Questions and Answers relative to the "Second Serving" Issue
The subsequent eight
questions were submitted to me by one studying the "second serving" issue. I
thought they might be of some help to others; therefore, I have linked them to
the article, "The Lord’s Supper, the ‘Second Serving’ Controversy"
(please first read the article before considering the
subsequent questions and answers). I have substituted the name of
the man who posed the questions, but retained the questions and my answers.
Jack:
I shall as briefly as
possible comment under each question. Also, please
understand that I do not intend for the subsequent to be exhaustive or
complete. Thanks for your interest.
How would you respond to one
who asks the following questions:
1. Acts 20:7 is an example -
the only passage for first day of the week assembly.
In the example, that local church assembled and we know of two
things that happened: they did so for the purpose of partaking of the
Lord's Supper, and Paul preached to them. They
appeared to have assembled once. Does having multiple
assemblies not violate that passage by adding additional assemblies?
Answer: Jack, I
have noticed that those holding the view that it is
unscriptural for a local church to offer the Supper Sunday afternoon or
night (second meeting time) to any who want to partake have now migrated
to the position that it is unscriptural to meet more than once on the Lord's
Day. I believe this is one tragic consequence of this Lord's Supper
issue. Let me begin by saying that I believe that it is scriptural for a local
church to assemble on the Lord's Day to break bread (Acts 20: 7). In this
vein, there are a number of particulars for which we
must contend. For instance, the following must be acknowledged:
A. The Lord's Supper is only
seen being observed by the local church in the
assembly on the Lord's Day (Acts 20: 7, I Cor. 11: 17).
B. Only those capable of discerning...partake (I Cor. 11).
C. Certain emblems are
used (Matt. 26, I Cor. 11).
I will affirm the above;
however, within the circumstance of the foregoing, I believe there are certain
matters not specified and regarding which brethren have no right to make an
issue or bind. If a church wants to use one cup and presents the practice
as just their preference without binding it or doctrinally excluding multiple
cups, this is one thing. However, when they take the position, "More than
one cup nullifies the Lord's Supper and reduces it to mockery," I must take
issue. I do not see any emphasis placed on the literal "container(s)" but,
rather, on the "contained."
What is there in the
essential nature of a church assembling twice on the
Lord's Day that would make it wrong or, put another way, what properties are
present in Acts 20: 7 to indicate that the historian designed to teach that
a local church may only once meet on the Lord's Day? On a
historical plane, the only time that I have ever known
of brethren even questioning assembling more than once being wrong is only in
connection with the Lord's Supper sensitivities.
Why would it be wrong for a
local church to meet twice, let's say, on the Lord's
Day? After all, it is the "Lord's Day." For most, assembling once
in a more than a couple hours setting would not be practical (children,
etc.). Again, the objection all comes back to the Lord's Supper issue.
Why do we at Holly Street
meet in addition to Sunday morning, Sunday afternoon?
My answer is, edification. Do I teach that in order for a
local church to be sound, they must meet twice on Sunday? No.
In view of the Passover and
it being an anti-type to the Lord's Supper, why would
it be wrong to offer an opportunity during the second meeting on the
Lord's Day for those present desiring to partake of the Lord's Supper to
be able to do so. I personally do not partake in
the second assembly since I believe I have fulfilled
my responsibility and privilege in the first assembly. However, do I have
problems with offering this opportunity to the extent that I oppose it and
insist such is a sin? No, I do not. The ideal would be that all be
present Sunday morning and partake, but the ideal is not always the case in a
real world (please revisit my below article).
2. You mentioned multiple
opportunities for worship on Sunday. Is the
origin of multiple services on Sunday not for the express purpose of
offering the Lord’s Supper more than once? How might we address those who
say "We meet according to Acts 20:7 on Sunday morning, but the evening assembly
is really no different than a meeting night or a Wednesday."
Answer:
I do not believe any can
provide definitive proof either way relative,
historically or biblically, to the number of assemblies on the Lord's Day.
I assemble Sunday afternoon (second assembly) in order to engage in
edification. Hence, based on my rationale and intent, I do not
assemble Sunday afternoon to "break bread." The
church at Troas had an extended meeting, apparently
being largely influenced by the circumstances (Paul
needing to leave and inject all the influence and teaching he could into the
limited time). If there is one who physically could not attend the
first assembly, then they would be, "...coming
together to break bread." Again, I am not saying
that any practice other than the one already mentioned as
being "ideal" is totally free of questions and at least potential
problems. However, I do not think what we practice at
Holly street (qualified example) in meeting twice or in offering the Supper to any wanting to partake in the
second assembly has such potential problems that we must tell one, "Since
you did not make it this morning, you cannot partake tonight."
As to the "...comparable to
the Wednesday night meeting matter," some are now
saying that when they meet the second time on Sunday, it is not the
assembly of Acts 20: 7, but a Bible class circumstance. Hence, they
cannot offer the Supper. I agree that the Supper
cannot be offered in the Wednesday night meeting for two reasons: A day
other than the Lord's Day is present and a Bible class so understood is not "the
assembly" of Acts 20: 7, I Corinthians. 11, 12, 14, etc. However, I see
nothing in Acts 20: 7 to restrict a local church to
only meeting once on the Lord's Day. To place emphasis on just "one
meeting" is to emphasize a matter the historian does not accent, I am convinced.
I think the number of meetings, whether they are morning, afternoon, or night,
or if the church only assembles once on the Lord's Day is a decision for each
local church and a matter of expediency. The serious problem enters when
brethren begin to bind their preferences and designate all who do not agree as
liberal and unsound. One preacher recently told me, "Don, there is no
difference in a preacher advocating church supported institutions and in the
preacher who is a part of a church that assembles more than once on the Lord's
Day."
