The Lord's Supper: a study guide for African Independent Churches

Introduction The practice of the Lord's Supper is one of the central rituals of the Christian church around the world. It is celebrated under various names (Lord's Supper, Communion, Eucharist, Mass) in countless languages and dialects in nearly every country on earth. It has been a source of both unity and division in the larger church, as various churches and traditions ascribe meaning and regulations to the practice. This study will make no attempt to give the single "right answer" to the questions surrounding the understanding and practice of communion. If anything, it will question the existence of a single "right answer", by showing the variety of right answers found in the New Testament. My assumption is that any answer found in the New Testament is a right answer, even as it diverges from other answers found in other parts of the same New Testament. The specific context of this study is the African Independent Churches (AIC's). These churches form both the intended audience and the specific context of the writing of this study. In the year we have been in Ghana, my wife and I have had the opportunity to participate in a number of communion celebrations in a variety of churches. Most of my experiences have been in the weekly communion service at the seminary where I teach. Good News Theological College and Seminary is dedicated to training pastors for the AIC's. It is in this context that I teach and learn, as part of a seminary community. Because the AIC's are independent, each church can potentially have its own understanding and prescriptions for the practice of communion. Because the AIC's are often large (with hundreds or thousands of branches), these prescriptions can affect many communities. This study is offered as a study of the Bible's teachings on communion, hoping that it can aid a variety of churches in examining their practices and celebrating communion faithfully. While this study is written for AIC churches, it will be influenced by my background as a member and pastor in the Mennonite Church in North America. The focus will be on scripture, but the presentation will be inevitably affected by my own traditions. There is no single Mennonite understanding or practice of communion. The various Mennonite churches teach and perform communion from a variety of perspectives. There are, however, a few characteristics and commitments in the Mennonite church that continue to guide my thinking. Fortunately many of these are also true in the AIC churches, so I often find myself at home in churches here and in discussions among seminary students. Any tradition should be subject to critical examination in light of scripture. The first commitment is to community. I believe that the call to be a follower of Jesus is a call to be part of a local community of believers. This, of course, is an important aspect of communion as well. We eat and drink together. We live and love and serve together. We fall down and get back up together. We are important to one another, for one of our central commandments is to love one another. While the Mennonite church has a variety of traditions, we also claim a commitment to the priority of scripture over tradition. Any tradition is subject to critical examination in light of scripture. This does not mean that every practice of the church must be detailed in scripture. For example, we usually have an announcement time as part of our worship, even though God never instructs us to have such a practice. The key is that God also does not prohibit this practice and we as a church finds it useful as we perform the other tasks God has given us. So too in communion, we all do things beyond what is commanded in scripture (e.g. covering the bread with a cloth before it is used in the service), and our practice is always open to re-examination in light of scripture. I offer this study in a spirit of humility. I will make no pronouncements about what you must or cannot do during communion. I am offering an opportunity for you and your church to examine what communion means in the context of Africa. I will provide some background to the various passages we will be studying. Your task is to provide the African context. You know best what might or might not work in your church. I also offer this in a spirit of joy and honest inquiry. If the church in Africa is going to be a truly African church, it should be free to examine received tradition in the light of scripture and also local customs and culture. This is especially true because the church came to Africa laden with American and European ideas and traditions. Some of these traditions may be worth preserving, but Africans must feel free to become the body of Christ in Africa, rather than trying to be a copy of the body of Christ in England or the United States. Chapter 1 - Paul Scripture text: 1 Corinthians 11:17-29 1Cor. 11:17   Now in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. 18 For, to begin with, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and to some extent I believe it. 19 Indeed, there have to be factions among you, for only so will it become clear who among you are genuine. 20 When you come together, it is not really to eat the Lord’s supper. 21 For when the time comes to eat, each of you goes ahead with your own supper, and one goes hungry and another becomes drunk. 22 What! Do you not have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you show contempt for the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What should I say to you? Should I commend you? In this matter I do not commend you! We want to begin with what is probably the earliest description of communion. Paul likely wrote 1 Corinthians before any of the gospels were written, so he is passing down something he probably heard from the original disciples on one of his journeys to Jerusalem. Paul does not actually describe a communion service in the church, but we can infer much from what he says. Mostly we can know what an early communion service looked like because of all the mistakes that the church in Corinth was making. Paul talks a lot about what they were doing wrong. This can help us understand what he thought a service should be like. The first problem Paul has with the church in Corinth is disunity. He begins this passage by stating the focus of the church service: coming together (v. 17). He then contrasts this with divisions (v. 18) and factions (v. 19). For Paul, a church is a community, not just a bunch of people who happen to worship at same place and same time. In the next chapter of 1 Corinthians, he calls