don’t see that as the main theme of why these Christians were gathering in 2:42, or why leaders were gathered with the church on the first day of the week (Acts 20)without a clear focus on Christ…since it is obvious that Christ gave the command to His disciples in the midst of a meal (Mark). (Just to be clear as well…I am not pushing for eating meal everytime the Lord’s table is offered.)
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
I don’t know that “a clear focus on Christ” is possible if and only if one is observing the Lord’s Supper. The early church saw the “agape feast” as yet another gathering with the focus on Christ. Gathering to share table fellowship after Paul’s exhortation would not be beneath Paul and would not be something beneath his aspirations.
We must resist the temptation to see the Lord’s Supper lying behind every mention of food and drink in the New Testament.
I’m thankful that we both agree that the passage does not conclusively indicate the Lord’s Supper. I should hope that we could both agree that even any powerful probability one way or the other comes from the reader and not from the text itself.
I concur…
To find it as positively one direction or the other is subjectively influenced outside of scripture, and that is important to bring to light to any learner in a pursuit to be an effective teacher.
Blessings,
Chris