Should visiting missionaries take the Lord's Supper at supporting churches?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
Hello;


As I visit churches, most have given me the Lord's Supper but severely Baptist churches have had me speak, they support my work, and yet insist that visiting missionaries refrain from the Lord's Supper and only local members partake.


Is this normal? Or is this, too, part of the infection of Landmarkism?

What is the appropriate response?



What is the history behind this practice. I know that the Philadephia Baptist Association partook together at associational meetings.


Also, a related question:

-During a missionary field conference, where there is a worship service and elder-qualified men coming together, should missionary field conferences partake of the Lord's Supper together? How about at associational meetings between churches?
 
I'm so sorry you have to deal with that! I've only heard of a "closed" Lord's Table at some hyper-calvinistic churches I know about and some Lutheran churches. It might be common at Anglican churches ... but here's my question. These types of churches typically only support the missions they'd consider to be like-minded. The individuals might support parachurch missionaries but whenever I've seen a mission they've been "sent" by a local church to establish another church plant so they ARE members. Would they not consider another churchman from your new church plant able to partake? If so, they are taking their oversight, if you ask me, to extreme.... especially if last week you were a brother, akin to being their elder, having been sent by them and now returning ... HOW MUCH MORE it would seem they'd welcome you knowing your hunger for the fellowship you once knew ... this baffles me.
 
Perg,

Respect their conviction. Many A.B.A. or Landmark type churches practice closed communion, partly because of their view on the universal church. Its not worth fighting over if you're not a member of the church.
 
Remember you are under authority.

That's God's authority and He has given real authority to the local church. That doesn't mean church authority is infallible, but you disobey it at your peril.

If you were visiting many of the biblical reformed Presbyterian denominations, generally, if you were a Christian, and a member of a Bible believing church (remember the idea is that you are somehow accountable under discipline there) and you were not under discipline requiring you to abstain, you could take communion there.
 
Oh, as a guest I wouldn't rock the boat. But I have been asked and I have given my thoughts. But, I generally keep silent, because my job is not really to fix them, and if I can fix them, I need to pick my battles.

-----Added 12/26/2009 at 07:48:28 EST-----

Perg,

Respect their conviction. Many A.B.A. or Landmark type churches practice closed communion, partly because of their view on the universal church. Its not worth fighting over if you're not a member of the church.

I think I need to get away from these circles.

-----Added 12/26/2009 at 07:53:22 EST-----

Remember you are under authority.

That's God's authority and He has given real authority to the local church. That doesn't mean church authority is infallible, but you disobey it at your peril.

If you were visiting many of the biblical reformed Presbyterian denominations, generally, if you were a Christian, and a member of a Bible believing church (remember the idea is that you are somehow accountable under discipline there) and you were not under discipline requiring you to abstain, you could take communion there.

P.s. I would love to start another OP about your statement, "Remember you are under authority."

I have seen this whipped out several times when folks admonish others not to point out mistakes of church bodies. Submission thus equates to silence, when love for brethren should, instead, equate to helping further them in truth. There is nobody not under authority.
 
Pergamum
P.s. I would love to start another OP about your statement, "Remember you are under authority."

I have seen this whipped out several times when folks admonish others not to point out mistakes of church bodies. Submission thus equates to silence, when love for brethren should, instead, equate to helping further them in truth.

As you said above, you are a guest. It's not your place to command the session, or Pastor, etc. to change its doctrine to accommodate you (even if they are wrong).

And yes, if you would like to start a thread on church authority, e.g. the "keys" given it by Christ, that might be a topic of interest.
 
I understand churches requiring people to be examined before partaking of the Lord's Supper, but it seems that if you have been counted worthy to preach from the pulpit, you should be able to partake. Why let someone preach to your flock whom you will not let join you at the table?
 
Remember you are under authority.

That's God's authority and He has given real authority to the local church. That doesn't mean church authority is infallible, but you disobey it at your peril.