the church the body of Christ. For Paul, unity is not just an interesting idea, but the key to actually being a church. When he describes the coming together of the church, he says that "it is not really to eat the Lord's supper" (v. 20). This implies that Paul believes that the Lord's supper is celebrated every time the church comes together. He is not commanding this, but appears to be assuming it. Part of the purpose and meaning of the Lord's supper is to create and celebrate unity. For Paul, then, part of the purpose and meaning of the Lord's supper is to create and celebrate this unity. In many cultures, eating and drinking together is central to the unity of a group. Whether it is the daily meal of the family or the large festivals of a tribe or nation, eating together can create a bond between people. This would have been especially important in the early church, where people from various groups and families gathered together. They had little in common but their faith in Jesus. Eating together was an important way for them to create bonds of friendship and love. We can see this as we study the next few verses. Look at the way he phrases verse 20. "When you come together... it is not really for the Lord's supper." What is the church doing wrong? They are coming together, and the following verses suggest that they are celebrating the Lord's supper. The problem is the way they are doing it. The description of what they are doing wrong in verse 21 also helps us see what they are doing and 1Cor. 11:23   For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. 27   Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves. what Paul expects. In verse 21, Paul lists two connected problems. The first is that they are not waiting for one another. This is what is implied in "each of you goes ahead with your own supper." What this also means is that the church in Corinth celebrated the Lord's supper as an actual supper. They did not celebrate with a tiny wafer and sip of juice. They were eating a meal. Notice that Paul does not condemn this practice. In fact, he simply moves on without comment. Apparently he has taught them that celebrating the Lord's supper involves eating a meal together. But there is a right way and a wrong way to eat together. It is how they eat their meals that is the problem. The second associated problem is that they do not have equal amounts of food. Some do not have enough, while others have too much ("one goes hungry, while another becomes drunk"). Again, the assumption is that they are eating a meal, and that all should have enough. The instructions that follow (11:23-26) are instructions for a meal. It appears that at some point before or during the meal, someone spoke the words over the bread ("this is my body..."), and after the meal ("after supper", v.25), someone also spoke words over the cup of wine. It was proclaimed over the bread and wine, the basic ingredients to most supper meals in the Mediterranean region at that time. The cup also highlights the unity of the church. Paul does not talk about blood for the forgiveness of sins, but the cup is "the new covenant in my blood" (11:25). The term covenant points to the new relationship between God and the people of God as a group. The new covenant is not between God and an individual, but creates a new people of God. The cup is shared as a sign of this covenant which is created by the blood of Jesus. In 11:27-34, Paul continues the discussion about the meal that they share together. He is concerned that they are eating in an "unworthy manner" (v. 27). He does not go into detail about what he means by this, so it is likely connected to the issue of divisions and not eating together (11:17-22). This is reinforced by his restatement of the solution in v. 33, "wait for one another", and his suggestion about what to do if you don't think you can wait ("eat at home", v. 34). The other instruction Paul gives is in 11:28, "examine yourselves." This is something that is to precede the meal. It is something that each believer is to do for himself or herself. It is not for others to judge whether a person is ready or deserving. It is the Lord who judges (11:32). Summary From this study, we can conclude three things about the Lord's supper as practiced in the church in Corinth and Paul's expectations for his churches. First, we can see that the Lord's supper was a meal that the church was to eat together. It was more than an ordinary meal but also not less than a meal. We know very little about mealtimes in ordinary households in Corinth. We do know something about how the rich ate together, but the church was not an exclusive gathering of the wealthy. This means that we do not have an exact pattern to follow in how we eat together. It also means, however, that Paul expects Christians to eat together, a real meal, as the celebration of the Lord's supper. He does not command this so much as he assumes it. Of course, he implies, everyone knows that the Lord's supper is a meal. He did not need to command what they were already doing. He just needed to correct what they were doing wrong (11:17). In my church, we have communion once a month. It is a fairly typical service of a small piece of bread and a tiny cup of grape juice, served during a worship service. After the worship service is over, we often eat a meal together. I have tried to explain to the church that our meals together are our true communion service, much more in line with the early church practice than our formal communion service. We could use Jesus's words ("this is my body...") as the blessing on the meal, and his words over the cup after the meal. I have yet to convince them of this. Yet it is our meal after the service that strengthens us as a church. The church is created and renewed in the interaction before, during and after the meal. Standing around, cooking, talking and cleaning up are actions that can take a bunch of individuals and turn them into the body of Christ. Jesus used bread and wine for the first celebration. These were the common elements of most meals in his culture. What are the most common elements of meals in your culture? The second thing we can conclude is that the elements of the meal were the ordinary elements of supper in that place and time. There was nothing foreign or special about the ingredients. The point of the meal was to eat together and to "proclaim the Lord's death until he comes" (11:26). The other side of this is that, when we use ordinary ingredients, we are sanctifying the ordinary. We think of the communion wafers and cups as somehow holy, especially set apart for God. What would happen if