Fences Make Good Neighbors – Part 2
In Part 1 of this two-part series, I pointed my readers to Lionel’s (from “A Better Covenant“) post called “There’s Fellowship and Then There’s Fellowship.” Lionel suggests that a three-tier fellowship (some closer than others) will create or demonstrate unity among believers.
My desire in this series is to consider the boundaries to these different levels of fellowship or relationship. At the end of my previous post, I asked these questions:
Do we set the boundaries [of fellowship or relationship between us and other people]? Should we set the boundaries? Do other people set the boundaries? Should we allow other people to set the boundaries? Are there boundaries beyond our control? How do these boundaries aid or hinder unity among the church?
To begin with, we should recognize that some boundaries are completely beyond our control. For example, I have never met most of the people that are alive today in the world. Therefore, I cannot have a relationship with them at any level. However, I believe that according to Scripture the love of God compels me to be ready to begin a relationship with anyone that God brings into my life.
Also, some people will not allow you to build a relationship with them. We cannot control what other people do or don’t do. We have neighbors that we’ve tried to get to know. We’ve invited them to our house, invited them to their favorite restaurant, and talked with them while we’re all outside. But, they do not want to get to know us better. We can’t control this. However, once again, we can be open and ready to build a relationship with them (and others) whenever the opportunity arises.
For the most part, our concern should not be with those relationships that are “fenced” out due to reasons beyond our control. What about other relationships?
First, there are legitimate reasons for refusing to have fellowship (or build a relationship) with someone. We see some of these in Scripture. For example, if someone calls himself (or herself) a brother (or sister) in Christ and yet lives a consistently immoral (and unrepentant) life, then we are to refuse to fellowship with them. As Paul says, “Do not even eat with that person.” Similarly, if someone denies the gospel, the deity or humanity of Christ, refuses to work to support him- or herself, or is acting divisive toward other believers, then we should refuse to fellowship with that person.
Are there other reasons to refuse fellowship with someone? This is the crux of the issue. Is it valid for us to choose whom to fellowship with and whom to refuse to build a relationship with based on other factors (that is, factors that are not listed in Scripture).
If someone were to suggest that race, economic status, educational level, ethnicity, or nationality were a reason for choosing to withhold fellowship (or refusing to build a relationship), most Christians would disagree. Yet, we often choose to withhold fellowship for other reasons. For the church today, the biggest reasons for withholding fellowship or choosing not to build a relationship would be organizational membership (“church membership”) and doctrinal differences, especially related to salvation and the end times.
Are these valid reasons for creating boundaries… either boundaries for starting relationships or allowing relationships to deepen?
At this point, I would argue that these are not valid reasons to withhold fellowship. However, I will also admit that I don’t know what it would look like to build relationships with those who differ from me in many of these areas. I welcome these types of relationships, primarily because I think they would be beneficial in helping me live for Christ. I also think that fellowship between people who are different from one another would better demonstrate to the world the love and acceptance of God in Christ Jesus.
So, what do you think? Besides the scriptural reasons that I listed, are there other valid reasons for withholding fellowship (or building deeper relationships) with someone? How do we decide what those valid reasons are? How do we decide that those reasons are valid?
Witherington on the Table of the Lord
This quote is from Ben Witherington’s book Making a Meal of It: Rethinking the Theology of the Lord’s Supper (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007):
What have we learned in our examination of Paul’s discussion of meals, and in particular the Lord’s Supper? Firstly, the Lord’s Supper was taken in homes. This is clear not only from 1 Corinthians 11 but also probably from Acts 2, and furthermore, it was partaken of as a part of a larger fellowship meal. Secondly, Paul is trying to distinguish the Christian meal and its protocol from the usual socially stratifying customs of a pagan meal. The Christian meal was to depict the radical leveling that the kerygma proclaimed – whoever would lead must take on the role of the servant, and all should be served equally. This social leveling was meant to make clear that there was true equality in the body of Christ. All were equal in the eyes of the Lord, and they should also be viewed that way by Christians, leading to equal hospitality.
Thirdly, the Lord’s Supper was clearly not just a reenactment of the Passover meal, not least because of its prospective element, looking forward and pointing forward to the return of Christ. For that matter, the Last Supper itself was no ordinary Passover meal, for Christ modified both the elements and their interpretation so they would refer to him and his coming death. There seems to be no historical evidence that early Christians used the Lord’s Supper as an occasion to dramatize either the Passover or the Last Supper. Instead, the ceremony was incorporated into a larger and different context, that of the Christian fellowship, or agape, meal. (pg. 60-61)
What do you think of Witherington’s conclusions? Is it important that followers of Jesus continue to share the Lord’s Supper as the early believers did as described in Scripture? Why or why not? If so, then in what ways?