If you were visiting many of the biblical reformed Presbyterian denominations, generally, if you were a Christian, and a member of a Bible believing church (remember the idea is that you are somehow accountable under discipline there) and you were not under discipline requiring you to abstain, you could take communion there.


Scott,

Your view of authority is mistaken here. I would suggest that you revisit the confessions regarding the primary role of Scripture as the seat of authority in the church, and the prohibition of binding men's consciences through the enforcement of unbiblical practices.

Your idea that Perg would be "disobeying at his peril" deeply concerns me. Pray tell, what would we have done had Luther and other reformers not disobeyed what would have been the "real authority" of the Church of their day?
 
Archlute
Your view of authority is mistaken here. I would suggest that you revisit the confessions regarding the primary role of Scripture as the seat of authority in the church, and the prohibition of binding men's consciences through the enforcement of unbiblical practices.

Your idea that Perg would be "disobeying at his peril" deeply concerns me. Pray tell, what would we have done had Luther and other reformers not disobeyed what would have been the "real authority" of the Church of their day?

Not sure we're being understood here.

If I'm understanding the original post, a guest is being instructed by the session or Pastor not to take communion at their church.

Not sure what the particular view of the sacraments or how the authority of this church is set up (and didn't think was the point of the thread).

But a visitor is under the authority of the church he is visiting.

Even a member submits to the governance and discipline of the church they are a member of- how much more a visitor.

A few denominations even require one strictly adhere to their confession before being allowed to take communion. (That's being discussed on other threads). A guest needs to respect that.

That was the position of more reformed denominations historically than we might have believed.

Now, we may not agree with that view. But whatever the case, a visitor is not to disrupt the peace of a church he is visiting.
 
What you are saying here, and what you said in above in the quote from which I drew, are two very different statements. What you posted in that quote sounds a bit Roman Catholic, and cannot be defended by the confessions, or Scripture.

As well, a visitor is not under the authority of a random congregation which he visits, in the sense in which we normally discuss church authority, apart from regular manners. The leadership has no more authority over him than the leadership down the street at the United Methodist congregation. Certainly that does not grant one rights to be disruptive, which is a general respect toward God, but that is not the same as the direction in which your thoughts seemed to be traveling.
 
Last edited:
I think that the local church body does have some authority of God upon it, but when it starts to have un-biblical practices or un-biblical doctrines I believe it's no longer speaking authoritatively or acting with the authority of God in that specific area.

So no he would not be in "peril" if he was to do something about this communion issue. In fact I would say that Perg would be the one with the authority of God on the issue since he's rightly interpreted the scripture where as the churches practicing this have not.
 
I have been in churches that also expressed the view that you had to "belong" to their congregation to partake of the Lord's Supper. The reason I received was that unless you were a local member that they couldn't be sure how you were being trained and they were doing it that way as a sort of accountability measure.

As I'm learning, whether right or wrong, all we as followers of Jesus can do is point out what God has revealed to us as the truth. We need to come to all discussions with open minds. Where we are convinced that we understand what God is saying, we stand firm and gently point others in that way. Where we are not so sure, we need to take in what others show us and let the Holy Spirit work on us with those thoughts. Where neither side can present an infallible case, based on scripture, we need to agree to disagree in brotherly Love.
 
Pergamum;

Oh, as a guest I wouldn't rock the boat. But I have been asked and I have given my thoughts. But, I generally keep silent, because my job is not really to fix them, and if I can fix them, I need to pick my battles.

If asked, answer--do not remain silent on the issue..

It's not about your 'fixing' them, but about speaking the truth to them in love as brothers in Christ.

I guess I do not understand THEIR view, they allow you to preach from their pulpit, and they financially support you on the mission field--so they agree you are a brother in Christ..so why would they NOT want to you to take communion with them??

I can understand a closed table with visitors they may not know, but I don't understand it under the current circumstances that they support you and your work..that seems odd..

I guess I need to go back and read the threads on "Landmarkism" to glean a little understanding, but it sounds like they are confused as to who should and should not be allowed to partake at their table..as it would seem a missionary THEY support should be allowed to partake..

