Serving the Lord's Supper

janine · Mon Aug 12, 2002 - 13:54:01

I wonder why the visiting couple wants to wait to be immersed? Is the church's land far from the water, so they wanted to wait for a "beach service"?

Jess Wundrin...

seekr · Mon Jul 29, 2002 - 18:36:45

If people would quit equating the building with being the church, then there would not be these things taking place. We are the church and we assemble whenever 2 or more get together. All those "bindings" are soooo out of character with the intent that Jesus showed. We are God's building...and what is not allowed? If I have brothers over for dinner and we share with one another, and remember what Christ has done for us and fellowship and show love--isn't that a supper of the Lord?

seekr

OldDad · Mon Jul 29, 2002 - 22:46:02

In a church with RM roots that I was involved in in the Cincinnati area the Lord's Supper was served at 6 or 8 tables around the perimeter of the meeting place. During communion the folks would form lines at the tables and 2 or 3 families would kneel together and serve one another. Moms and dads would help serve their children and each other. Single moms would often serve the entire table. While this was going on, fellowship, sharing, and "catching up" would take place among the folks in the line.

It felt very New Testament, very early church. I have seldom been part of a more beautiful celebration of the Lord's Supper.

I don't see how anyone could object to communion served in that way. But, if we're talking about the "pass it down the row, everyone take a little plastic cup and a tiny sliver of alleged bread," well, I'm not sure why would we want to perpetuate that in the first place, much less recruit "servers" across gender lines?

OD

WileyClarkson · Tue Jul 30, 2002 - 00:49:46

Bill,

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]We have a thing called "Sharing Sunday" where anyone can get up and share how God is working in their life. Women can stand before the congregation and speak even though it is during what is normally called "worhsip service". [/quote]

We don't do "sharing" much yet and then they are limited only to males. You know---women must be silent in the assembly so they can't do personal sharing in front of the congregation. We are having a friendship day coming up to bring friends. The last one was really good in that during that time men shared their personal stories which I really appreciated. However, when women were not included, I think it killed alot of the good it did. Probably won't happen this time either.

Wiley

Skip · Tue Jul 30, 2002 - 14:53:14

OD,

Not to pick on you, or anything, but some of your comments set off alarm bells in my head...

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]It felt very New Testament, very early church. ...
I don't see how anyone could object to communion served in that way.[/quote]
I would say that, first of all, I think it dangerous to base our opinions or doctrines upon feelings. For example, I'm sure that the Judaising teachers that Paul confronts in the book of Galatians 'felt' much more comfortable in twisting Christianity into a mold that 'felt' more comfortable (and perhaps more 'religious') to them. Yet we see that when they drifted into their old, comfortable ways, they drifted out of Christianity and into apostasy.

Second, concerning the second phrase of the quote -- I will mention as a reminder that an attitude of "how could anyone object" makes a dangerous supposition (as I see it, anyway):
It implies that the one making the statement knows what is best, and any other opinions must certainly be in error - and isn't that the very objection that the legalist is condemned for?

Just trying to push us back onto a higher plane of thinking...

Beverly Nuckols (hocndoc) · Tue Jul 30, 2002 - 18:59:17

Skip,
The only thing that counts in service of God is faith expressing itself through love. (Gal 5:6)

Love is sort of a feeling, don't you think?

If the assembled body feels love for one another and God through the manner of celebrating the Lord's supper in one manner, then that is what God expects of us and what Jesus commanded:
" I give you a new commandment - love one another. "

david johnson · Tue Jul 30, 2002 - 21:20:11

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (Beverly Nuckols (hocndoc) @ July 30 2002,11:59)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Skip,
The only thing that counts in service of God is faith expressing itself through love. (Gal 5:6)

Love is sort of a feeling, don't you think?

