Bread Broken, A People United
Acts 2:42-47
Rev. James Trade
You may have heard it said that you can believe anything and be a Disciple. Or you may have heard it said that Disciples don’t have a theology. You might have even heard members of the clergy say it. And the sad thing is that some even believe it. That’s the problem with being a free church and having a freedom of belief. When our founders expounded the slogan “No Creed but Christ, No Book but the Bible” many believed we had thrown out theology altogether. Yet they were simply trying to remove those things that could not be justified through scripture.
Our Disciples Home Missions Office of Evangelism has boiled down What Disciples Believe into a few brief statements. Although we risk over-simplification with the brevity of the list it is important to our understanding of who we are. The list begins with Communion, open to all. It continues with the Oneness of the Church, Freedom of Belief, Baptism by Immersion and the Ministry of Believers. It concludes by affirming that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the Living God, who offers saving grace to all who seek it through the Son.
It isn’t that this list is unique to Disciples, actually many traditions embrace part or all of these beliefs. It is how we understand these beliefs that make us unique. When we look at this list through Disciples’ eyes we begin to see that there is an element that is central to our faith, not just central to our worship. It’s the reason we use the Chalice as the symbol of the Disciples of Christ, the reason we place the table of communion in the center of our chancels. It’s the reason Colbert Cartwright, who wrote often about the history and practice of Disciple worship, titled one book “People of the Chalice,” why Don Nunnelly titled his pictorial history of Kentucky Disciple congregations “People of the Table,” and why Michael Kinnamon titled one book “A People Obsessed with Bread.” Dr. Robert Richardson, the earliest biographer of Alexander Campbell, wrote a book of communion meditations that he titled “Communings in the Sanctuary.”
Keith Watkins, our Disciple worship historian, has dedicated a half dozen books to the celebration of communion, the great thanksgiving, the breaking of bread. We have given several feet of bookshelf space to communion meditations, elder’s communion prayers, and our theology of communion. Our newest hymnal specifically attempted to include more hymns for communion than any hymnal before. In ecumenical circles we are known for celebrating the eucharist every week. You’d think with all of this we’d be experts on the subject. Yet in many of our churches we act as if our time around the table is something to get through as quickly as possible so we can get to the next part of the service. One of the pitfalls of celebrating communion on a weekly basis is that it often ceases to be a celebration and sometimes it isn’t even very communal.
So how did we get to where we are today? How did we become the people of the Chalice?
Many of our founders had come from the Presbyterian Church or the Church of Scotland. We honor this tradition with the cross of St. Andrew on the Chalice. Much of the strictures and doctrine of the church had been formed without scriptural basis but there was much to be learned from church tradition. Our founders were searching for those things that were necessary to live as the New Testament church. In the Presbyterian tradition there were great gatherings for communion. Most areas celebrated yearly or sometimes quarterly. Church members from surrounding communities would be invited to share in these gatherings. The crowds were often known to camp out, spend several days. The Scottish poet Robert Burns referred to these events as Holy Fairs. After being questioned and examined by the church elders the members would be given a token, usually made of lead, or sometimes wood. This token would allow them to be admitted to the communion service at a later date. Because of the size of these gatherings they were often held outdoors, with tables set up for the participants to sit for the meal. These tables were sometimes set in a starburst type pattern, with a central table where the elements were blessed and then dispersed to the rays. Others were set up in the shape of a cross, again with the center point being where the elements began. A minister would preach a stirring sermon, warning those who would partake that they should be right before God. The minister would then sit at the table with everyone else and receive the elements. In most cases a fence literally surrounded the communion service so no one deemed unworthy could sneak in.
It was said that just as many grains compacted together to form the one loaf of bread, so were the Christians united in communion into one body. First Corinthians, chapter ten, verse 17 was often used to confirm this, “For we, being many, are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.”
The early church left little evidence of how they worshipped. We know services usually occurred in the home and that many followed old patterns found in the synagogues. We also know that some form of communal meal was often a part of the gathering. Its not until the fourth century that we have some regular record of worship. As the tradition grew the communion meal became more and more separate from the rest of the service until it often was consumed, at least in part, by members of the clergy in the place of the laity. The protestant reformation helped to return the meal to the people.
However, despite the emphasis on the people consuming the meal together the rules placed on the Lord’s Supper by human beings served to divide more than they joined.
