Krispy Kreme Kommunion?

[Pergamum]

Here is what the Anglicans did when they could not get the elements just right:

The first missionaries walked across what is now Tanzania and were then paddled across Lake Victoria.

They had all their provisions carried for them. In 1877 CMS missionaries arrived in
Buganda. In 1895 Bishop Tucker arrived.5 He soon realized that the provision of communion
wine was an issue. By January 1896 he had “provisionally” sanctioned the use of native wine
from the juice of bananas. It would appear that this continued off and on until the coming of the
railway, and thus a reliable supply route.

This was taken into account again in the Amin years, and with the economic collapse of the country banana wine was used by the church alongside other materials. Indeed, the Church of Uganda has a canon that says: “In absence of grape wine
well-boiled banana juice wine or pineapple or passion fruit wine may be used, in consultation
with the bishop” (2.13.3). Here is another sliding scale: if no grape wine, use fruit wines from
local fruits.

http://www.cuf.org/2005/02/invalid-masses/

 

[Edward]

Seeing as the definition of bread almost always requires it to be baked,

Fry bread recipes

http://allrecipes.com/recipe/6880/fry-bread-i/
http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/indian-fry-bread-recipe.html

The French law on bread just says 'cooked'
http://www.cooksinfo.com/french-bread-law-1993

 

[Jack K]

I say that if we were with Pergamum in the jungle and had no standard bread, we should be thankful for donuts if we had those and would do well to use them. This is a far different act than bringing them in as a non-traditional gimmick.

Must we attempt as nearly as possible to replicate the type of bread and cup that we suppose were served when Christ instituted the Supper? I see nowhere in Scripture where this is either commanded or shown us by example. This means either unleavened bread or leavened bread may be used. And it means arguments in favor of either wine or unfermented juice will be stronger if they avoid appeals to what was consumed at the Last Supper. "Bread" and "cup" are fairly broad categories in the world of food and drink. Scripture narrows both terms somewhat when you look at how they are used in redemptive history. But we're still left with a substantial range of possibilities—enough that we ought to be slow to criticize those who seek to celebrate the Supper in the right spirit.

 

[johnny]

I was going to suggest that KK's would be hard to aquire in Africa but I may be mistaken.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/23/news/companies/africa-starbucks-krispy-kreme-hm-dunkin-donuts/

 

[Semper Fidelis]

As others have noted, I don't think there is anything prescriptive about the type of bread or wine.

The issue with gimmicks is, to me, that they are irreverent. Sacrements are intended to communicate something higher than theselves. As we participate our senses are to be lifted upward to the fellowship we have with Christ and they proclaim His death and resurrection until He comes again. The worshiper is to look, in faith, to beyond the bread and wine as they are a foretaste of heavenly things.

What's wrong with a Krispy Kreme box? It's the same thing that's wrong if a minister wore a clown nose and big squeaky shoes while preaching the Gospel. He is Chrsist's minister and this is Christ's Table. We're in the presence of the living God and He's not to be trifled with.

 

[DMcFadden]

Now, after stirring up the Net, he sheepishly admitted to me that the pic was staged for effect.

See Dennis... you can get a conversation going, you just have to be creative...

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Are we to use bread and wine only? Yes

This goes along with the regulative principle. Where in the world does scripture allow us to alter any portion of any element? No where. So to ask the question if bread and wine should only be used is to misunderstand what is clearly commanded in scripture.

WCF 21.5

the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ

Where did Christ institute juice?

Q. 108. What are the duties required in the second commandment?

A. The duties required in the second commandment are, the receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire, all such religious worship and ordinances as God hath instituted in his Word; particularly prayer and thanksgiving in the name of Christ; the reading, preaching, and hearing of the Word; the administration and receiving of the sacraments; church government and discipline;the ministry and maintainance thereof; religious fasting; swearing by the name of God; and vowing unto him; as also the disapproving, detesting, opposing all false worship; and, according to each one’s place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry.

Q. 109. What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?

A. The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counselling, commanding, using, and anywise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself;tolerating a false religion; the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever; all worshipping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them, all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others,though under the title of antiquity,custom,devotion,good intent, or any other pretence whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect,contempt,hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed..

 

[Tom Hart]

I'd say it's not a matter of prescription or proscription of the kind of bread. We must be careful to not construct our own laws around these things as the Jews have done. Bread can be fried. (English muffins and crumpets are fried, for instance.) I suppose that, for lack of any other kind of bread, it would not be sinful to serve cake. But I can't really imagine a situation in which you could have cake, but no bread.

(Others have mentioned the possibility of not having grape wine in a given culture, but I think that might be another topic altogether.)

The problem with Krispy Kreme Kommunion is that it is irreverent. The Lord's table is not something to play with. Reformed churches hold that the sign is more than a symbol, do they not? It seems to me that to show some reverence would follow.

