So how do we respond when the question is how to conduct the Lord’s Supper? We’ve wrapped this common meal with 2,000 years of tradition — much of it quite bad — and have nearly lost sight entirely of what the meal is all about.
Moreover, we just ever-so desperately want to make the meal into a magic ritual, a positive command, and special “act of worship” that separates the faithful from the damned.
But that is just not its purpose. It’s a meal. And meals in that culture symbolized acceptance into community. To eat with someone was very nearly to become family.
Jesus ate with sinners. He spoke countless parables about common meals and inviting strangers and the poor to a banquet. The Lord’s Supper is not about punctilious rule keeping. It’s about hospitality, acceptance, and brotherly love brought to reality.
So if we ought to take it as part of a meal, is it wrong to omit the meal?
Just what instructions do we have? Think about it. Just what rules are given us?
Well, there’s a cup of the “fruit of the vine,” there’s bread, and there are people who love Jesus and each other. That’s about it.
The text is silent on the yeast or lack thereof — although I think it was likely a Passover meal — but it’s not an important enough detail for the apostles to lay the type of bread out explicitly.
Just so, the “fruit of the vine” was surely wine, from the standpoints both of tradition and practicality (no pasteurization), but we aren’t told this.
Were kids present? Not with Jesus and the apostles, but who knows who attended elsewhere.
Strange, isn’t it, that the Spirit didn’t see fit to answer these “essential” questions. I mean, we’re often quite willing to fight and feud and damn over these kinds of questions, and yet God’s Spirit is silent on the subject.
But we aren’t content to let God be silent. Rather, we stuff his mouth with positions built solely on silences, when God’s silences might actually be, you know, silences.
This whole line of thinking goes back to, among other sources, the adiaphora controversy of the Reformation. The question was what is a matter of indifference (adiaphora) and what matters to God. The issue arose as the Protestants were separating from the Catholics, and arguments were made in an effort to preserve some Catholic practices as being adiaphora.
Sadly, the result was an assumption that if something is not indifferent, those who err on that matter are heretics and damned. Hence, if I could figure out the apostles took unleavened bread, then we had an answer — and the use of leavened bread would necessarily be error and damning.
The possibility that something might not be indifferent and yet be within grace was never considered. Grace was not for doctrinal error, because the two sides were literally at war and the goal was not peace but victory. The assumption was that all error damns, even “error” where the scriptures are silent.
And today, we bring with us the same assumptions. Whether communion is to be taken with a meal or leavened bread are questions that the church has struggled with for centuries. Obviously, we should want to obey God in these matters — but just as obviously, getting these things right (assuming that there even is a right) does not define the borders of salvation.
The great Protestant error is the false assumption that “indifferent” is the opposite of “damning.” We assume that the only penalty of consequence is damnation, so that if God will forgive an error, it must not really be an error at all — since there are no consequences.
But, obviously, that’s not true. An idea or practice might be less than optimal, not because it damns but because it doesn’t serve well to accomplish its intended purpose. It’s not damnable to sing Stamps-Baxter gospel quartets in church, but if your goal is to have music that appeals to the Millennial Generation, Stamps-Baxter doesn’t work. It doesn’t damn (as much as I might wish otherwise), but neither does it work well if your mission extends to younger generations.
The choice of leavened versus unleavened bread is not about salvation or damnation but what story the leaven or absence of leaven tells the worshiper. What is the message? What do the symbols mean? Does the choice of bread work well to communicate the intended message?
When we forget the symbols or don’t bother to teach the lessons, the symbols no longer matter. Neither side gets points for guessing right when the lesson meant to be taught isn’t taught.
The Orthodox and Catholics have demonstrated that there are powerful and true lessons to be taught either way. Maybe it doesn’t matter. Maybe we weren’t told the answer because God just doesn’t care.
Maybe we’re free to build a tradition of leavened or unleavened bread so long as the tradition tells a true lesson about God — just as we are free to choose our own sermon material so long as we teach God’s truth.
But I’ve never once heard a lesson in a Church of Christ on what the absence of leaven symbolizes — only that we’re right to have unleavened bread. We are proud to answer the test question correctly but have little interest in the reason the answer is what we think it is.
Maybe we can eat the Supper with a full meal or not depending on what lesson we teach by our decision. If we teach that ritual matters and love does not, we’re in trouble with God no matter whether we get the full-meal question right. If we teach that God is coerced into giving out seven-more days of numengrace by our attending that part of the assembly, regardless of our commitment to Jesus as Lord, it doesn’t really matter if we made the right choice.
I think the reality is that the Spirit has left us with considerable discretion about the Lord’s Supper. We’ve not even been told what day to take it or how often — not clearly enough to measure up to any rational definition of a “command.”
