Should the Lord's Supper Be Served to Shut-ins?

The question I always want to ask when this comes up is, “What is the purpose of Communion?” My objection would be in Sproul’s second category. Inviting a few people to join the elder and the shut-in is still not communion. Communion is for the corporate body. Even in the scenario Sproul describes, you are still segmenting the body to celebrate Communion with the shut in.The only way to do this right is to invite the whole church over to the shut-in’s house for a a special service. Then I could see doing it. But, again, why are you doing it? Frankly, many Americans have unconsciously attached some kind of mystical association to Communion, a hold-over I believe from Catholicism and Lutheranism. Sproul opens the door to this faulty line of thought with his closing sentence, “Please, bring the means of grace to those who need the means of grace.” Go visit. Share a meal. But let’s not disrupt the corporate celebration to make ourselves feel like we are doing our duty to the needy in our midst.

Chip,

I fail to see any difference between a group of elders and part of the congregation having communion with a shut-in and having it in the church, unless you insist on only serving communion when every single member and elder is present.

Along those same lines, since the early church had at least 5000 members (and maybe 5000 families) and it was obvious that they met “house to house,” I sincerely doubt that the church rented the local colosseum so that they could have the Lord’s supper together.

If the purpose of communion is “to show the Lord’s death until he come,” how is having it with a smaller group (i.e. subset of the church) a problem?

The fact that Sproul is a sacramentalist should be kept in mind in this discussion. I don’t know exactly what kind of sacramental view he takes, but he will believe some kind of grace is conveyed or experienced by partaking of communion, thus making the idea of taking communion to shut-ins.

For those of us who believe communion is an ordinance, we attach no such mystical properties to it. I am not sure that I would agree with Chip that it can only be a corporate thing, but I share his discomfort at the idea that taking communion to shut-ins is necessary. We have to be wary of attaching mystical properties to any ritual of the New Testament church. We worship God in Spirit and in truth (Jn 4.23). Jesus uttered those words after declaring that the Jewish Jerusalem-centric view of worship was correct for the then passing OT age. In the NT, religion is spiritual, not temporal, so even the two prescribed rituals of baptism and communion must be safeguarded from becoming mystical or in any sense a kind of substitute for idolatry.

Christian (Baptist) serving overseas (in Kuwait). Away from home church for months. Could take communion (with other Christians), served by a U.S. Army Chaplain (evangelical protestant).

For those who say that communion apart from church body is not acceptable, should/must he abstain during his time overseas?

[Larry Nelson]

Christian (Baptist) serving overseas (in Kuwait). Away from home church for months. Could take communion (with other Christians), served by a U.S. Army Chaplain (evangelical protestant).

For those who say that communion apart from church body is not acceptable, should/must he abstain during his time overseas?

In that instance, isn’t the local assembly still the one commemorating the Lord’s sacrifice? Many of these bases overseas are attended by missionaries planting churches. If there isn’t a local assembly, just a traveling chaplain visiting a FOB or something, then I have to go back to my initial question and ask, why are they wanting to hold Communion during a temporary absence from the local assembly? I mean, I don’t look to participate in Communion every time I go on vacation or travel for work requires me to visit a distant assembly away from home on the Lord’s Day. My personal part in Communion is only a portion of the consideration; my community association with others sharing in the memorial is also part of the consideration. That is why we do this with other believers instead of as part of our own personal devotional time.

[dcbii]

Chip,

I fail to see any difference between a group of elders and part of the congregation having communion with a shut-in and having it in the church, unless you insist on only serving communion when every single member and elder is present.

Along those same lines, since the early church had at least 5000 members (and maybe 5000 families) and it was obvious that they met “house to house,” I sincerely doubt that the church rented the local colosseum so that they could have the Lord’s supper together.

If the purpose of communion is “to show the Lord’s death until he come,” how is having it with a smaller group (i.e. subset of the church) a problem?

