mpethe
Supporting Member
Posts: 62
|
Post by mpethe on Feb 7, 2005 13:30:45 GMT -5
Recently a friend remarked to me that the ordinance of Communion has lost much of it's meaning for the evangelical church of today.
He noted that in many churches it has been reduced to a mere rememberance and token symbolism ... but that this was not always the case for the generations before us.
As he spoke - it caught my attention. That's pretty much how I feel about partaking in the Lord's supper most of the time. Sadly, I have always sensed that it does not hold the place of importance in my life that it should.
So, help me out here...
What actually happens in our partaking of communion?
Is it just a rememberance?
Is it efficacious in any way?
How does your church celebrate?
Personally, I do not believe as have some traditions that the elements physically become the body and blood of Christ as we eat and drink. I do affirm their symbolic nature, but also sense that there should be more than that. Any thoughts?
Thanks,
mpethe.
|
|
|
|
Post by rgrove on Feb 7, 2005 17:10:41 GMT -5
Recently a friend remarked to me that the ordinance of Communion has lost much of it's meaning for the evangelical church of today. For much of the church I would agree, it has...  Again, I would agree with this assessment. The reasons, though, are varied. It would depend on the church (although some denominational generalizations can be made, even this is difficult) as to what is right or wrong about the celebration of the Lord's Supper. It didn't with me for quite a while as well, but I would say the fault was with me, not the church I was in and not the way the pastor conducted the Lord's Supper. His sermons were good, his introduction was good, but something had not clicked inside me yet as to the depth of the significance of the sacrament. I'll start by pasting Ch 30, sections 1 and 7 of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith as my basic statement. We can move on in discussion from there I suppose: 1) The supper of the Lord Jesus was instituted by him the same night wherein he was betrayed, to be observed in his churches, unto the end of the world, for the perpetual remembrance, and shewing forth the sacrifice of himself in his death, confirmation of the faith of believers in all the benefits thereof, their spiritual nourishment, and growth in him, their further engagement in, and to all duties which they owe to him; and to be a bond and pledge of their communion with him, and with each other.
(1 Cor. 11:23-26; 1 Cor. 10:16, 17,21)
7. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.
(1 Cor. 10:16, 11:23-26)The remainder may be found here: 1689 LBCOf course the WCF and the Savoy Declaration are where the language originated: Ch 29 of the Westminster Confession of FaithSavoy DeclarationAnd the Anglican 39 Articles of Religion and the Reformed views held there also had some degree of influence: 39 Articles of Religion (Ch 28)I would say no, there's much deeper meaning to it. But defining that deeper aspect is where all the controversy comes to play of course...  Efficacious in what way? Towards progressive salvation? No. Efficacious towards our sanctification? I would say yes, if properly observed it's an unbelievably deep means of grace towards our sanctification. Of course the vocabulary I am using is entirely devoid of sacerdotal Roman meaning... We celebrate it on the first Sunday of the month at the end of the second service (so we just celebrated it yesterday). The service is normal, but the sermon is always focused in some way specifically upon the work of Christ on the Cross. We practice close communion which means that if you are a professed believer in Jesus Christ and not under church discipline at your home church, you are invited to the table. The pastor makes this clear beforehand, but in peace and love, not rudely. We are Baptist so we believe that only believers should partake in the Lord's Supper. We sing a hymn that is deeply associated with Christ's work on the cross and then the pastor says a few words. In this the elders always encourage us to ask forgiveness for any unconfessed sin that may be in our lives and that this mode of confession, genuine repentence, and trustingly looking towards the cross in faith for sins forgiven is the proper attitude for partaking of the Lord's Supper. The elder then asks one of the deacons to pray for the bread. Then we partake in the bread. We use unleavened bread. It's the first church I've been to that's done that. But I've never gotten around to asking why we break some off of one loaf, but that's what we do. Then the pastor says a few more words and asks another deacon to pray for the wine (in our case juice...) and then we partake. We then sing another hymn closely associated to the work of Christ on the cross, the pastor says some closing words, and we are dismissed. In Christ, Ron |
|
|
|
Post by melinky on Feb 7, 2005 17:23:15 GMT -5