Fences Make Good Neighbors – Part 1
The title of this post comes from a poem by Robert Frost called “Mending Wall.” But, even before Frost included the line in his famous poem, “Fences make good neighbors” was a 17th century proverb. In this post and the next, I’m going to consider the “fences” that keep us from having fellowship or building stronger relationships with other people.
The impetus for this two-part series was a very good post (and following discussion) by Lionel Woods (at “A Better Covenant“) called “There’s Fellowship and Then There’s Fellowship.” In his post, Lionel recognizes that there are different levels of fellowship and relationship. He suggests that these three tiers of fellowship can help us live in unity. Here is his description of the three tiers of fellowship:
I think approaching the body from a three-tier circle may be beneficial for us to maintain unity and promote the oneness that we are to promote to be a witness of Christ’s work in the world. So we have the outer circle. These are loose but still connected relationships we have with Christians, we deal with them on a less intimate level; however, this interaction is not superficial. We serve them help them, encourage them and even correct them, but because we understand that they are in the outer tier we understand that their are limits we will not cross. This may be Jesus with many of His disciples.
Then we move to the second tier this may, but not limited, those we actually go to church with on a weekly basis, we sing with them, we go to Sunday School with them, we may be involved with outreach with them, from time to time we may hook up outside of the weekly fellowship, but there is no expectation to this day to day gathering. These people we see more and are involved a little more, sort of like Jesus with the 70. He sent them out, often times they would travel with Him, but they were not like the 12.
That leads to the inner circle or the third tier. Here we find our closest confidants. These people stay over night with us, watch our children, no are spending habits, they know all of our flaws and cover them with grace. These people can do great danger to us so this relationship takes much grace and love. These are the relationships that hurt like when Judas kisses Jesus on the cheek. This is Paul and Timothy here. These relationships just aren’t based on our like faith but an undeniable connection and love. These are those we see ourselves growing old with.
In response, I asked Lionel what or who defines these three levels of fellowship?I mean, it is certainly true that we have deeper relationships with some, lesser relationships with others, and very little relationship with others. But, what filters do we use to decide whether or not someone is in level one or level three, or whether we would even allow someone to increase to a different level?
These boundaries (“fences” to use Frost’s proverb) define who is in level 1, who is in level 2, and who is in level 3. So, the boundaries are very, very important.
Do we set the boundaries? Should we set the boundaries? Do other people set the boundaries? Should we allow other people to set the boundaries? Are there boundaries beyond our control? How do these boundaries aid or hinder unity among the church?
I’m going to attempt to answer these questions in the next post, but for now, I would love to hear your thoughts.
Can We Talk?
Two years ago, after watching a Kleenex commercial (of all things), I started thinking about talking and listening. I wrote a blog post called “Can We Talk?” recognizing that people like to talk about themselves and their interests. But, the “one anothers” of Scripture demonstrate that we should listen at least as much as we talk.
—————————
Have you seen the Kleenex commercials with the tag line “Let it out”? The man on the street with a box of tissue and big sofa can apparently get anyone to talk. This ad campaign has me thinking about communication and conversation.
My wife, Margaret, has always said that I can talk to anyone. In a way, she’s correct, because I’ve learned to ask people about themselves. People like to talk about themselves. They like to talk about their families and their past and their home town and their favorite sports team and their hobbies. So, as I learn about people, I simply ask them questions about the topics that they bring up. In other words, I let people talk about themselves.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t ask people about themselves simply so that they will talk. I am genuinely interested. I like to hear people’s stories and I like to hear how God is working in their lives, and so I ask people about themselves. I’ve learned alot about people that they probably would not normally express simply by asking questions about them.
Occasionally, I get emails from people who read my blog. That’s a good thing. I put my email address on my sidebar several months ago because I wanted people to be able to communicate with me if they wanted to ask questions and make a statement without doing so publicly.You’ve seen some of those emails published here as “guest blog” posts. I always ask permission before I publish anyone’s email. When I get these emails and answer any questions that I can answer, I always ask the person if they would share something about themselves. Almost everyone who emails me responds to my question. Again, people like to talk about themselves.