The difference is that no one is being excluded just because some chose not to attend that service, which is why I included the caveat that the whole church could be invited to the shut-in’s house. I don’ think looking at the very brief and transitional period of early Acts is the best way to formulate your understanding.

[Chip Van Emmerik]

Larry Nelson wrote:

Christian (Baptist) serving overseas (in Kuwait). Away from home church for months. Could take communion (with other Christians), served by a U.S. Army Chaplain (evangelical protestant).

For those who say that communion apart from church body is not acceptable, should/must he abstain during his time overseas?

Larry,

In that instance, isn’t the local assembly still the one commemorating the Lord’s sacrifice?

Chip,

I don’t know. You tell me. What constitutes a local assembly apart from one’s home church? How many believing shut-ins (e.g. nursing home residents) would need to be present to constitute a local assembly for the purpose of partaking in communion?

[Larry Nelson]

Chip Van Emmerik wrote:

Larry Nelson wrote:

Christian (Baptist) serving overseas (in Kuwait). Away from home church for months. Could take communion (with other Christians), served by a U.S. Army Chaplain (evangelical protestant).

For those who say that communion apart from church body is not acceptable, should/must he abstain during his time overseas?

Larry,

In that instance, isn’t the local assembly still the one commemorating the Lord’s sacrifice?

Chip,

I don’t know. You tell me. What constitutes a local assembly apart from one’s home church? How many believing shut-ins (e.g. nursing home residents) would need to be present to constitute a local assembly for the purpose of partaking in communion?

I was editing this post at the same time you were typing, so I may have answered your question already. If not, I would have to ask what makes a church a church instead of a Bible study?

[Chip Van Emmerik]

dcbii wrote:

Chip,

I fail to see any difference between a group of elders and part of the congregation having communion with a shut-in and having it in the church, unless you insist on only serving communion when every single member and elder is present.

Along those same lines, since the early church had at least 5000 members (and maybe 5000 families) and it was obvious that they met “house to house,” I sincerely doubt that the church rented the local colosseum so that they could have the Lord’s supper together.

If the purpose of communion is “to show the Lord’s death until he come,” how is having it with a smaller group (i.e. subset of the church) a problem?

Dave,

The difference is that no one is being excluded just because some chose not to attend that service, which is why I included the caveat that the whole church could be invited to the shut-in’s house. I don’ think looking at the very brief and transitional period of early Acts is the best way to formulate your understanding.

Chip, I’m trying to understand what you’re saying. So if the entire church is invited to a shut-in’s home to partake of communion, but if none chose to attend, would communion be acceptable for only the shut-in since the invitation to the rest of the church was at least made?

Something no one has commented on yet is Sproul’s requirement that Communion be administered by an elder. I think this harkens back to the sacrementalism that I mentioned earlier and Don also highlighted. That stance would presumably also require only an elder to perform baptisms. A more Baptist “tradition” is that the deacons must pass the Communion plates.

[TylerR]

David wrote:

The Lord’s Supper is not a sacrament. Therefore a shut-in will make it to Heaven by faith in Christ alone, not because of the Lord’s Supper

Let’s not be too hasty in imputing a position to our Reformed brethren that they don’t hold to. There are different degrees of sacrementalism among our brethren who believe the Lord’s Supper is a means of grace. Robert Reymond, for instance (a Presbyterian), declares that the Lord’s Supper acts as spiritual nourishment for the believer; “[b] y them the crucified Christ spiritually gives himself and his atoning benefits to the believer to strengthen and nurture him,” (A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 2nd ed. [Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1998] , 961).

Do you think Reymond is AT ALL biblical here?

[TylerR] I don’t think any of our Reformed brethren would ever dare say that the Lord’s Supper has anything to do with salvation.

Maybe not, but then why insist that there is something magical about communion? Exactly what does “means of grace” and “spiritual nourishment” mean? Since when is grace (of any kind) obtained by performing a ritual (work)? Supposedly the Reformed are the people of “by faith alone”, but unfortunately they are still stuck with a few toes in Rome. It isn’t merely a trivial dispute.