Why The Common Cup Should Be Used For Holy Communion

In these perilous times of Covid-19, questions are being raised in the churches of Christ concerning the proper means of distributing the cup in our Holy Communion Services. Some are advocating abandoning the common cup in favour of the baptist shot-cups. The purpose of this blog is to advocate the use of the common cup, as well as to why other traditional methods of distributing the sacrament should be observed. Although, this is not to comment on whether Holy Communion should or should not be conducted during times of plague, which is best left to the discretion of the local priest.  

Before we begin our discussion, it is necessary to state where we stand in regards to the nature of this sacrament. We deny the doctrine of transubstantiation, which claims that there is a real change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. Equally, we deny the doctrine of the Zwinglians and baptists, who argue that the sacrament is nothing but a symbol and a reminder that Christ died for us; that there is no benefit beyond reminding us of Christ’s sacrifice upon the cross. Rather, we hold to the Calvinist position. The Calvinist understanding states that in the supper there is a promise, like there is in baptism - see here, which when grasped by faith brings benefits associated with the promise. 

We will illustrate the difference between the Zwinglian and the Calvinist doctrine, for there are those who claim that there is no difference at all. The Zwinglian understanding is like a man giving his friend a photograph by which to remember him by. The friend might have many happy thoughts when looking at the photograph as he remembers the man, he may remember things the man has done for him, or remember that the man has vowed to pay him some money and thus go to retrieve it from him, but here the benefits end, the photograph gives no benefit that pure memory and contemplation alone could not have given. Indeed, The Metropolitan Tabernacle church in London, which takes the Zwinglian position, during the Covid-19 period decided to ‘celebrate the Lord’s Table without the elements of the bread and wine’ by contemplation alone.

The Calvinist position, by contrast, is like a man who gives a lady a ring as a pledge to his devotion to her, and his care for her. The ring does serve as a memory of the man, but it also serves as a token of his promise. In a similar way, we say that within the institution of Holy Communion, God has given us a promise. This promise being that if we partake of the bread and wine with faith, we will receive the promises and benefits of the New Covenant. This is what Christ meant when He said, ‘This cup is the New Covenant in my blood, which is shed for you.’ Such benefits include spiritually feeding upon Christ and drinking His blood, and union with Him. 

With the Calvinist position in mind, we can make the following points as to why Holy Communion should be conducted with a common cup. 

(1) There are four recorded accounts in Scripture of Holy Communion (Matt. 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:15-20; 1 Cor. 11:23-25) In all of these accounts we can note that it is only a single cup (ποτήριον - neuter, singular, accusative) that Christ blessed and distributed to His disciples. This is made further clear from Matthew’s and Mark’s account which tells us that the disciples only drank from a single cup. (Matthew: Πίετε ἐξ αὐτοῦ πάντες Mark: ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς καὶ ἔπιον ἐξ αὐτοῦ). The words of Scripture, therefore, give preference to a common cup being used; and in so much as we wish to remain faithful to how Christ instituted this sacrament we should use a common cup; after all, He could have very easily instituted the Holy Toast, with all the disciples clanking their own cups together.

(2) Communion represents not only that we are one with Christ, but that we are also all one with each other through Christ. (1 Cor. 10) The cup represents the one death of Christ that we all partake of. Contrary to the modern individualistic ideas of baptist theology, the church should be pleased to affirm her communal nature. The individual cups completely destroy the symbolism of the Lord’s Supper as the sacrament of union with one another, where the man in rags partakes of the same cup as the king in robes. 

(3) It introduces an irreverence to the sacrament, making the supper akin to drinking vodka at a boozy Russian party. I have always felt like crying out, ‘for Mother Russia!’ when partaking in a communion service that involves the shot cups.

