FELLOWSHIP AND THE BREAKING OF BREAD

An incident at the recent Lectureship at Abilene Christian College will illustrate one of the main points of this article. A brother who has been withdrawn from (excommunicated) by a Church of Christ in Texas was talking with some of his old friends when a Dallas preacher walked up and made it obvious that he had no intention of even speaking to the excluded brother. It is almost certain, however, that if the rejected brother were to visit the congregation where the minister labors next Sunday that he would be served the Lord’s Supper. And if the preacher himself happened to be serving the table, he would almost certainly pass the cup and bread to the man that he would not so much as speak to at Abilene.

The minister would not likely think of this as an inconsistency at all, for in the one case he is obeying the scripture that says, “Withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly,” while in the other he is following the injunction, “Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.” Without reference just here as to the interpretation given to these scriptures, we will only say that it would appear strange to an observer that one would have a religion that would cause him nor even to notice the presence of another on one occasion, and then cause him to include this person in a sacred meal on another occasion.

The observer would be right in one important particular: there is no higher expression of fellowship than the breaking of bread. If I pass the cup of the Lord to a man, I am giving the highest expression possible to the fellowship that we share together, for it is the one act that makes us mutual participants in the blood of Christ. “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the same loaf’ (1 Cor. 10:16-17).

If I can break the loaf with a man, I can certainly call on him to lead a prayer or address him as brother. If together we bless the cup of the Lord, then I can certainly honor him as a fellow saint anywhere in the world, including Abilene, for what higher relationship is there than “fellowship in the blood and body of Christ” which is expressed in the Lord’s Supper?

It is a matter of our practicing what we preach, or preaching what we practice, for there is certainly a woeful inconsistency here. We will not even call on the visiting minister from the Christian Church to address the Father, and yet turn right around and serve him the Supper, which would suggest that leading a prayer is an expression of fellowship while the Supper is not. We call Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians “the denominations”, excluding them in our thinking from the body of Christ. We are the church,’ they are the sectarians. And yet when any of those people meet with us we extend to them the very highest expression of Christian fellowship: the breaking of bread together.

Consistency would demand that we recognize as a Christian brother anyone to whom we serve the Lord’s Supper, thus extending to him any and all expressions of brotherhood. If we do not recognize a man as a brother in Christ, then we most certainly should not serve him that sacred meal that the apostle Paul describes as fellowship with the body and blood of Christ.

It was Alexander Campbell in his Christian System (p. 267) who issued the proposition that “In the house of God there is always the table of the Lord.” Neither the house of God nor the table of the Lord has any meaning without the other. So it is with any man’s house: if he has no house he would have no table, if he has no table he would have no house. An invitation to his house implies that I am welcome to his table. It is unthinkable that he would serve me at his table and yet extend to me no other hospitality of his house, such as conversing with me in his parlor.

Everyone we welcome to the house of God (that is, the church) we certainly welcome to the table that is in that house. But what meaning is there to the practice of welcoming someone to the table that we do not welcome to the house? Now does it really make sense to view the pious Presbyterian that is sitting in the end seat on the tenth row back as an outsider (that is, not a Christian and thus not welcomed into the body of Christ) and then hand to him the cup of the Lord when you reach the tenth row?

Can you not imagine a conversation that might grow out of such a situation. The brother who attended the table says to the visiting Presbyterian afterward: “We would like so much to have you as a brother. We would like to see you become a Christian.” The Presbyterian says, “Become a Christian? Become your brother? Do you not already think of me as your Christian brother?” Then our brother says to him kindly: “Well, no. You are a Presbyterian. I realize you are a good, moral man, but you are not a Christian until you obey the gospel.”

Then just what is the brother to say when the Presbyterian says to him: “Why then did you pass to me the Lord’s Supper? As you stood at the table you mentioned that the Lord’s Supper is for the Lord’s people, and then you walked down the aisle and handed it to me, knowing me to be a Presbyterian.”

In the same way the brother who was slighted by the preacher in Abilene could say to him in his Dallas church: “Out at ACC you would not even speak to me, and you deliberately avoided looking at me as we both stood among mutual friends, and here in the house of God you pass to me the cup of the Lord? If we can break bread together in Dallas, why can’t we talk with each Other in Abilene?”

We are now close to some sensitive areas in brotherhood thinking, especially in respect to open membership, as it is called. In a similar vein we speak of open communion. Some of our disciple historians, Louis Cochran in particular, are impressed with the fact that all of our many factions in the Christian Church --- Church of Christ practice open communion. You can walk into any of their assemblies, be it of the one-cup persuasion, anti-Sunday School, pro-Herald of Truth, liberal, conservative, or what have you, and you will be received around the table of the Lord. They mayor may not shake your hand once they know who you are, and you might get called “Mr.” while all the rest are called “Brother”, and they may keep you at arm’s length. But still you are not barred from the Lord’s Supper.

