When the RPW becomes an idol: Part 2

This is a response to Mr. Eshelman's comment here: https://batteredrpsheep.blogspot.com/2023/11/when-regulative-principle-of-worship.html?showComment=1708524812585#c151469687615734056

He recommended a sermon he preached that adds some color to the discussion. Sermon link: https://beta.sermonaudio.com/sermons/114241656337514/

It refers back to an earlier sermon, but hopefully that is not critical to understand this sermon. My thoughts about approaches to worship issues lie along three lines:

1. Generally, the way something is first instituted is a correct pattern, but not necessarily the only correct pattern. For example, it's not entirely clear if the requirement against leaven in Exodus 12 was known to the original Israelites in the Passover, or if it was a remembrance a unique aspect: "So the people took their dough before the yeast was added, and carried it on their shoulders in kneading troughs wrapped in clothing." (Ex. 12:34) The leaven becomes symbolic, but it appears that the unleavened bread during the Passover in Egypt was because they didn't have time to add yeast, not by command.
2. Understanding things in light of culture are important, but we have to figure out what is normative and what is not. The fact that churches met in homes does not necessarily command that churches must meet in homes. It is tempting to think that the early church had some sort of exemplary practice that was correct to the last jot and tittle, but that doesn't make sense in light of the major issues that are being dealt with in letters. Is a church that doesn't want to discipline an incestuous member going to have communion figured out? Probably not.
3. History is helpful, but, again, it isn't scripture. When Jesus taught, history was not on his side. Rabbinical writings contradicted what Jesus said. Trying to make an argument that Luther's, Calvin's, Augustine's or whomever's belief or practice is normative might be interesting, but not proof.

Bread:

After the background, Eshelman starts talking about the elements. I like the discussion of bread (although probably because I agree with his argument and conclusion). He says that "bread" is just bread. No real reason to try and push our own agenda - I grew up on "Scottish Shortbread" because it HAD to be unleavened. We have every reason to believe that the "bread" Jesus served was unleavened, but that is not the point.

Wine:

This is where the argument gets a bit suspect. So, I can agree that in 1st century Israel, "the fruit of the vine" meant fermented wine. That said, is the practice of the 1st century church normative? As I said above, for the 1st century church, their church building was someone's house. We look at that and say, perhaps, that a house is a fine place for a church to meet, but so is a building. In the US, where we are not persecuted, it's much more convenient to have a church building.

So, here, Eshelman quotes Hodge that "fruit of the vine" meant "fermented wine" to anyone in the 1st century, and not grape juice. It's an interesting argument, but the question is more, what was the intent? I struggle with this because 1st century Christians did not have access to multinational agriculture or refrigeration. Would Jesus have used fermented wine if grape juice were available at the local convenience store?

We have to be careful when dealing with anachronisms. We don't approve of slavery or polygamy just because it was practiced during the 1st century. We have to interpret things like "holy kiss", "anointing with oil" and "fences around roofs" understanding that they are anachronistic. So, "fruit of the vine" = "fermented wine" is, by no means, a slam dunk proof that the grape juice people are wrong.

He makes a point, "Throughout all of church history, this idea of it being wine was never questioned until the 19th century." He then blames the temperance movement for inventing the idea that wine should not be used in communion. However, there is perhaps a simpler explanation. Grape juice was not widely available before 1869, when Thomas Welch first used pasteurization to keep grape juice from fermenting into wine, and probably 1893 when Welch's grape juice became popular after the World's Fair. So, during the prior 1800-ish years of the church, there was no question what was going to be served at communion simply because most of the year, unfermented grape juice was not an option.

I don't have a strong opinion on this other than the fact that I think the "weaker brother" argument would suggest that a church ought to be willing to meet the consciences of their members, whether it be abstinent members or members who feel that wine is necessary. I don't like the taste of wine that much, so I can't say I have warm memories of trying to remember Jesus while trying to choke down wine.