If the assembled body feels love for one another and God through the manner of celebrating the Lord's supper in one manner, then that is what God expects of us and what Jesus commanded:
" I give you a new commandment - love one another. "[/quote]
hocndoc:

kjv sometimes selects the term 'charity' rather than 'love', and i think it is more accurate on that point. God has decreed for us to behave charitably toward all, rather than to strive for a particular feeling (but i do think that will come along).

dj

serving_him_only · Thu Aug 01, 2002 - 16:01:19

Skip,

You asked where there is authority or biblical example of a woman serving communion? Maybe the question should be: where is there an example of anyone other than Christ serving the communion? Where is there an actual example of anyone gathering for a "worship service" and serving the LS? Where are Christians commanded to gather for a Worship service"? Where are we shown an example of the "5 acts of worship" being performed during a "worship service"? These are some questions that beg for answers before one can answer the questions of whether a woman can serve it or not. IMO, folks

Have a great day in Him

s1n4m1n · Fri Aug 02, 2002 - 05:24:06

Hi Skip,

You said,

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Where is a Biblical or early extra-biblical example of a woman serving the LS?[/quote]

As far as I know the only example of anyone serving the Lord's Supper is Jesus Christ Himself (Matt 26:26ff). If you take Act 20:7's "break bread" as the LS then the apostle Paul appears to have served it (vs 11).

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]If there is none, then what purpose will attacking the coc 'tradition' (and yes, it is 'tradition') serve?[/quote]

Because that is the whole conceit of the CoC Restoration Movement, you know, "speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where it is silent." If God Himself chose not to legislate in this matter what gives man the right make a man-made tradition prohibiting women from serving?

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Unless the coc 'tradition' violates Scripture, I don't see the problem.[/quote]

This tradition would violate Scripture. It would limit where God has not limited (as Jesus charged against the Pharisees in Matt 15), unless you say that the example of the "real" Lord's Supper shows that only men can serve.

BTW, You don't want to know what the earliest extra-biblical witnesses show!

Later,

Ken

Skip · Fri Aug 02, 2002 - 16:59:01

Where to begin? :p

Mike,

The difference in dealing with race as opposed to sex is that race is virtually ignored in the NT; race doesn't seem to matter at all. For instance, we see the Gospel spread between several racial groups – from the source with Middle Eastern Jews (dark skinned) to an Ethiopian (black) to southern Europe (white)... but there is simply no special mention of race. The only verse that comes to mind that specifically mentions race is Gal. 3:28 (outside of some dealings of Jesus and Paul with the Jewish race).

On the other hand, women are specifically mentioned in several passages that modern western culture finds rather difficult to swallow. I'm sure that you are familiar with them. The RM churches in the early- to mid-1800s, to the best of my understanding, had no problem with what we have been referring to as a 'traditional' coc LS service – only men serving – since their reading of Scripture also happened to dovetail nicely with the cultural view of the role of the sexes at the time. Not so anymore...
So, to make a long story short, there is no Biblical basis for using race as a criterion for anything within Christianity.
But, to repeat, you are all aware of specific Bible passages used in the case of the Lord's Supper, regarding women usurping authority and so on.

So the difference is in the fact that in the case of race there is no Bible authority, while in the case of sex there is a significant body of Scripture that we must consider when making the decision whether or not to allow women to serve in that capacity. So it's not a case of offending sensibilities, but of attempting to follow God's direction to the best of our understanding. There is something to be said for 'playing it safe', but if that's our 'best defense', we'd better study a lot harder...
Each congregation and each family / individual will have to make a decision – I pray that the decision will be made based on a careful and humble examination of the Word, and not the strong preconceptions and opinions (and feelings – that's for Booty ;) ) that pull us to one pole or the other.

Ken,

You surprise me a bit, chiming in here!

As I pointed out above, the 'man-made tradition' has its roots in God's Word.

Tradition does not inherently violate Scripture (1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Thess. 2:15, 3:6) – only traditions that negate the command of God.

Yes, I DO want to know what the earliest extra-Biblical witnesses show! But be forewarned that I don't give as much weight to references past the 2nd century AD, and that all extra-Biblical witnesses are, well, extra-Biblical!

Janine,

Unfortunately, you are SOOOO correct in your observation that people haven't studied this out, and, unfortunately, those same people are often the ones with the strongest views on the subject! And yes, in the 'traditional' coc, we ARE trained to think that way.

But a closed mind is a dead mind.

Booty,

Did I hit a nerve, or what?!