That makes me wonder, what kind of church was this done in? Perhaps there is an influence here of broad evangelicalism, which, from what I've known, doesn't really offer much explanation of WHY we have communion.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

I also would add that using cake or anything other then common bread is against the RPW. They had cakes in the first century. However, cake was not used for the Lord's Supper. Bread was used. The Greeks use to offer moon shaped cakes to the god artemis.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk

 

[JP Wallace]

I think there is no excuse for using anything other than simple bread (of some kind) and fruit of the vine/wine if such is available. I do not think that bread and wine were chosen by Christ merely because they were conveniently available, sacraments are surely not chosen by convenience? Rather I believe the main symbolism of the "wine" must be that it resembles the blood of Christ with redness. Thus whatever is used perhaps in a missionary situation ought to be red. How can the minister take the cup and quote our Lord in saying "this cup is the new covenant in my blood" if that which the cup contains is green, or clear, or yellow or whatever? The bread is more problematic in terms of symbology - and there may be a greater degree of scope with it in extremis - was bread chosen because it was the main life-giving "staple"?

 

[Scott Bushey]

I have been following this thread and to be honest, I have refrained from getting involved. I find it hard to believe that anyone would see this calamity as acceptable when we consider what the sacrament means and conveys to God's people. It makes a mockery out of the supper. -rant over

If anyone is interested or extremely bored, I have a few excellent articles on my website on the subject.

http://www.semperreformanda.com/…/new-wine-a-jewish…/

http://www.semperreformanda.com/2014/12/wine-and-the-talmud/

http://www.semperreformanda.com/wine-or-grape-juice/

http://www.semperreformanda.com/…/the-bible-and…/

http://www.semperreformanda.com/…/12/the-supper-is-sinful/

http://www.semperreformanda.com/2014/11/fruit-of-the-vine/

http://www.semperreformanda.com/…/the-weak-and-the…/

http://www.semperreformanda.com/…/stumbling-a-brother…/

http://www.semperreformanda.com/…/the-lords-supper/3980-2/

http://www.semperreformanda.com/…/the-temperance…/

http://www.semperreformanda.com/…/the-regulative…/

http://www.semperreformanda.com/2015/04/new-wine-a-jewish-perspective/

 

[Scott Bushey]

In the jungle where I normally live we have a few believers. We have no access to wine or sometimes bread (yes, we have run out of bread at times). We have used a variety of substitutes for wine and bread. Crackers, Cookies, even sweet potato when lacking flour entirely and juice or even a smashed up fruit in water when lacking grape juice.

Is it a greater value to have the exact elements or to take the Lord's Supper? Or is it worse to use a cookie or donut or yam or to not take the Supper entirely? Or, how far may the elements vary before it is no longer the Lord's Supper? Or does our proper worship depend upon importing items from 500 miles away?

This is why I am so interested in this thread. We have been faced with the scenario and were not merely being creative but were using what was available when we have varied the elements. I believe Jesus' purpose in using bread and wine was that these were commonly found items in most parts of the world. But, in the absence of these common elements, what do we do?

“When somebody inquired whether, when a sick person wished to have the sacrament but could not tolerate wine on account of nausea, something else should be given in place of the wine, the doctor [Martin Luther] replied, ‘This question has often been put to me and I have always given this answer: One shouldn’t use anything else than wine. If a person can’t tolerate wine, omit it [the sacrament] altogether in order that no innovation may be made or introduced.'”

— Martin Luther, “Table Talk” (Luther’s Works 54:438)

 

[Pergamum]

I think there is no excuse for using anything other than simple bread (of some kind) and fruit of the vine/wine if such is available. I do not think that bread and wine were chosen by Christ merely because they were conveniently available, sacraments are surely not chosen by convenience? Rather I believe the main symbolism of the "wine" must be that it resembles the blood of Christ with redness. Thus whatever is used perhaps in a missionary situation ought to be red. How can the minister take the cup and quote our Lord in saying "this cup is the new covenant in my blood" if that which the cup contains is green, or clear, or yellow or whatever? The bread is more problematic in terms of symbology - and there may be a greater degree of scope with it in extremis - was bread chosen because it was the main life-giving "staple"?

So is purple grape juice or white wine thus less preferable than red Kool-aid if the color red is prioritized?

And if unleavened bread was specified in the Passover why is "bread of some kind" permissible rather than, specifically, unleavened bread?

And it does appear bread and wine were chosen, at least in part, due to their common use and availability. God did not specify eye of newt or whale blubber but things common to His ancient near east audience and, pretty much, worldwide.

If we allow any deviance from the original elements of the Passover/Lord's Supper, what are the principles which allow such deviances? The easy answer would be that NO deviance at all is allowed. And the early church councils seemed to decree such a stance.

