The Truth in Print Vol. 26 Issue 4, May 2020
A Publication of the Valley church of Christ,
2375 W. 8th Street, Yuma, AZ 85364 (928-782-5058)
Website
Address ~ http://yumavalleychurchofchrist.com
A Review of Bob Owen’s “Individual Communion”
(Facebook) by Bob Lovelace
Bob Owen’s recent Lord’s Supper presentation
for the Corona virus restrictions uses the same “Catholic concept” as Robert
Turner’s article “Church Validation of the Lord’s Supper.”
He applies it against Christians partaking
of the Lord’s Supper at home while viewing a presentation of worship gone
through on Sunday at the church building by some men who have a worship service
with songs (pre-recorded), prayer, the Lord’s Supper and instruction in the
Word.
To say that they could not partake of the
Supper outside the assembly of the church he suggests is a view no different
from the Catholic view that the church controls all the sacraments and only the
priest can administer. (B.L.)
Bob
Owen – Individual Communion
Facebook
April 2020 16.24 *Transcribed by B.L.
“We are living in some difficult times.
Because of a virus there’s a worldwide problem. And the result has been that we
are not able to get together as we normally do. This
means the churches are not meeting on the Lord’s Day for the regular public
assembly. Many churches are doing what we at University in Tampa have done. And
that is we are trying to provide some things for the brethren in order to
strengthen them, to encourage them, and give them a feeling that we still have
our tie together with brethren even though we can’t meet on the public
assembly.
“We have bible classes nearly every night.
This is done online and brethren at home participate in the bible classes. And
on the Lord’s Day a small group of our men go to the building and they go
through a worship service online. Singing is done by a previous recording, and
then prayers, the eating of the Lord’s Supper and a sermon. While the Supper is
being eaten a number of our brethren participate at home in the eating of the
communion.
Notes B.L.: A group of their men go to the church building
and go through a worship service for some members to participate at home in the
eating of the Supper. What he describes that they do is not the worship of Acts
20:7. That necessitated all who partook coming together. That’s like those who
advocate that it doesn’t tell us “how” they partook of the Supper therefore we
can do it the way we want to. The Lord set it in the planned assembly of the
local church for that purpose. Those Christians who assembled partook together.
Moreover that singing isn’t the worship of singing in Eph. 5:19. They aren’t
singing to one another. Pre-recorded isn’t the worship of the present hour (I
Cor. 14:15, 19). Have you heard of
performance music accepted as worship in denominations? In “performance” those
staged are often the only ones singing.
“This raises the question in the
mind of some. Is it scriptural for someone to eat the Lord’s Supper outside of
the public assembly? They remember passages like Acts the twentieth chapter
“upon the first day of the week the disciples met together to break bread,” and
first Corinthians eleven “when you come together in the church” and they
conclude that you cannot eat the Lord’s Supper except in the public assembly of
the brethren.
Notes B.L.: The
venue for the Lord’s Supper is stated in the verses he quoted from (Acts 20:7;
I Cor. 11:18 in context). The Lord set it in the planned assembly of the local
church for that purpose. Those Christians who assembled partook together. He
admits as much later in his speech.
“Let me humbly say if that is your
conviction then you should not eat the Lord’s Supper except in the public
assembly. Because the principle we learn in Romans 14 is that anything a person
does in violation of his conscience would be sinful.
“But I think this whole issue may turn on
the question of whether the practice of eating the Lord’s Supper is a corporate
action? Is it something the church does or is it a group of individuals eating
it privately, individually?
“I
think maybe the principles of Romans 14 would help us here. There were brethren
who thought that it was sinful to eat meats. There were other brethren who felt
that it was alright to eat the meats. Do you know how Paul answered them? He
said “Let every man be fully assured in his own mind” (Rom. 14:5).
“Earlier he had said “One man hath faith” –
now that’s not the revealed word of God, that’s his personal faith, his
conviction. “One man hath faith to eat all things, but he that is weak eateth
herbs. Let not him that eateth set a nought him that eateth not. Let not him
that eateth not judge him that eateth: for each is being received by God.”
Notes B.L.: Here’s a
major flaw in his teaching. What we learn there is applied to specific items –
food and drink and days one wishes to keep. Romans 14 has for decades been used
in the same way to justify continued fellowship with false teachers — Ed
Harrell’s series in Christianity Magazine 1989-1990 applied it to doctrinal
matters —it was used to justify fellowshipping
Homer Hailey in spite of his false teaching. When you mark false teachers
Satan’s advantage is minimized.
“Private practices can be individually
practiced without giving a problem or compromising the other brother. Now that
poses this question: When we eat the Lord’s Supper is it a corporate action or
is it an individual action?
“A look at I Corinthians eleven I think can
help us on this. It is true that Paul’s talking about what they did when they
came together as the church or in the church.
“And he’s going to be dealing with a problem
they had at Corinth. And that was a problem of division among the church. This
wasn’t denominational division; this was division in the church. Cited in I
Corinthians one. One says I’m of Paul, another says I’m of Apollos. Chapter
four says they were not using Paul and Peter’s name. They were using local
names.
