Religious Control over Baptism and the Lord's Supper

WHY ARE BAPTISM AND THE LORD’S SUPPER CONSIDERED BY MOST CHRISTIANS TO BE ONLY PROPERLY OBSERVED WHEN ADMINISTERED

IN A CHURCH BUILDING OR IN A CHURCH MEETING

BY A CREDENTIALLED CHURCH OFFICER?

In the church that meets in our house, we have just recently been discussing this whole question.

REGARDING BAPTISM:
(There are no instructions for nor any recorded instances of any of the following in all of scripture!)

-No scriptural baptism was ever done in a church building,
-No scriptural baptism is ever recorded as part of a church gathering,
-Nor was any scriptural baptism authorized or conducted by church elders or a church pastor!
-Scripture never teaches that a baptism must be publicly witnessed! (As far as the scriptural records go, Philip was the only man who witnessed the Ethiopian’s baptism and Paul and Silas were the only
witnesses of the baptism of the jailor and his house as it was done in the middle of the night!)
-Nor does scripture teach that the purpose of a baptism is to bear public testimony before men! Rather scripture expressly teaches that it is the answer of a good conscience toward God! (I Peter 3:21)
-Just as it is disciples of Jesus Christ who are to be baptized (Matt. 28:19), it is simply disciples of His who are commanded to baptize other disciples! (Matt. 28:7,9 &16)
No other credentials are scripturally required!

-Scripture does not lay any emphasis at all on the person who does the baptizing…out of 10 recorded baptisms of believers in the Book of Acts the baptizer is only identified in one of them. (Philip baptized the Ethiopian in Acts 8.)
But we do not know who baptized:
-the 3000 on the day of Pentecost, (could have been the apostles, the 120 or some of the 3000 could have baptized some of the others.)
-the Samaritans in Acts 8, (could have been Philip, husbands could have baptized their wives, parents could have baptized their children etc.)
-Simon the sorcerer in Acts 8, (could have been Philip or any of the other Samaritan believers)
-Saul of Tarsus in Acts 9, (could have been Ananias or any of the other believers at Damascus)
-Cornelius and his household in Acts 10, (could have been Peter or any of the 6 Jewish brethren with him, or Cornelius could have baptized his own family)
-Lydia and her household in Acts 16, (could have been Paul or Silas and Lydia could have baptized her household.)
-The Philippian jailor and his household in Acts 16, (could have been Paul or Silas or the jailor could have baptized his own family.)
-Many of the Corinthians in Acts 18 (could have been Aquila, Priscilla, Paul, Silas, Timothy or any of the Corinthian believers themselves.)
-The disciples of John in Acts 19. (could have been Paul, Silas, Timothy or any of the disciples.)

To see a recent baptism conducted apart from such religious control click on "Baptism in the Bayou"


REGARDING THE LORD’S SUPPER:
Eating of the Lord’s Supper is never recorded in scripture in a church building, in a church meeting, nor is it ever recorded as being administered by a church officer, pastor, elders or deacons!
There are only three recorded instances of breaking of bread after Pentecost:
-The saints broke bread in their houses. (Acts 2:46),
-Paul and his co-workers broke bread in an upper room in Troas. (Acts 20:11) and
-Paul broke bread on board ship. (Acts 27:35)
Neither the Lord Jesus nor any of the apostles ever taught that breaking bread in remembrance of Him was strictly a church function, that it had to be done in a church meeting nor that “credentials” of any kind were necessary for those who would serve or administer the supper to others!

While the Lord Jesus alone broke the bread, gave thanks for it and gave it to His disciples when He instituted the supper, scripture never teaches that any one person is to do that for others as we remember Him in breaking of bread today! Rather the scriptures clearly teach that it is “we” (a plurality of saints) who are to bless or give thanks for the cup and that it is “we” (a plurality of saints) who are to break the bread as we remember Him!
1 Corinthians 10:16) The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

All of the following ideas are totally contrary to scripture and are traditions of men which have been introduced in order to exercise religious control over that which Christ commanded every believer to practice as often as they eat and drink!
- that breaking bread in remembrance of the Lord Jesus is a church function,
- that such breaking of bread can only be done in a church meeting,
- that such breaking of bread can only be administered by a credentialed office holder,
- that anyone (pastor, elders etc) has any authority to decide for others who may or who may not eat  
   in remembrance of the Lord. In fact, scripture explicitly assigns that responsibility to each individual for
   themselves!
This fact is reiterated 4 times over in I Corinthians 11:27-29: “Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
Since scripture is crystal clear that “there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (I Timothy 2:5), every tradition of men that would place any other man (pope, cardinal, bishop, pastor) or group of men (consistory, elders, deacons, “table watchers” etc) between a believer and his or her Lord is a false tradition of men which usurps authority over the Lord’s own people!

