This series is reviewing Rethinking The Wineskin by Frank Viola. See my introduction to the series, if you haven’t already, for the background discussion about the book.

Who is in your church?

Last time, we talked about Membership, and how it is clearly not acceptable to separate ourselves out due to any kind of division. We are all a part of Christ, and all members of His body.

But what about the local church? What does the New Testament have to say about the nature of local fellowships?

The New Testament clearly defines local churches in terms of geography. Distance is the only thing that separated one church from another.

Strikingly, everywhere the word “church” is used throughout the NT (excepting the passages which refer to the universal, heavenly church or a church in someone’s house) it is identified by the city. By contrast, everywhere the word “churches” is used in the NT, it refers to the various churches that exist in a given province or region… according to the Bible, the boundary of the church is the city.

But this is not how it is today. You can drive down any local highway and easily pass by five churches within a mile of each other, that have no connections between them. Christ is not unified.

Given the size of our cities today, though, the “city” might not be the best analogy to use today. We could more appropriately talk about communities. In metropolitan areas, though, there is little differentiation between communities other than arbitrary political boundaries. Nevertheless, it is the spirit behind this issue that is important. Even if my house church meets just a few miles from my brother’s house church, I don’t think the issue with geography is that we have to combine our fellowships. But I do think that it is crucial that we view ourselves as part of Christ’s church, and more importantly, that we intentionally meet together to express that in a practical way. I have recently realized what a gift this is from God, and how easy it is for us to personally model this, because we have three different house churches in the area, all connected through sibling relationships. I think this is truly opening my eyes, anyway, to how connected our churches should be in Christ.

With the five churches within a mile of each other on a local highway, though, how much inter-relation do these churches have? In nearly all cases, very, very little. A friend of mine who is a pastor in just that situation has lamented to me about how difficult it is to create any kind of fellowship among the pastors. If you ask me, we are divided because of the clergy class, because of the preferential treatment they receive from their followers.

The notable feature of these sects is that the people within the gather around their favorite leader (or doctrine) instead of around Christ.

You could just as easily add stylistic issues to that today. But it began with clergy.

One of the pitfalls of house churches is that we can consider ourselves too much as a single unit. We need connections with others, in other house churches and even, hopefully, those still in a modern church, so that we understand that our group is not singularly the body of Christ.

While the house is the Scriptural setting for the church meeting, the boundary of the church is never the house. It is always the locale. An ongoing challenge for modern house churches is the danger or raising up several independent and separate house churches in the same community.

How does this position house churches relative to the modern church? The problem is that the modern church is heavily based on its division.

What is the remedy for the endless divisions in the Body? It is certainly not found in the formation of an association of sects or ministers who hold hands over the fence… the Lord’s reaction to the present disorder is to raise up a representative company of believers who will respond to the Spirit’s cry for genuine unity. His is a charge to leave the manmade sects and to meet freshly upon the first-century basis of the church… They receive all whom God has received, whether they meet in sects or not. They include all believers living in their locales. They welcome unreserved fellowship with any and all who wish to gather with them. At the same time, they cannot endorse a system that smacks square in the face of NT revelation… they cannot support the denominational system. Nor can they join the sects.

This sums up so well what I have been feeling. Denominations are simply not approved by God. That is not to say that the people involved aren’t of Christ, but their organization is a hindrance to fully knowing and belonging to Christ. But we do not seek to simply start a new sect. We seek to express fully the unity of Christ, apart of sectarianism, and the only way to do that in a lasting way is to avoid manmade structure and organization and remain a truly organic church. I came out of a denomination that originally started with such an ideal – yet within decades the structure and organization had turned the Church of God (Anderson, IN) into just another denomination.

Divisions of the church in any locale is due to sectarianism. We must reverse this trend. Viola quotes Stephen Kaung:

We come out of divisions to return to unity. That’s what we are doing. Therefore, on the one hand, we hold fast the Head; on the other hand, we open our heart and arms to all our brothers and sisters all over the world… You may reject us, but we cannot reject you because we believe in the oneness of the Body of Christ… We come out of sects not to be sectarian, but to be delivered from the spirit of sectarianism.