Due to the size of my church and the amount of time it takes to serve Communion, we only serve Communion on the first Sunday of the month. We also have a Communion service every Wednesday night in our Upper Room Chapel for those who wish to receive it more often. Our Communion is a large, round loaf of bread that is broken and blessed and then broken off and handed to each person who is partaking. We also have corn tortillas available for those who have wheat allergies. Instead of wine, we serve grape juice which is also blessed and served by intinction, the bread is dipped into the juice and then eaten. During Communion, the Communion Stewards are served first. They then move to the front of our outer isles and those wishing to receive Communion move into the isles and go forward to recieve. The Communion Steward who is serving the bread breaks off a piece of the bread and hands it to the Communicant, saying, "This is the body of Christ, broken for you." The Communicant then dips the bread into the cup and the Steward says, "This is the blood of Christ, poured out for you." The Communicant then partakes of the bread and juice and either returns to his/her seat or goes to the prayer rail for private prayer. Our Communion is open to all who desire to partake. I know that there are arguments for and against this, but this is one of the things I like about my church. When I first attended a Communion Service, I had never taken Communion before. Feeling welcome to do so made me feel a part of the church; I didn't feel like an outsider or unworthy of Christ's gift to us. Communion is a very important part of my church life for many reasons. I guess the first reason is that I like the reminder of Christ's sacrifice, I find it very moving and spiritually filling. I especially like the time of prayer after partaking. There is something about kneeling near the altar, or maybe it's the fact that I know that I only have a short amount of time to say what I need to, that brings the things I need to say to God to the front of my mind. While I see the act of taking Communion as a purely symbolic act, I find it extremely fulfilling and I take Communion as often as I'm able. Unfortunately, I don't get to go to the Wednesday night service be cause it conflicts with choir practice. On a final note, I know the Roman Catholic Church believes the Eucharist actually becomes the physical body and blood of Christ. While I have no problem with Catholics, the idea of eating and drinking flesh and blood kind of ooks me out. Melinda |
|
|
|
Post by Soulfyre on Feb 7, 2005 17:25:34 GMT -5
He noted that in many churches it has been reduced to a mere rememberance and token symbolism ... but that this was not always the case for the generations before us. As he spoke - it caught my attention. That's pretty much how I feel about partaking in the Lord's supper most of the time. Sadly, I have always sensed that it does not hold the place of importance in my life that it should. You have touched upon an issue that in many ways plagues our contemporary Christianity. Much, I believe, stems from our casual use of the word "remembrance". To many of us, history in general is a dead topic. It is mere chonology. Others among us, more influenced by post-modernism, emphasize the importance of "narrative", the developing of a "story line" to provide an ideational context for our beliefs. So to some, we are dealing with cold facts, devoid of life. To others, we are dealing with suprahistorical stories, whose only importance is one of cultural definition, not "Truth" in any absolute sense. But if our celebration of the Last Supper (or Eucharist) may be considered to, in some sense, provide the truth of which the Passover was shadow, we must move beyond our conventional understanding of "remembering." Certainly among more Orthodox Jewish people today, the Passover is not a casual commemoration. It is a participation in the eternal reality of the historical event of the Passover. To each Jewish family, the Passover transcends time and space such that they are participants in the event itself. This is not simply narrative, although the events take the form of a narrative. It is not simply a helpful way of contextualizing for the purpose of understanding an otherwise distant event. It is particularly not the development of a myth, that is, a highly imaginative story of legend proportion created to explain some fact or natural event, in this case, explaining in a vivid, if not entirely credible, manner how a wandering nomadic people became the nation of Israel. Except in the Anabaptist tradition, Communion, or the Eucharist, in the Christian church has always been more than the mere remembrance of an historical event. It has always, at the very least, been a participation, in a manner transcending space and time, the the Last Supper fo Jesus Christ and his disciples the night before his crucifixion (it would, in fact, be more accurate to say the night of his crucifixion, since the Jewish day began at sunset, and he would have been crucified that following afternoon, so that he could be removed from the cross prior to the sundown on the Passover). In the non-Protestant tradition, it is a participation in the very sacrifice of Jesus Christ, offered to God by Jesus Christ according to his office of High Priest. As such, it is a particpation in the very body (remember Ave Verum Corpus?) and blood of our Lord. While the Western Church, in its more scholastic approach, has attempted to define "transubstation" in terms of "principens" and "accidens", and has "pinpointed" the time of this occurence at the words of institution (remember "Hocus Pocus"? This is a perversion of the words Hoc est Corpore Meus in the Latin Mass). The Orthodox Church avoids such definitions, as though the Eucharist were some magic formula. Rather, the Orthodox simply believe that in the process of the Liturgy, the elements take the very identity of the Body and Blood of Our Lord. But it is considered a mystery, and no attempt to further define it has been accepted as