“And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you” (Luke 22:19-20).
If you travel around our community, you will find quite a wide variety of procedures at the memorial service. In all cases, the members join together in remembrance of the death of our Lord Jesus, but the way they do it differs quite widely. For the bread, some use a white loaf, which is split by the preside. Some use unleavened bread, often in the form of the Jewish matzo. And the cup comes in many more varieties. I have experienced wine, non-alcoholic wine, and grape juice in “common cups”, and all three types in individual cups. It is interesting that the differences tend to be local: in the UK, the common cup is (or at least used to be) almost universal, as are individual cups in Australia. In North America, there is much more variety, with some ecclesias even having switched back and forth.
It is an area that causes much internal disputation in many ecclesial, but they usually come to some compromise. I will consider very briefly the reasons for and against at least some of the choices, but I must echo the words of CC Walker when asked about this problem in 1919:
“Let the ecclesia discuss the matter [of individual cups] and decide the practice in its own sphere (and not look beyond it). And let the minority submit to the majority as the law of both God and man requires.”
Incidentally, the year of the question is significant, because it was the fear of the flu epidemic of that period that was the main driver of the change in some North American ecclesias to individual cups.
Leavened Versus Unleavened Bread
It all depends: on whether you believe the memorial meal was a Passover or not. The arguments for and against this have been marshaled many times: I might refer to those summarized by Bro Harry Whitaker1. It is my personal opinion that it was a “normal” meal, following the evidence of John’s gospel, and also the universal practice of the early church to use leavened bread. It was probably the closest counterpart to the original memorial feast for each participant to receive the bread from the presiding brother, although there are not many ecclesias in these days where this would be practical. It is interesting that in Virginia in the earliest days of Christadelphia, they had an unusual custom. “Each one rises, walks to the table, and helps himself. By this custom, they relieve themselves of the responsibility of handing the elements to those who might be improper persons.”2Today, we handle this dilemma differently, which is perhaps one of the causes of some of our local difficulties. Perhaps they were wiser 150 years ago.
Before we get to the topic of the infection potentially transmitted by the common cup, I might mention there is a similar potential hazard with the bread. It is the common practice for the presiding brother to break the bread manually before dispensing it, and commonly the participants also handle the bread. This is a reason that those who are suffering from any illness might choose to partake of the emblems after all others. And for the presider to ensure his hands are scrupulously clean.
The Cup
There can be no doubt that the disciples and the early church shared a common cup of wine, and such was the universal practice in Christendom for the first few hundred years after Christ. After all, our lord said “This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.” Many have wondered how the large numbers of disciples in the early church could have followed this practice, but it should be pointed out that most early ecclesias were house based: for example we read “Greet Prisca and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, …greet also the church in their house” (Rom 16:3-5). This would naturally limit the size of each individual ecclesia.
The practice was only really challenged until around the turn of the 20th century, with the greater knowledge of bacterial infections: the practice of individual cups has become widespread among most protestant churches in North America. This became the practice of some Christadelphian ecclesias in the USA just after WWI, as I have mentioned before. Many other churches, however, continue the use of the common cup, in particular the Catholic Church.
So it was the fear of transmission of infection that produced the impetus for the use of individual cups, and this fear continues. Very few will share drinking cups outside their immediate family, so why do we continue this practice in our ecclesias? In addition, the use of individual cups allows us to easily accommodate those who prefer the use of grape juice rather than wine.
So is the fear of infection a reality? Is this fear strong enough to justify abandoning the practice of the early disciples, not to mention the custom of our early Christadelphian ecclesias?
Infection and the Common Cup
There have been quite a number of medical articles on the risk of infection being transmitted via the common cup: indeed the most commonly cited article3, written in 1987, includes 129 references, and quite few have been published since. Almost all come to a common conclusion: although the transmission of micro-organisms has been observed, such transmission does not imply infection. “No episode of disease attributable to the shared communion cup has ever been reported.” In addition, the Centers for Disease Control in the USA has issued its opinion.
“Within the CDC, the consensus of the National Center for Infectious Diseases and the National Center for Human Immunodeficiency Virus, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, and Tuberculosis is that a theoretic risk of transmitting infectious diseases by using a common communion cup exists, but that the risk is so small that it is undetectable.”4
In addition, several statistical studies have been conducted that found no greater incidence of infectious diseases among those who received communion via the common cup compared to those who did not. Despite this lack of evidence, the CDC continues “ … churches may wish to consider advising their congregations that sharing the communion cup is discouraged if a person has an active respiratory infection (i.e., cold or flu) or moist or open sores on their lips.”
However, the fears still linger, and it is not my intention to minimize these fears. If you have ever seen “foreign matter” in the cup, one can appreciate the inevitable distaste. Thus a practice has recently arisen (or at least if it was used in the past I am not aware of it.) This is to supply a choice, thus leaving it up to the decision of each individual. Commonly, both the common cup and trays containing individual cups are passed around, and this seems to work quite well This accommodates both those who believe the symbol of the common cup overcomes the chance of infection, and those for whom such fear would tend to inhibit the importance of partaking in the memorial in a suitable frame of mind.
It has also become the practice that anyone with a cold or any sort of infectious illness will ask to defer partaking of the cup until afer all others.
I must also mention a method by which the occasional problems with handling both a common cup and the trays of individual cups can be overcome. This to use a combined tray, as shown in the enclosed picture. Details of this combined unit can be obtained from Bro. Phil Snobelen: (philsnobelen@shaw.ca). It seems to me to remove any lingering objection to allowing each individual member to choose either the common cup, on the basis that this most closely follows the example of our Lord, or the individual cup, over caution about infection.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One