It would take a couple more centuries before several individuals would seek new frontiers in worship and practice in the church. The same pioneering spirit that brought many to the American frontier would lead to a new reformation. The Cane Ridge revival of 1801 was centered around the Presbyterian Sacramental Season. In scenes reminiscent of the Scottish Holy Fairs between 800 and 1100 Presbyterians shared in table fellowship that August.
While Alexander Campbell waited for a ship to take the family from Scotland to America he was examined and found worthy to receive communion. Yet after searching his heart he determined that fencing the table and excluding others from the meal were opposed to the true purpose of communion. He placed his token on the table and left, without partaking. It would mark the end of his time as a Presbyterian.
At about the same time his father, Thomas, was preaching to Presbyterian congregations in western Pennsylvania. He was presiding over the sacrament and realizing that there were very few ministers and fewer opportunities to take communion in this area, he offered the sacrament to Presbyterians of every type. His actions led to many hard feelings within the presbytery and a trial. He left the Presbyterian church.
Not surprisingly the tokens didn’t last long on the American frontier even in the Presbyterian church. In fact the unwieldy and inefficient practices of a yearly, five-day communion were replaced with more organized quarterly communions and the elements were distributed to the persons in the pews.
The two parts of the frontier religious movement that would become the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) were immediately concerned with the unity of all Christians. They recognized that the table was that unifying force needed to bring it about.
Though the outlandish behaviors of the revivals did not carry over into the movement begun by Barton Stone at Cane Ridge the emphasis on the sacrament of communion did. It was recognized on the frontier that table fellowship was vital to the Christian’s understanding of community. Though they did not immediately practice it weekly they did practice it much more often than the yearly sacrament of the Presbyterians, perhaps even monthly. The order of Stone’s service seemed to be, while not haphazard, changeable. It might even be said to be spirit led. Generally, a minister was required to preside at the table. Stone would not require Baptism before taking communion although he was a proponent of Baptism by immersion. He recognized that there were individuals in the scriptures who were saved that had not been immersed. In his words “From this holy feast among Christians, none are excluded thence but those, who do themselves exclude.”
The issue of Open versus Close Communion was still very much an issue even as late as the 1970’s. Whether or not to include the pious unimmersed was a serious question for many of our churches. Disciples today almost all allow the individual to make the decision yet there are many of our brothers and sisters in both the Independent Christian Churches and the Churches of Christ who maintain not only that the individual must be immersed but immersed in a church of like kind.
Alexander Campbell, too, was hesitant to set forth a specific order of worship since the scriptures were relatively silent on such things. He craved an orderly service which included the word and communion but would rarely comment on a specific order. The churches which would follow the Campbells would take communion weekly but they would require participants to be baptized by immersion. Ordained elders or clergy often presided at the table.
Even in the churches of the Campbells the restriction of only allowing the baptized to partake was slowly relaxed and the individual’s conscience was allowed to reign. Campbell, in regarding the “ancient order of things,” noted that the Lord’s house is the Christian’s “banqueting place, and the Lord’s day is his weekly festival.”
The two movements were already coming to an agreement on most of the important issues. When they first joined hands in 1832 they would quickly celebrate their union with a service of worship and communion. One participant noted that “on the Lord’s day, they broke the loaf together, and in that sweet and solemn communion, again pledged to each other their brotherly love.” Barton Stone would state that “whenever the church shall be restored to her former glory, she will again receive the Lord’s supper on every first day of the week.”
In addition to weekly observance there are several things that have contributed to how we as Disciples of Christ now consider communion. Alexander Campbell was concerned with how we characterized the Lord’s Supper. He disliked the term “sacrament” preferring “ordinance,” although neither was scriptural. His preference for “ordinance” was meant to commemorate those institutions that were “ordained” by God as perpetual declarations of God’s saving action in Jesus Christ. Therefore we generally refer to two ordinances, the Lord’s Supper and Baptism.
This leads to the next understanding, that of remembrance, what we call “anamnesis.” Many of our communion tables have it foremost on the table, “This do in remembrance of me.” This remembrance is not simply of the last meal that Jesus shared with his followers but also of the sacrifice he made.