That usurping of authority has at least two effects:
(1) It brings believers into bondage to control by religious leaders in matters over which God has given
      no such authority to men and
(2) It separates and isolates believers from other brothers and sisters in Christ who are members
      together in the Body of Christ!
If you are held in bondage to any such religious system which stands in the way of the obedience of any believer to their Lord to “do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19), the writer to the Hebrews would urge you with these words, “Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.” Hebrews 13:13

Church "sacraments", "ordinances" or "dramas"?

Before sharing how an elderly sister inadvertently challenged my thinking regarding certain practices which churches designate by the words above, let me briefly discuss how these words are generally used.

Your own religious background and upbringing most likely have shaped your thinking regarding which of the above words you would use to denote such practices as communion or baptism. Those in the Roman Catholic, Lutheran and Reformed traditions would call these practices “sacraments”, i.e. outward signs which they believe bestow or communicate inner graces from God. Roman Catholics would include 5 other practices with communion and baptism for a total of 7 sacraments, while Reformed congregations would only acknowledge two “sacraments”.

Most evangelical congregations which are not Reformed would call baptism and communion “ordinances”. While recognizing that they are outward acts which speak of inner or spiritual realities, they would not see the acts themselves as actually bestowing grace but simply symbolizing or testifying to facts already established.

But all would agree that neither the word “sacraments” nor “ordinances” are scriptural words which are used to specifically designate communion or baptism. There are many other “ordinances” mentioned in scripture but when we speak of “church ordinances” we generally mean physical acts or practices which believers in the Lord Jesus are commanded to observe to which God has attached spiritual significance.

Growing up in Baptist meetings and then having fellowship with believers in assemblies of brethren (Christians gathered to the Name of the Lord Jesus), we traditionally acknowledged “two ordinances”: baptism and the Lord’s Supper. But in the brethren assemblies another physical practice having spiritual significance was also observed but was not designated an “ordinance”. In these assemblies men kept their hair short and women generally grew theirs longer and men uncovered their heads in assembly meetings and women, in those meetings, covered theirs.

When I was just a young boy, most women covered their heads or wore hats in public and in church meetings. But when the styles changed and women no longer wore hats in public, hats also disappeared from church meetings. But in the assemblies, with which we were associated for 16 years, women continue to cover their heads in assembly meetings because of the teaching of the first half of I Corinthian chapter 11.

But it was while we were in the assembly that met in the Gospel Hall in Collingwood, Ontario that my thinking was challenged by an elderly sister in the assembly whose name was Mabel Williams. Mrs. Williams’ husband, William Williams had passed away some years before but they had served together for many years as pioneer missionaries in Venezuela. Regarding scriptural principles of Gospel preaching and assembly gatherings of first century Christians, William Williams had written a book, “It Can Be Done”. It was his personal testimony that first century church practices were still valid and could be followed with great blessing even in the 20th century.

I never had the opportunity to meet William Williams. But our family often enjoyed Mrs. Williams’ kind and generous hospitality and I occasionally helped her with chores in her yard or doing simple repairs to her home in Collingwood. One Saturday morning I was doing some chores in her yard and went back to the house to inquire what she wanted me to do next. As I stepped through her front door, I found Mrs. Williams on her knees in prayer in her own living room with her Bible open in front of her. Nothing was unusual about this, but what struck me and deeply impressed me was that she had her head covered with a veil!

The assemblies where Mrs. Williams enjoyed fellowship with the Lord’s people taught that women’s heads were to be covered only in assembly meetings. But the thought that struck me at that moment was, “Mrs. Williams is not guided in this practice by what the assemblies teach, but rather by what the Word of God says!

I had not given this matter any serious thought before this moment, but seeing Mrs. Williams with her head covered in prayer in the privacy of her own home, I instantly recalled that I Cor.11 did NOT instruct men to uncover and women to cover their heads in assembly meetings, but rather whenever they were involved in one of two activities, namely when they, themselves, were praying or prophesying!

And this got me pondering another radical idea! Is it possible, I wondered, that there may not be just two but rather three physical practices which portray spiritual realities which are important to God? You can call them “sacraments” or “ordinances” if you like, but I began, not long after this, to think of such practices as “DRAMAS”! A drama tells a story, and it seems to me that every time a believer is baptized in water, every time we break bread and remember the Lord Jesus and every time believing men pray with their heads uncovered and believing women pray with theirs covered we are telling very important stories!

I began thinking of the stories that are told when we obey the Lord's commands in these matters:
- Baptism tells a story about the dead. (It is a picture of a burial.)
-Our remembrance of the Lord in communion tells a story about the bread. (It is a picture of His body.) and
- Our conduct when praying or prophesying tells a story about our Head! (God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of the man and man is the head of the woman.)

(There is so much more, so I must continue at another time!)