In his book, Radical Restoration, LaGard Smith seeks to redefine the purpose and nature of the Lord's Supper, asserting, "Without question, on the occasion of its inaugural introduction -- there in the upper room on the night Jesus was betrayed -- the memorial was part of an actual meal being shared" (129). While Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper on the occasion of eating the Passover meal, He did not command that Christians partake of the elements of that Passover meal or any other common meal. Instead, our Lord commanded only two elements: unleavened bread and fruit of the vine (Matt. 26:26-29; Mk. 14:22-25). Furthermore, the words of Luke 22:20 present a problem for Smith's theory because the Spirit tells us that the cup was partaken "after supper," not as a part of the Passover meal, as Smith would have us believe.
While the Bible puts the focus in the Lord's Supper on our remembrance of Christ and His sacrifice, LaGard makes the basis of his envisioned change the relational effect it will have on members as a result of the social interaction. He claims of New Testament partakers, "The Lord's Supper gave meaning to their table fellowship, and their table fellowship gave meaning to the Lord's Supper" (133). No, the meaning given by Christ to the Lord's Supper was not as a result of a social meal, but was found in His solemn statements: "This is My body," "this is My blood," "this do in remembrance of Me." When the Corinthian brethren took the focus off of reverently remembering the sacrifice of Jesus, and made it into a common meal, they did not find the true "meaning of the Lord's Supper," but the condemnation of God:
"But in giving you this charge, I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better but for the worse... When therefore ye assemble yourselves together, it is not possible to eat the Lord's supper: for in your eating each one taketh before other his own supper; and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What, have ye not houses to eat and to drink in?... In this I praise you not. For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me. In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup. For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body. For this cause many among you are weak and sickly, and not a few sleep... If any man is hungry, let him eat at home; that your coming together be not unto judgment..." (1 Cor. 11:17-34, emph. -- HRO).
Paul corrected the Corinthian practice of making the Lord's Supper into a common meal. His words plainly show LaGard's proposed changes for what they are -- a perversion of the reverent memorial wherein each participant has his communion with God in a solemn remembrance of the Lord (see also 1 Cor. 10:16-22). In a feeble attempt to blunt the force of the above text, Smith offers the following effort to escape its plain teaching:
"Here is where one must be careful not to be thrown off track by Paul's ensuing question: 'Don't you have homes to eat and drink in?' (11:22). Nor by his concluding line: 'If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment' (11:34). Far from prohibiting a fellowship meal in conjunction with the Lord's Supper, it is clear that Paul is saying (in current vernacular): If the reason you are participating in the fellowship meal is to feed your stomach, then you'd do better to stay home and pig out!" (131).
Can anyone tell us which translation renders the passage as Smith suggests? It is neither the King James, nor the New King James. It is not the American Standard. It is not the New American Standard or the revision thereof. It is neither the NIV, nor the Amplified Bible. In fact, Smith's rendering cannot even be found in his own Narrated Bible. It takes a fertile imagination and an immense deception to so pervert the inspired Scripture. Twice, the Spirit's words convey the inspired direction to eat common meals at home in contrast to eating the Lord's Supper in the assembly of the saints. In between those admonitions, the Spirit directs a reverent and solemn remembrance wherein each saint communes with the Lord by remembering Him. Social interaction in a common meal would not enhance or give meaning to the Lord's Supper. It would destroy the pattern given and pervert its very purpose and design!
When one examines all passages discussing the institution of the Lord's Supper and the church's observance of it, we see the pattern commanded by our Lord to which we must hold fast (see Matt. 26:26-29; Mk. 14:22-25; Lk. 22:15-20; Acts 2:42-47; 20:7-11; 1 Cor. 10:16-21; 11:17-34). In the pattern of divine origin, the Lord's Supper was instituted after the Passover meal, not as a part of a common meal. The Jerusalem church partook of the Lord's Supper together at the temple, as distinguished from their common meals taken from house to house. Troas partook of it when they gathered for that purpose on the first day of week, but later ate a common meal. The communion is not a social interaction, but the fellowship with Christ's sacrifice. When the brethren in Corinth abused the Lord's Supper by making it a common meal, they were told to eat at home in order to satisfy hunger and social purposes. The Lord's Supper reminds each individual of Christ's sacrifice. It is meant to evoke inward, reverent, solemn thought by each one -- not socialization. That pattern has been restored and is imitated each Lord's day as faithful saints remember the body and blood of the Lamb of God in the Lord's Supper. Let us not begin a radical destruction by a radical perversion of the Lord's Supper.
The change Smith urges for the Lord's Supper is not an end in itself, but a means to an end. He connects it with his broader agenda at radical destruction:
"Actually implementing it according to the New Testament pattern is another thing altogether, particularly if we were to go all the way and observe the Supper as an integral part of a fellowship meal in the manner of the early church. Can you imagine it? Virtually every aspect of our Lord's Day assemblies would be thrown into mass confusion! ... You can be sure that having a first-century fellowship meal as the backdrop for our Sunday services would shatter our customary acts of worship" (141-2).
Smith's plan of action is in lock-step harmony with that purposed by others in the house church movement coming from the denominational mind set. The "customary" or "traditional" acts of worship are set for demolition in favor of their radical schemes. Faithful brethren will readily see the way to oppose such attempts -- demand Bible authority for all that we believe and practice (Col. 3:16-17; Phil. 4:9; 2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; 1:13; Jude 3-4; Matt. 28:18-20). Smith acknowledges the necessity of faithful brethren altering their opposition to the church's planning and providing for social meals as essential before they would follow his radical path. He says,
"One thing is certain: those who object on principle to having kitchens in the church building would have to reconsider that position from scratch. Knowing what we know about first-century fellowship meals, the question isn't so much whether there ought to be a kitchen in the church, but whether the church ought to be in the kitchen. Or, put differently, whether we should meet from house to house for combined fellowship and worship as the early Christians did" (142).
In his attempted barb at faithful brethren, Smith actually exposes the weakness of the digressive movement in which he became a participant after leaving the truth taught to him by godly parents. In essence, he tacitly admits the purpose of the kitchens in their buildings -- it provides for the same kind of social meal found in houses. Though our liberal brethren have denied it for years, LaGard admits these "fellowship hall" meals are not of a different kind and higher purpose than the mere social meals in the home. He further shows that such innovations, unauthorized in Scripture, are merely one step which leads to further steps of apostasy (cf. 2 Tim. 3:13). It is much easier for LaGard to deceive his fellow-liberal brethren into joining him in radical change because they have already accepted the unauthorized practice of the church providing for a social purpose rather than abiding within its spiritual purpose (1 Tim. 3:15). For faithful brethren who might say that the mere addition of a kitchen is "no big deal," let this be a lesson: Present acceptance of unauthorized practices only leads to radically unauthorized practices in the future!