RE: 1 Cor. 11:20-21 – It doesn't say exactly who served, but based on the preceding verses in the chapter, it must have been the women! :)
But read the question above the reference more carefully. Certainly someone served the LS, and it would appear that it was someone(s) in the Corinthian church. In verse 23 Paul even says that he showed them how to do it – what I would give to have him personally show US!

Before you get too "hooked on a feeling

Skip · Wed Aug 07, 2002 - 15:46:31

Sorry, I forgot about this thread over the weekend (until this morning).

Mike,

Pertaining to "usurping authority

janine · Thu Aug 08, 2002 - 15:17:53

kanham: I'm not trying to be spiteful or anything here, just working thru my thoughts, so don't take offense...

If you have a problem with women speaking in any and all church assemblies... how do they sing songs/hymns/spiritual songs, as they are commanded to do? Or does that direction only apply to the men?

How do they coordinate their efforts when the church eats together or builds a new building together or anything else? Are all your church gatherings 'men-only', or do the women all speak American Sign Language (which would be problematic, too, because though silent, it is communication, & might violate the spirit of the law if not the letter...)?

If it's a gathering to read & discuss & study the Bible, a give-and-take study with a moderator rather than a cold, formal lecture, why should not the women speak? How are they seizing any leadership?

And if they seemed to be usurping authority, in some way, because they spoke more and they knew more and they had more frequent and more in-depth insights than the men in the groups where you've seen the regrettable happening of women speaking... Is it better that they keep mum and try to instruct their less-forthcoming husbands at home, thus improving the spiritual maturity of the group indirectly? Or is it better that there be 'women-only' classes so as not to violate any Scriptural principles or men's consciences? But then, a women-only gathering is still a church gathering, so women still need to keep silent... (Wow, can you see 100 silent women waving semaphore flags at each other, flashing sign language and flying paper airplane notes across the aisles...)

Or are the women in your group not any more perceptive than the men, just more gabby and pushy?

Or is it better for the women to simply absorb whatever they learn and let it stew unused inside them until they die, at which point they'll go to the segregated 'women only' section of Heaven... can they speak then, in the eternal permanent assembly of the church, or must they clam up up there too?

Trust me here, there's something missing in our application of the Scriptural guidelines for differing male/female roles, if it squelches over half the church body & corrals off their God-given gifts from use for the edification of the body and the glorification of God.

Somehow, we've got to keep the God-directed recognition of gender differences, without taking the easy way out & simply stamping anything with a uterus "silent use only". We've gotta think.

Bill · Thu Aug 08, 2002 - 18:20:38

It seems to me that strong leadership would have no problem with women being involved in almost all aspects of the church. The problem comes when there is weak leadership and those in such roles are afraid of anyone taking the initative in serving one another.

Here is some scripture and my thoughts:

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]26 What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, two--or at the most three--should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28 If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.

29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30 And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31 For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32 The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. 33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.

As in all the congregations of the saints,34 women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

36 Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37 If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. 38 If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.

39 Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40 But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.
1 Cor 14:26-40 (NIV)

Seems to me that verse 26-32 is talking about what we call "Sharing Sunday".

verse 34 says women are to be silent in the church, it doesn't say "worship service". I take church to mean assembled Christians, therefore women are to be silent whenever the church is assembled. But wait, this is in conflict with 1Cor.11, it talks about women praying and prophesying while the church is assembled. Could it be that both Paul and God are saying contradicting things. I don't think so. If we look at the context Paul is talking about being orderly when the church is assembled and I think the Corinthians knew what he was talking about some of the women were disorderly and therefore those women should be silent just as one who speaks in tongues if there is no interpreter and like the person speaking in verse 30.. [/quote]

Booty · Fri Aug 09, 2002 - 04:09:56

Separate entrances? What an idea!! Why as soon as we have a wall we'll have to consider that!!

We men of the church just met and decided on our lesson for this coming Sunday. It is our practice to discuss and decide on the message beforehand planning it together.

Janine, this Sunday, Sandi, my wife, will rise immediately following the Lord's Supper to read John 13:1-17.
Now we men will just have to permit her to read as we will be busy with towels and basins. It is our opinion, we men, that we need this lesson. This sermon is for us.

