MORE
THAN A SNACK: RECOVERING THE VITALITY OF THE LORD’S TABLE
Recent
personal discussions and observations of Eucharistic practices have made it
abundantly clear to me that the vitality of the Lord’s Supper must be recovered
in the church. I believe most local churches’ view of the Lord’s Table has
veered so far off course that a track toward recovery is necessary. Not only do
Pew and Barna statistics reveal a lack of deep spirituality in the church, but
my own (and others’) personal observations have led me to this conclusion. Communion
is not an option for the believer, i.e. it is a command and a crucial command
at that; yet, many local churches seem to diminish the importance of the
ordinance. Thus, those who hear my call right now, let us faithfully begin to
recover the vitality and fundamental importance of the Lord’s Table in our local
churches, for recovering can only happen in local churches.
My
personal conviction of the importance of the Lord’s Table has greatly increased
over the past four years. Before beginning a process of recovery, we must
understand why the vitality must be recovered. I would like to discuss the
vitality of the Lord’s Table in a succinct and concise manner. I have four
thoughts I would like to expound upon to argue for the vitality of the Lord’s
Table and its recovery.
Is It Really That Important? Yes, in Fact, It Is
Recent comments I have heard regarding the Lord’s Table
are similar to what follows:
The Lord’s Supper is not worship.
The Lord’s Supper is just ritual.
If the Lord’s Supper is becoming routine and people are
disliking it, you are doing it too often.
While these statements are not verbatim, they are close
to what I have heard and observed, even sadly from pastors. The apathy revealed
in these thoughts and statements significantly clarifies that the vitality of Communion
has been lost and must be recovered.
What I mean by vitality is the strength, energy, and
necessity of the Lord’s Table. Some might suggest that the vitality of the Table
is found in Christ’s command; others might suggest anamnesis or remembrance;
still, others might even suggest the presence of Christ during the ordinance
(or sacrament for those who operate from a sacramental tradition). I do not
argue for one or the other but for all, as I often do with many theological
realities. I remember my grandmother making a cake when I was a child and
letting me lick and eat the chocolate frosting from the bowl after the cake
contents were put into the oven for baking. I have often asked people before if
I ate the cake when I licked and ate the frosting. Some say yes; some say no.
The answer, however, is both. Every reason for observing the Lord’s Supper
builds the ordinance’s foundational vitality; thus, the vitality of the Table
is found in anamnesis, Christ’s command, the presence of Christ, and the
reality of what Communion represents and in which Christians live.
Historically, the Lord’s Table has been a weekly part of
the church’s corporate worship gathering since the early church. Only in recent
centuries has a weekly observation of the Table been lost. Moreover, the church
has seen the Table to be the pinnacle of corporate worship, i.e. communion with
Christ represented in the Eucharist should be the center-point of corporate
worship. Even early Reformed theologians and churches placed great emphasis on
the Lord’s Table in such a way that some type of confession or even church
discipline was stalwartly tied to the Table. The Lord’s Supper then has historically
been a significant portion of corporate worship. It should be obvious that the
vitality of the Lord’s Table is no longer what it once was. I have a few suggestions
for how I think the church (largely) lost the vitality of the Lord’s Table.
An
overemphasis on evangelistic-minded corporate worship. In recent centuries, corporate worship, for many churches, has
become primarily a time for evangelism. Worship is designed for God’s people,
not the lost; the lost have no ability to worship God. Certainly, there is an
evangelistic aspect to corporate worship. Nonetheless, we should not design our
services and liturgies primarily to reach lost people; rather, they should be
designed to worship God, which means that whether lost people are comfortable
with Communion or not, it should not be neglected, for it is a vital part of
worship.
An
overemphasis on the sermon as the most important aspect of corporate worship. The Reformation saw a revival of the sermon. Sermons became
longer and deeper in content, the effects of which are still present today. The
sermon is crucial; yet, it is not the most important part of the worship
service. I believe this mindset has contributed to wrongly equating music with
worship and diminishing the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper. Often, people think
that music is used to set up the sermon as a precursor; we should rid ourselves
of this mentality, for all parts of corporate worship are pieces of the whole
and should not be either more or less important than each other. The Lord’s
Supper then is equally as important.
Connecting
the Eucharist solely to Catholic tradition and liturgy. Modern Protestants and Evangelicals often make the mistake of
connecting a high view of Communion with Catholicism. I experienced this
personally when a local pastor asked if the Baptist church I attend is Catholic
because of our weekly observance of Communion. Not only is a view like this
wrong, it further weakens the appropriate view of the Lord’s Table placed in a
high position.
Catering
to individuals’ personal preferences rather than Christ’s command. To reach the lost, many modern churches have become perceptive
more to the desires of the world than to the command of Christ. When Jesus commanded
his disciples (including us) to partake of Communion in remembrance of him
(Luke 22:19), he was serious, which is why the church has historically, until
recent years, observed the Table weekly.[1] In an
attempt not to offend lost people who might attend corporate worship
gatherings, many churches have lessened the interval in which they observe the
Table, waned the mode of Communion, or even rid themselves of the ordinance
completely. I recently heard of a church that gave their congregants crackers and
a cup of juice as they were leaving; that was their thought of Communion. I was
stunned that anyone could ever justify such an action and offended by the lack
of sincerity. Whether or not people feel comfortable observing the Table, it is
a command of Christ. Not realizing this has surely contributed to a loss of the
ordinance’s vitality.
Anamnesis Alone Is Thin
My common experience and the experience of other
Evangelicals with which I have discussed this matter has been a Lord’s Supper
founded only on anamnesis, i.e. we partake only to remember. Such a view
diminishes the importance of the Lord’s Table. We must see the ordinance for
what it is in every way and be intentional about how we discuss and participate
in Communion. Therefore, I suggest that anamnesis alone is far too thin. To
further illustrate this notion, I will examine four truths of the Lord’s Table,
each comprising a foundation more secure than remembrance alone.
Communion Is Experience
A particularly detrimental way the vitality of the Lord’s
Table has been diminished is by considering it to be a mere act of obedience,
i.e. it is considered not to be a genuine experience. The ordinance of
Communion not only remembers Jesus Christ but also participates with him. Paul
asks two rhetorical questions: “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a
participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a
participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many
are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.” (1 Cor 10:16)[2]
Scripture is replete with instructions to share in the body and sufferings of
Christ, e.g. 1 Pet 4:13. Thus, our call as Christians is not only to remember
Christ’s death but to also participate in it.
The
Lord’s Table then not only symbolizes but also realizes our participation; it
is an experience rather than merely an act and, thus, not void of reality. In
fact, in our very obedience to Christ’s command, we live in the reality of
participation with him. Christ is present during the Lord’s Table. How his
presence is manifested is a topic of discussion for another time; yet, his
presence must be understood by each local church. We participate with Christ
and with each other, which is why Communion cannot and should not be taken only
as individuals, couples, or families; it is a corporate act. We commune with
God and he with us. Hence the common name given of Communion. The ordinance of
the Lord’s Supper is experience.
Communion Is Reality
Not only is Communion experience, it is also reality. We
not only remember that Christ’s body was broken and his blood shed on our
behalf, we also realize the reality that he is still the mediator and substitutionary
atonement for the sin of his people. The price of the cross has been paid once
and for all; yet, it fully satisfies God’s wrath for all eternity never to be
needed again. In many liturgical contexts, the oblation is the offering of the
gifts (the bread and cup) to God the Father. Remembrance then is not only for
the church but also for God. It is not as if God forgets; nevertheless, the
body and blood of Jesus Christ eternally stands as our defense. As such,
Communion serves as a present reality rather than merely remembering the past.
Christ lives and still serves as our mediator and our substitutionary atonement.
We rest assured of this and now live in joyful participation in his life.
Communion Gives Thanks
It is not uncommon for some local churches to refer to the
Lord’s Supper as the Great Thanksgiving. Eucharist might be a familiar term to
many; it is derived from the Greek word, eucharisto,
which means to give thanks. The Eucharist then gives thanks to God. It might be
easy to neglect thanksgiving as a significant portion of the Lord’s Table by
merely remembering. If we truly remember, however, should we not also give
thanks? Jesus’ sacrifice, continued incarnation and mediation on behalf of his
people, and his eventual return assuring victory in his name demands
thanksgiving. More than anamnesis alone then, Communion gives thanks.
Communion Remembers Not Only Jesus’ Death but Also His
Resurrection and Return
Finally, to illustrate how Communion is more than mere remembrance,
I suggest also that Communion remembers all aspects of Jesus Christ including
his resurrection and return. If we only remember the death of Christ and not
his resurrection, we exercise futility, for we have no hope of a returning
Savior. Certainly, Jesus’ command heavily involves remembrance; yet, anamnesis
alone is a thin way to view the Lord’s Table, i.e. there is more than anamnesis
alone.
In
Paul’s instructions, we are reminded that we partake of the Lord’s Supper in
remembrance of Christ yet also proclaiming his death until his return (1 Cor
11:26). Thus, the Table recognizes not only Christ’s death but also his
continued incarnation and his return. To remember his death alone negates the
purpose of his death, namely the salvation of his bequeathed people (from the
Father) for the glory of God. We are commanded to remember; nonetheless,
remembrance is not limited to Christ’s death alone but every aspect of his
salvific work prior to the cross, on the cross, and after the cross, i.e. the
Lord’s Supper is an experience, not merely an empty act that believers employ on
the sole basis of command; we live in the reality of the Table daily. Christ
will return for his people; we should live in the reality and hope of this
truth and remember not only what Christ did but also what he is currently doing
and what he will do. Communion is more than mere anamnesis.
This Again?
One of the most common criticisms I have heard regarding Communion
is the interval of time between each instance of the ordinance. I have found
that most churches who observe the ordinance weekly place a higher importance
on the Lord’s Table; I do not think this is coincidence, for we are formed by
how we worship. Jesus was serious when he commanded his disciples (and
subsequently the church) to partake of the Table in remembrance of him. The
church, since the first century, has observed Communion weekly. Some might
argue that there is not a prescribed interval of time to observe the Lord’s
Supper. There certainly is not an explicit command. I would, however, push back
on the notion that an interval of time is not mentioned in Scripture. The early
church is seen to hold the Lord’s Table every time they met (Acts 2:42). Ray
Van Neste suggests that the early church’s devotion to breaking bread and the
wording in Acts 2:42 suggests that Communion occurred whenever they gathered.[3] Additionally,
“one of the most striking references to the frequency of the Lord’s Supper
occurs in Acts 20:7: “On the first day of the week, when we were gathered
together to break bread…”[4]
While it could surely be argued that the Bible does not
explicitly command local churches to observe the Lord’s Table weekly, why would
we not? Scripture does not prescribe an interval of time for baptism (the other
ordinance) or some other acts, e.g. preaching, singing, or even acts outside of
corporate worship such as witnessing; yet, most people have no problem with
weekly singing or preaching or even daily personal evangelism. If one thinks
the other acts I have mentioned are more important than Communion, it further
illustrates the loss of vitality in the church. The tie between frequency and
view seems to be cyclic; the more frequently a church observes the Table, the
more important it becomes, and the more important it becomes, the more frequent
a church will observe the ordinance of Communion. The opposite could be true as
well.
Historically and biblically, the Lord’s Table has been
observed weekly. When congregants question the frequency of the Lord’s Table as
if it is employed too often, the problem does not lie in the ordinance but
rather in the heart of the person. To suggest that taking the Lord’s Supper
weekly is too often and lessens its importance is to also suggest that the same
is true for other weekly acts such as preaching and music or even the entire
worship service itself. The problem then is not Communion but the individual hearts
of the people. Moreover, my experience (and the experience of many others with
which I have discussed this issue) has been the opposite of the claim such a
person might make. Rather than asking why we observe the Table so often, we
should be eternally thankful that we have the privilege to participate with
Christ in such a frequent manner.
The Lord’s Supper Has Nothing to Do with
Evangelism. Isn’t That Our Real Purpose?
A different type of argument I have heard for not having
the Lord’s Supper frequently (and, thus, diminishing its vitality) is that the
ordinance has nothing to do with evangelism, which is the church’s real
purpose. In response, I would first suggest that the Lord’s Supper has
everything to do with evangelism and secondly that the church’s governing
purpose is not evangelism but worship, namely glorifying God.
Believers are usually okay with weekly baptisms, at least
from what I have observed. I think this is because baptism, in most people’s
minds, symbolizes salvation; thus, when one is baptized, they have come to know
Christ. Communion, however, also symbolizes salvation. I have previously, on
many occasions, suggested that there is really one ordinance, namely Jesus,
manifested in two different ways: participation in his body (Communion) and participation
in his death (baptism). When one participates in Communion, he or she is a
participant in his body, the church, meaning that such a person is a child of
God. If the purpose of evangelism is to bring people to a place of worship,
which is the governing call of God’s people, then one’s participation in
Communion recognizes that people have come to that point. Communion then has
everything to do with evangelism. Yet, we must keep in mind that evangelism in
and of itself is not the overriding purpose of the church; worship is. If we
continue to see worship as substandard to evangelism and missions, we will
further diminish not only its importance but also the importance of the Lord’s
Table. As an act of worship, Communion is vital.
More than a Snack
The Lord’s Table is not a snack but a meal in which God’s
people spiritually feast on Jesus Christ. While the vitality of the Lord’s
Table has largely been lost in recent decades, it can be and must be recovered.
Without a proper realization of the vitality of the Lord’s Table, the ordinance
will perpetually diminish. It is not the job of the pastor to recover its
vitality but every believer in every local church. We should begin with not
only frequency but also knowing, in our hearts and minds, how important the
ordinance of Communion is. Let us faithfully carry out the task of remembering
Jesus Christ, every aspect of his life and ministry and continued work in our own
lives. Let us recover the vitality of the Lord’s Table.
[1] Robert E. Webber, Planning
Blended Worship (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1998), 21.
[2] All biblical references are taken from the English
Standard Version (ESV) of the Bible unless otherwise noted.
[3] Ray Van Neste, “Three Arguments for Weekly Communion,”
The Gospel Coalition, accessed September
3, 2018, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/three-arguments-for-weekly-communion/.
[4] Ibid.