dogmatic among the Orthodox. Most Reformed in the line of Calvin assume a concept of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the act of communion, but deny the idea that the Eucharist is a real, continuing sacrifice (even the Orthodox, however, consider the Eucharist as a perpetual participation in the original sacrifice). I agree that among most Protestants, we have lost the centrality of the Eucharist in our lives, even though most of us try to drum up a sense of emotional connection when our churches celebrate Communion. It is, in many ways, a cultural context that is foreign to us, and this to our loss. For I believe that the Eucharist is far more than what we conventionally conceive of as a "remembrance" or "memorial". I believe that this is a fruitful area of discussion. God bless and keep you, Matthew (soulfyre) |
|
mpethe
Supporting Member
Posts: 62
|
Post by mpethe on Feb 8, 2005 11:07:15 GMT -5
It didn't with me for quite a while as well, but I would say the fault was with me, not the church I was in and not the way the pastor conducted the Lord's Supper. His sermons were good, his introduction was good, but something had not clicked inside me yet as to the depth of the significance of the sacrament. No doubt that a root of the problem lies within me. I'm not sure exactly where though. Here are some things that I really appreciate about the way we do communion at our church... 1) it is not on a schedule - rather communion is included in the service when it seems right to the leadership that it be included. There are a number of factors that go in to the decision - but I like the fact that it has been included for reasons other than - 'because the schedule says so'. 2) we have quite a bit of variance in how we partake - sometimes the elements are passed out to the pews and we all eat and drink together. Sometimes people are called to the front to receive the elements when they are ready. Somtimes we work it so that you go up to the front and receive, but then you take the elements and serve them to the people next in line behind you. One time we even had a meal after the service and celebrated the Lord's supper as part of it. Here are a couple of things that disturb me about the way we do it... 1) we often do not leave enough time in the service to properly focus on the event - though the celebration of the supper has been included in the service for specific reasons - it can still feel like an 'add-on'. I think I would appreciate it more if it were more central to the entire gathering. 2) the table is too open? - i put a question mark there because I question myself even as I write it - I want to tread lightly here. The invitation is put forward to all who have a personal realationship with Jesus. That sounds all well and good - but as with many churches today, we very rarely practice church discipline. In fact, I can't think of one instance (that's not necessarily bad - but in our case, I'm not sure). On one hand I know that the Lord's table is the great leveler. In partaking, I acknowledge that I am as much a sinner as anyone and that I desperately need God's grace. As we are all invited to the same table, it puts us all on the same level. On the other hand - we don't stop people from partaking that (appear to me) to be unrepentent and living sinfully. ie - an unmarried couple living together Now, I don't truly know the state of the heart's of these people or really even if the leadership has spoken with them about their participation in the church. I suppose bringing my concerns to them would be a first step. But for now - the grace given at the table seems somehow cheapened. Can anyone relate to this? And, thanks for the links... Any other good reading out there that anyone can suggest on this topic? |
|
|
|
Post by rgrove on Feb 8, 2005 12:16:41 GMT -5
No doubt that a root of the problem lies within me. I'm not sure exactly where though. I dont' know, it sounds to me like you do take it seriously and you are seeking a deeper understanding of the Lord's Table. That indicates spiritual health to me! Do you mean that nobody knows when it's going to be celebrated? Or that you don't know when in the service it will take place? If you don't know when it will be, then that's a significant issue. Many elderly shut-ins, for example, can't make it to all the services but will make a special effort to come in if they know the Lord's Supper is going to be served that day. Also others can make sure to plan business trips or vacations properly so that they can participate. A normal routine is important for the body IMO. Odd. I've never heard of this many different ways of celebrating the Lord's Supper in one church. How big is it? Are they trying to find the best way to do it? Or is it really this random? It certainly qualifies for not being "normal" though... That's unfortunate. The preaching, music and everything else should be preparing the hearts of the congregation for the reception of the Lord's Supper. I agree, it's central to the service even if it's done at the end and this must be obvious to the participants. Lot's of arguments amongst us Baptists over this question... We practice "close" communion at our church which is much the same as what you describe, but we have our Lord's Supper in a service that rarely gets visitors. This is on purpose really. If a visitor comes to the first service and joins us for our fellowship meal then the elders can speak to him/her/them before the Lord's Supper. This way the pastors