In discussions we have heard and read on what some call the "Second Supper," or what is becoming "Multiple Partaking' on the Lord's Day, one element essential to the argument seems to be ignored, with little recognition of its importance. Is "the assembly" essential to the validation of the commemorative feast? MUST the church provide the bread and fruit of the vine, and arrange the partaking? MUST all the church partake "at the same 'time" to validate the Supper? Is the so-called "called assembly" and the "blessing" or "serving" sanctioned there, that which makes communion with the Lord possible? However one states it, this is the very old issue of "church" authority, and its roots are those of Roman Catholicism.

Catholicism says the Lord established "the church" and placed in this society or institution, the Lord's Supper. They teach the elements must be right, the right things said and done, the participant must have the proper attitude, but in addition the Supper must be administered by "the church." Reasoning that "the church" was established to preach the word, baptize, organize churches, serve the Lord's Supper, etc., Catholicism has opposed the individual's right to do any thing they consider a "church" function. There could have been no Reformation nor Restoration, if reformers and restorers had not repudiated this concept.

John Wycliff, Morning Star of the Reformation, advocated individual reading of the Bible, and translated it into the language of the people so they could study it. He encouraged the "Lollards" (men not church "authorized"), to teach the word. In Bohemia, Huss was burned at the stake for following Wycliff's example, and refusing to recant his "sin" of preaching without the sanction of "the church." You say "we" would never have such a concept. One of "our" preachers took me to task for presuming to go to Australia to preach, without being "sent by a church." He had not yet accepted the idea of the universal church as a validating society, but he treated the local church and/or its elders as such. He quoted Romans 10:15 as his proof. Of course, that refers to God sending messengers to Gentiles as well as Jews (cf. Isaiah 52:8-10).

Catholicism says seven "sacraments" are committed to "the church," and the blessings accruing to each are available only through church authorized administrators, or, in emergences, by sanction of "the church." You say "we" would not  hold such ideas? Have you forgotten those who insist baptism must be "administered" by one of "our" preachers? Or those who make "the assembly" a validating factor for Bible class teaching and the Lord's Supper? Will we contend the universal church is not a validating factor, but the local church is such a factor? While we are at it, please note that Hebrews 10:25 does not say "forsaking the assembly" "called" or otherwise), but "the assembling." The word (episunagogan) refers to the act of coming together, not to some holy convocation. The action, prompted by the right motive, is urged; rather than saying a certain assembly is the important thing.

Catholicism can (and does) point to great harm done by ill prepared teachers, their "private interpretations," and the schismatic effect of such. We can (and do) point to abuses of individuals partaking of the Lord's Supper apart from public assembling for that purpose. (A prejudicial term used to smear the idea is "brown-bagging it") But false teaching is wrong, even if done by a priest during Mass. And in the second instance, "forsaking the assembling" is the basic error -- and that error exists if some come to the church building to partake of the Lord's Supper, and then hurry out the side door to meet their fishing buddies. Abuses do not change the need for sound principles.

The scriptures teach brethren should work together, assembling to edify and strengthen one another as they sing praises to God, pray together, teach and admonish, give of their means, and partake of the Lord's Supper (Colossians 3:16; Acts 12:5, 12; 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2). Paul "gathered the church together" to tell of his preaching journeys (Acts 14:27); and wrote of "the whole church .....come together" for edification (1 Corinthians 14:23, 26). The above examples, with Hebrews 10:19-25, tell us the Lord desires and expects faithful brethren to come together-and a willful forsaking or neglecting of the opportunity to come together is sinful. When so-called "brown-bagging" means "forsaking the assembling of ourselves together" it is sinful, and I have no good word to say for it. But this does not say singing, edification, the Lord's Supper, etc, are invalid except "the church" call, arrange, purchase necessary elements, and sanction them.

Jesus said he would commune with his disciples in the (Messianic) kingdom (Matthew 26:29). But units of the kingdom are citizens - individual saints, not congregations. In the absence of a scriptural local church must we conclude there can be no communion between Christ the King and a loyal citizen? Can that citizen not "remember" via the bread and fruit of the vine?

If the "church" as a functioning institution stands between the saint and his worship and service of God, continuity of a viable institution must be assured. And since the church cannot judge itself (2 Corinthians 10:12-f), individuals must apply the scriptural "rule" to test the validity of the institution that then is used to validate their worship. With such reasoning it is little wonder the Catholic church was driven to its claims of infallibility. With salvation and service to God hinged upon a viable institution infallibility was the inevitable outcome. Historical churches (Protestants) who deny infallibility had to find a counterpart. They claim that truth is resident in "the church" in its larger sense (all denominations considered as the One Body). And some of our brethren have adopted a similar idea by saying "the great middle section" of the church cannot be wrong. Brethren, there is much at stake here, in current and long-range consequences.

Christ died for individuals who, one by one, come to Him for forgiveness. He "purchased the church" not as a corporate body (local or universal) but as all obedient souls make up the church distributively. Each must come to Him for cleansing; each has an immediate relationship with God through Christ; could be an acceptable child of God if not another saint existed on earth. Most of us agree succession is in the "seed," and this argues for the seed's application to individuals. If a Bible drifted to some far away shore where Christianity was totally unknown, an individual could translate, study, believe and obey with no connection to any functioning church. That direct and individual obligation is never lost -- and will be the basis for final judgment. But as saints multiply and rightly accept obligations to one another, forming a local church; there is a tendency to switch allegiance- from Christ to the society or church as a body. This tendency colors our thinking on the Lord's Supper, and other like problems.

Perhaps the hardest obstacle to overcome in writing this article is my knowledge that some might think they find in it an excuse for ignoring their obligations to other saints, ignoring the Lord's desire and teaching that they should work and worship together. With some, to admit that Timothy's wine may have had an alcoholic content, is to approve their social drinking. With some, to say we are not bound by a tithing law is to sanction their miserly giving. I'm afraid we sometimes abandon sound Bible teaching for what we consider an easier way to fight abuses. But we will pay dearly for such short-sightedness, and I refuse to be a party to it.

I believe with all my heart that saints should come together upon the first day of the week and partake of the Lord's Supper. But each individual saint is communing with Christ in so doing (I Corinthians- 11:24-25, 28); and if circumstances were such that no "forsaking the assembling" was involved, the individual could have this communion with the Lord in the absence of a "called assembly." It is not essential that the whole church partake of the Lord's Supper (a "second time" for many) in order that members unable to partake at the morning service, eat and drink an acceptable memorial feast at the evening service.