14_RETHINK MONTHLY

The dinner table is set. The food is hot and plentiful. Fam- ingly growing in number with those that were
being saved. New Christians, then and now,
ily and friends have gathered to enjoy not only the food will often bring with them many of their former
but also the warmth of fellowship, whereby affirming love habits, dysfunctions, and immoral behaviors.
and admiration for one another around the backdrop of Thus was the case at the Love Feasts in
Corinth.
a common meal. The setting is glorious and poised with
possibility, and yet unforeseen to the naked eye, lurks the Cleaning Up After Dinner
enemy to both food and fellowship: division. Throughout the first letter to the Corinthi-
ans, the Apostle Paul dealt aggressively with
Nothing can make a morsel taste more bland “before the feast of the Passover” (John 13:1, abuses, excess, and divisions. He was on
and cause fellowship to fall flatter than ani- 2, 21-30) whereas the synoptic gospel writers a corrective warpath in an effort to bring the
mosity and general disdain for one another. claim it grew out of the Passover Meal. church back to the truth of the Gospel, and
Unresolved issues, bitterness, neglect, and away from their Greco-Roman leanings. In
the like will often steal the joy from a gather- However, the appropriate focus should be no uncertain terms, he forbid them from par-
ing and leave the attendees with a gaping upon the meal itself and not discrepancies taking in their drinking parties at the pagan
void even though food was consumed. The regarding the timing of the meal. As an exam- temples. He argued, “You cannot drink the
situation was similar when the Apostle Paul ple, a family will tend to eat supper around the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too;
stuck his theological and pastoral nose into “dinner hour” –which could be from 5 pm to 7 you cannot have part in both the Lord’s table
the church of Corinth. What he found was a pm, or perhaps later depending upon circum- and the table of demons” (1 Cor. 10:21). The
group of people that were “coming together” stances. Yet, it is still supper. The Passover, Corinthian Christians were definitely a work in
but not truly “being together.” That condition regardless of when it was commemorated, progress, and understanding this reality helps
still largely exists within the church of today. was a meal of remembrance and celebration one grasp the nature of the abuses at their
Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:20, “When the for the handiwork of the Lord in taking the chil- Love Feasts that were “do[ing] more harm
church come[s] together, it is not the Lord’s dren of Israel out of bondage in Egypt. than good.”
Supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you
goes ahead without waiting for anybody else.” Whether or not the template for the Passover The term “Lord’s Supper” only occurs once
The words of Ben Witherington capture the meal was carried over into what would be in Scripture: 1 Corinthians 11:20. Notably,
scenario perfectly: “the meal had become a known as The Lord’s Supper (or Communion, the reference is sandwiched within a strong
mess.” or Eucharist) is unclear. What is apparent is rebuke from Paul. Thankfully, had there not
that the words and actions of Jesus at that fi- been a mess to clean up in Corinth, there
When there is a mess in the church, the ten- nal meal with his disciples (regardless of what would be considerably less to draw from for
dency is to eradicate the potential of future day it happened on) seems to follow the liturgy our understanding of the Lord’s Supper. It is
unsightliness, whereby avoiding subsequent of the Passover to some degree. Bread was possible that had there been no “disorder,”
messes altogether. This has been the case broken, drink was shared, and a commemo- then there might have never been a need
in many sectors of the church in regards to ration ensued, notably for that of the Passover for Paul’s rebuke and teaching. The primary
the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and the same pos- lamb that was slain so that mankind might live abuse at the Corinthian Love Feast involved
sibility exists in regards to the Lord’s Supper. eternally. This remembrance and celebration neglect of the poor, the slaves, the less for-
From a denominational standpoint, the sac- revolved around a common meal – a happy tunate, and those on the fringe of the com-
rament is open for such a wide variety of in- meal that clearly marked the early church. munity. Simply put, the “haves” had forgotten
terpretation, and unfortunately it would seem the “have-nots.” It is in this context that one
simpler (less messy) for the Lord’s Supper Breaking Of Bread of the most widely recognized passages of
to be done away with as a whole. But that The two men that walked with Jesus on the Scripture is introduced. 1 Corinthians 11:23
was not the intention of Paul in his writings road to Emmaus certainly got an eye full. begins with “For I received from the Lord
found in 1 Corinthians – he wanted to inspire Luke 24:30 writes that “[Jesus] was at the what I also passed onto you….” Many within
reform and renewal to communion and fos- table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, Christianity would have some point of rec-
ter greater and deeper community within the broke it, and began to give it to them. Then ognition with this passage. The Corinthian
church of Jesus Christ. He was contending their eyes were opened and they recognized church had been eating and drinking “with-
that the mess become a meal again. This him.” This post-resurrection encounter un- out recognizing the body of the Lord” (1 Cor.
can be accomplished by exploring the con- doubtedly reminded them of their final meal 11:29). The “body” in this verse is the church.