But if we grant that some deviance may occur...what principles are important in evaluating such a deviance? Intent? Color? Similarity in appearance? Same category of food-stuff?

It seems (a) intent and (b) symbology are two important principles in evaluating any such deviance, even if the particular cases may be disputed.


My conclusion: The outrage expressed in the OP seemed not due to the ingredients of the donut (the fact that it was a sweet bread or a fried bread instead of a baked bread, or bread made of barley or another substance besides wheat), but the outrage seemed to be due to the intent and what the donut represented (symbology).

 

[Pergamum]

I also would add that using cake or anything other then common bread is against the RPW. They had cakes in the first century. However, cake was not used for the Lord's Supper. Bread was used. The Greeks use to offer moon shaped cakes to the god artemis.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk

The New Testament Greek Lexicon defines artos as “food composed of flour mixed with water and baked.” And continues, “The Israelites made it in the form of an oblong or round cake, as thick as one’s thumb, and as large as a plate or platter, hence it was not to be cut but broken.”

 

[BGF]

I also would add that using cake or anything other then common bread is against the RPW. They had cakes in the first century. However, cake was not used for the Lord's Supper. Bread was used. The Greeks use to offer moon shaped cakes to the god artemis.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk

The New Testament Greek Lexicon defines artos as “food composed of flour mixed with water and baked.” And continues, “The Israelites made it in the form of an oblong or round cake, as thick as one’s thumb, and as large as a plate or platter, hence it was not to be cut but broken.”

You're mixing word usage. Your definition of the word cake is different than Andrew's use. You can disagree, but it doesn't help the argument to use a meaning obviously not intended.

 

[Tom Hart]

Now, after stirring up the Net, he sheepishly admitted to me that the pic was staged for effect.

Ah. I hadn't read this. Feeling somewhat deceived now.

 

[JP Wallace]

So is purple grape juice or white wine thus less preferable than red Kool-aid if the color red is prioritized?

Is Kool-Aid whatever that is readily available on the remote mission fields of the world? I think in my post I was offering a certain degree of liberty and sensible margin for missionaries, but too far and you end up with something different that the Lord's Supper.

For myself I'd say you must have bread and fruit of the vine (red) and since red wine is generally not blood coloured whatever is available in that spectrum may be acceptable.

 

[Pergamum]

So is purple grape juice or white wine thus less preferable than red Kool-aid if the color red is prioritized?

Is Kool-Aid whatever that is readily available on the remote mission fields of the world? I think in my post I was offering a certain degree of liberty and sensible margin for missionaries, but too far and you end up with something different that the Lord's Supper.

For myself I'd say you must have bread and fruit of the vine (red) and since red wine is generally not blood coloured whatever is available in that spectrum may be acceptable.

Yes. We have red Kool-aid. We've used that once when we had it, judging that the intent and the symbology was within acceptability and that it was a greater value to partake of the Supper than not to partake. I would have probably used donuts if unleavened bread was lacking (though cutting them up and putting them on a platter instead of whole in a commercial box).

Is it inconsistent to say that I'd be looser on this issue in some regions of the world than in the USA, since food is plenteous in the USA and there is no excuse?

 

[Zork]

is this any worse than using grape juice instead of wine?

A donut is bread, after all?

Thats a good question,

And even though I know that, I still find it offensive and dangerous,
It scares me to make light of Gods Sacraments in any sense.

Isn't grape juice then equally offensive and dangerous?

Wasnt wine of that time un-fermented almost like juice or very weak wine? Or just VERY strong grape juice. ;-) Dont think the wine was the same though. Wasnt the bread unleavened?

Unleavened donuts. LOL.

Please correct me im still learning all these things.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Zork]

C.H. Spurgeon: “After the thanksgiving, it is very clear that our Divine Lord broke the bread. We scarcely know what kind of bread was used on that occasion; it was probably the thin passover cake of the Jews; but there is nothing said in Scripture about the use of leavened or unleavened bread, and therefore it matters not which we use. Where there is no ordinance, there is no obligation; and we are, therefore, left free to use the bread. which it is our custom to eat.”


Calvin, Institutes: “But as for the outward ceremony of the action * whether or not the believers take it in their hands, or divide it among themselves, or severally eat what has been given to each; whether they hand the cup back to the deacon or give it to the next person; whether the bread is leavened or unleavened; the wine red or white * it makes no difference. These things are indifferent, and left at the church’s discretion.

 

[BGF]

As a subscriber to the WCF, I am bound, both by conviction and by vows, to the RPW. Clearly, bread and wine are the scriptural elements for the Lord's supper, all other arguments aside. Availability does not change this. within the confines of the RPW there may be disagreement on type of bread and wine, but a simple reading and common sense preclude donuts and kool aid.