we used ordinary food and utensils? We might argue that it would profane the Lord's supper. Or we might also argue that we would be seeing the sacred in all our meals. We might start to proclaim the Lord's death "as often as you drink" (11:25), as we are instructed to do. This means that we do not need to use holy wafers and tiny communion glasses to celebrate our true communion with Jesus and with one another. Jesus took bread because that was what what there was. Paul's church in Corinth used a "loaf of bread" (1 Cor 11:23) because that was what they were eating. What, then, are the most basic ingredients for a meal in your context? When we came to Ghana, one of the first things we learned is that Ghanaians eat soup. If a church in Ghana began to use fufu and light soup (or any favorite food) for communion, might the church members start to see all soup as a gift from God and dedicate themselves daily to "proclaim the Lord's death"? From various paintings and traditions, we know that churches used ordinary bread for communion for the first 900 years. They only started using the white wafers after that time. Yes, this would certainly be unorthodox. On the other hand, we have seen that the traditions passed on to the African church from the Western churches are not a reflection of a biblical practice. Does our orthodoxy arise from the white Western church traditions or from the instructions and expectation of the Bible? There are other potential benefits to using fufu and soup. Pounding fufu could be used as symbol of the unity of the church. Making soup together could do the same. Getting men involved in "women's work" might also serve as a way of questioning traditional male/female roles in a church where we are supposed to be "one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:28). The same could be true of the process of cleaning up after the meal. If this is too awkward, what about meat pies and water? The basic ingredients of a simple meal should not be difficult or expensive to obtain or serve. Each local tradition likely has a simple meal that can be served to a large group. The third thing we learned in our study is the importance of preparation. This aspect of the Lord's supper means that we need to be ready, to get ready. It is not just our hearts that need to be ready, but our relationship to each other. I cannot take communion with you if you and I are not truly in communion with each other. We cannot celebrate the body of Christ if we are also disrespecting the body of Christ by our actions toward each other. These ideas are all basic to Paul's presentation of the Lord's supper. The main question for Paul is not "have you been baptized?" or "do you have unforgiven sin?" but rather "are you in good relationship with your brothers and sisters in Christ?" Of course, visitors must also be welcomed to the meal, just as you would invite visitors to eat with your family if they were at your house. The invitation to guests and visitors is part of being the body of Christ together. Paul would assume a church that is constantly inviting and gathering. Part of the purpose of the meal is to create the body of Christ as an ongoing process. Conclusion In the letter of Paul to the young church in Corinth, we see him correcting their practice in a central ritual of the church. He is expecting them to eat a meal together to celebrate their unity as the body of Christ. Instead they are eating individual meals, enacting their separation and individuality. He is certainly not imagining a wafer and sip of grape juice served from an altar. I am not suggesting that our current practice in the church is wrong or sinful. But a careful study of Paul's letter tells us that our current practice is quite different from what Paul expected to happen in his churches. There are few things about our current practice that are equivalent to what the church in Corinth was expected to do. We can certainly choose to be faithful to the traditions of our church. We cannot, however, proclaim that our current traditions are handed down from the earliest church, or that they arise directly from the Bible. No matter how we choose to celebrate the unity of the body of Christ in our communion services, what is central is that we do celebrate and enact this unity. If our services fail to do this, then they need to be re-examined. Hopefully we can accomplish what Jesus and Paul intended in this celebration. As part of a worship time, communion can form an important element. Sing, dance, worship, eat. Would that not be the perfect service?  Chapter 2 - John John 13:1   Now before the festival of the Passover, Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart from this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end. 2 The devil had already put it into the heart of Judas son of Simon Iscariot to betray him. And during supper 3 Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going to God, 4 got up from the table, took off his outer robe, and tied a towel around himself. 5 Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the towel that was tied around him. Scripture text: John 13:1-17 The gospel of John is an unlikely place to study the Lord's supper. This is because in John's gospel the last supper that Jesus held with his disciples before his death does not include the institution of a "Lord's supper." Or at least not the same kind of supper we usually celebrate. Yet in this gospel, Jesus clearly does institute a specific supper celebration. Instead of eating his body and drinking his blood, Jesus washes his disciple's feet, and strongly suggests that we do this for one another ("you ought to..." v. 14). In fact, the original Greek text of John is stronger than that. The word used there is better translated as obligated. "You are obligated to (must) wash one another's feet." This is further confirmed in the next verse. Jesus says that we are to do "just as I have done to you" (v. 15). This sounds very simple and straightforward. Jesus did it. We are to do the same thing for each other. Do we? Why not footwashing? Footwashing is practiced in a small number of churches in North America, but most do not. As I discuss this with my students, I find that the same is true in Ghana. Most of my students have never participated in a footwashing service, and most are not excited about the idea. In fact, there is a lot of resistance to the idea. From what we read in the New Testament, footwashing appears to be a fairly common practice in the Mediterranean world. From what we read in the New Testament, this appears to be a fairly common practice in the Mediterranean world. One of the great things about being in Ghana is that Ghanaian culture is much like the culture of the Bible. This is commonly said about cultures across Africa. You understand so much of the Bible because it is like your world. Most of it is already culturally appropriate. You have to do much less cultural translation than people in other parts of the world. In the case of footwashing, this is only partially true. In general, Ghanaians do not have their feet washed by others. From what we read in the New Testament, this appears to be a fairly common practice in the Mediterranean world. Luke 7:36-50 6 He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Lord, are you going to wash my feet?” 7 Jesus answered, “You do not know now what I am doing, but later you will understand.” 