Laugh or Else: The Reasons Baptists Give For Not Celebrating the Lord’s Supper More Often

96 thoughts on “Laugh or Else: The Reasons Baptists Give For Not Celebrating the Lord’s Supper More Often”

1. Pingback: Reader Request: Problems With Baptists and the Lord’s Supper : Test Site 4
2. Pingback: Reader Request: Problems With Baptists and the Lord’s Supper | internetmonk.com

3. very intresting

   LikeLike

4. Let’s suppose all we had was our Bibles, and we had to answer the question, “How often did the New Testament church celebrate the Lord’s Supper?”

   I think we’d find the answer to be, every time they met. When they met every day, they celebrated the Lord’s Supper every day (See Acts 2:46). It seems they did this in various homes.

   Eventually, the church met weekly on a regular basis, on the “Lord’s Day”, and they celebrated the Lord’s Supper every week — every time they met (See Acts 20:7).

   It appears the New Testament pattern for the church was to remember the Lord in the “breaking of bread” whenever they met, including when they met in homes.

   LikeLike

5. Hello. And Bye. 🙂

   LikeLike

6. Mike S,

   Since you have responded to this thread, I’ll tell you a story about one of my spiritual grandfathers. In the biography of Dr. Gibson, once pastor of Walnut Street Baptist in Louisville, this story was told. His father in law once had people rip out some flowers planted for Easter because it was “too P____” (derogatory term for Catholics.

   LikeLike

7. Being from Kentucky, the answer should be quite obvious. In most any crossroad in the mid-South, you’ll likely find two church buildings: one with Southern (or Missionary) Baptist over the door, the other with a sign out front saying “Church of Christ Meets Here”.

   Baptists eschew weekly communion not because they’re anti-Catholic, but because they’re anti-Campbellite!

   LikeLike

8. In a Baptist context, the answer is church discipline. Sound teaching of converts. Baptism meaning something. It’s not hard to determine if someone makes a confession just to take communion. If they hvae to meet with the elders and make a credible profession before Baptism, that helps.

   But this has always been a problem. I’m far less concerned that an unconverted teen might take communion than I am that hundreds of Christians are denied the supper entirely.

   LikeLike

9. I’m on the fence. I agree that doing it more often would be great for me, as it does make me reflect on the sacrifice and my own sins. But I grew up in a church where we did it every week, and there were many kids who made flase confessions just because they wanted to be part of the communion. A neighboring church handled that problem by allowing children to partake, but then you take away all meaning. So what is the answer?

   LikeLike

10. Lois,

    I’m not really that up on all the details of the LCMS closed communion issue, but I understand some of the historic Lutheran reasons why, I think.

    From what I understand, and it may be little, any enlightenment would be appreciated, but it has to do with the real presence issue, even in difference to the Reformed. But I don’t find the Lutherans closed communion offensive, even if it means me. I would hope to understand why rather than just pick a side and defend it. I respect deeply why they do. Though not perfect, most that follow out of Luther defend and proclaim more than any denomination I know of the real Gospel in purity. And I say that even of my present denomination, it’s clear as day, even if I don’t understand and thus don’t adhere to everything they say. It goes back to seeking Christ crucified and risen truly for me/one in all things and not even my own present denominational adherences.

    I’ll give you an example of what I mean: I was once given a book of my former denomination to read. The title was “Why I Am A _______” (the denomination in the blank left out). So I read it. A few years later I picked up a very similar book entitled “Why I Am A Lutheran”, and I’m not a Lutheran. What struck me between the two, honestly, and neutrally, was the difference in the sum of what the two books said. The first book was essay after essay of “the great X tradition”, “the great X history”, “the great suffering of X”, “the great stands X have taken”, etc. The Lutheran book was absolutely pregnant with Christ and Him crucified, the Gospel, the forgiveness of sins for Christ’s sake, the righteousness of Christ given, and any mention of the tradition was so to merely point out Christ again crucified. I was shocked at the difference for it was clear what each truly communicated and both books were saying “Why I Am A Something” books.

