Why Crackers and Grape Juice?

Albion said:

Do people who have special dietary problems and for whom the church finds a way to work with them at Communion feel that they are being treated as aliens? I have met people and know of people with such needs and not a one has ever talked as though they felt discriminated against or as though they were treated as an outsider because of it. In fact, the rest of the congregation would have to be very, very alert to even know that an accommodation was being made.

Click to expand...

But what if they got the wrong glass? Ooops?

Jason0047 said:

But what if they got the wrong glass? Ooops?

Click to expand...

In churches where individual cups are used, they don't look different from the rest of the cups. The usher or deacon just discretely hands them out in the correct order. But that is about the last line in my post. Do I take it that we are in agreement that it is going too far to say that the church stigmatizes the person with special needs or intends to make him feel like an alien, etc.?

AnnaDeborah said:

I know you didn't - my point is that surely if it is wrong for one person, it is wrong for all. If it is right for one, it is right for all. Otherwise, there seems to be a kind of double standard.

Click to expand...

Albion said:

That is your own thinking then? That it is "wrong" to accommodate the alcoholic or persons who cannot take in wheat, etc.?

Click to expand...

I think her point (and I apologize if I'm wrong) is that if your congregation believes it's wrong for them as a group to use nonalcoholic grape juice for communion then it would also be wrong for any of them to individually do so. She's not claiming it's wrong; she's asking you to clarify your claim that's it's wrong collectively but not individually.

Phil 1:21 said:

I think her point (and I apologize if I'm wrong) is that if your congregation believes it's wrong for them as a group to use nonalcoholic grape juice for communion then it would also be wrong for any of them to individually do so. She's not claiming it's wrong; she's asking you to clarify your claim that's it's wrong collectively but not individually.

Click to expand...

She already has agreed with me that I never said it was "wrong". The issue here seems to be the word wrong, which may carry with it the idea of being morally wrong or contrary to God's will, or something on that level. My feeling is that we ought to do as the Last Supper did, to the extent that that is possible, and as the church has done through the ages.

But if we are going to dope up a communicant or potentially damage his health, we of course believe that some range of options ought to be allowed, that's all, both with the bread and the wine.. But then to say "Lets go ahead and make everyone do it that way" doesn't make sense to me. That is not, IOW, an argument in favor of the church changing over to crackers and juice.

AnnaDeborah said:

I know you didn't - my point is that surely if it is wrong for one person, it is wrong for all. If it is right for one, it is right for all. Otherwise, there seems to be a kind of double standard.

So if you accept someone avoiding alcohol at communion if it will kill them, what about someone who will be seriously ill? If they are allowed to avoid it, what about someone who would become moderately ill? Slightly ill? Someone who would just feel sick for a few minutes?

Reading about the original meal, it was a meal taken together. Having separate bread or wine/juice for different people seems to be at odds with this.

Click to expand...

If I may...

I think there is a difference between saying something is the only right way to do something, and saying that something is the recommended norm. The norm is to use wine, for reason of fidelity to Scripture and tradition, but there are good reasons why exceptions are made.

There is also a difference between someone not having wine, and someone having something other than wine in its place. The usual accommodation for someone who can't have wine is to communicate them with only the bread (and this is understood to be full communion under one kind).

Albion said:

the church stigmatizes the person with special needs or intends to make him feel like an alien, etc.?

Click to expand...

Paidiske said:

The usual accommodation for someone who can't have wine is to communicate them with only the bread (and this is understood to be full communion under one kind).

Click to expand...

I can only speak for myself, but yes, I have felt like an outsider when I have been expected to either avoid the wine or take something separately. But I suppose this largely depends on your background. My belief is that the sharing together/remembering Christ's death is the important part, rather than the composition of the actual elements involved. If you believe that the composition of the elements is the most important aspect, then obviously you will view this differently.

(BTW, if the reaction is serious, it is not possible to give someone a different wine/bread 'discretely' since the risk of making a mistake needs to be completely eliminated.)

I agree that people paying attention would notice the way I handle gluten-free bread. I do administer it differently so that I don't even touch it, to avoid the possibility of contamination.

AnnaDeborah said:

I can only speak for myself, but yes, I have felt like an outsider when I have been expected to either avoid the wine or take something separately. But I suppose this largely depends on your background. My belief is that the sharing together/remembering Christ's death is the important part

Click to expand...

If remembering Christ's death were what was essential, why bother with communion at all? And if the elements are not important, why bother with it at all?

rather than the composition of the actual elements involved.

Click to expand...

No church has authority to create or alter a sacrament contrary to God's Word. Oreos and Coca Cola will never be the Lord's Supper. The Eucharist is not magic. In Lutheran and Reformed theology, if the Words of Institution are omitted and/or are not truthful about what is present at the table, you have no Lord's Supper.