I think that this is the key to the Kleenex ad campaign. Kleenex knows that people like to talk about themselves, and they are simply giving people an outlet to do just that. It works, by the way. Give people an opportunity, and they will gladly express themselves. Of course, someone has to be willing to listen and genuinely interested in hearing what the person has to say.
This type of communication and conversation is very important. For believers, most of the “one anothers” of Scripture are based on some type of communication. In order to consider one another, stir up one another to love and good works, encourage one another, submit to one another, etc. we must be willing to listen to what one another has to say. Perhaps “listen to one another” is the foundational unspoken “one another” of Scripture. But, I think, “listen to one another” is actually assumed in “love one another”. If we love one another, we will want to hear what the other person thinks, feels, dreams, experiences, believes, fears, etc.
But, this is where the rub comes. Everyone likes to talk about themselves. But, who is willing to suppress their own desire in order to allow another person to talk about themselves? You see, listening to one another actually goes against human nature. We like to talk about ourselves; we don’t automatically like to listen to other people talk about themselves. We like to control the conversation; we don’t necessarily like to listen to other people talk. We like to choose the categories and topics; we don’t necessarily like for other people to drift into “taboo” areas.
In reality, we are less like the guy in the Kleenex commercial, and more like Mike Myers’ character Linda Richman in the Saturday Night Live skit “Coffee Talk”. Linda liked to control the conversation – which usually revolved around Barbara Streisand, her favorite person. It didn’t matter who was the guest on Linda’s fake talk show, they always talked about Linda’s interests. Even when Linda got too emotional and couldn’t talk, she wanted to control the conversation by offering a topic. If you’re too young to have seen this skit, or if you don’t remember it, trust me, it was good, like buttah.
I think this may help explain why many relationships are rather shallow. Everyone wants to talk about themselves, but few are willing to listen. Also, I think this explains why unbelievers do not want to talk to Christians. When a Christian says to an unbeliever, “Can we talk?” the unbeliever knows that the Christian really means, “I want to tell you why you’re wrong and what you should believe”. In fact, I think many people have learned the correct answers to certain questions just in case a Christians decides to “talk” to them. Some of these people probably even think they are Christians because they know these correct answers. But, since so few people are willing to listen, those people may have never truly expressed themselves and their own beliefs.
Can we consider others better than ourselves and humble ourselves in order to listen instead of talk? I’m certainly not perfect in this area, and often find myself trying to control a conversation. But, thinking through things like this help me to remember to God values people, and I should as well. God listens to my prayers, and I should be willing to listen to other people too.
You’ll have to excuse me. I’m a little verklempt. Talk amongst yourselves. I’ll give you a topic…
Facebook Stati Ecclesiae
When I update my Facebook statuses (stati?), they usually fall under one of four categories:
1. Links to my blog posts.
2. Something humorous.
3. Things that I’m doing or have done.
4. Something about the church.
Sometimes, my status updates about the church lead to good discussions. Here are some Facebook statuses that I’ve written recently about the church:
—————————————————————————————————
1. “Members expected. Visitors welcome.” (from a sign in front of a church building) huh? If you’re getting together with us only because you think its expected of you, then you may as well stay home.
—————————————————————————————————
2. (From a discussion about discipleship…) “The church is full of Ethiopian eunuchs.” What do you think that statement means? Do you agree or disagree?
—————————————————————————————————
3. Quote from SYTYCD (“So You Think You Can Dance”) that every believer should be able to say about the church: “Everyone in my family has affected who I am in one way or another.”
—————————————————————————————————
4. “Exhort one another daily”… but today is Tuesday… What if I only see them on Sunday?
—————————————————————————————————
5. “Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.” hmmmm… which one will I demonstrate today?
—————————————————————————————————
6. Both the priest and the Levite thought they loved the injured man, but only the Samaritan truly loved him.
—————————————————————————————————
7. Wednesday night worship service and church activities = milking goats for our friends while they are out of town.
—————————————————————————————————
8. Are you a child of God? Then also consider yourself an ordained minister and missionary. Now, live accordingly.
—————————————————————————————————
9. If you can’t replace the word “ministry” with the word “service”, then you’re not using the word “ministry” in the same sense as Scripture.
—————————————————————————————————
10. Get out of “the ministry” and start ministering.
—————————————————————————————————
11. Today, the church agreed that there will be coffee shops in the new heavens and new earth. However, we quickly divided concerning the style / brand / roast of coffee that would be served.
—————————————————————————————————
12. The Lord’s Supper (intended to demonstrate our unity around a common table, among other things) is too often used to divide.
