O Fill My Cup

I don’t know whether anyone out there in Blogville gets Al Maxey’s e-newsletter Reflections. Each month there is a long article by Al that appears in Reflections, and all of the articles are posted on his website. Many of his articles, though by no means all, raise questions about some of our traditions in Churches of Christ. Such is the case in the issues I received yesterday.

As you may know, there is a branch of our movement that practices communion with only one cup. There is nothing wrong with that, of course. I have been places that used one cup to emphasize the unity of the church in communion, though I was careful to make sure I sat on the front row so I got the first sip. (In was also wine rather than grape juice; a little germ killer “for thy stomach sake” isn’t a bad idea in such a setting). The problem is that these brothers and sisters insist that one cup is the only right way to do communion. Multiple cups are sinful.

Maxey’s article points to a publication called The Old Paths Advocate (which he renames Odd Paths Advocate) that raised the question of whether or not it was scriptural to refill the one cup during communion. The question was, “What should be done if the assembly proved too large to be able to commune together from the cup normally used by the congregation?” The Old Paths writer points to an elder who decided that the cup could be refilled and then communion continued from that point. That elder argued that as long as one cup was used, it could be refilled as often as was necessary to serve everyone. But this was heresy to the writer in Old Paths Advocate. I'm not making this up; here are his words--

Where is the Bible passage that either explicitly or implicitly authorizes a congregation to refill the cup and continue with the distribution of the fruit of the vine at the place in the assembly where the first cup was exhausted? There is no such scripture… We do not intend to consider even for a moment the idea of 'refilling the cup in an emergency' as described in this article. Such would entail sin and digression. We will not, must not, countenance such a corruption of the Lord's Supper. Uncertain sounds concerning the doctrine of Christ cannot be tolerated.

I thought I had LONG AGO run across all the strange ideas and practices that my religious tradition has come up with in an effort to be scriptural, but this one is a new one to me! I kept waiting for there to punch line in there somewhere. I had a professor who liked to say, “Some positions are so absurd that they must only be stated to be refuted.” This one qualifies, I think.

God calls us to be faithful to Him, and it is through scripture that He reveals His will to us. But continual arguments and divisions over logical nuance has caused more harm to the church than any direct attack of Satan. Paul warns Timothy to warn his people (and us) about such issues, “Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen” (2 Timothy 2:14). And later he says to Timothy, “Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels” (2 Timothy 2:23).

So if you will excuse me, my coffee cup is empty and I need to go refill it… if that is OK!