FireDragon76 said:

If remembering Christ's death were what was essential, why bother with communion at all? And if the elements are not important, why bother with it at all?



No church has authority to create or alter a sacrament contrary to God's Word. Oreos and Coca Cola will never be the Lord's Supper. The Eucharist is not magic. In Lutheran and Reformed theology, if the Words of Institution are omitted and/or are not truthful about what is present at the table, you have no Lord's Supper.

Click to expand...

I don't mean that the elements were unimportant. But since we do not know the exact composition of the bread and wine consumed, we are unlikely to be getting it 100% right anyway. I'd be interested to know how 'accurate' one of the first disciples would think our current communion is - I'm sure they would see a lot of differences!

AnnaDeborah said:

I'd be interested to know how 'accurate' one of the first disciples would think our current communion is - I'm sure they would see a lot of differences!

Click to expand...

Excellent point, especially when we learn in 1 Corinthians that the Lord's supper was celebrated as more of a potluck or dinner than a liturgical chanting procession of people receiving a flat wafer and a sip of wine.

Jason0047 said:

The wine at the Lord's supper is symbolic of Christ's blood. His blood is supposed to cleanse us from sin. But if the blood is sinful itself, then we have a problem.

Click to expand...

Christ's blood was not, and can never be, sinful - because it flowed in the veins of a sinless man.

FireDragon76 said:

No church has authority to create or alter a sacrament contrary to God's Word.

Click to expand...

The last meal that Jesus shared with his disciples before his death was a Passover meal.
This was a meal that the Hebrew people ate before they left Egypt. They escaped the 10th and final plague by putting lamb's blood on the doorposts of their houses; they ate the lamb, with unleavened bread, and other things as well.
Jesus, the 2nd Moses, rescued us from slavery to sin and death. The Hebrews were saved by the blood of a lamb; we are saved by the blood of the Lamb of God who came to take away the sin of the world, John 1:29. Paul says that Christ is our Passover Lamb who has been sacrificed for us, 1 Corinthians 5:7.
Jesus did take bread and wine; these also were symbolic because he is the Bread of life and the True Vine.

Regarding the meal itself; both Matthew and Mark say that it was while they were eating that Jesus took bread, Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22. Luke says that it was after supper that he took the cup, Luke 22:20. So to keep this meal according to the Bible, we should be reclining around a table, eating lamb and the other elements of the Passover meal. We should take unleavened bread during the meal and drink wine after it. In fact, I once went to a Passover meal given by a Jewish Christian, who said that there were 5 cups of wine drunk at a Passover meal - the one after the meal was, I think, the 3rd, but in any case it was known as the cup of suffering. So never mind stressing about having a tiny sip of wine; Jesus and his disciples would have had at least 3 cupfuls.

I suggest almost no one keeps this meal as Jesus did - a meal, during, or after which, they took bread and wine. So to argue that some people observe it better than others, when almost no one does what is described in Scripture, seems pointless. In 1 Corinthians 11 they had a meal, in Acts 2 they broke bread together - no mention of wine, of words being said, nor of anyone "officiating."
The important thing, for me anyway, is to remember that Jesus rescued us from death and slavery to sin. Jesus, the spotless Lamb of God, bread of Life and the True Vine, died for us, reconciled us to God and has led us to freedom - eternal life and reconciliation with the Father.
I believe that this is what God wants, what is important, what reconciles us to him and gives us life - I can't believe that he is going to get that hung up on the composition of the bread and the wine.

FireDragon76 said:

Oreos and Coca Cola will never be the Lord's Supper.

Click to expand...

Yet I do believe that if that were all that people had, and wanted to remember the Lord's supper and offer them, and themselves, to him; he would honour that.

Strong in Him said:

The last meal that Jesus shared with his disciples before his death was a Passover meal.

Click to expand...

A Jewish Seder does not involve holding bread and wine and saying "This is my body" and "This is my blood".

So to keep this meal according to the Bible, we should be reclining around a table, eating lamb and the other elements of the Passover meal.

Click to expand...

We actually have no details like that in the Bible, which seems to focus only on the essential elements of the sacrament or ordinance. However, the biblical accounts always mention bread and wine, and the Words of Institution.

I believe that this is what God wants, what is important, what reconciles us to him and gives us life - I can't believe that he is going to get that hung up on the composition of the bread and the wine.

Click to expand...