This series is reviewing Rethinking The Wineskin by Frank Viola. See my introduction to the series, if you haven’t already, for the background discussion about the book.

I fully believe that God hates denominations. They represent the fallacy of man’s desire to be right, to be heard, and to be prominent. Much more so than even the local church pastor who commands the pulpit for a half-hour every week. As soon as we move beyond the basic theology of Christ’s salvation and forgiveness of sins, and separate ourselves from each other based on these kinds of disagreements, we are no longer a church. We’re an arbitrary man-made division of Christ’s body.

If a person belongs to the Lord, then he is part of the church. And we must receive him into fellowship. If we demand anything beyond his acceptance of Christ before admitting him into fellowship, we are not a church. We are a sect.

Paul is very clear about this being a major problem. If we become so convinced that we’re right that we’re willing to end our fellowship with another person that God has received, we’re rejecting Christ.

There is an equally dangerous problem of expanding the Biblical view of the body of Christ, and accepting those who do not claim Christ as part of the church. We are not to be all-inclusive.

To receive unbelievers as family members is to turn the church into something earthly and to corrupt the true people of God. This of course does not mean that we should forbid unbelievers from attending the gatherings of the church. But it does mean that we are not to receive them as our brethren.

The New Testament places a huge emphasis on unity within the body of Christ. But it is simply not enough to claim unity when we are horribly divided by organization, doctrine, or practice. Unity within division is simply not unity. It is a lie of the enemy to believe otherwise.

Fellowships that either undercut or exceed the scope of the Body are not Biblical churches. In God’s thought, the church is one unified Body of His Son with local expressions throughout the world. Let us, therefore, cease from using the word “church” in a tribal sense where we equate it with Christian denominations, hierarchical structures of descending authority, program-driven institutions, and clergy-led enterprises.

The more our churches act and assemble organically, the closer we will be to how God views the church. And the closer we’ll be to fulfilling what God calls the church to be. Manmade divisions of the body, through membership in earthly institutions, only act as an obstacle.

This series is reviewing Rethinking The Wineskin by Frank Viola. See my introduction to the series, if you haven’t already, for the background discussion about the book.

One of the biggest struggles I’ve had in the past couple of years is this – what is the purpose of the church? Trying to answer this question while ignoring the effects of your background is nearly impossible. Having grown up in a traditional church, with an emphasis on both evangelism and holiness, it’s hard to think of anything other than “reaching the lost.”

Properly conceived, the church exists to make the fullness of Christ known on the earth. It stands here to register Christ’s final victory over Satan in every place (Eph. 3:9-10). As His Body, the church is here to express Jesus in all of His glory.

Notice that there’s nothing in there about saving individual people. We are called to “build the church,” but the pressing question is simply what is the purpose of what is being built?

Our American/evangelical variant of Christianity has turned this around. We are taught that the purpose of the church is to add people to the church. That doesn’t really make any sense – by having kids, I create a family. But what is the purpose of my family? Is the purpose of my family to have kids? The logic becomes circular, and can easily become a justification for having lots of kids without being at all concerned with who those kids grow up to be. This is what has happened to the church – we’ve become so focused on adding people to the church that we lose sight of what the church is supposed to become and what it is supposed to represent.

So to make this perfectly clear, adding people to the church is not the purpose of the church.

I’m also not really going to address the “change the world” ideal that many view as the purpose of the church, because in reality you just can’t find that in the Bible.

There are three primary metaphors for understanding the purpose of the church, and centered on the idea of a singular, connected, unified church body:

The Temple
Under the old covenant, the temple was the physical place where God would dwell on earth. It contained His presence, and as such, strict instructions were given as to how it would be created, assembled, and maintained. Each aspect of temple life was governed by law.

Under the new covenant, God dwells within His people, the church. We contain God’s presence. And we have rather specific instructions as to how we are created (through salvation), how we are assembled (through love and mutual edification), and how we are to be maintained (through holiness).