This is an interesting phenomenon in our history. Of all the lines we have drawn on each other we still accept each other without discrimination around the Lord’s table. Our attitude seems to be that it is the Lord’s table, and not ours, and so we will not judge, but let each judge himself. At the moment of the Supper we all participate together in the sacrifice of Christ. It is indeed remarkable that we can enjoy the sacred meal together and then not even speak to each other when it is over, whether it be Abilene or Dallas.

This rather simplifies the plea of this journal: let us all treat each other all the time the way we treat each other at the Lord’s table.

We can put it another way: if we welcome them to the table, let us welcome them to the house. Without getting into a discussion on open membership, we can insist from the standpoint of consistency that the membership should be as broad as the Lord’s Supper. We should welcome as a member everyone to whom we serve the Supper.

It is rather puerile for some of our brethren to argue, when they are confronted with these glaring inconsistencies in our treatment of each other, that in serving the Lord’s Supper they just pass it up and down the pews, not knowing and not thinking about who is partaking of it. The point is that if the pious Presbyterian partakes of it, we can’t help it; and if the brother who has been withdrawn from partakes of it, we can’t jerk it from his hands.

This kind of explanation hardly accounts for our handing the cup of the Lord to the man himself, which we do all the time. And the question remains: if you could pass the Supper in such a way that the man you “dis-fellowship” could not partake of it, would you do so? And does it not follow that if you do not “fellowship” him, you should not hand him the cup of the Lord, which is the greatest expression of fellowship?

The apostle Paul, who tells us most of what we know about the Lord’s Supper, does not appear to be one who was willing to break bread with just anyone. From what he says in 1 Cor. 5:11 it is almost certain that he would not pass the cup of the Lord to any brother who is “an idolater, reviler, drunkard or robber.” He tells the Corinthians “not even to eat with such a one.” While the eating he refers to probably means association in general rather than the Lord’s Supper, it nonetheless would exclude the immoral brother from the Supper. Paul simply would not pass him the cup, wherever he might be sitting or reclining. From Titus 3:10-11 we may also conclude that the apostle would refuse the factious man the Supper.

Beyond this we cannot go. We can hardly conceive of Paul refusing the table of the Lord to a brother who is honestly mistaken about some point of doctrine or who holds opinions different from his own. In Romans 14 he makes it clear that such brethren are to be received. Heretics he would reject, but these are “perverted men who are self-condemned.” The immoral he would reject, and these are the revilers, drunkards and robbers. We are abusive of the scriptures when we point to these as reasons for refusing fellowship to Christians who are as moral and sincere as we are, but who happen to differ with us. Even if they hold erroneous views this hardly puts them in the above classifications.

Paul showed gravest concern for those who dared to worship both at the table of the Lord and the table of demons, which no doubt was appealing in ancient Corinth, a seat of the lavish Greek cults. “You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons,” he told them. “You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.” (1 Cor. 10:21)

This would indicate that Paul would hardly pass the cup of blessing (a term he probably borrowed from Jewish ritual) to a brother who had just returned from a Greek festival, attended by royalty and conducted with pageantry, in which wine was poured out as a libation to the God Serapis, and then poured into the cups of the participants, who would then drink in honor of the god. The apostle would surely say to such a one, “You can’t sit at this table after sitting at that one:’ To Paul it was a matter of who is Lord. There are gods many and lords many, but the Christian has but one Lord, and in acknowledgment of His lordship, he sits at but one table.

These were the real issues with Paul in respect to fellowship and the Lord’s Supper. We can hardly conceive of him being disturbed about such matters that lead us to draw lines on each other.

But perhaps we can take a different view of fellowship with each other as we make the Lord’s Supper the focal point. We will receive and recognize as brothers all those to whom we serve the Lord’s Supper. If this appears too broad a view, let us limit our restrictions to those that guided Paul’s sense of Christian fellowship, showing special sensitivity toward those who sit at the table of demons. Those who honor Jesus as Lord will choose only the table of the Lord, and we should gladly choose to sit with them. ---- the Editor

The Seminar on Fellowship, Wynnewood Chapel, 2303 S. Tyler, Dallas, Texas, June 15-18, has already attracted wide interest. Many leading brethren from various Church of Christ - Christian Church backgrounds have expressed their intentions to be present. The sessions will be open for anyone to ask or say anything he pleases. Brethren can even demonstrate if they care to. No one will be put in jail. All brethren are warmingly and lovingly welcome. The sessions will be stimulating and brotherly. Write us in care of this journal if you plan to come, or write L. M. Roberts, 4450 Preston Circle, Dallas, about lodging.