—————————————————————————————————
13. If the church in my house meets the church in your house while we’re all in the park, do we become the church in the park, or two churches in the park?
—————————————————————————————————
14. Discipleship requires sharing life. If you are preaching/teaching but not sharing your life, then you are not making disciples.
—————————————————————————————————
15. Spiritual maturity occurs primarily in community… and community can’t happen one or two days a week.
—————————————————————————————————
Well, there you have it… fifteen Facebook status updates… numbered for your convenience. Feel free to comment on any or all and to add your own thoughts.
Church Life #10 – Not Just Me
This series is about our life with the church as we attempt to live together as brothers and sisters. (For a more detailed description of this series, see my post “Church Life – A New Series.”)
Reading through this series and my blog, it may appear that “church life” depends on me. But, that’s not true at all. So, in this post, I want to highlight a few ways that many of our brothers and sisters share life together that my family may not be directly involved with.
When we first starting meeting together as a church, we started a few Bible studies, because that’s what churches do. While the formats and times and locations and people involved have changed from time to time, two of those Bible studies continue today. The people involved with the Bible studies decide what they are going to study and how they are going to study. One Bible study is now hosted by a family who is not a part of our church apart from the study.
One family has four young boys. A few years ago, while they were studying Scripture together, the boys were convicted about caring for widows. So, the family started spending time in a local nursing home. They invite others from the church to join them and begin forming relationships with the residents.
Three of our brothers recently started playing soccer in an adult league. While they’re playing, two of the wives get together. Recently, one of the single guys (thanks Jon!) volunteered to keep their children so they could watch the soccer match.
I couldn’t begin to count the number of times that someone has made dinner for someone else due to sickness. This is not something that’s planned or announced, although someone will occasionally send out a notice to let people know that they are organizing meals for someone who is going to need them for a long time (like for a new mother).
People who are part of the church are constantly having dinner together, and inviting others who are not part of the church together. Just in the last year, at least three families have hosted missionaries and have then invited others to their house to hear from and encourage those missionaries.
These may sound like small things, and they are, in one sense. These are simply examples of how our brothers and sisters have chosen to share life together. Church life happens in the small things, the everyday, ordinary things.
21st Century Church Contest Entries
Energion’s blogging/essay contest is finished. All the submissions are in, and the judging has begun. I know, because I’m one of the judges. Without giving away my preferences or rankings, I thought I would share some thoughts from each essay (in the order listed by Energion):
From A. Amos Love’s submission:
This congregation of “Disciples of Christ,†“the ekklesia of God,†“ sons of God,†will;
Forsake all…
Love not the world…
Love not their own life…
Just want to know Him…
Count all things but dung…
Always take the lower place…
Make themselves of no reputation…
From Arthur Sido’s submission:
Scripture does not lay out a specific, liturgical schedule of events to govern the lives of believers nor is one desirable. All too often we have tried to push Scripture aside when it comes to the gathering of the New Covenant people as the church and replaced it with our own pragmatic solutions, rituals and traditions which may bring us comfort and a sense of being religious but bring little glory to God. Isn’t bringing glory to God what the gathering of the church is supposed to be about?
From Lew Ayotte’s submission:
When the Assembly of Christ is about building one another up, not dividing over leaders or denominations, focused on recognizing their own leaders, they will inherently be about fulfilling the Great Commission. In fact, I believe following Jesus’ command here may be like second nature to them. They will see the world through His eyes instead of their own. As the Assembly of Christ, reaching our neighbors will not be based on a program, chant, or weekly exercise… it will be according to Christ’s example. Each member in the assembly will recognize their responsibilities, although different, each one has an extremely important role.
From David Blanton’s submission:
Finally, a Jesus Christ ministry cannot help but look like Christ Jesus, the only mirror that is worth measuring itself against. What did the Good Samaritan look like? The parable never gave the listener a physical description because it wasn’t important. The only radical ministry is the one that has Christ Jesus as its center, who said to love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind. And love your neighbor as yourself. If a ministry does that, then it cannot help but look like a Jesus Christ ministry. Does the ministry look forward or backward or does it abstain from the obtuseness of looking anywhere but its center?
From Lionel Woods’ submission:
When the disciples met with Christ, He was modeling community before them. They asked “where are you staying†and He answered “come and seeâ€. From that day forward they lived in a community, sharing, eating, living amongst, and knowing one another. They would have looked at what we giggle at today as a cult. We think that type of life on life is appalling, idiotic, unnecessary, we believe that type of life is too radical, ridiculous, we cling on to our autonomy like it is a right, my friends it is not. We belong to a King. A King who has created us for this community a community to reflect who He is.