One brick never made a temple yet, nor has a heap of bricks piled on top of the other. The church is a people built together into one new man. And it exists to be the corporate expression of Christ.

The Bride
Paul describes as a mystery newly revealed that God has been preparing a bride for Christ. Revelation gives a glorious picture of the beauty of Christ’s bride (described as a shining city). As is the purpose of any bride, the purpose of the church is to prepare ourselves for Christ.

The two central themes of the church as the bride are purity and love. These are not individualistic, though, they are collective – it is not or individual purity that really matters in this regard, it is our collective purity as a church. Purity in holiness and obedience. But our purity must be motivated out of our love for Christ.

The Lampstand
In an often overlooked part of Revelation, the church is described as a lampstand of pure gold. (Revelation 1:20) The purpose of this lampstand is to shine out Christ, to “bear the testimony of Jesus.” The only way this can be done is for the lampstand to be made into the image of Christ through discipleship.

There is also much to be said of the church as the kingdom of God – in essence, the church is the visible agent of the kingdom on earth, similar to the metaphor of the lampstand. But as the kingdom of God, we are also called to be the hands of Christ in the world – preaching the good news, bringing healing, deliverance, and freedom.

When we talk about the purpose of the church being to bring salvation to the lost, or to be an agent of change in the world, though, we are missing the critical, higher purpose. When the church is properly being the church, it will bring salvation to the lost, it will call out evil in the world and serve as a counter-example of love and purity. But these are not the church’s purpose.

The church is the very fiancé of Jesus Christ. It is the new humanity. It is the lifestyle of the coming kingdom. It is the Christian’s natural habitat. It is the spiritual environment where face-to-face encounters between the Bridegroom and His Bride take place. It is the living witness to the fullness of God’s Son.

In short, whenever the church gathers together, its guiding and functioning principle is simply – to be Christ (1 Cor. 12:12).

This series is reviewing Rethinking The Wineskin by Frank Viola. See my introduction to the series, if you haven’t already, for the background discussion about the book.

In my last post, I discussed elders. Specifically, that in the New Testament elders are referred to as having a position of oversight over the church.

But what about visionary leadership? What about the direction of the church?

To truly understand the function of elders, we have to discuss a little bit what they are not. They are not the visionary leaders of the church. They are not really even the “leaders” of the church.

The Bible puts great stress on the fact that leadership in the kingdom of God is drastically different from leadership in both the Gentile and Jewish worlds. Unlike the Gentile notion of authority, the Christian approach to leadership does not link authority with rank-and-file power and hierarchical structures… Unlike the Jewish notion of authority, the Christian approach to leadership does not link authority with outward ordination, office, position, title, or protocol… The Christian orientation links spiritual authority with spiritual function and maturity. It is based on the servant-leadership model that was a common them in our Savior’s teaching… In this context, the Christian model of leadership served as a safeguard to the real and living Headship of Christ. It was also a check against authoritarianism, formalism, and clericalism.

Today’s dominant church leadership design looks more like a combination of the Jewish and Gentile systems than the Christian system described in the New Testament that is supposed to reflect the Kingdom of God. Today’s model is that of a modern corporation with a CEO. Managers handle resources. We have growth strategies, statistics, and charts. We count the number of cars in the parking lot. We consider church organization as appropriate, yet the New Testament relies on the principle of a church organism.

Our primary relationship to each other is that of brothers and sisters. The modern corporation model ruins that.

Plainly stated, leadership in the early church was non-hierarchical, non-aristocratic, non-authoritarian, non-institutional, and non-clerical. More importantly, God’s idea of leadership is functional, relational, and collective.

To have the leadership of the church function according to the same principles as that of a corporate executive in a business or an aristocrat in an imperial caste-system was never our Lord’s thought. It is for this reason that the NT authors never chose to use hierarchical and imperial metaphors to describe church leadership.

Images of slaves and children depict leadership rather than lords and masters (Luke 22:25-26).