8 Peter said to him, “You will never wash my feet.” Jesus answered, “Unless I wash you, you have no share with me.” 9 Simon Peter said to him, “Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head!” 10 Jesus said to him, “One who has bathed does not need to wash, except for the feet, but is entirely clean. And you are clean, though not all of you.” 11 For he knew who was to betray him; for this reason he said, “Not all of you are clean.” John 13:12   After he had washed their feet, had put on his robe, and had returned to the table, he said to them, “Do you know what I have done to you? records the story of the woman who washed Jesus' feet with her tears and bathed them in ointment. John 12:1-8 tells a similar story although in a different context. In 1 Tim 5:10, a worthy widow is described as someone who "washed the saints' feet." While we do not know how common this practice was, it was clearly understood in the New Testament world as a way of honoring a special person. The same is not true in Ghana. I have been a guest in many homes and churches and no one has washed my feet. I have travelled with the president of a local seminary and no one washed his feet, either. So the specific practice of footwashing is not part of local culture. On the other hand, local culture shares with New Testament culture a strong interest in hierarchy. Who is boss, who is in charge, who is the master? These are important questions in African culture. This is true in Jesus’ world, too. People called him Lord, Master, Rabbi and all sorts of titles. Today my students will become pastors, but many of them want to be a Bishop, Apostle, Prophet or other title of more significance. These kinds of titles make one honored in society and in the church. In the act of washing his disciples' feet, Jesus, the true Son of God, shows us what it means to be a Lord in the church. It was a shocking event then. It would be a surprising event today. This is shown in Peter's reaction (v. 8) when he refuses to allow Jesus to wash his feet. Jesus is performing the task of a servant, rather than the task of a Lord. If washing someone's feet today would cause a similar reaction, then it is fulfilling its role. In the act of washing his disciples' feet, Jesus, the true Son of God, shows us what it means to be a Lord in the church. In some ways, footwashing is the opposite of communion. As we practice it today, communion is a leader giving to/sharing with followers. It is an action that maintains and reinforces hierarchy. The leader has something the people wants, and things are passed from higher to lower. The power of the leader is shown in the ritual acts that only the leader can perform. It shows the power and special authority of the pastor. Footwashing reverses hierarchy. The people may not want their feet washed. The leader washes them anyway, or does something similar as an act of service and humility. The leader is on his knees looking up at the people, rather than standing on the platform looking down at them. Further, this is an act that does not require special leadership at all. We are commanded to wash one another's feet (13:14). This is a symbolic act that we can all participate in. (Of course, in the New Testament the same is true for leading a communion service, but we will deal with that later.) I can wash your feet, or you can wash mine. The point is that we do this for one another, rather than the servant doing it for the master. 13 You call me Teacher and Lord—and you are right, for that is what I am. 14 So if I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. 15 For I have set you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you. 16 Very truly, I tell you, servants are not greater than their master, nor are messengers greater than the one who sent them. 17 If you know these things, you are blessed if you do them. The ultimate symbol of this kind of leadership is the cross. The central message of Easter is that he died for us. Usually in this world, it is the followers who die for the leader. A commander gives the order, and soldiers kill and die. Jesus, in the footwashing and in his death, is showing us how it is done in the kingdom of God. His leadership is shown by his willingness to be humiliated instead of us. Obedience to the command to wash feet is a sign of our willingness as leaders to also be followers of Jesus. Jesus emphasizes this in 13:16. "Amen, amen" means "pay attention, this is important." A servant (that’s us) is not greater than the master (Jesus), and one who is sent (the Greek word is apostolos) is not greater than the one who sends. We can refuse to wash feet only if we claim a status higher than Jesus. So if we are not willing to wash the feet of our church members, we are not followers of Jesus. Of course, it is certainly possible to substitute a culturally appropriate action. But it must also be a culturally equivalent action. It must be servant's work, and it must involve direct service to the people of our church. It should involve our willingness to be beneath them, looking up rather than down. Ideally it should involve touching them because there is no substitute for human contact. One suggestion for an African alternative to footwashing is to have the pastor sweep the chapel before communion. It would need to be done at a time when people would notice, without being an obvious act of drawing attention to oneself. Seeing the pastor do "servant's work" would provide a symbol for the role of service that all followers of Jesus are to perform (not just the women). We cannot substitute a sermon for a symbol. Standing in a place of honor (on a podium behind a pulpit) while talking about humility cannot replace an actual act of humility. When we preach about humility, our words say one thing and our actions say another. Our words say "humility" and our actions say "honoured person." Jesus