3. How might we respond if
the evening assembly consisted ONLY of the partaking
of the Lord's Supper. By way of example, a group decides to have
an assembly at 9 on Sunday morning. At this assembly, there is
singing, prayers, teaching, giving, and the partaking
of the LS. That evening, the same group offers
an assembly from 6 to 6:15 for the LS. As a follow up,
how would we address this if over time ONLY those who didn't come to the
AM assembly came to the PM assembly. How does this kind of thing impact
the situation?
Answer: Again,
Jack, there is the "ideal" and every step away from the
"ideal," while perhaps not having sufficient objection to constitute
exclusion, does involve a gradation difficulty. I personally would
oppose the action of question 3 for several reasons.
4. What about those who offer
"early" and "late" services on Sunday morning. If one says that is not according
to Acts 20:7 because the "whole church" is not assembling together (i.e., people
are choosing which one they want to come to), would that not also eliminate the
so-called "Second serving" at the PM service for the same reason.
Answer: Again,
the "ideal" is for the church to come together.... I have
known of unusual circumstances where a local church due to limited
facilities met twice on Sunday morning. This was only a temporary
arrangement until the problem was solved. However, I do not think
such is tantamount to the example at Holly Street.
5. Does offering the
Lord’s Supper at the PM assembly not play into the idea that the Lord’s Supper
is a kind of "sacrament" and everyone needs to make sure they partake on Sunday
to be "right with God?"
Answer: There
could be such a mental abuse on the part of some. We, you
and I, know, though, that possible abuse does not necessarily negate a
matter. Those pushing for negation and preclusion of the second
meetingbased on possible abuses are often not considering that they are denying
an opportunity that I believe some have to them (being
able to partake).
6. There are places where
those partaking in the PM go off separately into
another room to do so. Do you have any thoughts on that arrangement, esp.
as it might impact this discussion in general?
Answer: I do not
think such an arrangement as you mention in your question 6 is a fix or
solution. Rather, I think such a practice presents more objections than it
removes. Since I do not think the scriptures are emphasizing or binding
total simultaneous action in partaking (see my article), but do bind partaking
in the assembly, I would not advocate or practice the action of question 6.
7. Is 1 Corinthians 16 not
addressed as an individual action? Such as: "Since you are assembled on
the first day of the week, everyone make your contribution for the needy saints
at that time -- don't make a special collection when I come" / whereas the
assembly of Christians together is supposed to be for the purpose of partaking
of the Lord’s Supper? As such, is there a need for a designated "coming
together" for the collection? Or could people not place their offering in
a box on the wall any time on the first day? Are the items (LS and
collection) really parallel?
Answer: Jack, I
do not totally follow your thought progression expressed
in question 7. The action of giving (I Cor. 16) and the Lord's
Supper (I Cor. 11) are both performed in the assembly and constitute
distributive action, individual action performed in a collective setting.
One stated reason, in the case of the contribution, is so Paul would not have to
wait for a collection when he came to Corinth.
8. And finally: This would
not be an issue at all if there were only one
assembly. By holding so strongly to the tradition of having two
assemblies, have we not "created" a problem,
especially considering there is not an indication of multiple assemblies in the
scriptures? Is this a case of holding tradition
above scripture?
Answer: Your
question 8 does present much for consideration. Again, I
stress, I believe a local church has the right to elect to meet once as
opposed to more than once on the Lord's Day, all things equal and understood.
I will not challenge them, debate them, or mark them as unsound. However,
the problem enters when they view their practice as the only allowable practice
and all else is sin and churches not duplicating their practice must be marked
as unsound.
I do not presently believe
that I must limit the edification potentiality and opportunity to reasonably
assembling more than once on the Lord's Day because
some have decided and are teaching that it is a sin to meet more than once,
based on what I consider to be a radical approach and treatment
of Acts 20: 7.
Jack concludes:
Just a quick reminder that I
am not advocating any of these - just looking for some
other thoughts to these kinds of statements, which I have heard over the years.
Thanks.
My final comment: I,
too, Jack, have questions and I do not have all the
answers to every conceivable and proposed scenario and objection. There
are objections to both sides of this growing issue. I do, though, have
more serious objections to those binding only one
meeting on the Lord's Day. I think such is
extreme and is being done due to their problems with a church
offering the Lord's Supper in a second meeting circumstance.
They, I believe, are only creating more problems than they are trying to
solve. Again, I also have some objections, but my objections are not strong
enough to condemn the current practice of offering the
Supper in a second meeting. My objections to the "fix"
being proposed and now bound are greater than the "traditional practice" and I
think is involving these brethren in teaching error
(binding only one Lord's Day meeting).
I terribly regret seeing
division now entering over this Lord's Supper issue. Rather than divide, I
advocate practicing the traditional, a practice not without problems and
possible abuses, but since the "ideal" is not always absolutely attainable, I
think there is room or should be for diversity within the perimeters discussed.
I am not prepared to tell a church, "You must stop meeting more than once."
Moreover, I am not ready to tell a Christian who sincerely wants to partake of
the Supper, but for some legitimate reason could not that morning, "We will not
provide you with the opportunity to partake."
One more time: both
sides have attendant problems. However, I think the "traditional practice"
has fewer and falls within the scriptural realm of allowance. What troubles me
is the binding of only one meeting and the division all of this is producing.
The objection gradation scale must be employed, I believe, and all bend over
backgrounds just as far as they can in these matters, without making laws or
binding on others in areas of judgment.