I wonder how they would respond if they visited your community on the mission field and were told they could not partake in communion with that local body of believers--knowing they financially support your work and are in that sense a part of that body..
 
I can understand where my brothers are coming from, for not causing a riot in the Church you do not attend. I however would recommend you politely leave right then and there. If they do not welcome the saved elect children of God to worship in communion, then you do not need to speak to them. You do need to bring this attention to the leaders of that church, but in a powerful way that does not have words.

Walk out and don't look back.

The day we Christians allow elders at a Church to preach, and practice false doctrine is the day the church (the body) we start to see a real down fall. May God make warriors who stand for right doctrine, not false doctrine.

Why do you brothers insist that this beloved missionary of Christ take a stand for wrong doctrine? Is this missionary's job not to preach correct doctrine on the saving welcoming grace of God?

Even to my own understanding Jesus made a riot in the temple when wrong was being practiced. Paul kept preaching where he was being told to stop. Peter crucified for preaching, and God bless Stephen the first Marter. (SP?) John exiled to a island because John preached truth.

Or how about John Calvin. exiled for a little while because of His truth. Martin Luther a man hated because he preached truth.

I may understand not wanting to cause a riot in that Church, but I won't stand for it either.

Who is your real master? Christ or the Pastor of wrong doctrine.
Romans 13:1 is clear to obey authority but when that authority goes against God its another story.

End of soap box.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I just would not go back to them. If they trust you enough to support and pray for your ministry then they should also trust you to take communion with them.

I think it boils down the fact that the elders of some churches need to get out more.
 
I just would not go back to them. If they trust you enough to support and pray for your ministry then they should also trust you to take communion with them.

I think it boils down the fact that the elders of some churches need to get out more.

Yes, these are my sentiments exactly.

But what do I do?

OPTIONS:

(1) I could split and separate. But some of these churches do this way too much anyway. Their default mode is often to split or separate and separationism is stressed by some of them. Some of them have Landmark tendencies. I have tried to stress over and over that, for the sake of missions, publication, and the training of men, some diversity of belief between cooperating churches can be tolerated.

(2) I could ignore it and overlook it. Which is what I have been doing. But, several of the churches lately have not been overlooking my lack of Landmark doctrine and, while some tolerate my "broadness", others want me to become more Landmark and mark this as a deficiency in me.

(3) I could ignore it for now while trying to champion a braoder view. This, is what I have started to do. I have shown some Landmarkers the practices of the Philadelphia Baptist Association and how they took the Lord's Supper together at associational meetings. I have debated some points (like the univeral church issue, see other threads) with Landmarkers. But, they are entrenched in these views and I am short on time and haven't the energy to deal with the silly "Trail of Blood" book any longer.

(4) The suggestions above are that I might want to do something more.

Walking out: If I walked out, this would further the offense and eliminate any chance I have of dialoguing with these churches, who do pray for me and treat me kindly (within the limits of their understanding). If I walked out, this would appear rude and the fault would forever be seen as mine because I just left.

Speaking up when asked: This is what I have been doing.

Not going anymore to these churches: This is what I am considering.



My Proposal: I leave overseas again next month. It will be (Lord willing) 4 more years before I step foot into an US Landmark-ish church. I have thought that I might do the following before I agree to speak to any of the churches:

Write an email or letter stating that I will go to no church which allows me to preach and supports me but asks me to refrain from taking the Lord's Supper during my trip. Express my love and gratitude for them, but ask them to make me aware, before I show up, of their practices, so that I can avoid these times in which this ackward situation might arise (since some only do the Lord's Supper 1-4 times per year).


How would I word such a letter without giving needless offense? I know that I am a guest, and that these churches love and pray for me. But, sometimes it gets exasperating for over-rigidi ecclesiologies to disallow communion with those that otherwise express close fellowship with you.
 
I can understand where my brothers are coming from, for not causing a riot in the Church you do not attend. I however would recommend you politely leave right then and there. If they do not welcome the saved elect children of God to worship in communion, then you do not need to speak to them. You do need to bring this attention to the leaders of that church, but in a powerful way that does not have words.