does not appear to have said anything before he washed his disciples' feet. He just took a towel and washed feet. The lesson is in the action. The explanation follows but cannot substitute for the action. If you cannot think of something equivalent, you can always wash feet. Chapter 3 - Luke Luke 22:14   When the hour came, he took his place at the table, and the apostles with him. 15 He said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; 16 for I tell you, I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” 17 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves; 18 for I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 20 And he did the same with the cup after supper, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. Scripture text: Luke 22:14-23 In this text, there is something very surprising. Did you notice it? Read it again. What is very different about this account of the Lord's supper? Answer: there are two cups. 22:17 records Jesus blessing and sharing a cup (before the bread!). 22:19 has Jesus sharing bread. Then, in 22:20, Luke records a second cup shared with the disciples. Historically this is not a problem. While we do not know exactly how the passover meal was celebrated in Jerusalem at this time, current Jewish tradition includes four cups of wine as part of the ritual. It is quite possible that Jesus followed a similar tradition at this supper, so the two cups Luke records are only half of the wine ritually consumed at the meal. Nonetheless, it is odd to think about two cups as part of the communion service. Have you ever participated in a communion service that used this tradition? Or have you ever participated in a communion where the cup was served first? Why did Luke write his story this way? We do not know for sure, but here is one possibility. Luke introduces his gospel by noting that many others have written down the events of Jesus' life (1:1). He will do likewise, after carefully investigating the other gospels (1:3). So we must begin by imagining Luke sitting down to write his gospel surrounded by the writings of others. As he is doing this, he must constantly choose between various accounts of the same event. Have you ever participated in a communion where the cup was served first? It may be that he has two different accounts of the last supper. One account has the cup first, then the bread. The other account has bread first, then the cup. In this case, instead of choosing one, Luke decides to include them both. This is speculation, but it makes use of the little evidence we have. We have no accounts today that have a single cup before the bread, but we also do not have all of the "many" accounts that Luke says he was working with. What we do have is five different accounts of the last supper (4 gospels and 1 Corinthians), only one of which has two cups of wine. The first cup as recorded in Luke also completes Jesus' thought about this being his last (Passover) supper. He has just prophesied that he will not again eat the Passover "until it is 21 But see, the one who betrays me is with me, and his hand is on the table. 22 For the Son of Man is going as it has been determined, but woe to that one by whom he is betrayed!” 23 Then they began to ask one another, which one of them it could be who would do this. fulfilled in the kingdom of God” (22:16). So the cup is in remembrance of the prophecy that "I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes" (22:18). In this way, the cup looks beyond the immediate future of Jesus' death toward the still-coming kingdom of God. This wine remains wine. It does not become anything. We drink and remember the coming kingdom. In drinking, we join the long line of people, now stretching back almost 2000 years, who have waited for the kingdom to come fully among us. So this cup looks back (to Jesus) and looks forward (to the kingdom), which is, of course, how we live all of our lives as disciples of Jesus. The bread and the second cup are more firmly about remembering Jesus' death. The wording here is more familiar, and is mostly in line with Paul and the first two Gospels. The wording is vague here, open to a variety of interpretations. The bread/body is "given for you" (22:19), the cup is "the new covenant in my blood" (22:20). Perhaps the most striking thing about these words is the lack of connection to the forgiveness of sins. This is typical of Luke's gospel and Acts. The writings of Luke never connect Jesus' death with the forgiveness of sins. In Luke, Jesus comes and offers forgiveness. He does this by coming, not by dying (see Luke 5:20-23 or 6:37). The lesson here is relatively simple: different gospels, different sermons. All the gospels agree that Jesus came proclaiming the forgiveness of sins. Each of them understands this forgiveness slightly differently. In addition, Paul has his own way of understanding the work of Jesus. Yet each of these perspectives is found in the New Testament. Different gospels, different sermons. Sometimes we want to believe that the early church was a group gathering in peace and harmony, with a common understanding of the good news. Yet a closer look at the New Testament tells us that this isn't a realistic picture, not even at the beginning. This diversity is captured inside the New Testament. This means that the diversity in the modern church is a reality as old as the church itself. Some small part of the church either had two cups at the Lord's supper, or it had a single cup before the bread. Some churches said the words of institution one way; others said it another. Remember that John's church washed feet instead. Some churches celebrate the Mass with incense and golden plates for the Host. Other churches celebrate Eucharist with robed pastors and a clay chalice. Still other churches celebrate communion with plain bread and wine. This diversity is as old as Luke's gospel. It has always been there. When God inspired the people who wrote the New Testament, God allowed this diversity to be reflected in scripture. If we all celebrated the Lord's supper in the same way, we would be dishonouring the God who inspired our different gospels "Who is right?" is not the correct question. Part of the celebration is the celebration of diversity. This also means that there is room for specifically African forms of the Lord's supper. If you merely copied a Western form, you would be missing the point of the gospels. The New Testament celebrates the diversity of forms and practices in the early church, within certain limits. This also gives us further permission to consider local alternatives so long as they do not dishonour the Lord of the supper. Perhaps polo and palm wine would help people remember that Jesus is Lord also in Africa. The limits of "acceptable practice" is, of course, a difficult discussion. Who gets to decide? Whose tradition do we follow? What are the limits of diversity? When does something stop being truly Christian? This is an even more difficult discussion in an African Independent Church, since many people are already suspicious of AIC's and their non-traditional practices. But the church must be a place where we can openly talk about these things. And the communion table is where we demonstrate that, after the discussion, we are still brothers and sisters in Christ, children of God. We wait together for the coming kingdom. We wait together until all is accomplished in the kingdom of God. Chapter 4 - Mark Mark 2:23   One sabbath he was going through the grainfields; and as they made their way his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. 