From James Lee’s submission:
This aptly demonstrates the need for our ministry to each other and provides a point of commonality that will equip us to be true salt and light in the world while loving each other. We cannot accomplish the tasks of discipleship and proclamation of the Gospel through political agendas, legislated morality, bully pulpits, and sectarian distinctions that scream we are right and you are wrong. We can only accomplish true ministry in this century through the power of Christ, His Holy Spirit, and a love for one another that strengthens us to face the enemy head on, and storm the gates of hell with the victory that was wrought in the spotless Lamb’s blood.
From Christopher Larson’s submission:
Such ministry will seek to avoid the two pitfalls of pragmatism on the one hand and self important hyper-spiritual perfection on the other. it will celebrate the freedom to do many things so that one thing might in the end be done, and it will celebrate all who share that calling as brothers and sisters in the ministry that takes many external forms, but in the end is one, (Pslam 119:63). Our goal will be to always ‘remember Jesus Christ’ in whatever form our work may take, and to know however difficult the path may seem He is Lord and He is not in chains, but freely working in and through us to bring forth a people for Himself, (2 Timothy 2:1-9).
I enjoyed all of the submissions. They all caused me to think about the church of Jesus Christ in the 21st century in different ways. I encourage you to read each of the essays.
Church Life #9 – Money
This series is about our life with the church as we attempt to live together as brothers and sisters. (For a more detailed description of this series, see my post “Church Life – A New Series.”)
The way that a person handles money says alot about their priorities. This is true for a group of people as well, including a church.
When we started meeting together several years ago, we handled money the way that most church organizations handle money. Everyone that was part of the church was asked to “give” through the church. The church created a budget that covered administrative costs, meeting locations costs, and ministry opportunities.
Over time, we found that our budget was directing our ability to serve more than the Spirit or the opportunities that God gave us was directing our service. So, a few years ago, we completely changed how we handle money.
To begin with, we still have a budget. Why? Because we have made certain corporate decisions as a group. For example, we’ve decided as a group to rent a place to meet. If we made the decision not to rent a place to meet and to forgo a few other administrative responsibilities, then I could see the possibility of having no corporate budget. But, at this time, we do have a budget.
So, since we have a budget, we still ask people to give to cover that budget. How much is that budget? Well, if you divide the budget between the people who meet together weekly, it amounts to less that $20 per person per month. That’s what we ask people to give “to the church” in order to cover corporate responsibilities.
Beyond this, we do not ask people to give money “to the church” – that is, to the church organization. However, we often ask people to give “to the church” – that is, to the people.
What do I mean? I mean that there are often needs or emergencies that come up among the believers that make up the church. The people involved have opportunities to let others know about their needs, and their brothers and sisters can then give to those needs, usually giving directly to the person or family in need.
Similarly, we often have service related needs. Again, when the church (that is, the people) are aware of those needs, they have the opportunity to give money, time, or other resources in order to help with those service needs.
Of course, this doesn’t mean that we are individualistic about the way we handle money. In fact, we often work together to take care of financial needs.
A couple that is part of our church is planning to move to Africa to work in Bible translation. Last Summer, they traveled to Africa for several weeks to work with the group that’s there and to learn more about what they will be doing in the future. They told the church about their financial needs for this trip, and the church helped them. How did this help come to them? It usually came from different families giving directly to this couple, as each family was able to give. Some gave more; some gave less. But, together, we helped this couple travel to Africa.
Several of us are praying about traveling to Ethiopia next Summer to work with the churches there. None of us can afford this trip on our own. But, when the church decides to send one or more of us on this trip, then the church will again take the responsibility of providing for their needs. How? Again, by each family giving as they are able.
We’ve found that by freeing people’s money from the constraints of an organizational budget, we are actually able to provide for more immediate needs as well as for larger and more long-term needs.
All in all, handling money in this way has helped us as we attempt to live life together as the church of Jesus Christ.
Church Life #8 – Vacation
This series is about our life with the church as we attempt to live together as brothers and sisters. (For a more detailed description of this series, see my post “Church Life – A New Series.”)
Last week, our family went to Florida on vacation. But, we didn’t go alone. We went with another family from the church. We spent 9 days together. We traveled together in one vehicle. We spend a night with some friends of both families on the road. We stayed in rooms that were next door to one another.
