Perhaps you do not understand the situation. No, assuredly you do not understand the situation. The Lord's Supper is for those who know Him as Savior - "Do this in remembrance of Me." How can you remember someone you do not know? Or know only in theory?

Perhaps it would help to add that we do this as a separate service prior to the regular 11 AM worship service. During our worship and remembrance time at the Lord's Supper, we don't do it like most churches, with a presiding clergyman doing everything. It is a time for the believers present, both men and women to offer up such meditations, or songs, or praises as the Holy Spirit brings to mind. Everybody worships the Lord on the same basis, God leads, we respond.

Perhaps that might make you think of us as a "charismatic" church. Well, I hope that all of God's people might be charismatic in the sense that the Holy Spirit initiates and leads in what ever they do, but we are a pretty tame, orderly bunch, the "normal" charismatic or pentecostal churches would say that we weren't charismatic at all, because you wouldn't notice the usual "charismatic" behaviors. Not putting them down, we just don't.

So picture yourself in a service where the believers are verbalizing their thoughts of worship towards the Lord, and an unbeliever comes in, listens for a bit, and decides to say something...  Like talk about Edgar Cayce... Or the Mayan calendar... Or that Jesus was the first hippie... wow... Talk about offering strange fire before the Lord... gag

It is a time for God's people to remember their Savior and His death on the cross, not for unbelievers to defile with profane babbling.

As far as excluding those whom He has called to His table - Jesus does not call everybody to take communion, Jesus calls all men to repent and be converted, and then every one who does is welcome at His table, and such would be more than welcome to participate at the Lord's Supper at our assembly.

We do not examine a person's walk or behavior, that is none of our business. God calls on people to examine themselves, confess that they have no works to boast of, that they are saved by grace, and thankfully remember that Jesus did it all. And hopefully - if they are practicing some habitual sin - repent of it and ask God to strengthen them to not repeat it any more. And then participate in worship and thankfulness of the Lord's Supper, instead of in a flippant or indifferent manner - which was apparently what was referred to in 1 Cor 11:29.

Maybe I am missing something - I do that - but I think that is both mainstream Christianity and Scriptural.

Gotagoodwife said that he does not allow unbelievers to take communion. I assume that means they admit to not believing.

Are you saying you think somebody who actually says they are not believers would/should take communion?

What are we arguing about here, exactly?

Yes, some unbelievers will take communion, in order to "fit in".  The Lord's table is for believers, who are partaking of Christ.  If you partake of Him wrongly.....  It isn't exclusionism: it is caring for the unsaved, so that they don't bring judgment directly from God upon themselves.  They don't have a clue about all of this stuff, of course, so it is up to us to explain it to them.  To just exclude without an explanation is egregious.  Common courtesy demands that we do it.  We do it while instructing our children on a plethora of everyday things -- why not on the more important things with those who might become children of God?

You got some Scripture for this sequence of events, Pastor?

Do you object to the idea of having two separate services, one for believers and one for unbelievers? The Lord's Supper is for believers, not unbelievers. At 11 AM we have a gospel and teaching service, the gospel is presented clearly, the Bible is expounded, and there is opportunity offered to unbelievers to receive Christ.

If having a communion service for unbelievers sounds like a good idea to some people, and apparently it does,  then perhaps soup kitchens could set up bread and wine dispensers and take having an Agape meal to a whole new level. But that topic and the whole topic of Communion probably needs to be addressed on another thread.

BTW, I believe Table is something - a function of fellowship - we share in and at, not a form of "elements" we "partake of".

0man is right, and that verse is key:

1 Corinthians 11:34 But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest your coming together be for judgment. The rest I will set in order whenever I come.

What I underlined goes against your interpretation.

You don't take communion because you're hungry, and that's what some people were doing, as well as getting drunk on the communion wine.

Notice that this passage segues out of the "factions" issue. People were bringing their own portions of food to communion, and the richer were "shaming those who didn't have" with their personal portions in front of them rather than eating at home. So what is brought gets eaten at home. And that was not the Lord's supper. The richer were eating their own personal, larger portions, it sounds like, which shamed the needy, and turned this gathering into a mealtime.

I have a 9 year old son with Downs.  In some ways, he's just as dumb as a brick.  In other ways, not at all.  Each one is different.  He is a guy that when it comes to food, there's just no self control.  Zero.  Zip.  Zilch.  Any time he sees any kind of food, he's 100% all for it.  So when it comes to communion, and because he seems to have absolutely no understanding of it, to him it is just another opportunity to gratify his physical desires for it.  Pure and simple.  That's all it is to him.  So, as his father, I protect and guard and shepherd him for his own sake, and as that is applied to the communion table, I don't let him partake of it with that banal, sensual mindset, for his sake.  That's done out of love both for him and my God.

It could be argued that because he is naive, or ignorant of it, then it's not an issue for him.  I see the merit of that view.  However, I am not the all knowing, all wise God, and as such, I think it remiss of me to not be proactive for his sake, in case I was wrong in thinking that his ignorance is bliss in this.  Perhaps it would be prudent to have the same care and watchfulness for those that we are witnessing to.  If we personally don't have a clue about them, they might be street bums but very godly children of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.  It might be prudent to ask them what they understand before they or any other stranger in our midst partake of it.  (I am not singling them out specifically or in prejudice, but merely using them as an example that is most readily seen by many.)  This was done with me when I was younger, as I used to hitchhike all over the place, and stopped in all sorts of churches.  I considered it watchful and an expression of care and sincere love when the man asked if I was a believer, stating why he asked and giving his concerns for if I wasn't yet partook of the sacraments.  He was very polite and curteous and gentle.  This is love expressed.  

Even open rebuke is better than love carefully concealed.  They don't need rebuke: they need love freely expressed, which shows that it has their wellbeing first and foremost.

Just some thoughts on it.