So the elders did not lead the church like a CEO. Who, then, led the church? Who provided visionary direction?

The answer is more simple than you might think. It was Christ who led the church, through the Holy Spirit.

Consider what Christ said to Peter:

On this rock I will build my church, and the power of death will not be able to defeat it. (Matthew 16:18 NCV)

He did not say that “on this rock you will build my church.” Christ said that on this rock Christ would build His church.

Paul frequently refers to the church as the body of Christ, with Him as the head. This is why it is so important to follow the New Testament model of leadership – if we put ourselves in too prominent a place of leadership, we stand in the way of Christ’s leadership as the head.

But what about practical implementation? How do we see the mind of Christ and the direction of Christ in the life of the church? It is easy enough for a leader to get up in front of the church and say that He feels Christ wants the church to do x, y, and z. But how is the church to know if this is truly the will of Christ?

The New Testament has only one answer – consensus.

The apostles, the elders, and the whole church decided to send some of their men with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch. They chose Judas Barsabbas and Silas, who were respected by the believers. (Acts 15:22 NCV)

The apostles didn’t just choose who to send. They didn’t pray with the elders and then decide who they felt “led” to send. They decided along with “the whole church.”

Numerous times in his letters, Paul begs the believers to have one mind:

I beg you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that all of you agree with each other and not be split into groups. I beg that you be completely joined together by having the same kind of thinking and the same purpose. (1 Corinthians 1:10 NCV)

Why is this important? If consensus is desired, the decision making process has to model the same process discussed about gatherings – that of the Spirit being in control, moving through each believer, where each believer has the opportunity to share what God has laid on their heart.

In another example of a bad translation, someone would probably point to Hebrews 13:17 and say that leadership in the church is more authoritative:

Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you. (Hebrews 13:17 NIV)

Viola describes what the word used for obey means:

The Greek word for obey in this passage is no hupakuo, the garden-variety word for obedience used elsewhere. It is peitho [middle-passive form] which means to yield to persuasion. The author of Hebrews is simply saying “allow yourselves to be persuaded by those who are more mature in Christ than you are.”

A better translation for Hebrews 13:17 actually supports the practice of consensus, not undermine it.

Consensus is not easy. Most of the time it will be a struggle, but it is exactly this kind of struggle that builds community. A charismatic leader pushing forward his own agenda requires others to submit to his will. A body of believers working towards consensus requires all to submit to each other. It requires love and respect for each other. Viola quotes Christian Smith:

Consensus is not strong on efficiency, if by that we mean ease and speed. It can take a long time to work through issues, which can become quite frustrating… consensus is strong on unity, communication, openness to the Spirit’s leading, and responsible participation in the Body. In achieving those values, consensus is efficient. Deciding by consensus, then, simply requires belief that unity, love, communication, and participation are more important in the Christian scheme than quick, easy decisions. It requires the understanding that, ultimately, the process is as important as the outcome.

We are not supposed to be simply pragmatic. We are supposed to be obedient. The New Testament places a great deal of emphasis on unity, and the church being of one body, under the leadership of head, which is Christ.

In summary:

The NT knows nothing of an authoritative mode of leadership. Nor does it know a “leaderless” egalitarianism. It rejects both hierarchical structures as well as rugged individualism. Instead, the NT envisions leadership as coming from the entire church! Direction and decision-making are supplied by the brothers and sisters by consensus. Oversight is supplied by the seasoned brothers.

It should be obvious why modern church leaders stand so strongly against authors like Viola and others who are calling the church back to New Testament methods and practices. They have the most to lose. Their entire career is based on a leadership model not found in scripture. If the church were to truly move back towards New Testament methods and practices, which requires a return to the New Testament model of leadership, not only would these leaders lose their position, office, and authority, they would lose their career. In a way, I feel sorry for them, because it is difficult for them to objectively evaluate these issues.

But these very leaders’ talents and gifting are actually better suited to New Testament methods and practices. Because in a more intimate, open, participatory format, leaders not only teach but they train. They not only impart their wisdom through teaching, but have a closer relationship with younger Christians through oversight.