The Lord's Supper is embedded in a liturgical sacrifice of sorts, in the sense it is an offering to God of our praise joined with "creatures of bread and wine" (to quote the Anglican Book of Common Prayer). In fact, the understanding of the essential act of Christian worship as sacrifice is something that is found throughout time in historic Christian churches. In that sense, any old thing we desire to put up on the table just won't cut it. It fails to take into account the sacred character of the liturgical act, instituted by the very hand of God himself. We should approach holy things with the fear of God, not with a nonchalant attitude of indifference.

FireDragon76 said:

A Jewish Seder does not involve holding bread and wine and saying "This is my body" and "This is my blood".

Click to expand...

No, but Scripture says that Jesus wanted to celebrate a Passover meal with his disciples, Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:12-14, Luke 22:8.
By saying the words he did, Jesus was giving a kind of new Passover - appropriate for the New covenant that was being sealed with his blood.

FireDragon76 said:

We actually have no details like that in the Bible, which seems to focus only on the essential elements of the sacrament or ordinance. However, the biblical accounts always mention bread and wine, and the Words of Institution.

Click to expand...

As it was a Passover meal that was being eaten; those elements would have been there.
The Gospels say "after the MEAL".

FireDragon76 said:

The Lord's Supper is embedded in a liturgical sacrifice of sorts, in the sense it is an offering to God of our praise joined with "creatures of bread and wine" (to quote the Anglican Book of Common Prayer). In fact, the understanding of the essential act of Christian worship as sacrifice is something that is found throughout time in historic Christian churches. In that sense, any old thing we desire to put up on the table just won't cut it.

Click to expand...

If you mean Oreos, coca-cola or cheeseburgers on a regular basis - no.
I'm suggesting that if some people were having a picnic, on a pilgrimage or in some situation where that was all that was available, I don't believe the Lord would condemn, punish or withdraw eternal life because they wanted to honour his Son in that way.
I'm certain that some churches in the UK have done "Messy Communion" with the kids, using bread and juice; introducing them to this sacrament. I'm not sure whether an ordained Minister was present; if not, I'm almost certain they would say that it wasn't communion. But Jesus was present; the leaders were no doubt Christians, filled with his Holy Spirit, and they were all eating and drinking to remember him - so you tell me what defines "communion."
As long as people don't do it irreverently, just for show or as part of the service without understanding or believing; I'm not sure the Lord is going to condemn us for the types of bread or wine we use.

FireDragon76 said:

We should approach holy things with the fear of God, not with a nonchalant attitude of indifference.

Click to expand...

Absolutely.
But is it not the presence of the Lord himself, with us and in us by his Spirit, that makes things holy? A slice of white bread is no "holier" than a slice of wholemeal or a cracker. Offering it to God, giving thanks, remembering and honouring Jesus and believing his is present by his Spirit - this is what makes it holy.

Paidiske said:

I think there is a difference between saying something is the only right way to do something, and saying that something is the recommended norm.

Click to expand...

This covers a lot more christian practice than just communion. It applies to almost everything.

I have known many many christians who could not understand the concept of a "recommended norm." It had to be a one-size-fits-all; or it was totally invalid.

I believe that stems from a wrong image of God to begin with.
God is not the impersonal legalist many imagine Him to be.

Strong in Him said:

As it was a Passover meal that was being eaten; those elements would have been there.
The Gospels say "after the MEAL".

Click to expand...

**** SHAMELESS PLUG WARNING ****
If you want a more in-depth explanation of "after the meal," I suggest picking up a Messianic Passover Hagaddah. Pretty much any one of them would do.

I put out a digital downloadable one which is available on most e-readers or on Amazon. It is priced as low as the publisher would allow me to go.

Strong in Him said:

Christ's blood was not, and can never be, sinful - because it flowed in the veins of a sinless man.

Click to expand...

Right. That is my point. Jesus's blood is sinless. The wine cannot be fermented or leavened. Fermented wine is a process of leaven. Leaven (used in bread) is always a symbol of sin. So Jesus did not make alcoholic wine as a part of His miracle at the wedding of Cana.

Jason0047 said:

Right. That is my point. Jesus's blood is sinless. The wine cannot be fermented or leavened. Fermented wine is a process of leaven. Leaven (used in bread) is always a symbol of sin. So Jesus did not make alcoholic wine as a part of His miracle at the wedding of Cana.

Click to expand...

This is untrue. Jesus uses leaven as a symbol for the Kingdom of God in the Parable of the Leaven.

Jason0047 said:

Right. That is my point. Jesus's blood is sinless. The wine cannot be fermented or leavened. Fermented wine is a process of leaven. Leaven (used in bread) is always a symbol of sin. So Jesus did not make alcoholic wine as a part of His miracle at the wedding of Cana.

Click to expand...

I don't know whether he did or not - nor, I suspect, do you.
But the host called it the best wine.
Whatever wine they had had as part of the wedding ceremony; the wine Jesus made, surpassed that.