Perhaps we will break a few traditions. Praise the Lord!

janine · Sat Aug 10, 2002 - 02:27:10

Hi, Spurly...

Yah, simple truth, isn't it?

I don't know how to make it any plainer...

mike · Sat Aug 10, 2002 - 16:02:44

Booty,

Your plans for Sunday sound like a great worship service! Even though we all need to be servants to each other in myriad ways, there does seem to be something particularly humbling about feet washing, that deeply touches the washer and the washee. (I can make up words, too!)

When I was in Thailand recently, we decided to perform skits dramatizing the scripture text that we would be discussing. This helped us get past some language barriers.

When we performed the skit on our next text, John 13:1-17, I had the opportunity to play the part of Jesus, washing the apostle's feet. I selected one of our group to be Peter (since that was a speaking part), and asked various Thais to be the other apostles in our little drama.

I wondered how this would be perceived, because feet have a particularly negative connotation to the Thais. No one touches another's feet. In fact, when you sit down, you must carefully sit cross-legged, or in some manner that doesn't point your foot at another person in the group. This is a grave insult. The Thais all wear loose fitting sandals, and we all walked around in the dirt. Feet are filthy in a short period of time. Everyone leaves shoes outside before entering a house.

Anyway, as I recited my lines, I smiled at them and washed their feet. After I finished with each foot, I kissed it on the top before moving on. Don't know for sure why I "embellished" the story that way -- it just seemed like a particularly "Jesus" thing to do at the monent. They were astonished. You could have heard a pin drop.

When we read and discussed the scriptural text afterward, the Thais had a tough time comprehending why Jesus would wash his disciples' feet. They said that their king, or Buddha, or Mohammed, would never do that! We discussed that Jesus is deity, and I explained to them that God would lower himself to be their servant, because he loves each of them that much.

I had everyone's undivided attention. It was an intently spiritual moment that I will never forget. About half the Buddhists and Moslems had puzzled looks on their faces, but the other half had eyes filling with tears.

Mike
:D

Sun Aug 11, 2002 - 01:20:42

This is my first post, hope I do it right--here goes.
It seems many traditions are observed when we begin "service". Maybe we should begin with the closing prayer, that is when we get real with one another.

seekr · Sun Aug 11, 2002 - 19:57:40

CHill, I love what you said about getting real with each other. It's sooo easy to be pleasant and loving for a few hours each week in our meetings.

I went to a foot washing one time, for women only, and they were allowed to choose whose feet were washed. There were the certain few who did not "count" as much and were left alone. This can either be a blessing or another point of pain. May it not be so it our lives as we imitate Him.

seekr

Bill · Mon Aug 12, 2002 - 04:09:58

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I'm a woman in her twenties who will be serving communion for the first time in my life this Sunday. My husband will be my co-server. We just found out that at this church whoever serves it from the front also prepares it in the back beforehand and cleans it up afterward. Perhaps if CoCs made the rule that whoever prepares it in the back serves it in the front, we would be discussing why it seems that men are excluded![/quote]
Thanks Indie. It is all about being a servant, isn't it.

Bill

Booty · Mon Aug 12, 2002 - 13:45:23

CHill, Indie and Spurly,

Welcome in the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ. May your hands always be extended in Christian fellowship and never in need.

janine · Mon Jul 29, 2002 - 18:46:46

Sure... but,even in your own home, there are some brothers (and sisters as well) who would feel you did something vaguely sacriligious or blasphemous if YOU directed the minds of the company in a prayer of thanks for the food.

janine · Tue Jul 30, 2002 - 18:28:41

It may be a lot of RM churches pass the bread & wine out because to send us all up to a table to fetch them ourselves looks too Catholic or Old-Style Presbyterian.

Heaven forbid we should go up to as many separate tables as we need, and in small groups serve each other, conversing & fellowshipping & praying & singing as led by the (gasp) Spirit.

OldDad · Tue Jul 30, 2002 - 23:04:58

Skip,

I suppose I meant "felt" in the same sense that the early church "kept feeling a sense of awe..." I never base any doctrine on emotions, indeed I have been led many times against my feelings on an issue by Bible study. (The present day work of the Holy Spirit, for example)

What I meant in that instance is that it seemed to me to be in line with what I have studied in the New Testament and early church history. You know how Secret Service agents learn to distinguish real money from counterfeit by feel? That's how I meant it.