What we do know, however, is that we’ve completely botched our Eucharistic theology. We are far more interested in showing all others to be damned by their quarterly communion services instead of our weekly services, that we’ve proven that we have not the least concept of the hospitality and love and unity symbolized by the meal. We want to be superior and justified in excluding all others — making us unworthy takers of the meal, for sure.
Now, if we were to repent and think of the Lord’s Supper as a God-given means of creating unity, then we’d look for opportunities to break bread with other churches in town. We’d look for ways not only to understand the Lord’s Supper, but to live it.
The instructions are actually pretty clear —
(Luk 14:21b-24 ESV) “Then the master of the house became angry and said to his servant, ‘Go out quickly to the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in the poor and crippled and blind and lame.’ 22 And the servant said, ‘Sir, what you commanded has been done, and still there is room.’ 23 And the master said to the servant, ‘Go out to the highways and hedges and compel people to come in, that my house may be filled. 24 For I tell you, none of those men who were invited shall taste my banquet.'”
Herein is the heart of the Lord’s Supper. And this is no mere positive command. This is the heart of God — which we are to adopt as our own.
When this passage begins to remind us of Sunday’s communion at our home church, then maybe it’ll be time to worry about leavening and who chose correctly about the extent of the meal we serve with the bread and wine.
Do you see the point? Really see the point? Because this is the turning point in whether the Churches of Christ repent and become churches of Jesus or continue to be museums of sadly mistaken error.
It’s not nearly so much about getting the rules right as becoming like God. And if we have God’s heart, our passion will be for inviting the least worthy, the least deserving into our assemblies to share in God’s bounty.
And we’ll be repelled, even disgusted, at the thought of excluding someone because he reads the silences differently from the rest of us. In fact, I can only pray that we become so obsessed with honoring God’s express will that we forget how to honor his imagined silent will.
How deep the Father’s love for us,
How vast beyond all measure
That He should give His only Son
To make a wretch His treasure
How great the pain of searing loss,
The Father turns His face away
As wounds which mar the chosen One,
Bring many sons to glory
Behold the Man upon a cross,
My sin upon His shoulders
Ashamed I hear my mocking voice,
Call out among the scoffers
It was my sin that left Him there
Until it was accomplished
His dying breath has brought me life
I know that it is finished
I will not boast in anything
No gifts, no power, no wisdom
But I will boast in Jesus Christ
His death and resurrection
Why should I gain from His reward?
I cannot give an answer
But this I know with all my heart
His wounds have paid my ransom
(REPEAT)
I can’t believe no one has commented yet. It was a very good series. But I’m sure they will.
Jay said, “Do you see the point? Really see the point? Because this is the turning point in whether the Churches of Christ repent and become churches of Jesus or continue to be museums of sadly mistaken error”
Great comment, Jay. Right to the heart of the matter. The word “museum” fits. Antiques sitting on a shelf pretending to be without defects, while the real life of family, compassion and forgiveness passes them by.
Excellent conclusion to this series. I’m glad there are some who are willing to rethink the way we’ve done things and are then bold enough to start discussions about it. Thanks for what you do.
I’ve never commented before but I have to after that series. Absolutely the best you’ve done yet IMHO. I’ll be sharing this with others for sure. If only I could force the Pharisees everywhere to read this series.
Above Jay wrote “But I’ve never once heard a lesson in a Church of Christ on what the absence of leaven symbolizes — only that we’re right to have unleavened bread.”
I am a little surprised but everyone’s experience is different. I have heard sermons and been taught in Sunday School that leaven is frequently/generally/always symbolic of sin and that the unleavened bread was used as it represented the body of Jesus who was sinless. It was emphasized so much that it used to really bother me that others used leavened bread and didn’t recognize the symbolism.
Hesed,
Randall
we are invited to share a meal with the lord of hosts and our father in the joy of the very good kingdom of god’s loving kindness,by being brought into the the glory of the restored creation through hope in the scriptures UNTO the glory of the father by his SON.
We gathered around and sharing in that continuous meal of GOD given Spiritual nourishment which is shared happiness in the expressed Joy of pleasing the father, by reciprocating the nurturing given to the body through The SPIRIT.
after these few lessons JAY. how each and every one of us would be well served by looking in a mirror,
a mirror of the pattern that is expressed by the diversity of of the pattern found in scripture.
does “MY / YOUR ” mirror reflect “ritual ” or the or the loving kindness the trinity expressed by way of the body”s deliverance, free from ritual and into a meal of like minded friends seeking to attain the upward call of GOD BY his son to his body,
A REAL COMMUNAL MEAL.
YA KNOW LIKE HAVING A LOT OF PEOPLE OVER FOR GAME NIGHT…
BUT WAIT.
