Ex-Church of Christ Support Board

agricola wrote:
Not necessarily. The gospels aren't congruent on that point.

I always thought it was fairly clear that it was passover week and they were having a seder. Got any sources / verses to the contrary.. not arguing.. just discussion.

Sure.
The books of Matthew Mark and Luke have the last supper as the passover meal. John, however, has the last supper on the evening BEFORE the evening of Passover, because (for John) it is important to have Jesus dying on the cross at the same time a passover lamb sacrifice would be dying on the altar in order to be cooked for the passover meal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Supper

(Oh, BTW, the passover SEDER as we know it didn't exist until about 70-100 years after this time).

I don't know of any CofC who thinks they are or should technically recreate the "last Supper". Everyone in CofC that I knew, who had given any thought to it, were trying to follow the pattern of the church as it was in the apostolic age. But even in the 1st century I do not see any intent in 1 Cor to do a sort of "re-enactment" of the Last Supper because it was, and is, symbolic in nature. OK, lot of folks after decades and generations will have a conniption if it is not their particular brand/style of grape juice and matzos because they hate change...but no one I knew really thinks that Welch's is commanded by God.

Now the notion of the tiny amounts of bread and juice does seem to some to be a "technical" compliance or observance. But even in the original event Jesus seems to be referring to smaller quantity portions of a serving rather than the entire meal itself. So maybe having a bit and a sip is good enough though it often seems pretty small and rather insignificant.

I've been wondering for a while why it is OK in the CoC (and many other denominations) to "miniaturize" the communion by reducing it to a tiny bite of cracker and a sip of juice, while on the other hand baptism can only be by full immersion, and it is wrong to "miniaturize" it by using sprinkling or pouring. Just wondering, because it seems somewhat inconsistent to me.

Opie wrote:I've been wondering for a while why it is OK in the CoC (and many other denominations) to "miniaturize" the communion by reducing it to a tiny bite of cracker and a sip of juice, while on the other hand baptism can only be by full immersion, and it is wrong to "miniaturize" it by using sprinkling or pouring. Just wondering, because it seems somewhat inconsistent to me.

It seems pretty inconsistent to me too.


You know, it was years and years after leaving the coc, that it even occurred to me to ask: WHY is it such a priority for the coc (in particular) to completely imitate the 'first century church'? Shouldn't the church have GROWN over the past 2000 years? Why does the coc make it such a big ticket topic and congratulate themselves on, basically, failure to change with time?

It was such a given, in the coc, that it was what we were SUPPOSED to do, that it never even occurred to me then to question the premise itself - instead, we argued about exactly how to go about it, and what 'examples' were required and which ones were 'expedients' (or cultural things, like foot washing).

klp wrote:OK, lot of folks after decades and generations will have a conniption if it is not their particular brand/style of grape juice and matzos because they hate change...but no one I knew really thinks that Welch's is commanded by God.

Great care must be exercised in selecting the communion grape juice; Welch's is the only brotherhood approved juice, because ... well, just because it is! It's also totally unacceptable to serve any wine from a container that looks like a Champagne bottle, or such. Bringing your own long stem wine glass to partake of the communion is also prohibited ... or at least should be.

Brother Stickler

agricola wrote:...You know, it was years and years after leaving the coc, that it even occurred to me to ask: WHY is it such a priority for the coc (in particular) to completely imitate the 'first century church'? Shouldn't the church have GROWN over the past 2000 years? Why does the coc make it such a big ticket topic and congratulate themselves on, basically, failure to change with time?

It was such a given, in the coc, that it was what we were SUPPOSED to do, that it never even occurred to me then to question the premise itself - instead, we argued about exactly how to go about it, and what 'examples' were required and which ones were 'expedients' (or cultural things, like foot washing).

Really Agri? You have no idea why "change" and "drift" could possibly be a concern or problem? The OT history is replete with Jews getting busted for "change" and "growth". Jesus, Paul, and John warn against and about change...they didn't call it "growth".
IMO, the first question would be whether or not apostasy is even possible? If so, then there is concern. If not, then yeah do whatever you want and call it whatever you want.

Well yeah but....

The whole point, it seemed to me, of what Jesus was talking about (and Paul) was that we were all supposed to STOP being anal and persnickety about details, and you know - just 'love one another' and 'do unto others' and not really pay any particular attention to exactly how we did stuff versus how other people did stuff...

you know what I mean? Wasn't the whole idea that Christians were SET FREE from trying to be perfectly exactly correct about every single thing?

Plus there was that parable of the talents, which pretty much SAID that you were supposed to take what you were given and USE it and INVEST it and GROW, not stick it in the ground in a jar and preserve the original, like a fly in amber.

Yes, I agree with you. The Jewish system was a burden with lots of details and yes, people should have been happy to be free and clear of it, but some still wanted that stuff. But that doesn't mean that the words of Jesus like "If you love me you will keep my commandments" have no meaning. Peter and the church were concerned about Paul "growing" the church, on his own it seemed, to include Gentiles. Paul was all about teaching the same thing everywhere and setting things in order when he arrived. People pushing the Jew stuff was just one error that was addressed. And John's revelation included warnings against apostasy. Which is why I suppose it seems logical to many that apostasy is possible and that it is possibly not an insignificant thing.

Opie wrote:I've been wondering for a while why it is OK in the CoC (and many other denominations) to "miniaturize" the communion by reducing it to a tiny bite of cracker and a sip of juice, while on the other hand baptism can only be by full immersion, and it is wrong to "miniaturize" it by using sprinkling or pouring. Just wondering, because it seems somewhat inconsistent to me.

This is a really good point and something I had never thought of before. I imagine a COC answer would cite the supposed meaning of the word baptizo as well as the imagery of being "buried with Christ."

Still, if communion is meant to be a "supper" there are both etymological and symbolic reasons to make it an actual meal, not a "miniaturized" symbolic meal. Something to think about.

Lev