invite the person to stay comfortable that they are a regenerate believer on the Lord Jesus Christ. Before I became an official member of the church the elder doing the service would peridically invite me to join by name as well as any others that weren't official members. Now some Baptist churches do practice "closed" communion. That means that only members generally participate. This is obviously to make sure that the partakers are only those believed to be regenerate believers in Jesus Christ. What drew me to the conclusion that this practice is too extreme? Someone on a Baptist board asked if R.C. Sproul came to your church would you really withhold the Lord's Table from him? You can insert anyone's name really, who you know to be a Christian. I came personally to the conclusion that it is the "Lord's" Table and He has invited all those who believe on His name. Indeed. This falls under the area of church discipline I believe. If a couple refuses to acknowledge their sin, persists in sinning against the Lord unrepentantly, then some discipline must be taken. Coming to the Lord's Supper is serious business and your heart should be in the right place. If the pastor does not believe the couple to me moving down the path of dealing with this sin in particular then I personally feel that the Lord's Supper should be withheld from them. If they are working to rectify the sin, then I would consider it the discretion of the elders to let them partake or not. This is serious business. Scripture clearly states that people sinning unrepentently with heardened hearts were getting physically sick as a result. Sin is serious business. Christ had to go to the cross because of it! I really do recommend you let them know your concerns. They may be hesitant and avoiding confrontation. Nobody likes the idea of speaking to someone about this. I'm sure they want to balance trying to keep them in the church and perhaps they're speaking to them in private and you just aren't aware of it. Perhaps they know that this couple is working towards resolving this sin and will get married? I have no idea obviously, but you should bring it up to the elders and make sure they know your concern. Yes, I can relate to it. I've developed my views mostly independantly from any books on the topic. May sound strange for someone that read as much as I do, but I just haven't found the need. In this area, I think there are a couple of determinitives. You are Baptist. That has a tremendous amount of influence on what you believe about the Lord's Supper. From there the scripture is fairly clear on the issue really. The grey areas are going to be where the pastors have discretion based upon their work with their flock. In those cases hopefully you can have faith in your elders that they're moving forward on biblical principles. In Christ, Ron |
|
mpethe
Supporting Member
Posts: 62
|
Post by mpethe on Feb 8, 2005 15:25:12 GMT -5
The former, but I think there are probably differences in the way our churches run. In fact I'm sure there would be. If you regularly attend our church - you will not miss communion.
It's not a matter of trying to find the best way. It's more like each way will emphasize a different aspect of celebrating the ordinance together. I often hear people comment that they really appreciate the change - as it causes them to think more deeply about what's gonig on. In a subtle way, it tries to communicate that what we are doing is more than following a tradition.
For me, this does have a helpful effect - though obviously not enough of one.
FYI - the church I attend has a multi-site model with smaller congregations. In total the church has probably 1000 members with various congregations averaging about 200 each.
Yes, I think that would help.
|
|
|
|
Post by melinky on Feb 8, 2005 21:38:48 GMT -5
No doubt that a root of the problem lies within me. I'm not sure exactly where though. Sounds to me like you're working very seriously on the problem though. I like the idea of spontaneity, but I also agree with Ron about making sure there is a regular time for those who do make an extra effort to be there for Communion. I think this is wonderful! While on one hand I like the process of our Liturgical Communion, I also enjoy new experiences and thinking about things in other ways. The only thing I wouldn't want to change is the time for prayer that we have afterwards. I can understand why you feel this way, I don't think I would like that "add-on" feeling either. This is where I tend to take a different view. I think the table should be open to all who hunger for Christ. When Jesus lived, who did he hang around with, the righteous or the sinners? I know that the last supper took place with His Apostles, but Jesus didn't say to, "eat this if you are righteous and your heart is right." I know that the RCC requires a person to be in a state of grace before taking the Holy Sacraments, is there Scripture that requires this? I don't recall reading it, but there is still much that I haven't read. As for the unrepentent sinner, if I were living with a man or embezzling from my employer, it would be hard to take it and remember Jesus knowing that I was living in sin. However, if I did, I think there might be something about the reminder of Christ's sacrifice that would gnaw at my conscience and possibly help in pushing me toward making the right decision. I sometimes wonder if our churches are welcoming enough to the unrepentent sinner. How can we expect a sinner to come to an