“And when they came together in the assembly
one group would eat the Lord’s Supper, and another group didn’t have any, and
another group would eat. And Paul said you’re divided. That’s the context in
which he says tarry one for another. That’s not talking about Sunday morning
and Sunday night. That’s talking about when they all came together in the
assembly. There should have not been divisions in the church.
Notes B.L: When you
hear and rightly so that division and immorality is the context keep in mind
that when Paul was there he wouldn’t have allowed such. Paul was there for a
year and six months plus more. Paul sets the Supper back as it should be.
“Now that question comes up though. When
they ate the Lord’s Supper was it a church action or was it individual action?
“Well, think about it in I Corinthians 11.
Paul says “Wherefore,” verse 27. “Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread or
drink the cup in an unworthy manner shall be guilty of the body and the blood
of the Lord. But let a man prove or examine 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.”
“Now question: When we eat the Lord’s Supper
in an assembly is it the church acting or is it a group of individuals acting?
“If it’s the church acting then if I fail to
eat the Lord’s Supper in a proper manner I would compromise the whole group.
But if it’s private matter then my failure to eat the Lord’s Supper properly
does not compromise you when you’re eating the Lord’s Supper properly
discerning the Lord’s death.
“Even though we do it in the collection of
the brethren we’re doing a private practice. It is not a corporate practice.
“The same thing’s true when we sing. We come
together in the assembly and we sing a song. Is that a church song? Or is it a
song by individuals? Well, Paul’s going to tell the people in Colossians 3
“speaking to one another in Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, singing and
making melody in your heart to the Lord.”
“When we sing we’re individually singing our
praises to God. We’re doing it in a group, but it’s
individual action.
Notes B.L.:
What he’s doing is talking about
individual action but failing to put enough emphasis upon the fact that it is a
work of the local church to provide the Lord’s Supper as an act of worship for
members to do together in an assembly for that purpose.
We talk about the “worship of the church”
all the time meaning that the church acts as an organization in providing the
Lord’s Supper and Praying, Singing, Instructing and having a church Treasury
thus offering opportunities to give.
In I Cor. 11 there was conduct in the
assembly that had to be corrected because it was in the church as a body. Did
their correction look like it was “all” private? The church is responsible to
correct disorder in worship like Corinth’s in I Cor. 11:21, and in I Cor. 14:35
where it was shameful for women to be speaking out and asking question in the
assemblies – thus I Cor. 14:40 “Let all things be done decently and in order.”
What about I Cor. 5:4-5 and the fornicator? The church assembled to withdraw. Does
it sound like everything is “individual” in the assembly or that order is to be
maintained by the oversight of the men in the church at Corinth?
“Think
of the consequences if this is deemed as a corporate action. If it’s a
corporate action then my failure in the eating of the Lord’s Supper, or my
failure in the singing of the hymns, would compromise the whole group. But if
it’s individual action each man will give account of himself to the Lord.
“Private practice not group practice.
“I don’t know of anything that is done by
the congregation that is corporate except what is done with the collection.
Each of us is responsible to give as we’ve been prospered. But once the
collection is gathered it’s no longer my money. Often we hear people say it’s
the Lord’s money. Well, no, really it’s the church’s money.
“And there’s a similar situation in Acts the
fifth chapter. Remember the case of Ananias and Sapphira when they had lied and
tried to imply that they had given the full amount of the property they had
sold?
“Listen to what Peter says to Ananias in
chapter 5 verse 4: “When it remained did it not remain thine own? But after it
was sold was it in thine hand or in thy power?” He gave the property to the
church. It was no longer his. While it was his he could do with it as he chose.
But after he gave it became the property of the group.
“Our collection is group money. So if you
take money out of the collection to support human organizations or other things
that are not scripturally authorized it compromises all of us.
Notes B.L.: Yes, our
collection belongs to the church as a corporate body; what the treasury money
is used for is the collective work of church. And here’s another thing about
human institutions – those built by brethren aren’t authorized when they
intrude into the works Christ gave the churches. Also Corinth’s “assembly” is
just like their “treasury” – it came with limitations. And when a human institution,
or even a “group” at the vacation cabin, intrudes into the assigned venue
Christ gave for the Lord’s Supper it’s engaged in an unscriptural act.
“But if I fail to eat the Lord’s Supper
properly it doesn’t compromise the whole congregation.
“If my singing is not proper it doesn’t
compromise anybody setting next to me singing properly.
Notes B.L.: It is no
secret that we can’t read one another’s minds when either singing or partaking.
“There is a difference in corporate action
and individual action.
“Even though we eat the Lord’s Supper
together, on the Lord’s Day, it is a private practice. So Paul says to them
“Let a man examine himself and so let him eat. He that eateth and drinketh in
an unworthy manner eats and drinks condemnation to himself”– not to the
congregation, not to the group, but to himself.
Notes B.L.: And I Cor.
11 says the church, the corporate body, was responsible for correcting the
misconduct in their assembly for the Supper. Did their need for correction look
like it was all private!
“The Lord’s Supper is a private practice. We
do it collectively but it does not become a collective action. It is still a
private practice.
Notes B.L.:
1.