The table in Disciples churches is obviously important. We usually place it front and center, often raised up. Whether we divide our chancels or have a central pulpit the communion table is still centered. The centrality of its physical presence reflects its centrality in our worship. Throughout the years many congregations have taken this centrality literally and made it the centerpiece and center point of the service. Many place it before the sermon. This was often a practice for churches which did not have a regular pastor. When the pastor was not present the members of the church, particularly elders, could still preside at the table and serve communion. An early Disciple minister suggested that when the early Christians assembled it was to eat the Lord’s Supper, it was not to hear preaching, “for one sleeps, another laughs, and another talks.” Apparently little has changed since those early days.
If any one of us is a part of the priesthood of believers and capable of presiding over communion how does that change us as a people? Even as we sit in the congregation receiving the trays from the Deacons shouldn’t we serve each other in the pews as if we were at the head of the table?
In the early days of the movement though, communion was often at the end of the service, a fitting climax of unity for all Christians. Yet, many believe that the tone of the communion service sets the tone for the rest of the worship and would seek to place it earlier. Interestingly, many Protestant churches have rediscovered the centrality of communion by studying the earliest worship of the church and in this regard Disciples have led the pack.
How do we refer to the Lord’s Supper? There are many accepted names and most are used interchangeably. Eucharist tends to be used by the more liturgical churches, referring simply to the giving of thanks in Greek. Many prefer the Lord’s Supper but some have recognized that in practice it is usually served in the morning and is rarely a full meal. Communion and Holy Communion usually suffice in Disciples churches but we also commune with others and with God at other times than when sharing food. Campbell preferred “the Breaking of Bread.” He found scriptural authority in Acts 2:46 but even that does not capture the whole observance. For this reason we simply have not found a single term to characterize the whole event.
There are some things that we as Disciples should probably continue to consider. When we partake of a small piece of bread and a sip of juice it is certainly a far cry from the meal that was celebrated in that upper room. Even when pulled from a common loaf is that small morsel enough? Keith Watkins notes in “The Great Thanksgiving” that the challenge is not believing that the bread and cup represent the body and blood of Christ, but believing that the small wafer many churches use is actually bread.
When we come before the table of the Lord are we approaching it with the proper attitude? This is not to say we must be must be particularly grave but have we provided the time and the preparation prior to partaking so that the individual has had time to meditate, to examine their own attitude, and to reconcile with those around them. Is our time at the table truly reverent, thankful and thoughtful? Or, are we just going through the motions out of habit? Are we encouraged when coming to the table to become one body, a unified community in the name of Christ? Is the event truly participatory or are we allowing a handful of individuals to take care of the ceremony in our stead?
Many of the churches in our movement, particularly our brothers and sisters in the Churches of Christ, will only partake of communion on Sunday and at no other time. They will also only partake once even on Sunday, even if they have two services.
Others will only partake if one cup or at least one pitcher is used and a single loaf. Concern over passing on germs has mitigated this in many places even in the most conservative churches.
Barton Stone advocated the use only of unleavened bread, based on his reading of the scripture but it is rare to find a Disciples church today that does this although some will use matzo on special occasions.
We also recognize that among the pious unimmersed mentioned earlier there are probably several children. Disciples today are contending with that question of whether to allow children to partake and if so should there be a minimum age. Scripture is relatively silent here and our founders offer little help either.
Alexander Campbell summed up much of what we believe about communion in seven statements:
There is a house on earth called the house of God;
In the house of God there is a table of the Lord;
On that table there is of necessity but one loaf;
Since all Christians are priests, they all may partake of that loaf;
The one loaf must be visibly broken before the saints feed on it (and after giving thanks for it);
The breaking of the loaf and the drinking of the cup commemorate the Lord’s death; and
The Supper is an instituted part of the worship of all Christian assemblies in all their stated meetings (i.e., times of formal worship).
It seems to me that Campbell is presenting a pretty complete picture of what Disciples believe about communion and indeed, what we believe in general. Those six items I mentioned at the beginning of this message about Disciple’s beliefs naturally come together around the table: Open Communion, The Oneness of the Church, Freedom of Belief, Baptism by Immersion, the Ministry of Believers and Jesus saving grace as the son of the Living God. Contemporary scholars have suggested that rather than being a small component of a larger service of worship, our whole service of worship is a service of communion. Imagine if we were to approach every gathering of the church as if we were sitting around the Lord’s Table, communing with God and one another. Amen and Amen.
