Is it acceptable to have communion outside of the church?

A. Undoubtedly the breaking of bread is the sign of Christian fellowship, the communion of Christ's body and blood. And it is as well, as a regular rule, to inform the assembly of any such act as breaking bread with a sick saint, as also of another expected to break bread there who could not usually, both being souls on adequate testimony recognised as members of Christ's body, against whom no valid objection existed. Otherwise the act, if done without such care, might become a plea for factious persons and real offences against godly fellowship. Acts 2:46 proves that there is no scriptural hindrance. The saints at first used to break bread at home daily. A week-day, therefore, in a private house, is no sufficient objection, though the Lord's-day be rightly owned as the constant claim of grace on all saints with the authority of the word in Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 11:16. But we have to take into account the present ruin of the church, and, while careful of order and zealous for edification, we must not forget the many members of Christ outside as to whom we should act in gracious wisdom. Hence it is notorious that when at the close of many a conference breaking bread on a weekday, and in towns where there might or might not be saints gathered to Christ's name, we have gladly let known saints break bread with us though there had been no previous intimation. We should seek to apply the "one body and one Spirit" in grace, as well as stringently. Singleness of eye, with a heart of love, in subjection to the Lord, will have His guidance.

p457 DEAR BRETHREN, - I see nothing at all to hinder brethren, who find themselves together for bathing, breaking bread together, provided it be done in a spirit of unity with the meetings they belong to. In the case of a resident Christian walking uprightly in the truth, calling "on the name of the Lord out of a pure heart," he has the same title as if he desired to walk permanently with brethren. There is nothing to hinder; but it would be happy (specially if those at the bathing-place were young brethren) that the matter be communicated to the meeting they belong to, that the thing may be done seriously and with christian care. In the former case it is to preserve confidence and unity, in the latter for right christian care. The true character of the gathering is preserved, that is, two or three gathered together in Christ's name; but it is important that it should be done in unity with those already gathered. Full liberty, but liberty in hearty unity, is what we have to seek, and subjection of individual will to the action of the Holy Ghost in the whole.

We shall notice clearly that no special building or no special place is mentioned. It is no longer a particular spot down here but the place where Christ is in the midst. It is a PERSON, not a place, unto whom we are gathered now. We never read in the Epistles of "sacred buildings", more holy than others. We read of "the church in thy house" (Philemon 2): evidently the disciples met in Philemon's house to eat the Lord's supper. (Compare also Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15). We read nothing of a minister or clergyman. How could one man assume control if the Lord is truly in the midst? It would be unthinkable.

So we may see that it is not necessary to have a Gospel Hall, or a Meeting Room, or a "preacher", or "minister", or "evangelist", or "clergyman", in order to eat the Lord's supper. Two or three, only, if gathered unto the Lord's Name, may eat it in a private house. Christ in the midst is what matters, not holy buildings, or persons ordained by men.

We see no scripture fobidding such an act, assuming the circumstances are exceptional and unavoidable. Where there is positive inability for a period to have fellowship with other saints, the presence of the Lord may be counte upon to be in the midst of "the two"according to Matt. 18:20.

It will be observed that Paul received his instruction concerning the Lord's supper by revelation. The church and the unity of the body was the very thing entrusted to Paul. It is the local assembly here - the saints at Corinth, but what is wanted for action is that the whole assembly should come together for the purpose and with the intention of coming as such. Sometimes the Lord's supper is taken in a private house when a person is sick, and if it is done in unity, it is all well and very nice, but when a person is sick, I might not do it for other reasons. In the early church they used to send out a piece of bread dipped in the wine, to shew that they were one. If I were ill for two or three weeks, I should bow to the chastening. A few might go to an isolated one, and break bread with him, if it is done in the spirit of unity; but if done in a party feeling, it would be wrong. It need not be named first if there is confidence; but if there is distrust, it should be named. We have no rule as to breaking bread oftener than every Lord's day. But I took the Lord's supper with the young men who were reading with me, every day for a whole year. So the early church did.

It will be observed that Paul received his instruction concerning the Lord's supper by revelation. The church and the unity of the body was the very thing entrusted to Paul. It is the local assembly here - the saints at Corinth, but what is wanted for action is that the whole assembly should come together for the purpose and with the intention of coming as such. Sometimes the Lord's supper is taken in a private house when a person is sick, and if it is done in unity, it is all well and very nice, but when a person is sick, I might not do it for other reasons. In the early church they used to send out a piece of bread dipped in the wine, to shew that they were one. If I were ill for two or three weeks, I should bow to the chastening. A few might go to an isolated one, and break bread with him, if it is done in the spirit of unity; but if done in a party feeling, it would be wrong. It need not be named first if there is confidence; but if there is distrust, it should be named. We have no rule as to breaking bread oftener than every Lord's day. But I took the Lord's supper with the young men who were reading with me, every day for a whole year. So the early church did.

It is not that, when we so gather, we can stir up feelings of worship within ourselves, but that we are simply to remember Him. And essentially we remember Him as the One come from the eternal glory He had with the Father, down to the suffering and agony of Calvary, the dreadful death of the curse of God. The bread and the cup, separate from each other, emphasize this solemnly. And what child of God can reflect on this without his soul being drawn out in thankful worship? Yet it is not said we remember His death, but we remember Him, and we announce His death. Every such occasion is a fresh, public announcement, for every observer, angels or men, of the blessed death of our Lord. But if it is He Himself who so draws the heart, this cannot but produce both worship and unity on the part of those gathered.

It is not to be practiced without the fellowship of the assembly. Some have conceived the thought of having the Lord's supper independently of the assembly on any occasion that may arise, but this is wrong. If one of the saints were for some time sick or incapacitated, there is surely no objection to others of the assembly going to have breaking of bread with him, so long as this is in full fellowship with the assembly, with all of the assembly welcome to be present, if they so desired, and were able. But our chapter reproves all independent practice in the Lord's supper.

We cannot break bread together with believers anywhere on holiday independently of a local assembly that gathers to the Name of the Lord. Otherwise the exercise of scriptural discipline, which also concerns participation in the Breaking of Bread, would be impossible. The Breaking of Bread can only take place in unity and in fellowship with the local assembly. Let us not regard or treat these divine principles concerning our coming together lightly. The honour and the rights of the Lord at His Table are at stake.

p528 [G Gausby] MY DEAR BROTHER, - The unity of the body, and the saints acting on it, I feel to be most important. In the early church they sent the elements to the sick in token of this unity. But the assembling in one place I do not think to be of any force, because they broke bread from house to house, or in their houses generally, in contrast with the temple, yet surely in the unity of the body. Were it done contrary to this it would be the spirit of schism. There are cases of illness which are temporary discipline. In such I believe it is better to bow to the Lord's hand and wait recovery. But when it is not so, but a hindrance which is permanent, and, so to speak, providential, I do not think such an one should be deprived of the privilege; and it has been in fact habitual to minister this comfort to such.

To be more explicit, let us suppose that all of us in this room now, who are believers, should agree to break bread to-night, and should spread the table for ourselves only, without providing, according to the Scriptures, for all the "approved" saints. Then we might "break bread;" but it would be our own, and not the Lord's supper; for the Lord's Supper contemplates all the members of the "one body."