We Need to Talk
Sanitation has become a holy word in 2020 along with hand washing, hand sanitizer, social distancing, protective masks, and other now common phrases. As recent as January 2019 people were their relaxed self about sanitation and hygiene. In the primitive days of 2019 you might very well have witnessed a grown man picking his nose in the checkout line or a woman walk out of the restroom without washing her hands. Not to say this doesn’t happen in 2020 still, but such activity will most certainly garner the scorn of anyone within a 6 foot radius during this year of the coronavirus. Something of an entirely different sort that might provoke gasps and panic among general audiences is…the traditional communion service.
Background to Sanitation Concerns
Concerns about sanitation in the communion service are nothing new. They go back to the early 1900’s when public awareness of germs became a thing. Before that time, the idea of individual cups and wafers for each communion participant was not seen or heard. Over the last century, public health concerns about sanitation have turned the common observance of communion upside down. Few churches still observe this expression of worship with a singular loaf of bread and a singular cup. One of those seemingly “stuck in the past” churches is the Church of Christ–to be precise–the churches of Christ sometimes called the “one cuppers.” It was a one cup Church of Christ preacher in 1983 by the name of Alton Bailey that wrote and published a booklet entitled Sanitation In Communion. It was his aim in this booklet to review the authoritative opinions and research of health experts in order to debunk what he considered to be myths and unwarranted concerns about the lack of sanitation involved in using one cup in the communion service. This short booklet was later published again in 1993 as a second edition by Alton Bailey and fellow preacher James D. Orten. And finally, this work was reprinted as a third edition in 2020 by Five Minute Bible Study publications. The first edition of Sanitation In Communion is virtually an entirely different work from the final two editions, but it is the 2nd and 3rd editions that we will be reviewing for the remainder of this article.
A Brief Overview
Permit a brief overview of the contents of Sanitation In Communion, and then afterwards a few myths and assumptions will be highlighted and discussed. Bailey and Orten divided their discussion about sanitation in communion into three parts: history, scripture and science. The first part, “Controversy Over a Symbol of Unity,” explains the background to the controversy. There it is cited how that Dr. J. G. Thomas, a physician and presbyterian minister in the 1890’s, was the first person of record to have implemented the individual communion cup in worship. Bailey and Orten explain the health concerns that sparked this innovation in the denominations and finally penetrated the ranks of the churches of Christ. The second part, “How Did Jesus Set Up His Supper?” is an affirmative presentation for one cup and one loaf to be used in the Lord’s Supper observance. It is here argued that using one cup in observance of the communion is directly in keeping with the command, example, and necessary conclusions of scripture. The third part, “Science and Sanitation in Communion,” contains the booklet’s steak, or main course as it were. Bailey and Orten review five distinct research studies that were conducted to test the sanitation of common cup communion. The studies are listed in descending order of quality, and each study chosen for review was selected based on reputability, objectivity, quality, and experimental methods. Some of the findings from these research studies will be discussed below; but otherwise, the methods, findings, and scientific conclusions drawn from the studies are briefly summarized within the books final pages (appx. 14 pages).
Destroying Myths & Assumptions
One of the motivations for reprinting Sanitation In Communion in 2020 was public health concerns brought on by the coronavirus pandemic. Many churches closed their doors in March and still remain shut some 7 months later. Needless to say, these churches are not observing communion. That actually should be disclaimed, as some churches are encouraging their members to purchase individual communion sets on Amazon and other online vendors. The members are then able to observe quote, unquote, “individual communion,” (an oxymoron) at home. With most churches already in a frenzy about germs being spread from the common communion cup going back to the early 1900’s, it goes without saying that the current pandemic has relegated traditional, common cup communion to the rank of unfathomable! However, the collective research reviewed in Sanitation In Communion reveals that such feelings about communion observance with one cup are not based on good evidence and/or the backing of science but on assumptions, herd mentality, and hysteria. An important question then surfaces: what are the chances of someone getting a virus from the common communion cup? This is a good question for more than one reason. On the one hand, people that cry, “Unclean! Unclean!” toward those that use one cup in communion do so without sufficient proof. On the other hand, those that do use one cup in communion frequently make unfounded statements about the safety of certain elements in the communion (i.e., the silver cup, the bacteriostatic effect of grape juice). Both sides would do well to read Sanitation In Communion to clear up these issues. Now, let’s proceed to allow Alton Bailey and James Orten’s work to address some of these assumptions and assertions.
False Assumption #1- Observing communion with a singular cup is extremely dangerous!