WE’RE talking church here and ya got to put on those holy close and that holy attitude, and what would do without your duly assigned seat, ya know seating reminds me of the old pecking order
Just how do we demean the love of god’s fellowship to each other in the subtle,,little ways
anyway gods the judge…
although he went to an awful lot of trouble to show us something,
if I / WE love HIM, and MY / YOUR fellowship, the lord”s body the temple OF the Father…
change can be loving fellowship
not a continued ritualistic pattern
rich constant
Both leavened and unleavened bread could have rich symbolism.
Leaven=Jesus bore the penalty of sin upon his own flesh as if it were his own.
Unleavened=He was the perfect sacrifice because his body knew no sin.
hay Randall
how go’s it
boy oh boy
what a great 80 degree day here in Newport beach, ca…. he he 🙂
…. blessings …
“They devoted themselves to…fellowship…the breaking of bread…” I wonder what would happen if we began to see the importance and significance of these to be as great as “the apostles’ doctrine”?
“And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart…” I think we could use more of this.
http://johnmarkhicks.com/2012/05/14/mark-1228-34-kingdom-priorities/
…As Jesus teaches in the temple courts, his opponents confront him with a series of questions. Jesus had enraged the temple authorities when he cleansed the Court of the Gentiles from merchandizers. They questioned his authority, his allegiances, and his theology. These hostile questions intended to subvert his popularity and/or endanger his life.
Now, however, a scribe—like one of those who questioned him in Mark 11:27—approaches him with some respect. While Matthew (22:35) portrays this incident as the result of a Pharisaic conspiracy to test Jesus once again, Mark is more ambiguous. Mark’s scribe was impressed with how well Jesus handled the succession of questions and consequently wonders how Jesus might answer the question that rabbis discussed among themselves: “Of all the commandments, which is the first of all?” Which commandment, he asks, ranks as “numero uno”! Which commandment is the most important?
Given that the rabbis counted 613 imperatives within the Torah, it is not surprising that there would be some discussion about which was the most important or which had priority. Allen Black (College Press NIV Commentary on Mark, 216) reminds us that many, including Jesus’ contemporary in Alexandria Philo (Who is the Heir of Divine Things, 168; Special Laws, 2.63), considered the ten commandments a summary of the Torah divided between responsibilities toward God (“piety”) and responsibilities toward people (“justice”). This two-fold categorization fits the answer Jesus himself gave: love God and love your neighbor.
Jesus identifies two commands—out of a host present in the Torah—as the first and second. “Love God” is the “first of all,” that is, it has priority, but the “second” is “love your neighbor.” The first quotes the great Shema (Hebrew for “hear”) of Deuteronomy 6:4-5 which was repeated twice daily by devout Jews in the Greco-Roman period (Allen cites Letter to Aristeas, 160; Jubilees 6:14). The second quotes Leviticus 19:18.
It seems rather amazing that Jesus could lift two isolated commands out of the Torah and identify them as first and second. The identification of the Shema as first is more understandable as its narrative function in Deuteronomy is the fountainhead of Israel’s response to God’s deliverance and land-grant recounted in Deuteronomy 1-5. Since God has graced Israel, Israel returns that grace with loving gratitude.
But the identification of Leviticus 19:18 appears more arbitrary. It seems to appear as one command in a list of others within the Holiness Code (Leviticus 18-20). Some suggest that Leviticus 19:18 functions as a summary statement in the Holiness Code, but this is not apparent. Nevertheless, Jesus recognizes its theological importance.
What enables Jesus to so clearly and succinctly identify these two texts—among many others that could have been chosen—as the first and second commandments? It is apparent that Jesus does not read Scripture as a flat text where every command is as equally important as every other command. Rather, he reads the text in a hierarchical fashion. That is, he recognizes levels of priority and importance. I suggest he reads in a narratival way such that the story (plot) of God moves us to recognize “love you neighbor” as the second greatest command. Some commands are more fundamental than others.
The scribe recognizes Jesus’ point. He repeats what Jesus quoted—and thus the narrative underscores the unparalleled significance of theses two imperatives—and also interprets the significance of prioritizing these two commands. In effect, Jesus has prioritized these two commands, according to the scribe, over “burnt offerings and sacrifices.” In other words, Jesus has prioritized loving God and neighbor over the temple, its sacrifices and their atoning significance. This does not mean that sacrifices are unimportant but rather that they are less important that what some might have thought. The two greatest commands are love God and love neighbor–and we must be careful that we don’t respond with “but….” [fill in the blank with an “important” command].
There is a tradition with the history of Israel which prioritized the sacrifices so that if one comes to the temple and offers their sacrifices, then God is pleased with them (despite their lives). This is the safety of the temple to which Jesus alluded when he cleansed the Temple as Jesus quoted from Jeremiah’s Temple sermon (Jeremiah 7). Some believed that despite their adulteries and social injustice (how they treated the poor, widows and orphans) their sacrifices were accepted because the temple represented God’s gracious presence. The second command, love your neighbor, does not sanction such an interpretation of the temple.
