Rethinking the Lord's Supper and the Eldership

This new way of church-life (in our homes) is causing us to rethink some familiar church practices.

For example it is causing us to rethink the Lord's Supper. In the Hebrew culture the breaking of the bread was the official start of a meal together. It was the waving of the white flag to start the race. We can imagine that the father of the family, much like Jesus with His disciples on that betrayal night, held up the bread, gave thanks, broke it in view of all at the table, and dinner began. The father then passed the bread around the table as Jesus passed the bread to His disciples, but it did not stop with the bread; other foods were likely consumed as well. It was a meal. They would pass the potatoes, the squash, the pumpkin pie and the salad. And at the end of the meal the wine was passed for all to drink. The wine was like the checkered flag at the end of the meal stating, ‘our meal is now finished’. And if this were the way the majority of Hebrew families began and ended meal-time then Paul’s words in 1 Cor.11 make a lot more sense;

“In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me” (1 Cor.11:25).

The power of this regular meal was not the actual bookends themselves (bread & wine), but the communing that took place between the people and their Lord and between the people and one another. As they ate and supped with Jesus so they ate and supped with one another. At the dinner table they would share about Jesus together. They would pray spontaneously as the need arose. They would confess to one another their struggles. They would give testimony to the Holy Spirit’s working in their lives, and as they did this the children probably chimed in with, “Mommy can I have more please”. We are not at present practicing the Lord's Supper as a meal on Sundays; however in this new context of ours it is clear to see how this might have been the way of the church in the beginning.

Church in our homes is also causing us to rethink the eldership of the church. In Acts 14 we read of the Apostles appointing elders in every church in the cities of Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch (see Acts 14:21-23) and it is common to assume that the Apostles went to specific church buildings in these cities to do this; but this is not how it happened. The Apostles went house to house because each church resided in a house. To appoint elders in every church in Lystra, Iconium and Antioch was to appoint elders in every house-church. These elders were the spiritual fathers of the church family and would be responsible for identifying "faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim.2:2).

Paul's instructions to Titus makes more sense when we consider that the church met in their homes. Titus 1:5 says,

"For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you—"

If each house-church had an elder or two as seems to be the pattern chosen in Acts 14, then to "appoint elders in ever city" simply meant to appoint elders in every house-church in the city. The modern day problem of having too many people for one pastor to care for disappears when a church is a house-church, A house-church likely consistsed of approximately 20 people and one elder can certainly care for 20 souls responsibly.

These things and many more we are rethinking as we practice now the house-church model at BCC. Please pray for the Lord's guidance as we experience many new changes which, we pray, will be advancing for the kingdom of Christ in NJ.