I know of some who would have covetous thoughts immediately if they pondered the possibility of one thing which I enjoy freely each time the Supper is celebrated at the church I pastor. At this church, we use only the common cup. That’s right, every lip touches that common chalice. Such a reality is the dream of many who treasure the Celebration of the Supper. In fact, in one church not too far from me, a pastor in the recent past taught the confirmands that taking communion from the individual cups was not the Supper at all.
Well then, I must make a call to more pure piety. Today, through this blog, I implore all of you to demand th
e common loaf as well. After all, there is no reference in the Bible to the significance of a common cup. But we do have this from Paul:
1 Corinthians 10:17Â Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.
Only when we have both the common cup and the common loaf can we truly be certain of our Lord’s presence in the meal. Only then will our piety be appropriate to the meal we partake.
Okay, I hope not too many of you have in your tacit approval sent this out by email or shared it on facebook or registered demandtheloaf.com. For I must admit that I write this as a bit of satire of statements I have heard recently.
Let me clear. I love the Supper. It is our life. I love having only the common cup in this church. I would argue against changing the practice in our church.  It has awesome symbolism. But I am equally aware that it is not this particular piety that makes certain the presence of Jesus in the meal. No, that alone is secured by his promise to bring the kingdom to bear in this way.
So what is my point? We need to be careful when suggesting that particular forms of piety are essential (or nearly essential) to the Supper. Not whether the bread first touches the hand or the lip. Not whether one kneels or stands. Not whether you have the common cup or the common loaf. I suppose most might not say what that past pastor said about the Supper being invalidated by a particular piety.  But I have heard arguments recently for particular forms of piety phrased in a way that could no doubt leave laity (not to mention fellow clergy) wondering about the validity of the meal being served to them because of a certain practice or lack thereof. We must make clear that what is central to the meal is the Word of Christ and the gifts it makes available to all.
All of these questions of piety can no doubt be helpful once received with understanding by God’s people.  Receiving the host on the tongue teaches well the passive reception of Christ that occurs in this meal. Kneeling is certainly an appropriate reminder of expression of the repentance and reverence with which we should approach the table.  The common cup (or more biblically, the common loaf) reminds us of the connectedness of all who are first connected with Christ.  But they are not essential to the Supper. And we must be careful never to leave open the possibility that someone might believe they are because of the way we speak.
Let us make sure we flood our people with the “milk” teachings on the Supper before we force feed them the meat.
Hey Phil good post. So would only allowing members of your church or denomination to take communion be nice “piety” but not essential to the Supper?
In other words, i know that as a Christ-follower if i were to show up to your church and you were celebrating communion i would not be allowed to partake. However, you, coming to my community of faith, would be allowed to take it as a fellow follower of Christ…..you are part of the “one body” that Paul speaks of in I. Cor. 10.
Love to hear your thoughts.
Tom,
In one sense, it is not essential to the Supper in the sense that regardless of who comes, the body and the blood are there according to the Lord’s promise. Some receive it to their salvation others to their harm.
As far as who can come, I believe strongly the scriptures teach that one must believe the following things to come to the table. Happy to provide references if it is helpful to our dialogue.
1) I have sinned and am in need of grace.
2) I believe that grace is offered here because of the Lord’s word.
3) That grace is here because Jesus is here in his body and blood.
The final statement, which I believe to be clear in scripture excludes a great many Christians in our day. This exclusion is not one made by the congregation or denomination, but the Lord by his words given to us through Paul.
The last thing that causes us to practice what we call “closed” communion is the conviction which admittedly is as much based on early church tradition as it is scripture (although the concept is certainly not absent from scripture). And that is the idea that to stand before an altar is to confess that altar. This idea was consistently applied to the Lord Supper in the Early church and truly was consistently used by all denominations until most recently. While we are odd in our practice today, just a few generations ago, almost all churches practiced the Lord’s Supper this way. I will stop there and await your response.
Jesus used the third cup of the passover meal…the disciples would have had their own cups, more than likely, per traditional set up. Jesus went off script when he took the cup and didn’t say the expected words but rather talked about it as his blood. Do you think that there was a common cup or individual cups? (Did they ever talk about that in seminary?)
I am not sure Keturah. I know many think that at the time of Jesus a common cup was not used for Passover. But as your rightly note, Jesus didn’t go on script. Mark 14:23 seems to my mind to suggest a common cup:
Mark 14:23 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it.
Especially the last part, “and they all drank of it.” in the Greek seems to suggest the all dranks of the one cup.