Moreover, it means that the consecrated wine cannot be fully consumed. Now, it might be argued that since there is no real change of the bread and wine, it does not matter if the the consecrated wine and bread are left unconsumed. However, there is a good reason why we ought to show reverence to the consecrated bread and wine, even when denying the doctrine of transubstantiation. For if we take a Calvinistic position, then we are stating that the bread and wine are tokens, signs, and symbols of God’s promise. And it is for this reason they should be treated respectfully. It would be an insult to a man if his wife threw her ring into the bin can. Seeing that we treat these earthly tokens with respect, does that not give us reason to treat the heavenly ones with all the more respect?

(4) It is contrary to the tradition and history of the church. (The shot-cups were introduced to the church in the late 1800s by a baptist church in New York and became popular in the 1960s, especially with the rise of HIV.) While it is true that tradition is not on equal par with Scripture, we should also not completely disregard what tradition has to tell us. And if the church has practiced Holy Communion in a particular way for a long period of time, we should give second thought before easily disregarding it.

(5) Individual cups also lend themselves to a tendency to have the bread and wine passed around rather than requiring the congregates to come forward to receive the elements. There is a big disadvantage with this. It makes it more difficult to opt out of partaking of the elements, especially if you are known to have taken before. If the plate and cups are being passed around the church, it is noticeably awkward to avoid taking a piece of bread or one of the small cups, inclining one to partake even if they themselves are not yet ready, or even worse pressuring an unbeliever to partake. It is for this reason that we should be invited forward to partake of the feast rather than have it thrust before us. An added benefit of this is that congregates who do not wish to partake can be asked to cross their arms for a blessing, which cannot be done if the elements are passed around.

(6) The individualism the shot-cups bring allow for there to be multiple elements suited to the individual needs of the congregation. Churches with the shot-cups now conduct Holy Communion with several elements: wine, grape-juice, gluten-free bread, fair-trade bread, grape-free wine, and so on. Now, it might be argued that it is pharisaical to insist on using alcoholic wine and proper bread. We must, however, reject this claim if we are going to remain faithful to Christ’s institution. For it was the elements of bread and wine that Christ chose to symbolise His promise, and despite what we think about the inadequacies of these elements, dare we say that Christ was mistaken in choosing them? that He should have picked more suitable elements? 

But what about those who have an intolerance to bread or cannot take wine? To these people the following considerations can be given. 

Regarding the bread, fully gluten-free bread is made from potatoes and cannot be regarded as bread. Nevertheless, there are proper breads that have the gluten reduced. If the priest is in a church with congregational members who suffer from an intolerance to bread, then he could consider ordering such bread. Depending upon the intolerance, it may be the case that a nibble of the bread can be taken, or that the negative effects of the intolerance can endured as part of suffering for Christ. (Of course, no congregate should ever put their life at risk or do something that seriously threatens their health!)

Regarding the wine, the wine is often watered down, and therefore its alcohol content weakened. For those who claim to be alcoholics, since there is no physical impairments preventing them from taking the wine, but rather a weakness of the will, they should pray to God that their will be strengthened as it is their duty to be able to partake in the sacrament.  

Yet, if none of these solutions work, a congregant can take only one element. It has been the traditional position of the church that the full blessings of the sacrament can be received by partaking of just one element. What we should not try and do is disregard the elements that Christ has chosen because we think them as inadequate. 

Addressing Health Concerns

At this point the objection will come that the common cup is unhygienic, and that with the rise of new understandings of how disease is spread we should adopt the shot-cups as a means to prevent the spread of disease. I have two things to say in response to this. 

First, we should remember that the supper was instituted by Christ with a single cup; as such, the church has practiced a common cup for two millennia. By changing to shot-cups in fear of disease - when Christ could have easily instituted a holy toast - shows lack of faith in Christ and His wisdom.

Second, evidence shows that priests, who have to finish off the remaining communion wine, do not get sick or unwell more often than priests of churches that choose to conduct Holy Communion with shot-cups. If care is taken, proper wiping etc., then the health concerns of sharing a common cup are minimal.

This is not to comment on whether during times of plague Holy Communion should be taken or not, but only that a solution can not be found in using individual shot-cups, and that the shot-cups can neither be used for Holy Communion in any other circumstances.