The first research study reviewed in Sanitation In Communion is considered to be of the highest quality of any on the subject. As Bailey and Orten point out, it is considered of high quality particularly because it was instigated by public health complaints against the Anglican Church for its use of one cup, and it was conducted by the Medical Research Council, a branch of the British government. Please take the time to read the short, four page review of the research’s methods and findings to verify the legitimacy of the study. With that being said, Bailey and Orten quote the researchers of this study as concluding, “The risk of (disease) transmission (in common cup communion) is very small, and probably much smaller than that of contracting infection by other methods in any gathering of people,” (29). This conclusion was corroborated by a University of Chicago research experiment whose conductors stated, “It is more dangerous to live to age 35 than to drink from the communion cup!” (32). Upon further review, it appears the widespread assumption that using one cup in communion is more dangerous than going to the grocery store, originates from the same laboratory that reported to little boys, “Girls have cooties! Don’t touch them!” and that the coronavirus was baked up within the belly of Area 51. All this is not to say it is absolutely impossible to transmit a virus by using a single cup; this myth will be addressed momentarily.
False Assumption #2- The alcoholic content of fermented wine kills bacteria and is safer than unfermented grape juice in communion.
Bailey and Orten review a study of three researchers who drew this conclusion after testing the bacteriostatic (bacteria killing) effect of fermented wine, assuming it was the alcohol that produced such an effect. However, they neglected to test the same effect of grape juice. Later research would show that they assumed too much. This bacteriostatic effect actually stems from the natural properties of the grape’s juice and not the alcoholic byproduct of fermentation (38). Thus, there is no good reason to use alcoholic wine in communion. Not only can we be sure Jesus used unfermented grape juice in the last supper due to the Passover regulations in place, any health benefit for using fermented wine is unfounded.
False Assumption #3- The plated silver on a communion cup is able to kill any germs that may rest on the cup’s rim.
Two separate studies reviewed by Bailey and Orten tested the bacteriostatic effect of silver. The studies did conclude that silver indeed has a cleansing effect; however, the time necessary for the silver to have this effect is much, much longer than the time that lapses between the cup passing from one communion participant to another. The same can be said for the bacteriostatic effect of the grape juice itself. Therefore, to say that a silver cup reduces the risk of disease transmission during communion is negligible. Many one cup advocates have used the silver cup as a defense in bygone years, but this is simply a moot point that needs abandoned.
False Assumption #4- It is impossible to get sick from drinking out of one cup.
People, through the years, have somehow read Bailey and Orten’s work and drawn this conclusion. This assumption does more harm than good. Sanitation In Communion does NOT state that it is impossible to get sick when drinking out of one cup. To be precise, here are the concluding remarks by Bailey and Orten on this very point–
“No one can absolutely guarantee a Christian or anyone else that he will not get a disease. There are so many factors, often unknown factors, that influence a human body. But if he does get one, the best evidence is that it will not be from the communion cup. We agree with Dr. O. Noel Gill, of the British Public Health Service, that the fact that no disease has ever been shown to come from the common cup is strong evidence of its safety. If no case of illness has been traced to the communion cup in 100 years, the chance of being the first victim seems less than that of being hit by a falling meteor,” (43-44).
Re-read this paragraph again. Note two things. First, the statement is never made that transmitting disease from the common cup is an impossibility, just that the chances are extremely low, which is exactly what the reviewed research bore out. Second, the statement that no illness has ever been traced to the communion cup is a bit loaded. It is not a false statement, but then again, it would take experimental research being performed during each communion service to know the certain validity of this conclusion. That said, we reiterate the fact that, risk of disease transmission during common cup communion has proven to be extremely low to negligible. To say that common cup communion is a high risk for spreading germs is just as unfounded as saying that silver plated cups make disease transmission impossible. Both false assumptions need to be recognized for what they are- false…assumptions.
Conclusion
Perhaps you are one of a few readers who reached the end of this review. If so, do two things. 1) Read Sanitation In Communion for yourself. There are multiple options to obtain a copy. Message Five Minute Bible Study to request a print version. Click Here to download a pdf version. Click Here to purchase an e-book version for $0.99. 2) Keeping the commandments of God is the most important thing to remember. It is the opinion of this writer that Sanitation In Communion gives sufficient proof to trust in the safety of common cup communion. Nonetheless, trusting in God and keeping His commandments is not predicated on IF doing so is safe. If it was, then the Hebrews 11 men and women who trusted in God would not have been rewarded with trials of mockings, scourgings, chains, imprisonment, stoning, being sawn in two, death by the sword, wandering, destitution, affliction, and torment (v. 35-38). Jesus, the God who created life from nothing, was very aware of germs in 30 A.D. when He instituted the Lord’s Supper using a common cup with 11 disciples. Don’t forget that He lived in a health environment void of vaccination, where diphtheria, pertussis, typhoid fever, measles, mumps, hepatitis, viruses, and every other disease known to man ran rampant. He traveled with men who ate with unwashed hands on occasion (Mark 7:5). And He was not hesitant to heal leprosy by touching the victim’s skin. None of this is to insinuate that Christian’s should drop all health precautions. But it should emphasize the importance of keeping Jesus’ commandments as He gave them, even in the face of suspected or assumed risk that was even more so present in Jesus’ own day. Some trust in the fact that God providentially protects them during the communion service. Very well. This is possible but not promised. Regardless of whether or not God preserves the health of His people that keep His commandments, let us obey with all diligence and say, “Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him,” (Job 13:15).
