Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 8
The speaker calls the Lord’s Supper “the supper of unity” that “must not be done without Matthew 18 and love,” and he laments communion without “preparatory service”; what concrete changes would need to happen in how your church approaches communion if you actually believed taking it while unreconciled is a contradiction of the gospel?
Another way to ask: Ruth says communion is a “supper of unity” and shouldn’t be taken without love and Matthew 18-style reconciliation. If your church really believed taking communion while unreconciled denies the gospel, what would need to change in how you do it?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
The transcript implies communion should be tied to deliberate reconciliation: examining relationships, practicing Matthew 18, and preparing the congregation to come to the table “at peace,” not merely as an individual act “between me and Jesus.” Practically, this would mean restoring some form of preparatory or accountability process.
- Grebel’s line: communion “must not be done without Matthew 18 and love,” because it is “the supper of unity.”
- The speaker explains: “You do not take that unless you are in unity… and then you eat and pray.”
- He insists it’s communal, not only personal: “It’s not just between me and Jesus… the original concept… supper of unity.”
- He laments current practice: people “go to communion” more often, but “they don’t have council meeting anymore,” implying loss of communal discernment.
- He cites an older Mennonite standard: “You never have communion without the preparatory service… that’s what I believe in my heart.”
- He connects this to binding/loosing: without real decisions and reconciliation, church practice becomes like ignoring the “ump” in baseball.