And of course I think my opinion is best - that's why I hold it. "I don't see" doesn't mean I can't see or won't see another point of view. Firm possession of a point of view doesn't imply that one is unteachable or not open to correction, nor does it mean one is trying to bind others to an opinion.

Besides which, I like it here on the lower planes...

OD

s1n4m1n · Sat Aug 03, 2002 - 02:27:42

Skip,

I'm a little confused on what you consider tradition. There are traditions that were handed down from the apostles (2 Thess. 3:16, 2 Tim 2:2). Do you consider women not allowed to serve the LS an apostolic tradition?

With regards to extra-biblical sources lets take a look at St. Ignatius one of the earliest sources, "See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid" (THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE SMYRAEANS (SHORTER VERSION) Chptr. 5 written about 108AD).

It seems the bishop was responsible for administering the LS (eucharist) unless he chose someone else (most likely the presbyters or deacons). At this early date we already see a distinction between the bishop and presbytry (elders) and also a clerical/laity distinction.

More Later,

Ken

P.S. May want to start a new thread just on this topic alone.

Booty · Wed Aug 07, 2002 - 22:53:58

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]For instance, if we let our feelings alone guide us in matters of sin, do you think that we'd arrive at the same sins that Scripture teaches? Rather, we'd engage in any sort of earthly pleasure and debauchery, if feelings alone were the guide.[/quote]

This is like trying to pin down a wisp of smoke floating above the hearth. Obviously from my postings I never intended that feeling alone would guide me, but that does not fit the foredrawn conclusion so my meaning will be subtly altered.

Skip, I trust in the Holy Spirit to lay heavy on my heart when I sin. I know when I sin and frankly, I do not need you to interpret scripture to instruct me. And that is where you are leading, isn't it Skip? That left to my own devices I would engage in earthly pleasure and debauchery until you arrive to instruct me as to what you consider the scripture says is sin.

Jesus Christ paid the price for my sin. I confess that He is the son of God and I accept the blood price He paid for my sin. I place my life in His hands to do with as He pleases. I recognize that He simplified the complex Judiac code into, Love God, your Lord above all and love your neighbor as He loved us.

Legalism has a problem with this. How can one justify oneself without holding dominion over ones neighbour? While the answer is simply, one cannot justify oneself, Christ is He who justifies; some cannot accept this and thus seek to establish dominion over their neighbour.

Not here and not today Skip. I will follow my Lord. I am not confused yet, Skip. I recognize you. And I do enjoy the "explanations" you furnish for your posts.

My question to you is, Do you realize why you have to furnish them?

seekr · Thu Aug 08, 2002 - 18:36:44

Wow, what great thoughts bill and kanham and janine. There is a really good article on this subject somewhere in the archives that is saying much of what you are.

How many men are washing their wives feet? That is leadership according to the Lord. So many of us keep thinking in worldly terms of leadership. When the men in any congregation start to recognize their accountability to become a slave to others, to truly be a leader, then the issue of gender will not be an issue anymore. How silly that we think in terms of standing in front of a meeting as being a leader. Please sit down.;)

seekr

Sat Aug 10, 2002 - 00:54:23

Hey - Is serving communion a leadership position, or is it just a servant's role. I think it is the second, so anyone should be able to do it. It doesn't make any difference what sex they are. :p

Sun Aug 11, 2002 - 23:39:49

As I write this post I thought I would start out by teling you I attend a Christian Church, not a church of Christ. I kinow some of you may already be floating down to the next post, but I wanted to chime in again anyway.

Our youth were in charge of the service today. And during the service we had both guys and girls greet people, serve communion, and offer testimonies of what God has been doing in their lives. It went very well. Girls don't normally serve at our church, but it caused no problems.

Lots of compliments at the end of the service.

Kevin

Booty · Mon Aug 12, 2002 - 13:42:20

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (mike @ Aug. 11 2002,10:16)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Booty,

You are right about the foot washing. It was exciting to be humbling myself in the same way that Jesus did. Maybe that's why it was such a powerful spiritual moment for me.