nection between the Lord’s Supper and the with the Messiah. This relational model of eat- Paul’s strong challenge to Corinth was to
ancient Love Feast. Over time, even the best ing and sharing together carried over to the honor the Body – Jesus’ church. The Lord’s
of traditions, habits, or rituals can get stale first church in the Book of Acts. The burgeon- Supper was originally intended to be a meal
and lifeless, desperately in need of an infu- ing church was committed to learning from that would de-stratify the hierarchy and invite
sion of new passion and purpose. Often the the apostles, to fellowship, to praying, and to equality among its participants. Remarkably,
best source of renewal can be discovered in the breaking of bread. As the church moved the Last Supper had a man named Judas
that which gave the tradition life and vitality in beyond Jerusalem, and the Jewish influence seated at the table with Jesus (not to mention
the first place. In the ordinance of the Lord’s was less of a dominant role in its develop- Peter who denied the Master and all the other
Supper, it is the conviction that vitality can be ment, it is possible that a combination of sorts disciples that ran after his arrest!). The Love
found in the Love Feast. took place with the annual Passover celebra- Feast was intentioned as a gathering point for
tion and the regular “breaking of bread.” Cor- all that would … “go out into the highways and
History Of The Happy Meal porate worship would happen not only in the hedges…come in so that my house may be
At the center of the debate regarding the temple but also in homes, therefore an exten- filled” such as referenced in Jesus’ parable
Lord’s Supper is the relationship it may have sion of ordinary early Jewish worship context in Luke 14:23. Over time, the Lord’s Supper
had to the Passover. There is absolutely no would be the Jewish meal, also known as the had gotten to be a mess that was character-
consensus on this matter. Much of the confu- Love Feast (Jude 12). Within this framework, ized by exclusion and a pecking order. Could
sion involves differences in the synoptic gos- the gathered congregation would often com- this be what Paul was imploring the Corinthi-
pel accounts to that of the Fourth Gospel. The memorate the communal Lord’s Supper. A ans to “examine” before eating and drinking?
Johannine account placed the Last Supper congregation, incidentally, that was increas- Had they stopped “recognizing the body of

RETHINKMONTHLY.COM_15
the Lord” and thereby grown weak and sick
within their fellowship?
Paul wanted to bring correction to their meal-
time, not eradication. He implored them to
wait for others and share with others. The
entire context of the familiar 1 Corinthians 11
passage is clearly about others. Communion
and Community.
Paul finished the rebuke in chapter 11 the
same way he began it, by asking the church
to wait for one another and share the meal
together. The Love Feast and the corre-
sponding Lord’s Supper were to be a point of
rejoicing for all and by all. Yes, it was messy.
But rather than do away with the meal entire-
ly because of the mess, Paul restored order,
direction, passion, and purpose. The same
cannot be said across the landscape of orga-
nized religion in the years to follow.
This Is My Body Packaged For You
In the years that followed Paul’s admonish-
ing words to Corinth, a progressive shift went
into motion. The meal became something
exclusive in which only the baptized could be
allowed to partake. Rules that simply do not
exist within Scripture would soon regulate
the meal. Soon the meal would not function
in its original form whatsoever. The Didache
(Teaching of the Twelve Apostles), dated
at the end of the 1st Century, declared that
the Lord’s Supper was for baptized Chris-
tians, particularly those who repented of their
sins. This document also regulated when
EASTER WEEKEND SERVICE TIMES
Saturday @ 5 & 7 pm • Sunday @ 9 am, 11 am & 1 pm
www.wsfc.org // 503.391.4346
the Lord’s Supper should take place and by
whom, specifically that it should be governed
by and prayed over by the cleric. By A.D. 110
Ignatius wrote, “It is not permitted either to
baptize or to hold a Love Feast without the
bishop, but whatever he approves is accept-
able to God, so that everything you do should
be secure and valid.” As the years elapsed,
so did the value and validity of the Love
Feast. By the 4th Century, at the Council of
Laodicea, the Love Feast was banned by the
church. This was reaffirmed at the Council
of Trullian in A.D. 692. In conjunction with
the abolition of the Love Feast, there was
a move towards reductionism in regards to
the Lord’s Supper. The elements (bread and
drink) would become more regulated, dis-
posable, and self-contained to the point that
Bishop Will Willimon humorously (yet per-
haps appropriately) asserts: “this is my body
packaged for you.” Certainly it is not difficult
to hear the tone of sarcasm in these com-
ments, and yet in Protestant circles there is a
propensity for the Lord’s Supper to become
stale, lifeless, and void of community – no
longer a meal – now a mess of another kind.
Perhaps the Apostle Paul’s words to Corinth
carry weight for the church yet today. Can
the meal be recovered? Can communion
and community be reconnected again?
What’s For Supper?
There was a time when Christianity was new,
and the relatively few Christians on the planet
could fit into a few homes and share every-
thing in common. Those days are gone. The
EMPTY?
There is a God-shaped void in the heart of
every person and often we try to fill it with
things that leave us dissatisfied, restless and
empty. Join us at West Salem Foursquare
Church to discover more about the only one
that can fill that space. His name is Jesus. He
died and rose again and his tomb is empty so
that your heart doesn't have to be.
tiny upstart rag-tag band in the Book of Acts
is now a full-fledged movement with 60-min-
ute services on multi-site campuses. How do
we reclaim the Love Feast in the McChurch
era? How does community become a central
part of communion again?
For some churches, that adjustment may be
minor. Perhaps they could give more focus to
the Lord’s Supper within the service instead
of it being an afterthought or addendum. Per-
haps small groups could become the epicen-
ter of community life in which there is “break-
ing of bread” in homes, and true fellowship
is shared within the context of communion.
For other congregations, the shift may need
to be more radical. If the worship has been
consistently lifeless and cold, and commu-
nity life is non-existent, then true reform may
be appropriate.
Could reform be paramount in today’s
church? Have we made a mess out of what
was supposed to be a meal? There are so
many practical implications to consider. Does
the church move back into homes? Should
a full meal be offered during every worship
service? Should smaller sanctuaries be built
to make room for larger fellowship halls?
The answers are not immediate, but what
remains is a desire for koinonia – that the
church may truly celebrate “until He comes.”
And when He does come again, all meals
will be superseded by the great messianic
banquet! Yet another Meal awaits us!
ACQUIRE
THE FIRE