But let’s not take the task of building and providing direction for the church away from Christ. Those who seek to further utilize the organizational structure of the modern church miss out on one of the things that made the early church so unique at that time of history – that this was the time when God finally ruled His people directly, as He had always wished to do with Israel before they sought out a king. We should seek to restore that distinctive character of the early church.

This series is reviewing Rethinking The Wineskin by Frank Viola. See my introduction to the series, if you haven’t already, for the background discussion about the book.

Even more than the location of the church, the leadership of the church is the biggest and most important aspect of the early church that looks completely different today. And it is this topic, more than any other, that causes modern Christians to shun the house church movement. And I also believe that this is one of the reasons that house churches continue to struggle – we have to re-learn leadership in light of Scripture.

It all comes down to clergy.

Because the NT knows nothing of “clergy,” the fact that a separate caste of the “ordained” permeates our vocabulary and practice illustrates rather forcefully that we do not yet take the NT very seriously. (Jon Zens)

And now, a word to you who are elders in the churches. I, too, am an elder and a witness to the sufferings of Christ. And I, too, will share his glory and his honor when he returns. As a fellow elder, this is my appeal to you: Care for the flock of God entrusted to you. Watch over it willingly, not grudgingly – not for what you will get out of it, but because you are eager to serve God. Don’t lord it over the people assigned to your care, but lead them by your good example. And when the head Shepherd comes, your reward will be a never-ending share in his glory and honor. (1 Peter 5:1-4, NLT)

The New Testament refers to a type of person in the early church, referred to by several words, including “elder” (which means “mature man”), “overseer” (bishop), and “shepherd” (pastor).

In today’s church culture, we have a difficult time seeing these words as simple descriptions. We give these words weight based on recent church tradition more than based on the descriptions of these titles in scripture. But I’m convinced that the words themselves are more descriptive than we give them credit for.

The term “elder” refers to their character. The term “overseer” refers to their function. And the term “shepherd” refers to their gifting. Their chief responsibility was to supervise the believing community in times of crisis.

In terms of character – “elders” are simply mature men of God. Those who have been through good and hard times in the faith. Those who can help younger, more immature Christians to persevere during times of trouble.

In terms of function – the role is not that of visionary leadership. Every description of leadership of elders in the New Testament is that of oversight (“watch over”).

In terms of gifting – there is no doubt that elders had the gifting of care, love, and selflessness. Their calling was one of service to the church.

Elders were not church planters. Note how Paul and Barnabas only appointed elders in Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch when they returned to those churches (Acts 14). There are other examples where elders are only mentioned years after a church had been planted. A new church will not grow elders for years, because it is a recognition of maturity. Before elders were recognized, the oversight of a church was handled by the apostle(s) who planted it – who would return from time to time.

The Greek words translated “ordain” in Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5 simply mean to “acknowledge” someone that others have already endorsed. This means that the church trusted the elders.

Unfortunately, the American penchant for “offices” and “positions” has caused many believers to bring these ideas to the Biblical text and view the elders as official. Such thinking confuses the oversight of the early church with modern social conventions. It also strips the leadership terminology found in Scripture of its native meaning.

Another principle about this oversight leadership that is missing in today’s church is that of plural oversight. Just about everywhere you see the term “elder” in the New Testament, it is in the plural, even among a particular church. You will not find the concept of “lead elder” like you have in today’s “head pastor.”

Plural oversight in the church protected the sole Headship of Christ. It also served as a check against despotism and corruption among the overseers.

Should these elders be paid? Many people point to 1 Timothy 5:17 to say that they should be paid a salary:

Elders who do their work well should be paid well, especially those who work hard at both preaching and teaching. (1 Timothy 5:17, NLT)

This is one of the greatest examples of a translation using a modern interpretation of a function and simply rendering it incorrectly. Look at the footnote for the New Living Translation for this verse, attached to “paid well:”

Greek – should be worthy of double honor.

