The Lord’s Supper:

Reclaiming the Meal Amidst the Mess

John Fehlen

John Fehlen 2The dinner table is set. The food is hot and plentiful. Family and friends have gathered toenjoy not only the food but also the warmth of fellowship, whereby affirming love andadmiration for one another around the backdrop of a common meal. The setting is glorious and poised with possibility and yet, unforeseen to the naked eye lurks the enemy to both food andfellowship:

division

. Nothing can make a morsel taste blander and cause fellowship to fall flatter then animosityand general distain for one another. Unresolved issues, bitterness, neglect and the like will oftensteal the joy from a gathering and leave the attendees with a gaping void even though food wasconsumed. The situation was similar when the Apostle Paul stuck his theological and pastoralnose into the church of Corinth. What he found was a group of people that were ‘comingtogether’ but not truly ‘being together.’ That condition still largely exists within the church of today. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:20, when the church ‘come[s] together, it is not the Lord’sSupper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else.” Thewords of Ben Witherington III capture the scenario perfectly: “the meal had become a mess.”

When there is a mess in the church the tendency is to eradicate the potential of futureunsightliness whereby avoiding subsequent messes altogether. This has been the case in manysectors of the church in regards to the gifts of the Holy Spirit (most particularly ‘speaking intongues), and the same possibility exists in regards to the Lord’s Supper. From a denominationalstandpoint, the sacrament is open for such a wide variety of interpretation, and unfortunately itwould seem simpler (less messy) for the Lord’s Supper to be done away with as a whole. Butthat was not the intention of Paul in his writings found in 1 Corinthians – he wanted to inspirereform and renewal to

communion

and foster greater and deeper

community

within the church of

John Fehlen 3Jesus Christ. He was contending that the

mess

become a

meal

again. This essay will contend for the same thing by exploring the connection between the Lord’s Supper and the ancient LoveFeast. Over time even the best of traditions, habits or rituals can get stale and lifeless,desperately in need of an infusion of new passion and purpose. Often the best source of renewalcan be discovered in that which gave the tradition life and vitality in the first place. In theordinance of the Lord’s Supper it is the conviction that vitality can be found in the Love Feast.

History Of The Happy Meal

At the center of the debate regarding the Lord’s Supper is the relationship it may have hadto the Passover. There is absolutely no consensus on this matter. Much of the confusion involvesdifferences in the synoptic gospel accounts to that of the Fourth Gospel. The Johannine account placed the Last Supper ‘before the feast of the Passover (John 13:1, 2, 21-30) whereas thesynoptic gospel writers claim it grew out of the Passover Meal. There are a number of potentialrectifying explanations of which this essay will not enumerate however.The appropriate focus is upon the meal itself not discrepancies regarding the timing of themeal. As an example, a family will tend to eat supper around the ‘dinner hour’ – that could be at5 pm, 7 pm or perhaps later depending upon circumstances. Yet it is still supper. WilliamBarclay asserts that ‘the Passover meal not only consisted of ceremonial steps (bitter herbs, small pieces of bread shared) but also of a proper meal – one of hungry men, in that no food was to beeaten after the sacrifice of the lamb in the temple until the Passover meal itself.”

It was a mealof remembrance and celebration for the handiwork of the Lord in taking the children of Israel outof bondage in Egypt. Even church reformer Huldrych Zwingli (1484-1531) would often equatethe Passover with the Eucharist.