Whatever Happened to the Love Feasts?

Love Feasts you say?  What is that you say?  Would you be surprised to learn that there was a tradition in the first and second century church that we not only no longer observe, but many of us really have no idea what it was or why the early church observed it?   Well, allow me to introduce you to the Love Feast – what we in modern terms might call a Pot Luck Dinner – but one with a real purpose.  In my sermon this past Sunday (Click Here ), I made a passing reference to the Love Feasts as one of, but probably not the best, possible understandings of the meaning of “breaking of bread” in Acts 2:42.  I thought I might tell you a little more about it here and raise the question as to whether it is something we ought to resurrect in the modern church.

We know that when Jesus initiated the Lord’s Supper (or communion or Eucharist as it is often called among some groups), he did so at the end of a meal – the Passover meal, in fact.  We also know that it was a common practice throughout the early church for the Christians to get together and eat as a group.  For example, Acts 2:46 tells us how the early church would get together and eat from house to house.   Although in my sermon this past Sunday I asserted that “breaking of bread” in Acts 2:42 (as well as Acts 2:46) refers mainly to the Lord’s Supper itself and not this Love Feast, the phrase “ate their food with gladness” in verse 46 certainly implies that a full blown meal was a regular part of what the early church was doing together.  I have read (sorry, can’t remember where I read it – perhaps one of my Systematic Theology books) that one possible reason for this was to avoid inadvertently eating meat sacrificed to idols.  However, it is also true that the early church would often have a meal just prior to the observance of the Lord’s Supper.  Most believe that this practice is what is being referred to as the “agape” (i.e., love) feasts of Jude 1:12 and probably even 2 Peter 2:13.

Although very little is known about this practice, we know that it is a practice that resulted in many abuses in the church.  It was the abuses of this practice, in fact, that caused Paul to chastise the church in Corinth in 1 Corinthians 11.  Even the passages in both Jude and 2 Peter allude to the fact that some were abusing and misusing the Love Feasts for their own benefit.  Perhaps because of situations like these, the practice of the Love Feast was originally separated from the observance of the Lord’s Supper.  The prolific first century letter writer, Pliny the Younger, actually wrote a letter once to Emperor Trajan telling him in part about these feasts, which he described as happening separately and after the Christian observance of the Lord’s Supper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agape_feast).   Several early church patriarchs, such as Ignatius, Turtullian, and Clement, speak of its observance, but even they often refer to the abuses that took place (drunkenness, disorder, etc.).  Augustine actually objected to its observance at all because of the propensity to abuse it.  Supposedly (I have not tried to verify this), the love feast was ultimately forbidden by the Council of Laodicea in 363-364AD.  And so its practice ultimately ceased.  Why did they forbid it?  Because it was being abused and by that time the mediaeval church had begun to place such a central focus on the Eucharist that the Love Feast itself probably lost its original meaning in their worship.

Several attempts to revive the practice have occurred over the years, including current, modified versions of the practice by the Moravian church.  There was even a semblance of a revival of the practice by the Methodist church.  However, the original idea of the Love Feast – at least as I would expect that it should have been observed - is not a widespread practice among Christians today.  But maybe it is something that we as Christians ought to seriously consider and look at once again.

Now let me just say that I have no evidence to back up anything I am about to say other than the application of the scriptures themselves. But consider the following line of thinking.  In Matthew 22, Jesus speaks of the parable of the wedding feast.  Although he is primarily speaking here of bringing people into the knowledge of salvation, the picture and idea of the Wedding Feast cannot be ignored.  Can the idea of a Wedding Feast be a metaphor for the Agape (Love) Feast?  Maybe or maybe not, but what is clear is the fact that in the parable, the servants (who represent you and me) are told to go out to the highways and byways and bring in those we find.   In the same version of that parable in Luke 14, Jesus follows up by saying in verse 13 “But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind.”  How many of us have thrown feasts where we have specifically invited the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind? I dare say not many of us.  Why not?  Aren’t we in the business of obeying Christ’s commands?   What better way to “Love your neighbor as yourself” than to throw such a “love feast” as that? 

I would be surprised if the early church of the first and second century did not specifically include the poor and needy in their Love Feast celebrations. In fact, when I read 1 Corinthians 11:21-22 I am sure of it:  “21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing?”  It sounds like there were those at the feast who were less fortunate than others - but they were being shunned and ignored.

Finally, there is the fact that originally, the Love Feast was done as a precursor to the observance of the Lord’s Supper.  When you consider how partaking of the Lord’s Supper is a testimony of our faith in Christ and a picture of his death for our sins, what better evangelistic tool would there be than to invite the lost to come to a dinner (thus showing them Christ-like love) and then testifying to that love through the observance of the Lord’s Supper?

So what am I suggesting here?  I don’t know whether I am suggesting anything at all.  However, I am contemplating and offering for consideration the possibility that there is something here that we should think about.  Sure I love eating like the next guy and we are probably just as prone to abusing the notion of the Love Feast as was the early church.  But what a wonderful testimony and display of Christian love would it be for us to set aside a regular time to just throw a big love feast – invite the public – that is, anyone that will come – feed them a good potluck dinner – have a short evangelistic message – and then celebrate with the observance of the Lord’s Supper.