24 The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the sabbath?” 25 And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need of food? 26 He entered the house of God, when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and he gave some to his companions.” 27 Then he said to them, “The sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the sabbath; 28 so the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath.” Scripture texts: Mark 2:23-28 and Mark 6:7-12 In our previous chapters, we first carefully read the account of the communion service in the church in Corinth, and suggested that communion in Africa might be celebrated as an ordinary meal, perhaps with fufu and light soup. The study of the gospel of John thought about footwashing as equally important to the Lord's supper, possibly more important as a symbol of the kind of leadership needed in the church. The study of Luke's gospel showed that the meaning and practice of the Lord's supper is beyond our control. It was diverse from the beginning, and this diversity is celebrated in the New Testament. In all of this, we have been moving toward the idea that communion has become too domesticated. We've made it fit us, rather than being transformed by it. It has become our carefully controlled table, rather than Jesus' table that was open even to his betrayer. In this chapter, we want to focus on the gospel of Mark. But instead of wondering about his specific wording for the Lord's supper, we want to look more broadly at what he has to say about bread. Perhaps this broader perspective will help us understand one particular meal in greater detail. Mark first mentions bread in 2:23-28, which talks about a transgression of Sabbath rules. Jesus and his disciples are walking through a grain field, and his disciples break off heads of grain and begin eating them. In doing this, they are breaking Sabbath rules. Breaking off heads of grain is equivalent to harvesting, which is a violation of the commandment not to work on the Sabbath. .Eating is more important than religious rules. In their defense, Jesus points to an incident where David breaks the rules of the law by eating bread reserved for the priests (1 Samuel 21:4). Jesus points out that there is someone more important than David, and something more important than just religion. Following Jesus is more important than following the Law, and eating is more important than religion. This is an often-overlooked aspect of our faith. It is also one of Jesus' more controversial pronouncements. Eating is more important than religious rules. The Lord's supper, which, as we have seen, was initially a complete meal, is an important symbol of our commitment feed the hungry. This means that, if you are having communion in your church and you know there are hungry people in the neighborhood, Mark 6:7-12 7 He called the twelve and began to send them out two by two, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits. 8 He ordered them to take nothing for their journey except a staff; no bread, no bag, no money in their belts; 9 but to wear sandals and not to put on two tunics. 10 He said to them, “Wherever you enter a house, stay there until you leave the place. 11 If any place will not welcome you and they refuse to hear you, as you leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet as a testimony against them.” 12 So they went out and proclaimed that all should repent. stop. Leave the symbolic bread and wine on the table, go buy real bread and clean water, and give them to the hungry. This is bread truly given in remembrance of Jesus. This is what David did. This is what Jesus did as he fed the multitudes. First he fed the 5000 (Mark 6), representing the Jewish people. Then later he fed the 4000 (Mark 8), representing the Gentiles. Jesus cared about people's stomachs and the Lord's supper was part of this. Another place Mark's gospel mentions bread is in 6:7-12. This is the story of Jesus sending out the twelve. This gives us a picture of what it means to go out in Jesus' name. Jesus commands the disciples to travel without bread (6:8). They arrived in the villages without bread to share, and also without staff or bag or money, but only with the clothes on their back and sandals on their feet. In effect, they arrived as beggars - beggars bearing good news. They had no TV cameras, projection screens or fancy sound systems. They did not even have special clothing to set them apart as religious officials. Students sometimes ask me, "How will people know I'm a pastor if I don't wear my collar?" The answer, according to this passage, is that they're not supposed to. We, all of us, are called as servants of Christ. How can you tell that someone is a servant? It is certainly not by their special clothing or their fancy car. Jesus used ordinary bread and ordinary wine as a symbol of who he was. Why do we pretend we are greater than our Lord? Jesus is the one we are remembering in communion. Jesus never officiated at a church service in his life. He probably never held a gold cup or a silver bowl. This is the Jesus who scorned the company of the good and the religious. This is the Jesus who wanted us to know, who wanted us to see that following God means following toward the cross. He used ordinary bread and ordinary wine as a symbol of who he was. Why do we wish to pretend we are greater than our Lord? This understanding should affect how we officiate at the Lord's table. The Lord's supper must be done properly, but properly by the standards of our Lord and Savior, not properly by the standards of the institutional church. And certainly not by the standards of white people. When we celebrate the Lord's supper, as pastors we