How did your foot washing service go today?

Mike
:D[/quote]
In a single word, beautiful!! Simply Beautiful!!

At the last moment I handed the Scripture reference to Aracelis to read. Do not know why, but the Spirit led me. We men went to the back to get our basins and towels from where we had them. Aracelis rose and read in the clearest and most powerful voice to all. When she finished we filed to the front and without another word started washing feet. Sandi and Magleny spontaneously started singing praise songs and continued until we were through. The children came down from their hill and also took seats to have their feet washed as well. When we finished including washing each others feet, we kneeled in front of the congregation and thanked them for our lesson. We really did need it and it went to heart.

A visiting couple there for their first time has requested baptism for this next Sunday. All have commented on the spirituality that they felt in the service. It was the right thing to do, and we will be repeating it as the Spirit leads us in the future.

Praise the Lord
humbly

Mon Jul 29, 2002 - 18:46:52

seekr, God bless you. I don't think anyone is equating the building with the church, and you are absolutely right that we are the church and assemble whenever 2 or more get together.
But to use your example, by the same token, if I meet together with other Christians in a building and we share with one another and study the word of God and sing and pray and fellowship and eat the Lord's Supper -- isn't that legitimate and affirming worship also? I agree basically with what you say, but in love I once again say that it does continue to bother me that you keep accusing people of equating the church with the building, and I don't think the people on this board are doing that at all. Or maybe you're not speaking to us specifically but to some people "out there" in general, is that it???

Of course communion between us and our Lord doesn't have to take place in a "church building"! Or in any building at all, for that matter. But it *can* and very often does take place in a church building, which isn't the church .. the church is the people ... the building is just the building. This is basic "Church 101". :)

Arkstfan · Tue Jul 30, 2002 - 18:18:50

Well I see how someone could object to having people come forward and serve themself because people have always shown the ability to object based on those great tenents of faith, The Book of Opinion and The Book of Tradition.

We really have no evidence of the "delivery system" for communion other than that the people gathered and ate bread and drank the fruit of the vine in rememberance of Jesus.

Beverly Nuckols (hocndoc) · Wed Jul 31, 2002 - 06:03:24

I do know that the Bible says that we should not dispute over words, and,

Gal 5:13-15

13 You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. 14 The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." 15 If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.
NIV

Skip, I still don't understand your distinction about the use of the word "feel" in this context.

There is no scriptural basis for the current practice of trays, representative men "serving at table" from the front of the room, and multiple cups or loaves. This is tradition, not necessarily bad, but the tradition is not the purpose of eating bread and drinking juice or wine. We commune with God and each other during this time. Our consideration, our love, our "agape" should be for each other as well as God, per Paul in 1 Cor. 11.

Jesus himself, at the first Supper, told us that we would be known by our love/agape for one another (John 13:34,35) Such a beautiful, wonder-inspiring legacy and commandment:

John 13:34-35

34 "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."
NIV

Thank God,

mike · Sat Aug 03, 2002 - 02:04:03

Nicholas,

I read through my post a few times and couldn't find the word recently. I suspect you are referring to my phrase not too long ago. Whether or not it is a stretch depends on your point of view. I'm 45 years old, and I remember an elder at a small country church I attended as a teenager having this deplorable attitude.

Skip,

I agree that race doesn't seem to matter much in the early church, but it is not ignored. Col. 3:11 tells us that in the kingdom that there should be no bias or difference in status among different ethnic groups. In a similar way, Gal. 3:28 reflects that there should be no staus difference among men and women in the kingdom.

As for the usurping authority argument, I don't think it applies in the context of serving the Lord's Supper at all. As we gather at the table to commune with Jesus and each other, we don't come here with power and authority, but as servants, just as Jesus did in John 13.

I have not always felt this way, but my study of scripture has led me to believe that my previous views were in error.

Respectfully submitted for your consideration,

Mike
:D

s1n4m1n · Thu Aug 08, 2002 - 06:23:22

Skip,

I guess my understanding of what Ignatius wrote is different then yours because I've never heard anyone in the CoC say anything like he did.