What do you think?  Am I totally out of line here?  I would love your thoughts.

"Christian Fellowship" - A Response to My FaceBook Poll

Last week I did an unofficial and very unscientific research poll to get a feel for what people in my sphere of influence general thought about Christian Fellowship. I asked my FaceBook friends to finish this sentence: “Christian Fellowship is ____________.” I only received around 22 or 23 good responses, which is not very much, but I did get some very interesting results that I think are generally representative. There were also a number of “likes” on some of the comments, so perhaps that was other people “voting” for their favorite definition. Of course I did get one or two obligatory sarcastic responses (Honestly, I would have been disappointed if they had not made an appearance), but for the most part people responded generally with their first impressions of what they thought about Christian Fellowship.

The single most common theme throughout the responses was the idea that Christian Fellowship is showing Christ-like love I find that to be a very predictable and very interesting theme, especially since the second of the two greatest commandments is to love your neighbor as yourself. In no way would I suggest that loving one another is not part of being in Christian Fellowship. I think all of those comments were spot on from the perspective that if we cannot demonstrate Christ-like love towards one another, we can never be in Christian Fellowship. However, as I pointed out in my sermon on this topic yesterday (if you were not at Pawnee Baptist Church, you can hear the sermon at: https://app.box.com/s/kutqo8omf0jiztluvru1nahi95fxuo15 - please feel free to download), Christian Fellowship is more than just showing love for one another, it is about working together in unity for the cause of Christ. My own personal definition of Christian Fellowship, as put forth and explained in that sermon, is:

The BODY of Christ working in the UNITY of Christ to accomplish the PURPOSES of Christ.

The three key words in that definition are body, unity, and purpose. Our fellowship together is founded on the fact that we are the body of Christ, called by God to be in unity, working together for the service of God to accomplish the mission of the church. Based on this definition, I really have to give props to my friend, Tina Sumpter, who probably came the closest to my definition with this response:

“As members of His Body we need one another. Through our fellowship we encourage, edify, build up, strengthen, teach, sharpen, and spur one another on as we serve Him and His purposes.”

Nice job, Tina, that hits it squarely on target. With that said, I do have to say that a number of comments did hit on the idea of building up the church and serving one another, so acknowledgement for all of those is appropriate as well.

Perhaps one of the most interesting comments, however, speaks directly to a point that I was reserving specifically for the blog. In case you haven’t picked up on it yet, lately I have been posting blogs that specifically supplement my sermons, usually putting a slightly different twist on the sermon topic. One of the comments to my Facebook posts sets up that point well. Greta Thompson said:

Christian fellowship is “vital to living an obedient, healthy Christian life. It is both necessary [sic] and it is commanded. Lots of "one anothers" involved here, Love "one another", pray for "one another", encourage "one another", serve "one another", ect. ect. [sic] can't have an "one another" if you are alone.”

This is absolutely correct and I doubt I could say it any better. It seems like in today’s self-sufficient culture, we have bled the idea of self-sufficiency over into the church where it was never intended to exist. We have been called to live out our Christian lives in community, not in isolation. There are people out there today who are so offended at the idea of “corporate religion” that they are willing to turn their backs on this all-too important issue of Christian Fellowship.

I will be the very first to admit that too much “religion” has crept into the church. I am on board with the notion that “Christianity is a relationship, not a religion.” Unfortunately, that concept leads people down a path that suggests their relationship with God is all that matters. That is FALSE DOCTRINE. Christianity is just as much a matter of our relationship with the body of Christ (a.k.a., each other) as it is our relationship with Christ himself. Jesus called us to be a part of a community of the whole; he did not call us to be part of a community of one. Greta Thomson is spot on when she speaks of all the “one anothers” in scripture. There is no way that we can work together in unity to accomplish the purposes of Christ when we are all by ourselves. We need each other.  1 Peter 2:9 says:

“But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.”

This verse is full to the brim with plural references. You is plural in the Greek. Race is plural (or implies plurality). Priesthood also implies plurality - as does nation. People is definitely plural. We are to be a plural people – meaning that we are to be together.

Sure, there are many things wrong in the church. No one is questioning that at all - and certainly not me. The church is not perfect because people are not perfect. We haven’t been called to be perfect – well, maybe we have been called to be perfect (Matthew 5:48) – but we will never achieve perfection until Christ returns and we are all glorified. That means churches will be full of imperfect people and our “religion” is going to be messy. We just have to get over that and forgive one another of our shortcomings. After all, Jesus said that if we don’t forgive one another, the heavenly father will not forgive us.

If you don’t think you need the church, then first of all you don’t understand your own weaknesses. But more importantly, you don’t understand the doctrine of the church and why Christ called us out of darkness into his marvelous light. He did so in order that we might be one people, unified in purpose, working together to accomplish the mission of the church.  Why aren't you in church on Sunday?  Don't blame the people that are there.  Don't blame the institution.  Just remember you have been called to be part of the whole. Get back in church where you belong and contribute to make the church a better community.

Will I see you this Sunday?