American Heritage Dictionary: “Collectively” (adv.).
2.
American Heritage Dictionary: “Collective” adj. 2. Of, relating to, or made by
a number of people acting as a group; a collective decision.
3.
American Heritage Dictionary: “Collectivity” n. 1. The quality of condition of
being collective. 2. The people considered as a whole.
4.
American Heritage Dictionary: “collective noun” n. A noun that denotes a
collection of persons or things regarded as a unit. What kind of noun is
“church”?
Where would you put the decision of
the church to assemble at a particular time on Sunday? You’d attribute it to
the whole being in agreement. It would be hard to say we agreed under the
oversight of the men to assemble at a certain time and partake and that not be
the collective action of our church. So we have both the individual setting his
mind on the emblems and the collectivity to consider. They had to correct
misconduct.
“I know that there is no single passage that
tells about somebody eating the Lord’s Supper by himself. Maybe Revelation
1:10. When John said “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day” might indicate
that John there in a exile was in a special time of
worship to God on the Lord’s Day. We don’t know. And I wouldn’t argue that it
did.
Notes B.L.: Then why bring
it up? It doesn’t prove what he’s trying to justify.
“But if I eat the Lord’s Supper myself,
privately, it doesn’t compromise anyone else. It’s a matter of my worshipping
God.
Notes B.L.:
The American Heritage Dictionary:
“Compromise” n. 3. A concession to something detrimental or pejorative: a
moral compromise.
Since he is wrong on the purpose of their
worship gone through by some men for individuals to view and participate in the
Lord’s Supper at home --- how can he say either the men’s eating at church
(which he says is private) or their members’ viewing and eating at home (for
which there is no authority and that’s one purpose of the “setup worship”) –
that it doesn’t compromise anyone else?
The one’s at home are being satisfied by
doing it at home. Of course the ones setting it up for them are satisfied too.
Both have accepted a lower standard than God set.
“Stop and think for a minute. If the only
way I can eat the Lord’s Supper is to be in the corporate group of the church
then my private worship to God is dependent on other people. It makes it dependent
on the church. It means that only by the church function can I remember my
Lord’s death in the way that He taught me to do.
Notes B.L.: Looks to me
like he said it is corporate here and also it is church function.
The
American Heritage Dictionary: “Corporate” adj. 3. United or combined into one
body; collective. Brethren you know good and well that
church action is involved in the matter as a whole.
“What’s the difference in that and the
Catholic’s view that the church controls all the sacraments and only the priest
can administer?
Notes B.L.: The answer
is the same as to Robert Turner’s article “Church Validation of the Lord’s
Supper.” The Church of Christ existed before the Catholic Church and it doesn’t
matter what the Catholic Church does or doesn’t do. That doesn’t change the
venue for the Lord’s Supper according to the scriptures.
“Church function and individual function
should not be confused.
“I love my brethren. I love to get together
with them. I like to worship with them. And my worshipping with them is more
than the eating of the Lord’s Supper. The writer of the Hebrew letter tells us
that we’re supposed to exhort one another, and encourage one another, and
support one another by our participation together.
“That’s the sense in which Paul said “not
forsaking your assembling together as the manner of some is.” That was not
talking about a person who is sick and cannot meet on the Lord’s Day. He’s
talking about the practice of assembling. And why were they needing to
assemble? So they could admonish and strengthen and support each other.
“We do that in our study. We do that in our
prayer. We do that in our singing. We do that as we participate together in the
Lord’s death.
Notes B.L. What kind
of function is the practice of assembling? He states both why we need to and
what is accomplished in doing these acts — when you have members of a
local church who are obeying that command – thus admonishing, strengthening and
supporting one another by participating together in the Lord’s death — that
obedience is loving God and your brethren (I Jo. 5:2-3). Love that edifies
rejoices in the Truth (I Cor. 13:6). The venue for the Supper is stated.
“But brethren ultimately all service to God
is individual not corporate.
Notes B.L.: What did he
describe with some of their men at the building going through a worship online
for some members to participate at home in the Supper? There is such a thing as
“church action.”
“Keep your conscience. If it bothers you to
eat the Lord’s Supper outside the assembly you should not eat it. But don’t
condemn brethren who do so because they are privately doing what they think the
Lord teaches – that it’s to be done in memory of the Lord’s death.
“Corporate service and individual service
should be distinguished.
“May God bless us to get through this
strugglesome time. I’m anxious to be back with the
brethren and to participate together with them.
“May God bless us until that time comes.”
Notes B.L.: He needs to
be concerned about having taught that for which he has no scripture. And that
some preachers and brethren will use it as a standard. Will some come to use
Rom. 14 in such a way as to justify their human organizations already engaged in worship serving the
Lord’s Supper?
Valley Church of Christ
2375 W. 8th Street, Yuma, AZ 85364
(928) 782-5058 ~
http://yumavalleychurchofchrist.com
Sunday Services – Classes ~10:00;
Assembly 10:50 am; Evening: 6:00 pm.
Wednesday evening – 7:00 pm
To learn more call, visit or visit our website at:
http://yumavalleychurchofchrist.com