Walk out and don't look back.

This is the making of a dramatic scene in a movie but not edification of the church.
 
How would I word such a letter without giving needless offense?

Some of us are too quick to take offense (in my case, on issues other than this) so some folks are probably going to be offended no matter how hard you struggle to be irenic.

Your proposed approach seems reasoned and reasonable. May the Lord guide you when the time comes to draft the letter.
 
What you are saying here, and what you said in above in the quote from which I drew, are two very different statements. What you posted in that quote sounds a bit Roman Catholic, and cannot be defended by the confessions, or Scripture.

As well, a visitor is not under the authority of a random congregation which he visits, in the sense in which we normally discuss church authority, apart from regular manners. The leadership has no more authority over him than the leadership down the street at the United Methodist congregation. Certainly that does not grant one rights to be disruptive, which is a general respect toward God, but that is not the same as the direction in which your thoughts seemed to be traveling.

What are you saying cannot be defended by the confessions or Scripture?



It sounds like we do agree that per the original post, the visitor ought respect the church authority he is visiting.

We agree that a visitor does need to have "regular manners" in the church he is visiting, and that "that does not grant one rights to be disruptive." (which per the original post would be disruptive were the person instructed by the session/pastor not to partake, to violate that).

When the church declares through its officers that, for example, nonbelievers are not to partake of the Lord's Supper, there is real authority in the church doing that- even if the person there is a visitor, not a member there at that church.

So, when this standard, scriptural instruction is given at the Lord's Table, it applies to visitors or attenders in its midst or even members who are not in fact believers.

Likewise, if a denomination, or a session, declares a "closed" Lord's Supper (closed communion).
 
What you are saying here, and what you said in above in the quote from which I drew, are two very different statements. What you posted in that quote sounds a bit Roman Catholic, and cannot be defended by the confessions, or Scripture.

As well, a visitor is not under the authority of a random congregation which he visits, in the sense in which we normally discuss church authority, apart from regular manners. The leadership has no more authority over him than the leadership down the street at the United Methodist congregation. Certainly that does not grant one rights to be disruptive, which is a general respect toward God, but that is not the same as the direction in which your thoughts seemed to be traveling.



What are you saying cannot be defended by the confessions or Scripture?



It sounds like we do agree that per the original post, the visitor ought respect the church authority he is visiting.

We agree that a visitor does need to have "regular manners" in the church he is visiting, and that "that does not grant one rights to be disruptive." (which per the original post would be disruptive were the person instructed by the session/pastor not to partake, to violate that).

When the church declares through its officers that, for example, nonbelievers are not to partake of the Lord's Supper, there is real authority in the church doing that- even if the person there is a visitor, not a member there at that church.

So, when this standard, scriptural instruction is given at the Lord's Table, it applies to visitors or attenders in its midst or even members who are not in fact believers.

Likewise, if a denomination, or a session, declares a "closed" Lord's Supper (closed communion).

Scott:

You usually give very good advice, but I don't understand your repeated phrasing "church authority."

It sounds like we do agree that per the original post, the visitor ought respect the church authority he is visiting.


If I do not rock the boat or challenge errors of churches that I visit, it is due out of sheer politeness and an attempt (though usually flawed on my part) of decorum and geniality. As a guest, even if I were right, I cannot change their practices unless they invite me to do so.

Again, I would leave the word "authority" out of it. No church has any authority to institutionalize error.
 
-During a missionary field conference, where there is a worship service and elder-qualified men coming together, should missionary field conferences partake of the Lord's Supper together? How about at associational meetings between churches?

It's so much easier in Reformed churches since things are codified. E.g. at a Presbytery meeting communion can take place, but at an Elk's Lodge meeting with elders it can't.
 
I just would not go back to them. If they trust you enough to support and pray for your ministry then they should also trust you to take communion with them.

I think it boils down the fact that the elders of some churches need to get out more.

Yes, these are my sentiments exactly.

