After much debate on occasional communion over at the 9 Marks blog, and having thought through it all a little more clearly that I had a few years ago, I was faced with the decision twice over the last week: would I take the Lord's Supper (1) At Oak Hill College chapel. (2) At Spicer street church.My decision. 1) Not at Oak Hill, because as a college I didn't feel it appropriate to share in what is a church ordinance.
2) Though Spicer Street practices what could best be called "occasional paedobaptism" I by no means felt that this should exclude me from the Lord's supper. Though I find the practise confusing it by no means stops Spicer Street from being a true, and in almost every way a very healthy church.
6 comments:
Hi Mike, sorry, not directly relevant to the post, but good to meet you last Saturday. I saw your post over at Church Matters - glad things went well for the rest of your trip.
Chris
p.s. I blogged on the TFA conference if you're interested.
Hi,
What about re-thinking communion even more deeply and seeking a recovery of it as a full meal which included bread and wine, not merely the latter two elements?
Atlantic Writer,
Thanks for your comments. I think that 1 Corinthians 11:22, 33-34 makes it clear that this is to be a token meal, not a full meal.
33-34: So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.
What about re-thinking communion even more deeply and seeking a recovery of alcohol, not grape juice?
Mmmnnn, anonymous: reveal your true identity and I will reply to your comment!
Hello again,
I don't understand your comment about it being a token meal. Could you please expand if you have time?
My understanding is summarised at http://church-of-my-dreams.blogspot.com
and I would appreciate any comments on this issue.
Thanks!
Post a Comment