understanding about his/her state of disgrace if they aren't fed the Bread of Life? Isn't Christianity supposed to be an "all-inclusive" faith? I argued once with a transcendentilist who insisted that Christianity was EXclusive and like a giant clique. I tried to point out that it was INclusive and that salvation was available to any who chose to believe. In the end, we had to agree to disagree. Generally speaking, the Methodist church is very open-minded and accepting, which is probably why the church appealed to me, but a discussion came up in my Bible study class about just how accepting our church/congregation was. We decided that we could probably use some work in that area, especially when it comes to welcoming the social outcasts into the life of the church. I would agree that you can't know the state of the sinner's heart unless you do approach them with your concerns. However, I think things are sometimes not as they appear, or there may be more to a situation than meets the eye and such an approach should only be made after much prayer. I have an example. I had some friends many years ago who were living together. Having a sexual relationship outside of marriage became a burden for them and with the decision to marry came the decision to abstain from sex until after the wedding. They continued to live together, and I believe there were times they fell to temptation, but for the most part they were true to their promise. So in this case, things were not as they might have seemed. I don't recall there being a law against living together, it's the pre-marital sex that's the problem, though I could be wrong on this one. I think you've taken the first step in getting past that feeling in acknowledging that you feel that way. How to get past the feeling and get back into the heart of this blessed Sacrament is going to take some more soul-searching, but I think you'll find your way. |
|
|
|
Post by Soulfyre on Feb 9, 2005 1:28:30 GMT -5
In many ways, I think we have lost the wonderful balance exhibited by the early church, whose litugy was divided into two distinct parts: the liturgy for the catechumens, and the celebration of the Eucharist. During the second part of the liturgy, the catechumens were dismissed. This was done for two reasons: [/i]." If Paul warns those who believe against the perils of spiritual whoredom and the unjudged life when coming to partake of the Eucharist, how could we not desire to protect the unbelieving against such peril? 2. Second, the Orthodox sense of communion, or the Eucharistic meal, portrays the intimacy of the Bridegroom with his chosen Bride. Such intimacy is not to be "shared" among those who are not of the church--the Bride. For in Orthodoxy, it is believed that in the liturgy one joins with the eternal worship, present in the living kingdom of our Lord, of which the church celebration is a true foretaste. How many of us would consider it an act of love to offer our espoused to another (although in our hedonistic culture, I would shrink from making this a general question)?[/ul]I believe it important that we receive all with hospitality, and extend to them the love which Jesus Christ extended to us. This hospitality was shown by the early church in its service for the catechumens. It was in this service, through penance, praise, and proclamation, that the good news of God's love in Jesus Christ was proffered. Yet (in the same manner as we would teach our daughters), while it is important that one manifests graciousness and shows friendship to all, deep intimacy of personal submission (prefigured by man and woman in the unity of the bridal chamber) belongs to a committed, loving relationship within the bonds of a sanctified union (between man and woman, prefigured by Holy Matrimony). Such an expression of intimacy outside of those bonds is inappropriate, and cheapens God's inexpressable gift to us. So also, I believe, is an open and unguarded invitation to the intimacy of communion. Jesus healed a leper by his touch. Jesus spoke forgiveness to the woman caught in adultery. As a caring physician, Jesus Christ spent his time among prostitutes, drunkards, and the outcast. But Jesus Christ held his Last Supper with his apostles. The intimacy of the Eucharist is not wanton. It is shared by the Bride of Christ--by those who have turned away from their adulterous idolatry at the wooing of the Bridegroom, and in faithful submission accepted his dowry price in betrothal. Now I cannot with authority say that Paul intended for the church, through its leadership, to withold communion, or whether it was up to one's conscience. But it is clear that in the case of known and unrepentant sin (the man who was sleeping with his father's wife), discipline (generally considered to be excommunication) was to be exercised for the good of both the church and the sinner. It would appear from early church practice that excommunication did not mean "shunning", for the one excommunicated could still worship with the catechumens. But the one excommunicated was barred from partaking in the Eucharist, the celebration of intimacy of the Christian community. This would appear to set a pattern for the "closing" of communion. At least, this is what I have come to believe. In the name of Christ Jesus, Matthew (soulfyre) |
|
|
|
Post by melinky on Feb 9, 2005 21:36:02 GMT -5
Thanks Matthew, that really cleared up a few of my bleary thoughts on the subject. Now I'm going to have to mull it over for a while.
Yours in Christ,
Melinda
|
|