dare not pretend we are the lords of this supper. At best we are servants and we need to act like servants. Chapter 5 - Matthew Matt. 26:20   When it was evening, he took his place with the twelve; 21 and while they were eating, he said, “Truly I tell you, one of you will betray me.” 22 And they became greatly distressed and began to say to him one after another, “Surely not I, Lord?” 23 He answered, “The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me. 24 The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that one by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that one not to have been born.” 25 Judas, who betrayed him, said, “Surely not I, Rabbi?” He replied, “You have said so.” Scripture text: Matthew 26:20-29 In this study, we have been studying the various ways the Bible talks about the Lord's supper. Hopefully you have noticed that each account is more than a simple description of an event. This is because each gospel is a presentation of the good news of Jesus. So each gospel is a sermon. We have been trying to hear the sermon in each gospel by reading the various accounts separately and carefully. Matthew, too, has his own sermon. He wants us to understand and accept the truth hidden in his story. While the basic description is the same, Matthew's sermon becomes clear as we look at the details. Inclusion In Matthew's account, the Lord's supper (26:26-29) is after the prediction of Judas' denial (26:20-25). Jesus (and the rest of the disciples?) already know who is going to betray Jesus, although only he really knows what this means. Yet Judas is included in the Lord's Supper. Does this say something about who is welcome at the table? If Judas is welcome at the table, who could possibly be less worthy? Jesus knows what Judas is about to do. Judas is planning to betray Jesus and is not repentant at this time. Yet Jesus includes him in the communion service. Jesus gives no commands about who can or cannot be part of his supper. Instead, he shows us his willingness to dine with anyone, including the one who will betray him. If Judas is welcome at the table, who could possibly be less worthy? Another way to think about this question is to study Jesus' general eating habits. What kind of people did Jesus eat with? What kinds of people did he refuse to eat with? If, as we have seen, the Lord's supper in the early church was an extension of a normal fellowship meal for the gathering, what kind of people would Jesus have invited to the meal? Here the gospels are very clear. Jesus ate with everybody. He ate with Pharisees and tax collectors and sinners and prostitutes and disciples. I cannot think of any gospel stories of Jesus refusing to eat with someone. Another illustration of Jesus' practice is the parable in Luke 14:15-24. The context of the story is specifically a meal. Jesus is eating at the home of a leader of the Pharisees (14:1). Jesus has already made some comments about the type of people who should be invited to a meal Matt. 26:26   While they were eating, Jesus took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” 27 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will never again drink of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” (14:12-14), and recommends that we "invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind." In the parable that follows, Jesus talks about a banquet where the host not only invites the outcasts, but forces them to come. Can you imagine being hungry, unwelcome and unwanted, and someone forces you to come to a banquet? In response to this, maybe the question is not, Who should be allowed to eat? The correct question is, How many people can we offer this to? To put it another way, the question is not, Who is worthy? The better question is, How many unworthy people can we include? Many churches in Africa disqualify some people to eat with Jesus. Western mission-founded churches in Africa began disqualifying polygamists and women who are second wives, third wives, etc. Many other churches have followed suit. Instead of allowing the people to examine themselves, some churches state in their Constitutions that if you are this or that, you cannot participate in the Lord’s table. Yet such churches allow gossipers, liars, thieves, etc. to eat with the Lord. This is unfair. Does this mean we should go out to the roadside and offer the Lord's supper to people passing by? No, instead we should drag them into church and feed them and then tell them about the love of Jesus. Most of our churches are in parts of the country where we would not need to go far to find people who would really appreciate a good meal. We would not have to work hard to find the poor, crippled and lame. They are out there waiting. This is the table prepared by Jesus. We are invited not as guests but as his brothers and sisters. It is not our table, so it is not up to us to say who belongs and who doesn't. Someday Jesus will decide who is unworthy. Let's pray it is not us. Simplicity It is more important to do this than it is to do it "right." The way Matthew tells the story, the ritual itself is very simple. There are no elaborate preparations or special foods or utensils. A literal translation of the original Greek is "took bread, and, having blessed, broke and gave to his disciples" (26:26). The simplicity of the description leaves it open to a wide variety of interpretive re-creations. With such a simple instruction, we could use almost any form of bread, any blessing, and a wide variety of rituals that repeat the event. It does not need to be in church. It can be done any time that people gather for a meal, even if it is just rice and peppe in the home. Matthew does not seem to care how we perform these various actions. It is more important to do this than it is to do it "right." Today the Lord's supper is enacted by priests and bishops and popes wearing flowing robes and fancy hats and ornate jewelry. The Lord's supper is also enacted by ordinary people wearing ordinary clothing and no jewelry at all. The Lord's supper is performed in ornate churches and cathedrals, with gold vessels and elaborate rituals. The Lord's supper is also performed in sick rooms and beside hospital beds and in homes and caves, with bread and wine served on wooden plates and in cracked cups. Matthew's simple description says a clear "yes" to all of these practices. As the supper of our Lord, we want to do this right. It is certainly good that we desire to follow Jesus' commands carefully and seriously. Yet if we follow Matthew's description, we see that there is almost no way to do it wrong. Bread (or any basic food). Blessed. Broken. Given. The