“The Lord’s Supper” . . .

BANNED IN AUSTIN
By DICK SMITH

Normally a book review is designed to give you some basis on which to decide whether or not to acquire it. This review is about a book which the publisher has not only removed from circulation but has destroyed the balance in stock. Our purpose here is to seek to determine what there is about this little volume to merit such spirited suppression.

One of thirty odd titles in the LIVING WORD quarterly series published by the R. B. Sweet Co., “The Lord’s Supper” is a 94 page book of 13 lessons authored by Warren Lewis. The series of which it is a part is made up of impressive quarterlies done by capable authors. The one under consideration was obviously approved by the editors, published, distributed and offered for sale. Later it was withdrawn and the balance of books on hand were literally destroyed. We may never know the details of the public or hierarchal pressure which brought this about, and it really doesn’t matter. What lies within its pages to cause the publisher to first print and then repent? What evil are we being spared or what gems are we being denied?

Billed on the cover as “A Mature Study for Adults” the studies look innocent enough at first glance. Following the title of each lesson the “Aim” or learning objective is concisely stated. Each lesson is structured around this aim. Daily Bible readings geared to the content are given. Under the boldface subheadings the material is nicely arranged in readable paragraphs. In most lessons Bible references are profusely sprinkled throughout the text. Following the content are ten study questions. Here we see a deviation from the norm. These are not easy questions and the answers to most of them will not be readily found in the text. Of the 130 questions in the book not one supplies you with a chapter and verse which will neatly give you the answer. Many of these questions begin with such words as “characterize,” “describe”, “elaborate”, or “What is the relationship between. . .” The questions alone are enough to make an educator stand up and cheer. These mind stretching interrogatives are in great contrast to the more typical “tiger-trap” questions where you fall upon the answer through a baited fragile structure without any effort.

Perhaps the first “offense” which Lewis commits is to force you to think. The text is not authoritative or dogmatic. The tone is predominantly that of probing, seeking, questioning and suggesting. This is a refreshing change from the all too common quarterly which is dogmatically simplistic in providing all the answers. This is not to say that Lewis does not set forth a viewpoint. He does so with certainty. Its his manner of doing so that is quite different.

Though the selected bibliography given at the end cites forty-one recommended works, not one of them is recognizable to this writer as a Church of Christ author. Nor could be find a single quote in the entire book from “Restoration Movement” writers. In contrast one finds quotes from Calvin, Zwingli, Luther, Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. In this regard the book is utterly devoid of any denominational taint. References are given and works are cited for their excellence and not for their sectarian origin. Again the educator would applaud. Intellectual inbreeding produces few new insights and opens no broad horizons of understanding. As in the biological realm it soon results in abnormalities, weaknesses and defects.

Surely we have seen nothing thus far to justify banning or burning the book. Scattered throughout the lessons are a few things which might appear rather unorthodox but not serious enough to do more than raise a few hierarchal eyebrows. He flatly defines “fruit of the vine” as a “long way to say wine.” Those of us who have used the old “meat and potatoes” illustration with reference to what should clearly be omitted from the Lord’s Table due to the silence of the scriptures might become a bit uncomfortable at Lewis’ recommendation of the agape, the Love Feast, coupled with the Lord’s Supper. He further states that Acts 2:42 & 46 are “particularly suggestive” of daily observance of the Lord’s Supper with a larger meal.

More offensive to some, perhaps, is the stated objective of lesson 12: “Jesus Christ has given us the Lord’s Supper, how we observe it is up to us.” To some this may be the ultimate in liberalism, to presume that the Lord would have left anything of this nature up to us. To suggest, verily to even propose, that there is liberty in such a matter as the observance of the Lord’s Supper is quite a threat to the security of those whose religious “claim to fame” has been based on having the pattern, doing everything “just like the Bible says.’

The author further compounds the problem by urging what he calls “decent experimentation” to improve our observance of the Supper. To make such a suggestion, of course, is to infer that there is room for improvement, that what we are presently doing may not be perfect, adequate or fully appropriate. This concept could scarcely be expected to sit well with those of us who believe we “have all the truth” and have so long been convinced of the great efficacy of our very correctness in the observance of the so-called “items of worship.” When you stop to think of how much we don’t know of how it was originally observed we have a tremendous latitude for our manner of partaking of this sacred feast. If the first participants reclined as they ate with the Lord, and we feel free to sit instead, we could surely stand or kneel while eating together. Tradition has us pass a plate around to share the bread. We could pass by the table and serve ourselves. What if women and girls were employed to distribute the supper to the participants, just as they would in a home? Custom says, “Unthinkable!” The silence of the Word would seem to say, “Certainly. Why not?” Like the Roman Catholic who finds security in the familiar Latin sounds of his liturgy, we tend to take comfort in the familiar sight of a table at the front of the room with two men standing behind it and flanked on either side by six or eight male assistants standing in a neat row. Our familiarity with the modern polished aluminum tray filled with 40 little cups might cause us to be totally unnerved to see it replaced one Sunday by a single chalice. I would venture to say that some of us would probably get up and walk out. “Decent experimentation” indeed!