But what do I do?

OPTIONS:

(1) I could split and separate. But some of these churches do this way too much anyway. Their default mode is often to split or separate and separationism is stressed by some of them. Some of them have Landmark tendencies. I have tried to stress over and over that, for the sake of missions, publication, and the training of men, some diversity of belief between cooperating churches can be tolerated.

(2) I could ignore it and overlook it. Which is what I have been doing. But, several of the churches lately have not been overlooking my lack of Landmark doctrine and, while some tolerate my "broadness", others want me to become more Landmark and mark this as a deficiency in me.

(3) I could ignore it for now while trying to champion a braoder view. This, is what I have started to do. I have shown some Landmarkers the practices of the Philadelphia Baptist Association and how they took the Lord's Supper together at associational meetings. I have debated some points (like the univeral church issue, see other threads) with Landmarkers. But, they are entrenched in these views and I am short on time and haven't the energy to deal with the silly "Trail of Blood" book any longer.

(4) The suggestions above are that I might want to do something more.

Walking out: If I walked out, this would further the offense and eliminate any chance I have of dialoguing with these churches, who do pray for me and treat me kindly (within the limits of their understanding). If I walked out, this would appear rude and the fault would forever be seen as mine because I just left.

Speaking up when asked: This is what I have been doing.

Not going anymore to these churches: This is what I am considering.



My Proposal: I leave overseas again next month. It will be (Lord willing) 4 more years before I step foot into an US Landmark-ish church. I have thought that I might do the following before I agree to speak to any of the churches:

Write an email or letter stating that I will go to no church which allows me to preach and supports me but asks me to refrain from taking the Lord's Supper during my trip. Express my love and gratitude for them, but ask them to make me aware, before I show up, of their practices, so that I can avoid these times in which this ackward situation might arise (since some only do the Lord's Supper 1-4 times per year).


How would I word such a letter without giving needless offense? I know that I am a guest, and that these churches love and pray for me. But, sometimes it gets exasperating for over-rigidi ecclesiologies to disallow communion with those that otherwise express close fellowship with you.



Splitting and seperating as in option 1 is probably not the best thing. I know for the sake of missions, exhortating people to take up the challenge of missions etc is an important and valuable role. However would you really want someone from such a narrow background with you on the missionfield. With the abundance of Christians and churches in the west, minor details suddenly become major details as people like to emphasise their distinctions. Whereas on the missionfield with the dearth of churches and so few Christians minor points of difference tend to stay in perspective. Narrowminded missionaries either need to change or else they won't survive on the missionfield.

In option 2 if churches tolerate your broadness or think you are in some way deficient then they are not really behind you nor truly supporting you. If a church desires that you become more like them then this is completely wrong. I do not want any missionary I would support to become more like me. I want them to grow in the grace and knowledge of God, I want their ministry to prosper and for the Lord to richly bless them, even although they may hold different views from me on minor details.

You seem to be tired of the 3rd option and your time and energy is precious enough without getting involved in making evangelical daisy chains.

Although I said I would not go back to them, that is easy to say but how that is communicated is a different matter. I think your proposal to write to them is very reasonable and the way forward.

I would say something to the effect that you are indeed grateful for their support and have enjoyed fellowshipping with them in the past. However you are changing your policy and feel that if they deem you worthy to fill their pulpit then as a genuine brother in the Lord you would like to share communion with them. If they say yes then fine, but if not then you feel they are denying you something the Lord has invited you to partake in and would therefore decline the offer to come and preach.

BTW do you arrange your own deputation programme or is this done through the office of a mission agency?
 