So the question remains, what if these elements are not available? May we substitute elements as we see fit? Not according to the RPW. There is no warrant in the bible to substitute man's innovations for God's prescription. One may say then, "But how are we to observe the Lord's Supper?" The simple, but hard, answer is you don't. This may seem unduly harsh, but it is the most reasonable answer to be gleaned from God's Word. Perhaps it is in God's providence that a local community may not observe the prescribed rites. When Israel was in Babylonian captivity they could not observe the temple ceremonies, despite the command to do so. Were they to try to sacrifice in an innovative manner in an attempt to please God? The question in its absurdity answers itself. No, instead they pleaded to God for restoration so that they might again praise Him in the temple

Psalm 102:18-22
Let this be recorded for a generation to come, so that a people yet to be created may praise the LORD: that he looked down from his holy height; from heaven the LORD looked at the earth, to hear the groans of the prisoners, to set free those who were doomed to die, that they may declare in Zion the name of the LORD, and in Jerusalem his praise, when peoples gather together, and kingdoms, to worship the LORD.

So why has God providentially prevented the observation of the Supper in some cases? I don't know. Perhaps it is a matter for prayer for that community. Perhaps it is an opportunity for the universal Church to provide for the brothers who lack.

In any event, in a land of plenty Donuts, Doritos, Kool Aid, and Pepsi are not used for lack of elements. They are used for a lack of a fear for the holiness of God.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Why would the same pragmatic arguments that places having the Lord's Supper above having it according to biblical prescriptions not apply to the rest of the service? For example, if you lack a pastor, anyone fit may step into his place in order to have the sacrament. Why wouldn't this also apply to preaching? And if all the men are dead or gone, etc.? Where is the line drawn?

 

[Pergamum]

C.H. Spurgeon: “After the thanksgiving, it is very clear that our Divine Lord broke the bread. We scarcely know what kind of bread was used on that occasion; it was probably the thin passover cake of the Jews; but there is nothing said in Scripture about the use of leavened or unleavened bread, and therefore it matters not which we use. Where there is no ordinance, there is no obligation; and we are, therefore, left free to use the bread. which it is our custom to eat.”


Calvin, Institutes: “But as for the outward ceremony of the action * whether or not the believers take it in their hands, or divide it among themselves, or severally eat what has been given to each; whether they hand the cup back to the deacon or give it to the next person; whether the bread is leavened or unleavened; the wine red or white * it makes no difference. These things are indifferent, and left at the church’s discretion.

So these quotes seem to affirm that the intent and the symbology of the ordinance matters most.

 

[BGF]

C.H. Spurgeon: “After the thanksgiving, it is very clear that our Divine Lord broke the bread. We scarcely know what kind of bread was used on that occasion; it was probably the thin passover cake of the Jews; but there is nothing said in Scripture about the use of leavened or unleavened bread, and therefore it matters not which we use. Where there is no ordinance, there is no obligation; and we are, therefore, left free to use the bread. which it is our custom to eat.”


Calvin, Institutes: “But as for the outward ceremony of the action * whether or not the believers take it in their hands, or divide it among themselves, or severally eat what has been given to each; whether they hand the cup back to the deacon or give it to the next person; whether the bread is leavened or unleavened; the wine red or white * it makes no difference. These things are indifferent, and left at the church’s discretion.

So these quotes seem to affirm that the intent and the symbology of the ordinance matters most.

No. It affirms that Spurgeon and Calvin thought that within the confines of bread and wine, there was freedom.

 

[Pergamum]

C.H. Spurgeon: “After the thanksgiving, it is very clear that our Divine Lord broke the bread. We scarcely know what kind of bread was used on that occasion; it was probably the thin passover cake of the Jews; but there is nothing said in Scripture about the use of leavened or unleavened bread, and therefore it matters not which we use. Where there is no ordinance, there is no obligation; and we are, therefore, left free to use the bread. which it is our custom to eat.”


Calvin, Institutes: “But as for the outward ceremony of the action * whether or not the believers take it in their hands, or divide it among themselves, or severally eat what has been given to each; whether they hand the cup back to the deacon or give it to the next person; whether the bread is leavened or unleavened; the wine red or white * it makes no difference. These things are indifferent, and left at the church’s discretion.

So these quotes seem to affirm that the intent and the symbology of the ordinance matters most.

No. It affirms that Spurgeon and Calvin thought that within the confines of bread and wine, there was freedom.

Okay, good clarification.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

This has been an interesting discussion. I thought of our Lord's words, "But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom." And I thought of his words, "I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." I find it convincing that we are to use elements everyone involved would call "bread," and also actual wine, otherwise it seems we might make a mockery of his words and what he was instituting.