What makes one more fundamental than another? How are these two imperatives (“love God” and “love your neighbor”) more important than sacrifices? Perhaps we might see in “love God and love your neighbor” an act of sacrifice itself. It is the gift of ourselves to God (our whole body, soul and strength) and, in turn, to others. We are the sacrifices. This is more important than any ritual which expresses that devotion.
It reminds us that God loves mercy more than sacrifice (Hosea 6:6) or Micah’s declaration of what the Lord requires more than a thousand rams, that is, “to act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8). We are the sacrifices which God requires (cf. Psalm 40:6-8)….
…Whatever we make of Jesus’ “compliment,” the scribe correctly affirmed kingdom priorities. The kingdom ethic is to love God and love our neighbor. It is that simple though it is far from simple; easy to grasp perhaps, but difficult to live. The kingdom is rooted, grounded and expressed in love—God’s love for us, our love for God and our love for each other.
It is rather sobering, however, to consider whether, possibly like the scribe, we are “not far from the kingdom of God.” Is it possible that we might affirm but not practice the two greatest commands? Is it possible that we might know better but we don’t do better? Is it possible that we know about God but we don’t know God as people who love our neighbors?
Is it possible, I wonder, whether we know the commandments but we are so emeshed in the structures of oppression and injustice (much like the scribes in the temple; like those living under Jim Crow or in southern slave states) that we don’t even recognize that we fail to love our neighbors even as we insist that we do?
May God have mercy on us all.
Rich,
Quotations from John Mark Hicks and Bobby Valentine are always welcome and appropriate, but when you copy nearly the entire article, you likely violate the copyright laws and you deprive them of potential readers. Do Bobby and JMH a favor and cut the quotes WAY down and encourage the readers to follow the link. This will drive reader traffic to their sites, rewarding them for their excellent work, and avoid any legal issues for both you and me.
Perhaps those who are disliked for wanting to support social justice and use the church to do it are really showing what it means to love your neighbor. Christianity as taught by Jesus was supposed to be a liberal religion. Social justice, though disliked by many, is actually liberalism showing up. It now seems that “love your neighbor as yourself” riled up conservatives then as well as now.
Charles,
I agree. The narrative of how the early church acted should be very instructive to us. In fact, there’s a line of thought among CoC writers that claims all 5 “Acts of Worship” appear in this passage, the argument being that “the fellowship” in 2:42 is a reference to the weekly contribution (koinonia can be translated “sharing”). Some went so far as to argue that we must undertake the 5 acts in the 2:42 order!
(Act 2:42 ESV) 42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.
Sermon, then contribution, then Lord’s Supper, and then prayer. I’m not sure where singing comes in. I guess it was 2:47 “praising God.”
Well, if it’s all about discerning the rules and then following them to get some numen, that actually makes more sense than some theories.
Sad that we assume away the joy, spontaneity, and intimacy of it all and turn it into an exercise in showing off our brilliant interpretation so we can feel superior — and let worship become a burden.
It’s all about reading what’s really there — and recognizing the (true) story is actually more instructive than any alleged rules. Meanwhile, we have elderships refusing to allow small groups because there’s no authority to meet in homes!
Brian, Brent, John,
🙂
PS — Two post to go, but you all have said such nice things I’m tempted to take them down and not risk backsliding.
ya know john mark said go ahead and use the teaching.a few years ago
i will ask him to look at these and see if he minds the way that i am expressing his thoughts…
and as far as Bobbie is concerned i will ask him also to read them…
he has also said ok….
blessings
rich
it is hard for me to break a thought context in those two with out doing injustice to the expressed teaching.
to me most are lazy… or have a predisposition to procrastination.
i am just passing on “very good” thoughts.
if you mind and don’t or wouldn’t like to say call me 949-842-4793….
to be sure it would be easier to not .
blessings always
rich
i am hot a book chapter and verse person anymore…
it almost makes me angry when litigation in this.
although u r a lawyer..
boy oh boy
rich
Bit of a tangent from your thoughts, but this comment flows from your thoughts in this post. As you have done in the past, you seem to lean heavily in the direction that the communion bread should be unleavened because of symbolism. You also talk say Stamps Baxter may not be the best choice to reach millenials.
Perhaps the same can be said regarding the symbolism of leaven. How many of us truly understand this concept when we buy our bread in a plastic bag at the grocery store? Does the symbolism have the same impact when most people these days have not seem a lump of dough rise?
My grandmother was not a baker, my mother was not a baker and my wife is not a baker. I have very little real experience with raw bread dough and the effect yeast has on it. I understand the concept from a scientific perspective, but I haven’t seen it. I have a feeling that the same is true for many people. How powerful is the symbol when it’s just an abstract concept and not a personal experience?
Just some thoughts for you to consider.