The New Century Version is much clearer:

The elders who lead the church well should receive double honor, especially those who work hard by speaking and teaching. (1 Timothy 5:17, NCV)

Viola explains this very well:

Some have tried to argue for a professional clergy from this one isolated text. But the context of the passage reveals otherwise. First, the specific Greek words that the NT uses for “pay” or “wages” (misthos and opsonion) are not used here. The Greek word for “honor” in this passage is time, and it means to “respect” or “value” someone or something.

The same word is used four times in 1 Timothy. In every case, it means respect. God is to receive honor from man (1:17; 6:16), elders are to receive honor from the church (5:17), and masters are to receive honor from slaves (6:1). Another form of the word is used when Paul says that widows are to be honored by the church (1 Tim. 5:3). (Incidentally, time is never used in first-century literature to refer to “honorarium.”)

Second, all believers are called to honor (time) one another (Rom. 12:10). It would be absurd to take this to mean that all believers are to receive payment from each other. Those elders who serve well are to receive more honor – or greater respect.

Third, the fact that respect is what Paul had in mind is born out by verse 19. Paul goes on to say that the elders are not to be accused (dishonored) unless there are two or three witnesses to confirm the accusation.

Finally, elders were leaders in the church, but they did not lead the gatherings. They did not take a visionary role or make executive decisions. They were not clerics or priests. Their ministry did not interfere with the ministry of others in the church. You will not find a justification for these roles of an “elder” in the New Testament. They simply aren’t there.

The clergy profession is a mammoth institution that is far removed from the NT concept of leadership. And its mere presence hinders the cultivation of mature, relational, functioning churches that deeply express the Headship of Jesus Christ…

The modern day pastor system of Protestantism is a religious artifact that has allowed the Body of Christ to lapse into an audience due to its heavy reliance on a single leader. This unscriptural, clergy-dominated structure has done untold damage to God’s people. It has turned church into the place where Christians watch professionals perform. It has transformed the holy assembly into a center for professional pulpiteerism supported by “lay-spectators.”

The pastoral system has turned ministry into an elitist right. It has stolen your right to function as a member of the ekklesia! And it has lamed the believing priesthood! In short, the clergy concept of church leadership invariably crushes Body life.

All of this begs the question: what about visionary leadership? Next, we’ll look at how the New Testament describes that. But if we intend to take the New Testament seriously, our thoughts about local church leadership must shift radically.

This series is reviewing Rethinking The Wineskin by Frank Viola. See my introduction to the series, if you haven’t already, for the background discussion about the book.

One of the primary characterizations of Christ’s ministry was that of relationship. So much so, that He singled out twelve of his followers and treated them like brothers. Friends. Family.

We don’t usually equate this topic with the Great Commission, but look at what Jesus said:

Jesus, undeterred, went right ahead and gave his charge: “God authorized and commanded me to commission you: Go out and train everyone you meet, far and near, in this way of life, marking them by baptism in the threefold name: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Then instruct them in the practice of all I have commanded you. I’ll be with you as you do this, day after day after day, right up to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-20, The Message)

What I love about this paraphrase in The Message is that it makes something exceedingly clear – Jesus was commanding them to continue what He had been doing with them, and to take it out into the world. And a key, central aspect to that was with the way He created a family atmosphere among them.

Families typically eat together. They greet one another with affection. They squabble. They reconcile. They protect one another. And they help each other in a pinch. The early church embodied all of these family norms.

We are supposed to resemble a family, not a corporation. We are supposed to be sharing “Christ-like care and compassion,” not approving budgets, hiring CEO’s, and watching growth projections. Some churches even count cars in the parking lot to measure their success. There is little resemblance of this kind of thing to the church that is described in the NT.

Significantly, the NT writers never use the imagery of a business corporation to depict the church. Unlike the institutional church, the early Christians knew nothing of spending colossal figures on building programs and projects at the expense of bearing the burdens of their fellow brethren.

Many contemporary churches have essentially become nothing more than high-powered enterprises that bear more resemblance to General Motors than to the apostolic community!

