The Wine and The Bread

Is there anything wrong with this picture?

Had a conversation with a guy recently about the elements of the Lord's Supper. In their small village (and for whatever reason throughout most of the churches in the area, not just Churches of Christ), the Christians use these little packaged crackers, about the size of a dime (like oyster cracker). They are not flat wafers, but like salted cookies. This is their "bread". And for the "wine", well most use the real thing. However, there are some who are bothered by that and prefer a box of sweetened juice, non-alcoholic. He was asking me to tell him what I thought about their choice of elements.

First, I wanted to impart a sense of liberty to him...trying to invoke a sense of our freedom in Christ and God's big grace for such petty decisions. That approach doesn't work too well here; they are not people who have a history with legalism (too new), and rather are accustomed to people dictating to them how to do things (too long under oppression or foreign rule; plus they have a low esteem about their own people group and don't trust themselves to make the right decisions). Anyway, my vague response didn't please him. So what do I tell him? Again, he's not looking for me to throw him a litany of choices (that's an American mindset), but rather he's wanting me to tell him how to do it.

In our tradition, unleavened bread is the way we've always done it. Why? Because Jesus took the unleavened bread at the table with the disciples when he transformed the Last Supper into the Supper of Christ. But does our new covenant feast have anything to do with the significance of the lack of yeast? No. So why should we be bound to that. To say, "Jesus took it" is not enough. To comment on the metaphor of yeast as sin seems like a wrong fit. Other denominations use a loaf of bread. Should I tell him to stick with the leavened cookies, or do I tell him that he must find a substitute (or give him a recipe for homemade unleavened bread). Is it wrong to tell him a loaf (baguette) of French bread would work just fine? Is it wrong, by giving him the recipe for unleavened bread, to push him to a corner and say "that's the only way to do it!"

For the wine, I prefer the good stuff (I mean a good Merlot might go down real nice, huh?!) They say it spoils too fast. They prefer the sweetened juice, but it costs too much (for a reference, it takes about 3-4 weeks of offerings to purchase that juice...can you imagine us in the States spending the equivalent of a month's contributions on the crackers and grape juice?!) This pastor friend would like to know if they can use something else? Again, we go back to Jesus' example at the Last Supper. "You will not take this fruit of the vine again...." So, we can say, that's the key phrase. As long as it's a fruit of some vine. Oh really? What if there are no vines here in Benin (they were in abundance in Jesus' landscape). Are we bound to that phrase or is there another substitute. What about orange or mango juice? Not really a vine, but whenever local pastors teach from John 15 (I am the vine....), they speak of orange trees. Or is it better to use something that LOOKS like blood (is that the reason Jesus chose the cup from the table?) So no orange juice.....what about Coke? Kinda. Or they do still a Kool-Aid like cherry water. That's red (not blood red, but a shade of red).

One problem with either the wine or the sweetened juice here is that if there's not money in the budget, they'll forego Communion until they do...sometimes that might take a couple of months if a medical need of a church member comes up and dwindles the cash box to nothing. Should I tell them they are sinning by doing that?

What about WHO can take it? We've always stress "baptized believers". When Paul is condemning the Corinthians (1 Ch 11) for perverting the purpose of communion, it appears there is a real MEAL situation ("one remains hungry, another gets drunk"...can't hardly say that if you are talking about a tiny morsel of a saltine and a thimble of Welch’s….PLUS, going back to the “WWJD” argument, didn’t he share a full meal…that was what the Passover was…a family celebration). So, shouldn’t we invite our children to partake as well…just because they are not baptized believers, do we not still claim to raise them under the joy of the new covenant? Can’t they celebrate that with us? Or do we still maintain the litmus test of baptism and thus pass the plate AROUND those on the pew who haven’t been baptized?

I remember when a non-believing friend came to church with us one time in Littlefield…when Communion was passed, we didn’t think of telling him he wasn’t “allowed” to partake…so we were shocked to see him take the ENTIRE 4x6 wafer in his hand and say “thanks!” Hysterical.

I could go on and on....curious about your thoughts. What would you tell my Aja friend?

-RR