Westminster Confession of Faith
[emphasis added]

Chapter XXX
Of Church Censures

I. The Lord Jesus, as king and head of His Church, has therein appointed a government, in the hand of Church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate.[1]

II. To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed; by virtue whereof, they have power, respectively, to retain, and remit sins; to shut that kingdom against the impenitent, both by the Word, and censures; and to open it unto penitent sinners, by the ministry of the Gospel; and by absolution from censures, as occasion shall require.[2]

III. Church censures are necessary, for the reclaiming and gaining of offending brethres, for deterring of others from the like offenses, for purging out of that leaven which might infect the whole lump, for vindicating the honor of Christ, and the holy profession of the Gospel, and for preventing the wrath of God, which might justly fall upon the Church, if they should suffer His covenant, and the seals thereof, to be profaned by notorious and obstinate offenders.[3]

IV. For the better attaining of these ends, the officers of the Church are to proceed by admonition; suspension from the sacrament of the Lord's Supper for a season; and by excommunication from the Church; according to the nature of the crime, and demerit of the person.[4]

Pergamum

Scott:

You usually give very good advice, but I don't understand your repeated phrasing "church authority."

Quote:
It sounds like we do agree that per the original post, the visitor ought respect the church authority he is visiting.

If I do not rock the boat or challenge errors of churches that I visit, it is due out of sheer politeness and an attempt (though usually flawed on my part) of decorum and geniality. As a guest, even if I were right, I cannot change their practices unless they invite me to do so.

Again, I would leave the word "authority" out of it. No church has any authority to institutionalize error.

Thanks, Pergamum.

I think we have swerved into a topic somewhat unexpectedly.

And I can understand the difficulty of this, particularly in the independent-minded age in which we live. The concept being church authority.

But that church authority is something actually given by God, committed to officers of the church He has appointed.

As you can see from the above section of the Westminster Confession, it is reformed.

It flows from reformed theology's "high view of the church."

It was surprising for me to learn there were quite a few (not all) reformed churches that practiced "closed communion" historically. There are a (very) few that practice it today.

While I wouldn't ask you to agree with that (and I do not agree with closed communion either), we do want to consider the "church authority" scriptural basis for it.:)

I have learned that one historic Presbyterian denomination even practiced a closed communion that required not only that the Lord's Supper be limited to that denomination's members, but even that each person have a "communion token" to be able to take it.

Imagine that- every week, one needed a "communion token" from the elders to take the Lord's Supper- even if you were already a church member, and not under discipline!

There was some scriptural basis for this, and we must consider it.

The elders had to have such a witness of your life that you could be said, by them (the session) to be walking an orderly Christian life. That qualification being seen as a requirement for taking the Lord's Supper- living an orderly Christian life and not walking in a generally disorderly pattern.

Somehow, that determination is entrusted to "church authority."

Now understand, I'm not advocating that system, but as does the confession, I do recognize real authority God has delegated by the "keys" to the church.

That's a reformed principle, one that could be discussed in a thread on that topic.

Authority generally is a concept often lost on our generation- authority in all its realms, including that of the church.:)
 
-During a missionary field conference, where there is a worship service and elder-qualified men coming together, should missionary field conferences partake of the Lord's Supper together? How about at associational meetings between churches?

It's so much easier in Reformed churches since things are codified. E.g. at a Presbytery meeting communion can take place, but at an Elk's Lodge meeting with elders it can't.

Yes, the codified connectionalism is something I like about the Presbyterians.

-----Added 12/27/2009 at 06:08:25 EST-----

I just would not go back to them. If they trust you enough to support and pray for your ministry then they should also trust you to take communion with them.

I think it boils down the fact that the elders of some churches need to get out more.

Yes, these are my sentiments exactly.

But what do I do?

OPTIONS:

(1) I could split and separate. But some of these churches do this way too much anyway. Their default mode is often to split or separate and separationism is stressed by some of them. Some of them have Landmark tendencies. I have tried to stress over and over that, for the sake of missions, publication, and the training of men, some diversity of belief between cooperating churches can be tolerated.

(2) I could ignore it and overlook it. Which is what I have been doing. But, several of the churches lately have not been overlooking my lack of Landmark doctrine and, while some tolerate my "broadness", others want me to become more Landmark and mark this as a deficiency in me.

