Ethics: Visiting Non-Member Friend Wants to Take Lord’s Supper

I would probably choose option #3, and ask the pastor for his opinion. If nothing else, this takes the responsibility off of my interpretation and places is squarely with church leadership. Whatever answer he gives, I have made a effort.

I wouldn't have to say anything. Before communion our pastor explains the policy and the biblical basis for it before communion is taken. Our policy is simply asbstension if one is not a communicating member of some church which holds to the essential doctrines of the faith. If there were a question I would explain that there is no such thing as a Christian who has not partaken in the body and blood of Christ, baptized or not, and were made partakers not because of what they have done but despite it, because of what he has done in putting away sin. If one doesn't understand that he comes to the table a sinner in need of forgiveness, then I would wonder if they have ever taken that first morsel and cup at all. I would expect that a friend knows me and my affilliation well enough to understand our policy. I would explain that policy isn't a belief but policy and that based upon certain inferences from non-essential teaching. Together, we would have already taken communion if he was believer, anyway, if not in form, in essence, since communion means fellowship. To be in union with Christ is to partake of the fellowship of the body of Christ, simply. What astounds me is the exchange of the meaning of communion for the nearly sacerdotal practice and sheltering of it. To think of it as some holy icon is Romish practice and idolatry. It may be a means, but that means is by the Word which explains it. How it has become that the bread and wine was transformed into a magic trick is insane. John doesn't have the supper, and I think for a very good reason. There, as it is in his epistles, the condescension and servanthood of the fellowship take the prominent place, love of neighbor, and consideration of others as in Corinthians is in the fore, laying downs ones life for the brethren, and not self, is central. He came to his own but his own have turned a simple memorial service into a mystic experientialism. How foolish!

We believe that Baptized Christians who believe Christ to be present in the Supper should receive Him.

No matter if they are only with us that one day. It's the Lord's Supper...not ours. The Lord is able to handle what is going on with the sinners who receive His Supper.

My 2 cents.

I would never be part of a church which refused someone who was desiring communion. However in the situation you present, I would also avoid taking communion myself and instead suggest we take it back at home with wine and bread from my larder.

There is no scriptural requirement for an officiating pastor, nor for special breads or wines. Jesus simply used what was served on the table at the last supper.

Maybe I am unusual as I take communion regularly at home with my wife and or friends who might visit.

If that was the policy of the church, I would ask him to respect that policy. I would note that this is not the policy of my church nor do I think it is the required interpretation of the BF&M. I had not even considered that meaning of the BF&M section until the recent discussions.

Ok, I'll link to the conversation at the end. The question was addressed to Jared Moore in his post related to some comments also by David Rogers. Here it is:

"Suppose you are the pastor of a small Baptist church in a small rural town. Yours is the only evangelical, bible believing church for miles and miles. This could easily be true in parts of the western US.

You have a family there. Dad and mom have been credo immersed. They have a couple of children, ages 1 and 3. Dad and mom read and study baptism and come to believe that paedobaptism is true. But since they are in a credo church, they cannot have their children sprinkled. So, they travel back to grandpa’s independent church which will baptize either way and babies and/or adults (there are such) and have their children sprinkled (no baptismal regeneration belief here).

1. They are members of your church, so is there any issue or problem with them changing their belief on baptism and maintaining their membership in good standing?

2. How would you pastorally handle the issue of them going to have their children sprinkled, and later upon the kids’ POF not choosing to have them immersed?

I know this seems far fetched, but it’s not. And especially are these cross over situations not uncommon in other countries among true believers, as David has referenced."

Made October 2, 2012 at 12:03 pm at http://sbcvoices.com/agreeing-with-paul-chitwood-on-close-communion-disagreeing/

Well, I would answer with #1 and then probably tell him that we can discuss it later and I would begin looking for another church which was not so restrictive.

BTW, I posted a comment at Voices the other day which was a "what if" related to this. If you say it's ok, I can reproduce it here. No one there ever responded.