As stated earlier, perhaps one of Lewis’ cardinal crimes is the failure to give enough answers. He sometimes just leaves you hanging there without a clearly defined “position.” After examining briefly the doctrine of transubstantiation and other related viewpoints Lewis opines that “The Roman Catholics and Lutherans are probably right in believing that there is ‘miracle’ here . . . “ He agrees with what he calls the truth in these positions and urges that we “move forward to the New Testament and adopt its emphases and definitions.” While this is a very “sound” and acceptable statement, it does leave something to be desired by the individual accustomed to neat solutions and pat answers. The worst offense to some may be that Lewis not only fails to refute these ideas of Luther, Zwingli and Calvin, but that he infers that much of what they say may be true! Without taking a swipe at anybody he calmly wheels his basket through the supermarket of theology and picks up this and that because it looks spiritually edible and nourishing with no regard to the brand name on the label. There’s the rub. There is not a negative note in the entire book. That is pretty incriminating in itself.

In the lesson entitled “My Blood” he probes the deep meaning of communion, koininia, with the blood of Christ and finally concludes that this “is a very great mystery, but it is so.” No neat explanation. He tenderly embraces the mystery of it and accepts it as such. This, of course, is just not done in our circles. One doesn’t stand in total awe of biblical concepts. One dissects them and neatly explains each step with chapter and verse. In performing this trick Lewis is a miserable failure.

The lessons dealing with the “Covenant Meal” and the “Messianic Banquet” are elegantly biblical. These in-depth studies of the types, shadows and analogies make these into refreshing and exciting lessons. The Old Testament background of the Lord’s Supper beyond the Passover is brought to bear on the subject in a meaningful and effective manner. As elsewhere it becomes clear in these lessons that our author is no superficial scholar.

Possibly the biggest stumbling block of all is the manner in which the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is woven into the very fabric of the entire book. In only two of the thirteen lessons are there no references to the Holy Spirit. “The Holy Spirit is the Lord Jesus Christ returned to his disciples to empower and strengthen them beyond their capacities as mere men.” In Lewis’ eyes the Lord’s Supper represents a moment when the communion of a man with the Master reaches a pinnacle. “Jesus is present to his church in the Lord’s Supper.” A whole lesson is devoted to this concept and in this writer’s opinion is the high point in this worthy little book. The old worn picture of the Lord’s Supper as a mere memorial in the sense of a sturdy headstone in a theological graveyard is utterly obliterated. Instead it is set forth as a powerful and deeply meaningful confrontation with the Living Christ. Far more than a memorial symbol to Lewis it is “part of that which it effects . . . it is a channel of blessing, grace and the Holy Spirit.”

In lesson 13, “A Theology of the Lord’s Supper,” Lewis gets down to cases in setting forth some of his ideas regarding the Holy Spirit:

“The Holy Spirit is the divine power and affluence of God which made the human Jesus to be the divine Christ, which made the human apostles become the spokesmen of divine things, which makes the human Christians to partake of the divine nature, and which makes the created bread and wine to become bearers of the uncreated divine Spirit of Jesus Christ. When the Church eats of the spiritual bread of heaven and drinks of the “spiritual rock” they are being nourished by Jesus Christ through his Spirit in the Lord’s Supper.”

Suppose Lewis is wrong in some of his understandings. Does everything have to be “right” in order for us to publish and use a book? Must we approve of all of a man’s viewpoints before we can sort out and accept any of them? Is it not spiritually stifling to insist that such publications be so perfect as to speak “ex cathedra” before that can be approved for use? Is it because we tend to look upon “our” publications as the last word, just about as authoritative as the Bible itself? Need we be so coddled and have such a fear of being “led astray” by someone who may differ from us? Is it not actually a very hierarchal point of view to feel that people cannot be trusted to evaluate and think for themselves?

Do we have any indication that the first century congregations were all alike in every custom and procedure? Is this to be desired? Does a total commitment to Jesus as Lord really produce any kind of pattern or ritual? Surely none will argue that the pattern of a prayer, three songs, another prayer and a sermon is based on Holy Writ.

When should a book be banned if ever? I, for one, would refuse to publish a book that had nothing new to say, that failed to challenge my thoughts. I would ban all books which did nothing but reassure me how “right” I was already. I would ban the books in which the authors pretended to give all the answers. Such theological security blankets would have little place on my shelf. Instead I would seek out such books as this stimulating little volume by Warren Lewis which glorify God in Jesus Christ, set forth the Lord’s Supper as a glorious uplifting experience in which we are brought nearer the presence of the Savior and are made to stand in awe of his boundless love.

_________________

Dick Smith, onetime a missionary to Germany for Churches of Christ, is director of instructional media for Dallas County Junior College System. His address is 1420 Drury Dr., Dallas.