(3) I could ignore it for now while trying to champion a braoder view. This, is what I have started to do. I have shown some Landmarkers the practices of the Philadelphia Baptist Association and how they took the Lord's Supper together at associational meetings. I have debated some points (like the univeral church issue, see other threads) with Landmarkers. But, they are entrenched in these views and I am short on time and haven't the energy to deal with the silly "Trail of Blood" book any longer.

(4) The suggestions above are that I might want to do something more.

Walking out: If I walked out, this would further the offense and eliminate any chance I have of dialoguing with these churches, who do pray for me and treat me kindly (within the limits of their understanding). If I walked out, this would appear rude and the fault would forever be seen as mine because I just left.

Speaking up when asked: This is what I have been doing.

Not going anymore to these churches: This is what I am considering.



My Proposal: I leave overseas again next month. It will be (Lord willing) 4 more years before I step foot into an US Landmark-ish church. I have thought that I might do the following before I agree to speak to any of the churches:

Write an email or letter stating that I will go to no church which allows me to preach and supports me but asks me to refrain from taking the Lord's Supper during my trip. Express my love and gratitude for them, but ask them to make me aware, before I show up, of their practices, so that I can avoid these times in which this ackward situation might arise (since some only do the Lord's Supper 1-4 times per year).


How would I word such a letter without giving needless offense? I know that I am a guest, and that these churches love and pray for me. But, sometimes it gets exasperating for over-rigidi ecclesiologies to disallow communion with those that otherwise express close fellowship with you.



Splitting and seperating as in option 1 is probably not the best thing. I know for the sake of missions, exhortating people to take up the challenge of missions etc is an important and valuable role. However would you really want someone from such a narrow background with you on the missionfield. With the abundance of Christians and churches in the west, minor details suddenly become major details as people like to emphasise their distinctions. Whereas on the missionfield with the dearth of churches and so few Christians minor points of difference tend to stay in perspective. Narrowminded missionaries either need to change or else they won't survive on the missionfield.

In option 2 if churches tolerate your broadness or think you are in some way deficient then they are not really behind you nor truly supporting you. If a church desires that you become more like them then this is completely wrong. I do not want any missionary I would support to become more like me. I want them to grow in the grace and knowledge of God, I want their ministry to prosper and for the Lord to richly bless them, even although they may hold different views from me on minor details.

You seem to be tired of the 3rd option and your time and energy is precious enough without getting involved in making evangelical daisy chains.

Although I said I would not go back to them, that is easy to say but how that is communicated is a different matter. I think your proposal to write to them is very reasonable and the way forward.

I would say something to the effect that you are indeed grateful for their support and have enjoyed fellowshipping with them in the past. However you are changing your policy and feel that if they deem you worthy to fill their pulpit then as a genuine brother in the Lord you would like to share communion with them. If they say yes then fine, but if not then you feel they are denying you something the Lord has invited you to partake in and would therefore decline the offer to come and preach.

BTW do you arrange your own deputation programme or is this done through the office of a mission agency?

Jambo:


I know for the sake of missions, exhortating people to take up the challenge of missions etc is an important and valuable role. However would you really want someone from such a narrow background with you on the missionfield.


Very good point.

I just told my wife last week that if the pastors of some of these churches "got the call" and tried to move into the tribe next to us, I would probably be forced to block them so as to guard the work from them. Sounds awful, huh?

-----Added 12/27/2009 at 06:13:12 EST-----

BTW do you arrange your own deputation programme or is this done through the office of a mission agency?

I arrange my own deputation program.

And I am sometimes my own worse boss and go to many churches that do not seem to exhibit lots of potential for mobilizing new workers (one of my chief goals is to try to find workers for several ministry needs while I am Stateside). But, if they pray for me and give to me, I feel a strong desire to see them and thank them face to face.

I go to churches because I want to, not out of compulsion usually. I have only felt compelled out of duty to go to one church that virtually demanded a report (like an employer/employee relationship) and I went because 2 young people desire to go into missions from that church. This is one of the churches that would have denied me the Lord's Supper had they done it during my weekend to preach and present. I felt guilty for it later, but I came away very sour against the pastor,though he tried to show me love within the limits of his capacity.
 