rest is just details and our own traditions. They are neither right nor wrong. Jesus' words over bread are equally simple – "Take, eat, this is my body" (26: 26). Matthew likely borrowed this wording from Mark, and made no changes. Whatever theological complexity we wish to add to these words are not Matthew's concern. He records Jesus' simple words, leaving it to others to create complex systems of meaning. Each layer of interpretation we add to these words eliminates possibilities. If we say these words mean one thing, we are also saying that they do not mean another thing. Matthew does not direct us toward one particular interpretation, neither does he eliminate alternatives. Matthew seems to invite us all to the table, regardless of our theological traditions. Come and eat. Bring your theology or leave it behind. This is the body of Jesus. The same can mostly be said of Matthew's description of the cup. The actions are simple and open to a variety of re-creation. The words over the cup are again directly from Mark, except for one small phrase. In 26:28, Matthew includes the phrase "for the forgiveness of sins." Matthew wants to make sure we understand. He wants the connection between the blood of Jesus and the forgiveness of sins to be clear. Mark probably also believed this, but is less clear. He may simply have assumed that we know this, but in any case he is not explicit. Luke, on the other hand, doesn't appear to believe this. As we saw in the earlier chapter, Luke does not connect the death of Jesus with forgiveness. Since this is the only phrase that Matthew adds to Mark's account, we must assume it is important to him. In accepting this cup, we are accepting that our sins are forgiven. For many people, this is the central meaning of the death of Jesus. Jesus shed his blood for our sins. In fact, for many people, this is the central meaning of the whole of Jesus' birth, life and death. Yet it is only found in one of the accounts of the Lord's supper. We might say that it is implied in others' accounts, but that is different from saying it directly. This diversity, in such an important text in the gospels, suggests that there are other ways of understanding the death of Jesus, which also need to be explored. But for now, in Matthew, the clear connection between blood of Jesus and forgiveness of sins is obvious. This means that, in accepting this cup, we are accepting that our sins are forgiven. It has already happened. The cup does not bring forgiveness. It is just a reminder. Jesus does not say, "Drink this so that your sins can be forgiven." The forgiveness is not just offered but is already performed. I hesitate to say more than this. About these words, millions more words have been written and spoken. Books, sermons, catechisms, instructions, manuals, theories, ideas. By comparison, Matthew is startlingly simple. These words are a combination of simplicity and mystery. Take and eat. The words about the bread are very simple. The words about the cup are more complex, yet also mysterious. Matthew prefers to retain the mystery. He points to the mystery, rather than trying to solve it. More words will not fill our hunger. The bread is to do that. Theology will not quench our thirst. Only the wine can do that. Matthew wants us to know that we are forgiven. As we approach the table of our Lord, we encounter simplicity and mystery. Potentially there are any number of options for how to do this "right." Matthew's simple words encourage bravery. Find something that fits your local situation, something that makes sense to you, and do it that way. Conclusion In our celebration of the Lord's supper, we encounter both the continuity of ritual and the ongoing mystery of a connection to the God who is beyond knowing. The regularity of the ritual reminds us of many things. It reminds us that God is faithful. It reminds us of the rhythms of life – day and night, sun and moon, sunshine and rain, birth and death. Rituals assure us that some things in life are stable, that they can be counted on no matter what else is happening. This aspect of ritual means that ritual change must happen slowly. If we do something differently every time, it is not a ritual. In any ritual change, there will always be people who will want to go back to the old ways, who value tradition for the sake of tradition. Even if they understand the purpose and need for the change, they value the connection that ritual has to the way things used to be. Ritual change must happen slowly. If we do something differently every time, it is not a ritual. The mystery of the Lord's supper is both in the action and in the words. We do not usually eat human bodies or drink human blood. The idea is disgusting. Further, many theological systems have been constructed to explain how Jesus' death can lead to forgiveness. The New Testament itself contains a number of different explanations. So we approach the Lord's table with imperfect understanding, remembering that God is always at work in ways we do not fully comprehend. We have seen that the New Testament contains five different records of the Lord's supper (if we count John's silence as another record). No two of them are exactly alike, either in the description or the words. This gives us a lot of freedom to adapt the ritual to our own situation. The early church celebrated in a variety of ways and so can we. In addition, we have seen that originally the Lord's supper was celebrated as a meal, with bread and wine as part of a larger sharing of food. I don't know of any church that still celebrates the Lord's supper in this way. We have made changes to the original ritual for a variety of reasons. This means that rituals can change. We are not stuck with one particular form unless we wish to be. Even the basics are open to reinterpretation. The basics are bread and wine, people and words. But even this are cultural. Jesus used bread and wine because those were the basics of meals in his culture. What is important about this meal is that the ordinary is hallowed. So use the basics of a meal in your culture and let them be the body and blood of our Lord. Hopefully this study has led you to think about these questions in new ways. You may decide that your current practices are best, or you may choose to make small or even large changes. Perhaps you have no authority to make any change, or no idea how changes happen in your church, and so are stuck with a ritual that does not fit your church very well. But I hope you will approach the Lord's supper with new understanding and a new appreciation for the beauty and profound nature of this simple act. Take and eat.