women serving lord's supper

[lvmaus]

Both men and women in the CoC are programmed to accept the unwritten creeds and timeworn traditions the elders continually cram down their collective throats, but the women in particular seem to accept their role of silence without questioning the twisted thinking behind these regulations ... of course women are naturally nicer than men, and don't kick up as much dust. The silencing muzzle also serves to prevent a woman from defending herself; which is exactly the intended purpose.

My question to the elders as to why a woman couldn't help with the Lord's table was answered bluntly - that is, after they picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and wiped away the shocked expressions - a women can't usurp a mans authority.

[Lev]

Both men and women in the CoC are programmed to accept the unwritten creeds and timeworn traditions the elders continually cram down their collective throats, but the women in particular seem to accept their role of silence without questioning the twisted thinking behind these regulations ... of course women are naturally nicer than men, and don't kick up as much dust. The silencing muzzle also serves to prevent a woman from defending herself; which is exactly the intended purpose.

Right you are. I've even heard women in COC Bible classes speak up and defend the 'rule of silence' (there's an irony!).

Lev

[KLP]

I apply the Timothy passage together with the 1 Cor LS passage. Why would a woman want to serve food in your assemblies? Why? Does she not have a husband at home what needs serving?

Yes it is mainly a variation on slippery slope. What is the need or purpose in having female plate passers? Is it to give a more public role to women or young girls, it is to be more "normal", is it due to a shortage of passers, are they faster and more efficient, is it driven by the culture? What is the motive and need?

There is nothing inherently "wrong" with a woman passing the tray...she can pass it down the pew, she can touch the plate...so there is no prohibition of passing it around because there is no CENI on it being distributed via trays. But the CofC and the originating culture had proscribed rules and definitions on what was gender proper. The CofC (as all denoms) have made LS into a formal ceremony so formal rules and roles come into play. This becomes a "public" role and the server has the very beginnings of "authority". They can decide who is to be served, they sometimes tell another server to go get a missed person, sometimes some whacko needs to be skipped, etc. It is very minimal...but there begins to be some tiny bit of "authority" in this man-made formal ceremony. And if one is trying to disallow any and all authority of women or men (as silly as that sounds) then giving public roles to women in these ceremonies is non-sense or just trying to get as close as possible to the line (imagined or real).

When you do small group or home church this sort of stuff is obviated...it only becomes an "issue" when the group becomes big and the LS becomes this ceremonial observance with proscribed roles.

[Moogy]

... They can decide who is to be served, they sometimes tell another server to go get a missed person, sometimes some whacko needs to be skipped, etc.

Interesting. What sort of circumstances would lead the server to skip someone? I never heard of that happening. Although non-members were expected not to participate, we never stopped them if they chose to.,

[KLP]

On rare occasion where you knew the person was not cofc or baptized (immersed). Some folks had an issuing "offering" the plate to known non-members. Like an unbelieving spouse or an older kid (young adult) that you knew the situation. One time I heard someone ask the server if they could "partake" even though they were not members? But yes, usually you just pass it and let people police themselves (or their family). Now anyone could chip in money to the collection plate though I did have my money returned by mail after I was no longer a member.

[zeek]

.

[KLP]

Well "open" communion is a matter of definition. In my experience it was "open" to believers who were immersed presumably for the right reason. In practice, there was no questioning of visitors and if they partook that was on them and but they were assumed to be OK. But if you knew somebody was not baptized and they were just sitting there...you would not pass the plate to them unless it was for them to pass it on down the row. You knew who to skip. This was just one of the many disconnects IMO...it is just bread/juice not a sacrament or the actual body...but somehow it would be wrong for the unbaptized to eat it...unless it was the kids later during clean up...then it was OK as it was just bread/juice again. Same for the auditorium...it is just a building but then some folks would have a cow if you had a coffee travel cup with you...and it wasn't just a concern for the carpet. Somehow the place that is "just a building" was at the same time set apart (sanctified) for God.

[lvmaus]

Technically, the coC practices open communion hence the passing of the containers throughout the crowd; presumably anyone so inclined is free to partake. To me it would be the height of arrogance for a server to take it upon himself to decide to "skip" anyone. That is not his or (in forward thinking groups) her place. In my opinion even the all knowing elders do not have this right or authority because as mere mortals we cannot know what any other person's relationship to the divine is. Only God knows who is or isn't acceptable to him.

Open communion seems to be the normal practice in most CoC groups. On numerous occasions I've witnessed non-members participate in the LS - even their 3 & 4 year old children - without any attempt to snatch the plate from their grubby little paws.

[Moogy]

My parents certainly did NOT let us partake when we were little kids. I remember "playing church" with my brother and maybe some other kids when I was 5 or 6. As I recall we talked about how you were supposed to just break off a tiny piece of the cracker, and to eat it carefully with your front teeth, not chew it (with your molars). We were very observant little COCers.

[Lev]

...though I did have my money returned by mail after I was no longer a member.

Wow! How very un-COC of them. I've generally found COC members to be among the more mammon-serving Christians. Not on the surface--their buildings are usually rather plain (though there are exceptions) and the members themselves aren't typically well-off. But in conversations and Bible classes I've heard it come up again and again: "it's not a sin to be rich or to have money. God blesses those who work hard with monetary rewards (no idea where they got this from, certainly not the NT). It's the love of money, not the money itself, that is wrong. Etc., etc." When you meet a COCer who is wealthy, he/she often has a posse of wannabes trying to either a) mooch off of them, or b) learn how they did it so they themselves can "get rich" one day too. Once in a COC Bible class, I brought up the 'slippery slope' argument that is usually used against drinking alcohol and suggested applying it to wealth--i.e. if it's wrong to get drunk but we (the COC) prohibit even moderate drinking, and it's wrong to love money or to serve mammon, then shouldn't we also prohibit even moderate accrual of wealth? Man, that was shot down quickly.

Lev