Ex-Church of Christ Support Board

There was some diversity among older CofCs - anyone ever read about "upper room" CofCs? They would only partake of the Lawd's Supper in, you guessed it, a second floor room built for the purpose. I've heard of a few non-CofC churches that do that, but my grandfather told me there were several in the hinterlands of West Texas when he preached there in the 1940s. They were one-cup congregations, as you can imagine, and used wine in the communion. Very small groups. One group also met on Saturdays, like Seventh Day Adventists, but insisted they were in fact Restoration CofCs. My grandfather also knew a few snakehandling CofCers in North Carolina. These were holdovers from the days when rural America was still pretty isolated.

A CofC is likely to die off anyway... but toss in handling deadly snakes and that is a place just trying to run out of members.

margin overa wrote:There was some diversity among older CofCs - anyone ever read about "upper room" CofCs? They would only partake of the Lawd's Supper in, you guessed it, a second floor room built for the purpose.

We can laugh (and we certainly do) but following COC doctrine to its logical conclusion, one would have to see the obvious scriptural "pattern" of upper-room communion. Both times that the specific building level of the room is given in scripture, it's always "upper" (Mark 14:15 [and its parallel, Luke 22:12] and Acts 20:8). With that random detail then, one can construct a theology... maybe something like "we should be upstairs so we're closer to heaven during communion" or whatever. Next thing you know, the one true church meets upstairs for communion and all those heathens are downstairs doing their heathen things. Seems like it fits the pattern to me. The only thing I wonder is why more COCs don't require communion to be held upstairs.

Lev

Lev wrote:We can laugh (and we certainly do) but following COC doctrine to its logical conclusion, one would have to see the obvious scriptural "pattern" of upper-room communion. Both times that the specific building level of the room is given in scripture, it's always "upper" (Mark 14:15 [and its parallel, Luke 22:12] and Acts 20:8). With that random detail then, one can construct a theology... maybe something like "we should be upstairs so we're closer to heaven during communion" or whatever. Next thing you know, the one true church meets upstairs for communion and all those heathens are downstairs doing their heathen things. Seems like it fits the pattern to me. The only thing I wonder is why more COCs don't require communion to be held upstairs.

Lev

Yep...all of which neatly demonstrates the silliness of following a supposed pattern in its inconsistency. This group handles serpents, this group uses only one cup, this group meets in an upper room for the communion, that group makes certain the bread is broken before it's passed out - but all may deny or affirm miracles, annointing the sick with oil, greeting one another with a holy kiss, taking wine for stomach's sake, and ad infinitum...and pretty much all equally suspicious of those who differ with them in the merest minutiae. It is interesting though, on a kind of folkloric level.

If they're going to build an upper room, why not go whole hog and also send a couple of congregants into town beforehand and have them seek "such a man" and ask him for that upper room? Maybe they can all argue after the supper about who'll be first in the kingdom.

I got a lecture once because Dad saw me pick up a piece that was already the right size, because that meant I had not broken the bread, which was apparently a Very Important Facet of the ritual.

cathym wrote:I got a lecture once because Dad saw me pick up a piece that was already the right size, because that meant I had not broken the bread, which was apparently a Very Important Facet of the ritual.

That's just silly. Taking that logic to its conclusion, you would have to assume that the last person in the room to get the tray would have to break an already-tiny piece of bread into two even-tinier pieces just to satisfy the command to "break bread." Are we going to have to start using calculus to figure out the amount of bread needed to support infinite breaks? Isn't it pretty much an accepted fact that "to break bread" was an idiom for "eat together"?

Lev

I asked my Grandfather the long time elder, if breaking bread before one partakes was biblically required. To my total surprise he said No. He thought the men who lead the Lord's Supper physically broke the bread 'just to be safe'.

I've been on the Lavista coc page many times, only because it pops up in my internet searches on the coc. It's a great resource to illustrate the Pharisee attitude of the coc, but also makes me want to throw up when reading their articles. Ass backwards doctrine at it's best.

Pitts S2C wrote:I asked my Grandfather the long time elder, if breaking bread before one partakes was biblically required. To my total surprise he said No. He thought the men who lead the Lord's Supper physically broke the bread 'just to be safe'.

The "just to be safe" mentality is such a sad aspect of COC doctrine. What does it say about one's thoughts about God?

Lev

That the stories of Nadab and Abihu and Ananias and Sapphira count far more than grace and forgiveness in the CofC narrative?