While on vacation, we did almost everything together. We traveled on shuttle buses together. We went to amusement parks together. We ate together. We were together from early in the morning until late at night.
Why? Well, for one thing, we enjoy being with one another. We enjoy doing things together. We’re family. But, there’s another reason as well. We got to know one another even better by spending so much time with one another.
This last reason is also the reason that our church often spends Sundays at the beach together, or at the park together. This is the reason that we often spend weekend camping together. This is the reason that we spend time in one another’s homes.
The “fellowship” that we read about in Scripture cannot be lived in one or two hours on Sunday. It can’t be lived on through planned or scripted meetings. In fact, we define “fellowship” as “sharing life together” – and we try, as much as possible, to share all of life together. And, that includes vacations.
This is not the only time that we’ve vacationed with other people from the church. And, we’re not the only families from the church to vacation together. These occasions of sharing life – from everyday events to big events – is very important to the life of the church. These are discipling opportunities, service opportunities, teaching opportunities, caring opportunities, comforting opportunities. These are opportunities to learn more about one another (i.e. “consider one another”) so that we can then help one another grow in our individual and mutual relationships with Christ (i.e. “to stir up love and good works”).
So, our two families had a good time together in Florida. We visited Walt Disney World. But, this time together was much more important than riding roller coasters and watching shows. This time together was another opportunity to share life… the abundant life that Jesus Christ has given each of us… church life.
Everyday meal or Lord’s Supper?
Arthur at “the voice of one crying out in suburbia” asks a great question in his post “Which one is the Lord’s Supper?” He says:
We were running really late this morning and arrived just in time for the passing of the loaf and the little cups of grape juice. I was kind of relieved that we made it for the Lord’s Supper. Then after the morning gathering, we hung around as the church and had lunch, breaking bread together and being in joyous fellowship.
Which one was the Lord’s Supper as we see it in the Bible?
His short post and question reminded me of something that I had read recently in Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts (edited by I. Howard Marshall and David Peterson) in David Peterson’s chapter called “The Worship of the New Community.” He writes:
It might be argued that the reference to the meeting of the Christians in Troas ‘on the first day of the week’ in order to break bread is a pointer to a formal Sunday gathering for the purposes of the Lord’s Supper (Acts 20:7). But Paul’s discussion with them occupied their attention until after midnight and again after the meal, suggesting that it was a very unstructured and informal meeting. When Luke mentions that Paul finally broke bread (perhaps on behalf of everyone present), he adds ‘and when he had eaten, he engaged in much further conversation until dawn’ (v. 11). It is really quite artificial to suggest that the meal by which Paul satisfied himself after such a long time was somehow distinct from ‘the breaking of bread’. Since Christian meetings were largely held in the context of private homes, it is natural that they expressed their fellowship in terms of eating together.
In my judgement, therefore, ‘the breaking of bread’ in Acts cannot be taken to refer to a liturgical celebration distinct from the everyday meals that believers shared together. Such meals were doubtless ‘full of religious content because of the recollection of the table fellowship which Jesus had with his followers during his earthly ministry.’ (Behm, TDNT, III:730) The reality of Christian fellowship was expressed from the earliest times in the ordinary activity of eating together…
Eating together was a way of expressing the special relationship which believers had with one another in Christ and the special responsibility to one another involved in that relationship. These meals may well have been informal expressions of what was later more structured and organized. (pg 392-393)
So, to answer Arthur’s question (Which one was the Lord’s Supper as we see it in the Bible?), I would have to say, “I don’t know.”
In fact, I was talking with a brother about this last Sunday. He asked about celebrating the Lord’s Supper weekly – and I’m definitely in favor of this. But, I then asked him a follow-up question, “Why not celebrate the Lord’s Supper daily? Or at every meal?” This seems to be what Peterson is alluding to. Every meal was considered the “Lord’s Supper” because of their fellowship and their focus on Jesus, his earthly ministry, and his continued ministry among them.
Spurgeon recognized something similar. In a sermon on Acts 2:42-47, he said, “[T]heir own meals were so mixed and mingled with the Lord’s Supper that to this day the most cautious student of the Bible cannot tell when they stopped eating their common meals, and when they began eating the Supper of the Lord.”
I’ll be honest, my “common meals” are not at that point yet. But, I think that is the direction we should be heading. Wouldn’t it be great (perhaps even reminiscent of what we find in Scripture) if we ate every meal as the Lord’s Meal? Why don’t we?