This is the first time I've been exposed to anything about Landmarkism. Weird stuff and bads mojo. Pergy, your letter idea is the best, I think. These guys are seriously in error.
 
This is the first time I've been exposed to anything about Landmarkism. Weird stuff and bads mojo. Pergy, your letter idea is the best, I think. These guys are seriously in error.

Bad mojo, indeed!

I am glad that Rockdale is not at all like this! I'll see you all on Jan 17th, you all are the very last trip for us..we leave a few days after visiting your church.
 
Not quite so bad

I don't think that the communion issue is as bad as people are making it out to be. I don't agree, but we should try to look at things from their perspective. Baptists who practice closed communion do so because of their view of the church. The Lord's Supper is, to them, the coming together of a congregation that has covenanted to be in fellowship together and submit to the discipline of the assembly. It is the act of a congregation.

By refusing you communion, they're not insulting you in any way. They're just acknowledging that you're not a member and that they have no authority to discipline you. In other words, they can't allow anyone to the table that they can't bar from the table (for disciplinary reasons).

Now, I can think of a lot of other reasons I wouldn't want to go to Landmark churches...
 
I'm sad to know this kind of attitude of God's people.

In our culture, athiti devo bhava, a guest is like a god. Not fully agreeing with this proverb but still would say that Perg is not an ordinary guest but a very special man of God (as they know what and where he practices what he believes). I believe they are not just if they treat the fellow brethern this way.
 
I'm sad to know this kind of attitude of God's people.

In our culture, athiti devo bhava, a guest is like a god. Not fully agreeing with this proverb but still would say that Perg is not an ordinary guest but a very special man of God (as they know what and where he practices what he believes). I believe they are not just if they treat the fellow brethern this way.

It's apparent you are operating in a difficult cultural context.

The issue of ensuring that those who take the Lord's Supper are biblically qualified for it is important for the church. My understanding is that those who partake must be Christians and not walking in a disorderly life pattern.

We might disagree with the means of ensuring that, but we can understand something being required in a very loose environment affecting the profession of Christ.

We know many churches have virtually no church discipline and that Mr. Calvin at least implied church discipline is the "third mark" of a true church.

It of course is more than sad for regarding guests (or anything God has created) as "gods". That is a devaluation of the one true God, and elevation of detestable idolatry toward creatures He has created (even "guests").

However, it seems quite right wondering why a church would give someone authority to speak, recognize their authority of position (I think a missionary is that), support them financially and with prayer, and not have a mechanism for assessing the credibility of His profession of faith other than requiring an (impossible) membership process.

That doesn't make sense.

It would be more consistent to just refuse to support any missionary who was not a denomination member in good standing.

But the way to approach this as a "guest" is not to defy the authority of the church, but to respect it, and then within that context, engage and even appeal to the extent possible for an outsider.

Why, because God ordains this authority. It's not based on it always being right any more than a husband as head of his household must always be right in the evaluation of his family members for him to have authority. Same in the military, in business, certainly in the church.

Authority is not based on those under it always agreeing with it.

We don't disobey the 55mph speed limit (even if we believe it unreasonable) without consequence. Children don't disobey their parents without consequences, etc. We don't disobey lawful government authority without consequence, etc.

In fact, we are called as Christians to be role models in submitting to it, even suffering under it for the cause of Christ. That includes the church, especially the church.

Now, one can certainly engage and appeal within the processes provided, and there ought be no fear in trusting God through that process, respecting authority He has ordained.

Trusting God for the results.:pilgrim:
 
Last edited:
This is the first time I've been exposed to anything about Landmarkism. Weird stuff and bads mojo. Pergy, your letter idea is the best, I think. These guys are seriously in error.

Bad mojo, indeed!

I am glad that Rockdale is not at all like this! I'll see you all on Jan 17th, you all are the very last trip for us..we leave a few days after visiting your church.

Looking forward to meeting you and (at least) shaking your hand for the work you do for the kingdom, brother.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top