Elements/Accidents/Posture:

Again, I agree (point 2) that not everything about the first Lord's Supper was meant to be followed literally, which is why I agree with Mr. Eshelman that we do not need to "recline" in order to partake in the meal. It seems, though, then that he wants to flip the script and turn the "table" into a quasi-element vs. reclining as an accident. He says, "It was the Presbyterians who were unanimous in their decision that the table was something that ought to occur at the Lord's Supper because it's a meal and it should reflect something of that meal."

So, the sermon becomes progressively weaker. The argument about the bread can be made entirely from scripture that the word includes both. The argument about wine is not sufficiently demonstrated from scripture, so we need an expert to tell us that a phrase contextually meant "fermented wine". By the time we get to the table, there is hardly any scripture and apparently the most pertinent point is that a bunch of Presbyterians from Scotland were unanimous that the table was a critical part of it being a meal. Yet, just as bread might be different in Scotland, India or Israel, not all cultures and likely not a single culture has a unified experience of "meal". The feedings of 5000 happened on the side of a hill with people grouped into bunches. If I go to a wedding or banquet, the way the food is served is different than if I'm at home. There are picnics where we get our plate of food and sit on the lawn. So, even in the western tradition, the table is not an essential (i.e. elemental) aspect of a meal.

He also highlights the idea of "coming forward" to a table, even though it's obvious that the disciples did not "come forward" to receive and none of the passages he references talks about a definite transition between the posture of worship and the posture of the meal.

So, he acknowledges that "table" "coming forward" are not "elements", yet he couches this in language of best practice. I think claiming something as "best" is where it is in danger of binding conscience and being a stumbling block. Jesus used a common cup, fermented wine and unleavened bread given to disciples reclined at a table. If we're going to claim something as "best", then certainly what Jesus did must be the best, right? Or maybe Jesus gave us a framework and great freedom instead and our arguments of best become foolish controversies and arguments and quarrels about the law.

Eshelman goes where he claims he would not go - to make the best a requirement. He quotes Samuel Rutherford positively, also here: 

They "should in any sort forbear the receiving the Lord's Supper but after the form that he had delivered it to them, according to the example of Christ our Lord, that is, that they should sit, as banqueters, at one table with our King, and eat and drink, and divide the elements one to another (Letters, 122)."

This is exactly what I said would happen. Mr. Eschelman wrote this to me via e-mail:

As for the Table, I do think it is best practice, but when the communicants are served in the pews it is still a legitimate communion service. Best and required are not the same.

But his quote of Rutherford suggests something different (he does not hedge this quote in his sermon or at the link above). Forbear means to refrain from participation. So what Rutherford is saying is "if the Lord's Supper isn't at a table, you should not participate." Rutherford is saying, "the table is an element", and Eshelman is quoting him positively.

It pains me that Christians take something meant to be welcoming and joyful and make it something that must be done to the letter so that we end up spending more time thinking about doing it right than recognizing Jesus in it. That has been my experience with the Regulative Principle of Worship. On one hand, living in fear that I forgot to tie my spiritual shoelaces and somehow what I bring to God causes anger and not love, and on the other hand, looking at fellow hymn-singing Christians down my nose thinking that I'm somehow better than they are.

And yes, "these Presbyterians are so precise". It's not a compliment! I think a lot of the "precision" is a fraction of truth from scripture and a dump truck full of quotes from like-minded Scottish Presbyterians who had no better corner on scriptural insight, yet lots of baptized opinions.

Maybe I'm heretical, but maybe what happens spiritually to the bread and wine is not worth splitting the church over. If, like much of the Christian life, what is received is not holy in and of itself, but it becomes holy and spiritual by application of the Holy Spirit in our hearts, why is that better or worse than it becoming spiritually infused by the word of the pastor, and... it begs the question (which has been answered throughout history) of whether a sacrament is efficacious if performed by someone who is later shown to be unregenerate!