Viola eloquently points out that part of this problem is that it takes away from the simple, honest implementation of following Christ and replaces it with something much more complex. Viola quotes A.W. Tozer on this point:

Churches run toward complexity as ducks take to water. What is back of this? First, I think it arises from a natural but carnal desire on the part of a gifted minority to bring the less gifted majority to heel and get them where they will not stand in the way of their soaring ambitions… the itch to have the preeminence is one disease for which no natural cure has ever been found…

In all our fallen life there is a strong gravitational pull toward the complexity and away from things simple and real. There seems to be a kind of sad inevitability back of our morbid urge toward spiritual suicide. Only by prophetic insight, watchful prayer and hard work can we reverse the trend and recover the departed glory.

While the “one another” commands are best suited for use in a house setting, they actually require a family atmosphere in order to work at all. If our churches do not truly resemble a family, then they do not resemble the body of Christ.

This series is reviewing Rethinking The Wineskin by Frank Viola. See my introduction to the series, if you haven’t already, for the background discussion about the book.

I clearly remember my early experiences with communion as a child. One of my very first times taking communion, I somehow managed to spill the grape juice all over my light yellow pants. My mother was not pleased!

Modern communion is a formal event. Whether Catholic or Protestant, there really isn’t much difference. It is a quiet, somber occasion. We pick up (or are given) a piece of a cracker or bread. We follow that with a small amount of juice, or even possibly actual wine.

Yet the Lord’s Supper was a meal. They were celebrating the passover feast. It was in this context that Christ first shared with them the breaking of bread and the drinking of wine as an occasion to remember him.

Somehow, modern church has reduced communion from a meal to a simple religious ritual. In the early church, communion was clearly a full meal. Viola says it this way:

The whole of 1 Corinthians 11 makes clear that the believers gathered to eat the Supper as a meal. One would find himself hard-pressed to get drunk on a thimble of grape juice or satisfy his hunger with a bite-sized cracker!

Of course, the history behind this is rooted in the Catholic church. But as I’m learning more and more, Protestantism was primarily concerned about reforming the theology of the church, and largely left the structure and the practices of the church untouched.

The Lord’s Supper also witnesses to the three chief virtues: faith, hope, and love. Through the Supper, we re-ground ourselves in that glorious salvation that is our by faith. We re-express our love for the brethren as we reflect on the one Body. And we rejoice in the hope of our Lord’s soon return. By observing the Supper correctly, we “proclaim (present) the Lord’s death (past) till He comes (future).”

Catholics have made the Lord’s Supper literal and sacrificial. Every time they take the Eucharist, they believe that Christ is being re-sacrificed for our sins. Protestants have made the Supper merely symbolic and commemorative. They believe it is merely a reminder of the cross.

But the Lord’s Supper is neither a perpetual sacrifice (the Catholic view) nor an empty ritual (the Protestant practice). It carries no sacramental overtones. Nor can it be properly conceived as simply a memorial.

The Lord’s Supper is a spiritual reality. The Holy Spirit is present in it. Through the Supper, the Spirit reveals the living Christ to the hearts of His beloved saints. In the Supper, we sup with Him through the one loaf and the one cup.

The NT clearly reveals communion as a meal shared in the context of the church gathering together.

When Christ introduced communion, they were eating bread and wine. This was something they did regularly, including after Christ rose from the grave. He was turning a regular, daily, mundane task – eating food – into an occasion of remembrance, reflection, and celebration. Which do you think held more power in the apostles mind – when they broke bread with Christ before He died on the cross, or when they broke bread with Christ after He rose from the grave?

By introducing communion in the context of a meal, was Christ creating a new ritual, or injecting new meaning into a daily task? I believe it was more of the latter than the former.

We have lost much of what the original church believed and practiced in the communal meal. We have turned church gatherings into a presentation around a pulpit, whereas in scripture they look more like relationships around a table with food. If we were to regain the concept of church around a table instead of church around a pulpit, we’d be on the right track towards making our church gatherings relational and renewing the church back to God’s original design.