The Third Baptist Church of Cheshire had been without a pastor for quite some time. Their most recent pastor had died unexpectedly, and the one before that had departed after a bitter fight among the church about their practice of the Lord’s Supper. John Leland had been their recognized pastor for about seven years, but in July of 1798 Leland decided that he would no longer receive or administer the Lord’s Supper among the congregation.
This was a strange development indeed, but Leland was the sort of man to do and say things that were sometimes a bit odd (even for an eighteenth-century Baptist). Throughout the years of Leland obstinacy, a pastor from a nearby church came regularly to officiate the ordinance for the Third Baptist Church. And after nearly six years of this abstinence from the Supper, Leland finally left Cheshire.
The church went without a designated pastor for a couple of years, and then they hired a promising and talented young man in 1806, named Lemuel Covell. But less than six months later, Covell died while on an itinerate preaching mission. Again, the Third Baptist Church had no pastor, and some of the members had fond memories of their time with Leland. Though he was rigid in his convictions and though his convictions could sometimes be strange, he was after all a compelling preacher and a great man.
When some of the members of Third Baptist Church reached out to Leland, to see if he might return as their pastor, a small group of members went public with their perspective that Leland ought not be a pastor or even a church member who did not commune with the rest of the church. They took their grievance to the Shaftsbury Association, the fraternity of churches of which Third Baptist was a participant.
That’s when Leland doubled down on his position of radical individualism. He made a public statement that basically outlined his intention to continue to abstain from communion and even withdraw from church attendance anytime he felt it was good for him to do so. The Shaftsbury Association advised the Cheshire church “not to retain such members” as Leland “in their connection and fellowship.”
Indeed, they said, “Let but a cold hearted or captious member of the church have the example of such a man for his excuse, and such a church would labor in vain to recover to neglected duty that member.” In other words, Leland ought not be admitted or retained in membership (much less named as pastor) if he would so flagrantly rebel against local church order and discipline. This would make a mockery of God’s house, and it would invite others to rebel in the same way.
Ultimately, it is not the association that must decide who is or is not a member of a Baptist church. The congregation itself would have to vote on the matter. And the Cheshire Church Records tell a story of confusion, cowardice, and convenience. On September 28, 1811, the following four questions were presented for a vote.
Question: If a member of the church neglects to attend the regular meetings of the church, is such a delinquent member subject to discipline?
Answer: Refuse to answer.
Question: Do the members of the church feel obligated to watch over their brethren for good?
Answer: We do.
Question: Does the church believe it to be a duty of the members to attend the meetings of the church for communion?
Answer: We do.
Question: Shall the hand of fellowship be withdrawn from any member for anything excepting immorality?
Answer: Refuse to answer.
These answers are self-contradictory. On the one hand, the congregation affirmed their responsibility to watch over their fellow church members, to do them good. And they also affirmed the duty that all members have to attend church meetings, especially those when the Lord’s Supper would be administered. But, on the other hand, they would not affirm the necessary consequence that any member (including a pastor) who refused to participate would be subject to a rebuke and ultimately (if the refusal continued) to expulsion from church membership.
In the end, the Cheshire church held on to the fact that Leland had not committed any public and egregious sin of immorality. They reasoned that since he had not committed adultery, blasphemed, or cheated another person in business then Leland ought not be excluded from the church. But communing together with fellow church members in the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper is precisely the act that distinguishes a church from any other group of Christians. To neglect or to be barred from this ordinance is the basis of the concept of excommunication (ex – out of – communion).
This episode is an embarrassing and sobering reminder that individuals and churches can value the greatness of a man and the desire for convenience above the doctrine and practice of biblical Christianity. There are many ways in which churches today may avoid confronting sin, calling for repentance, and excluding unrepentant members from their fellowship. Churches can sometimes even overlook grievous errors and rebellion on the part of their church leaders and members in an effort to keep the peace, to maintain productivity, or to avoid making hard decisions.
It is hard to imagine a pastor of a church today refusing to observe or administer the Lord’s Supper among his congregation. But many church members seem to have no problem at all with abstaining from the ordinance for years on end. Churches who allow absentee members to remain on their roster without confronting this radical individualization of Christianity will find it quite difficult to call for repentance for much of anything among their membership.
Marc Minter 
Interesting, as always. This topic directly pertains to a situation in our small Baptist church .a few years ago. I won’t disclose the details, out of respect for privacy, but it was apparent that some of our members simply could not bring themselves to make discerning judgment on the abject refusal of our pastor to resolve festering serious issues. As a Christian for some 60 years, but a Baptist for only six years, it never occurred to me that some (many?) Baptist members were adamant in their sentiment that “A Baptist pastor can do no wrong, and must not be confronted.” A novel concept to me ….. and, IMO, not consistent with Holy Scripture.