Ken

janine · Fri Aug 09, 2002 - 00:34:49

In my congregation (one filled with loving and earnest people, really), it's not that women are devalued or put down or pooh-poohed...

For example, some of the women, elder's wives, the church secretary, etc., have for years been wielding quite a bit of delegated authority in event planning, etc. The fact that they need prior approval of the elders for expenditures of "church money", or before doing things in the congregation's name, is no burden, and it applies to men as well as women.

But, if all the women were suddenly pulled out of the harnesses and workyokes they wear, the body-life of the Christians around me would fall apart.

Where I see sectarian attitudes, or even "voodoo" attitudes, is in the little automatic, un-thought-out assumptions.

Somehow we've equated performing service during a service with leadership... and we've set up a list of qualifications (akin to those qualities Paul said an elder or deacon needed to have, only much simpler) for the servers:
* They've got to be male, and baptized church members.
* They've got to wear a tie.
* No special qualifications about their lives as a whole, unless they're really in bad shape, enough so that people wonder why Brother So-and-so is allowed to serve...

(This has led to one particular brother leading singing, directing the Lord's Supper, etc., when he doesn't hold that baptism is essential for salvation... he's said so in Bible class!)

(Another brother, having such trouble with his marriage that they're divorcing [wife also a member], is not allowed to lead song-worship or pass communion plates, but he is the guy in charge of the "tape ministry", I guess because he does that behind the congregation :D, in the glassed-in "cry room" where a choir loft would be...)

In an after-the-services "devo", or a time of the youth worshipping in song, or even just a time to get together and teach each other new songs... only a male may stand up in front of the others and pitch the tune. If only women know a song, either it should not be taught, or a willing guy should stand up before the group, open his mouth and squawk out any old sound, at which point the two or three strong singers, usually women, take over and voice-lead the group. Just as long as the males' leadership isn't messed with.

There was, after much effort, a men's prayer group initiated in one couple's home. It has been like pulling teeth to get the announcements made about that to include the fact that there are women meeting too!

Mike's work makes us arrive late most of the time, so he walks in the front door where the men are already praying. I go around to the back door, second-class Christian that I am :D, really just to disturb as few people as possible, but it appeals to my sense of the absurd to humbly enter through the servants' entrance!

If a mixed group meets for prayer, only the men can pray aloud. My church would freak out if they were asked to, say, recite the Lord's prayer aloud. I don't know which would be the worse problem, though, women praying aloud or the church sounding all Catholic by using the example prayer AS a prayer.

One of the young men made a real thing of beauty out of the Lord's Supper he presided over last week... one thing he did was ask the congregation to all read a portion of Scripture out loud with him... he didn't emphasize his request, most people were already in a daze because he didn't follow the crusty mumbled automatic route they're used to, so only a couple of people (women!) started to read with him... we shut up when no one else did it, not wanting to "stick out" & take people's minds off the Lord and His body...

See what I mean? In my particular group, it's as if anything goes, any practical arrangement of women doing any work the church needs, down to signing the benevolence checks, but ooooh nooooo, we've got to preserve appearances, only a man (with a tie on!) can stand in certain spots in the auditorium at certain times!

It's a "voodoo" thing, is what I call it... we've preserved the magical laws of similarity and contagion... we women must be pleasing to God if we hand out a couple of tracts during the week, then walk into the church building at the right times, women sitting around and watching men, then we leave... after we've cleaned up the tables post-potluck.

I am not without hope... I am not perfect myself... I am not really cynical about this... if I were somewhere with a better general understanding of the topic, there would be other problems to deal with, I'm sure.

Christian Forums

News:

User

Stats ezBlock

Serving the Lord's Supper

janine

seekr

OldDad

WileyClarkson

Skip

Beverly Nuckols (hocndoc)

david johnson

serving_him_only

s1n4m1n

Skip

Skip

janine

Bill

Booty

janine

mike

seekr

Bill

Booty

janine

janine

OldDad

s1n4m1n

Booty

seekr

Booty

Arkstfan

Beverly Nuckols (hocndoc)

mike

s1n4m1n

janine

Recent Topics

Login:
Password:
Login for: