he Bible is very clear about what the Lord requires in commemorating his death during the Lord's supper.  He taught the apostles firsthand, personally while he was here with them on earth how he wanted them to remember the sacrifice he was making through his death.  Members of the church of Christ have known and rightly practiced for many, many years that which is taught in Matthew 26:26-30, Mark 14:22-26, and Luke 22:13-20.  Selected readings from these passages often accompany the observance of the Lord's supper weekly in churches of Christ all across the wide world.  The time of its observance being the Lord's day is demonstrated from Acts 2:42, the "breaking of bread" occurring on that day of Pentecost as all other days of Pentecost was upon the first day of the week (Lev. 23:15-16), and from the practice (conducted under the watchful eye of inspired apostles) continued to take place "upon the first day of the week" (Acts 20:7).

            When departures from the way the Lord's supper must be observed began to take place at Corinth, Paul wrote some of the most stringent language found in the New Testament cautioning brethren against jeopardizing the salvation of their souls by engaging in the observance of the Lord's supper in ways that did not harmonize with the apostles' doctrine.  In particular, wherein they were guilty of partaking in an unworthy manner-not a reference to personal unworthiness to partake as some mistakenly have supposed across the years but the manner of partaking, that is, the way they observed the supper, what they did during the Lord's supper-the apostle warned, "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body" (I Cor. 11:29).  If it was right for the apostle Paul to caution and even warn of dangerous practices associated with the Lord's supper and if the word of God is to continue to be preached today, then it is equally right for gospel preachers and Bible teachers to continue to caution and warn in like fashion when abuses of the Lord's supper occur.  The Bible says, "Preach the word" (II Tim. 4:2), so without apology the following observations and warnings are offered.

            The practice of handclapping during the Lord's supper is a violation of the will of God.  I defy the man who claims this practice is authorized by the New Testament today.  Yet, it is occurring in churches of Christ at home and around the country.  Why is it done?  The answer can be found in every calloused heart that has wanted its own will above God's will down through the years when it comes to innovations in the worship of the living God.  It is partaking the Lord's supper in an unworthy manner (I Cor. 11:29).  An otherwise respected preacher can stand before a forum at Faulkner University as he did in 2005 and declare the opposite if he chooses, but he will not advance that position with impunity because he has assisted in opening the door for the continuing corruption of the worship of God.  What can he do?  Publicly correct that wrong when he writes and speaks and refuse to allow the contemporary church movement a place in his preaching and practice.  Brethren associated with that school should consider themselves under obligation to correct this wrong through their newsletters, newspapers, correspondence, website, chapel programs, Bible classes, and future lecture programs.

            The promulgation of "A Christian Affirmation 2005" by a group of college professors carried in The Christian Chronicle (May 2005) has twisted the truth on the observance of the Lord's supper by confusing the phrase "breaking bread" when used in reference to a common meal with the Lord's supper.  It is not surprising to see the name of John Mark Hicks signed on to the man-made creed because he has written a book with this erroneous view and has been making the lecture tour among the liberals with his crafty creation.  The teaching of this Lipscomb University professor and staff teacher at Rubel Shelly's church in Nashville on baptism being God's quote "normative means" of salvation but his grace can save the unbaptized in his book Down to the River to Pray gives insight into the creedal position paper just mentioned as to those who are believed to acceptably observe the Lord's supper which reads, "All who acknowledge Christ's lordship and demonstrate this faith in their character and conduct are welcome at the Lord's table" (The Christian Chronicle, 15).  If they think the phrase "acknowledging Christ's Lordship" is equivalent to saying those who have been "baptized into Christ," then would it break their backs to say so?   They do not believe the phrases are equivalent as Hicks has documented in his book and advanced in their classrooms and lectureships, and that is why they will not say "those who have been baptized into Christ are the ones who have exclusive right and obligation to gather around the Lord's table."  These brethren have been infected with the compromising spirit of the ecumenical movement sweeping the world.  It may be surprising for some to see the name of Jim Baird attached to this creed and perhaps for others not so surprising to see the names of professors from Princeton and even Notre Dame!  It may prove beneficial to understanding exactly where the Harding University Graduate School of Religion in Memphis stands in regard to the ecumenical movement to see the name of its dean, Evertt W. Huffard signed onto the creed.  If one is not among the 103,000 who receive The Christian Chronicle in the mail, bear in mind the paper has a website that advances its error (www.christianchroincle.org).  Away with any idea that this is some kind of privileged or private information being discussed.  These brethren are out of the starting blocks on this apostasy and are running their course.

            When these prominent brethren refuse to allow the context of the passages that discuss "breaking of bread" to determine whether the Lord's supper or a common meal is meant and go on to redesign the Lord's supper to include a literal, joyful celebration they demonstrate a desperate disregard for the word of God to draw away disciples after them.  "Rightly dividing" or "handling aright" the word of God is what the Bible teaches (II Tim. 2:15), and that means respect for its context.  They know that by disregarding the context of "breaking bread" in reference to the Lord's supper or a common meal they can lead people to take the Lord's supper on any day of the week, not just the first day of the week, like the denominations do for what they consider special occasions like weddings or other occasions they think could be spiced up by the solemn feast.  One specific problem Paul wrote to correct was observing the Lord's supper like it was a common meal.  He said, "For in eating every 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? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not?  What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this?  I praise you not" (I Cor. 11:21-22).  And, here comes two dozen college professors and advocate the very opposite of what the Bible teaches on this subject. 

            The Lord's supper must be taken seriously.  Prepare for cries of legalism from the sources cited for taking what the Bible says on the subject seriously.  Prepare for cries of traditionalism from the professors.  But, at whatever the cost prepare to take the Lord's supper seriously.