    Now I know that no denomination or church is perfect, I have no such foolish notions. But it is crystal clear when one hears the Gospel preached, taught and proclaimed in everything and not, the over all message given is always clear in its parts and summary, this is not rocket science. And one can argue about what belongs to the Gospel message and what is not to defend non-gospel preaching calling it Gospel. BUT, at the end of the day, regardless of labels, the essence of message X is either Christ crucified and His righteousness for you or it is not and over thrown rather subtly and mostly post-conversion. One is either literally Christ alone always and forever or it is Christ + something else even if that something else is slipped in later as a post conversion over throw of the Gospel message. Opposing sides may argue the former and the later they give is the real Gospel respectively, but make no mistake the messages are clearly two different messages and thus two different opposing religions. Thus, Paul warns not of “legalism” but “another gospel” as it will be labeled “gospel”. It’s very telling why the Apostle did this numerous times.

    So if they are protecting the Gospel in the Lord’s Supper, even if I don’t understand it myself right now, I deeply respect that because it guards life…eternal life, I don’t care who else doesn’t like it nor one wit of the GREAT tradition of X, Y or Z.

    Blessings,

    Larry

    LikeLike

11. Marty,

    I’ll collectively apologize for not taking you seriously, but you need to understand that everything in Christianity is boring because boring is a measurement of entertainment. Your choice of the word created the yardstick of measurement.

    I understand that repetition isn’t stimulating, and if stimulation is what you need, then it’s a problem. OTOH, repetition for those who want repetition is not a problem. It’s a welcome form of security.

    I see a lot of teenagers who proclaim everything to be boring, including things overtly designed to be entertaining. OTOH I see a lot of people transfixed by worship in the catholic tradition that is repetitive and regulated.

    I’ll take responsibility for being snarky, but I’ll ask you to reconsider if “creativity” and keeping human beings from being “bored” is really what’s important here.

    All traditions agree that in the LS we’re at the cross, where the Lamb of God is dying to keep us from the wrath of God. In any form, that’s amazing, and if I am bored in the weekly celebration of it, I won’t blame my church for not making it “creative.”

    As I said, my apologies.

    LikeLike

12. [Comment pulled by request.]

    LikeLike

13. What a great discussion! I grew up Baptist and married into the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. My church has once-a-month Communion.

    What I don’t care for now in the LCMS is the growing emphasis on “close” or “closed” Communion. To me it says we arrogantly believe we are the only true Christians. Also, how about the belief that only an ordained male person may distribute Communion, otherwise it is not valid? I know these concepts come out of the Lutheran Confessions, but are they scriptural?

    LikeLike

14. At least you just had to re-type it, Michael. I had to repent of what I said when I read those two words. Then I had to repent again after reading “bathroom break”.

    LikeLike

15. “It’s boring”.

    I must agree with Michael’s retyping. You almost have to do a double take.

    I don’t mean to sound harsh here but simply forth right in analysis. It shouldn’t be personally taken.

    This actually proves the point. And it does reveal a problem in what is being preached weekly. This is actually not surprising as the Cross if folly to those perishing and life to those being saved. That’s just a simple reality of the Gospel.

    I’d say some more strong and real Law needs to be preached, that ought to “spice up” the Lord’s Supper for one.

    I’m a sucker for analogies to bring point home (I tried to keep the math ratios similar):

    “I attend a home that eats meals about three times day. It’s at the same times during the day done the same way all the time. It’s boring. In previous homes we did have meals about seven times a month and the events of the day were built around it. It was special and meaningful. I’m not going to say that three times a day can’t be special. With some thought and creativity, it could be. But in a home where it’s done the same over and over again, I find myself using that time for a bathroom break.”

    What it comes down to is that the Cross being presented in Word, water, bread and wine is always “boring” to the fallen man, the religious doer in us, but to the man being saved, the naked and only trustor and expector of grace, it is the very essence of life, that is eternal life. Needing excitement over and above, even beyond the Lord’s Supper just proves man’s natural proclivity to not want to look at the cross but see through it, get around it, dance around it, redecorate it…anything but LOOK at it point blank in all its wonder and horror.

    The moving onto the deeper meat of Scripture from milk is not moving on from “getting saved” having already heard the Gospel and then mining it for things to do or deeper spiritual things – what Paul means to say there is a deeper meatier understanding of Christ and Him crucified for you in all of Scripture and redemptive history and what it teaches. The Bible never really moves off of Christ crucified and risen, Old or New Testament.

    The reason the Lord’s Supper is not varied, and should not be in the least, is God knows the old man in us, his/her proclivity to continually hone an idol and thus take our eyes off of Christ crucified for us. We are like those who drool and stand slack jawed and google eyed at the grand apparent glory of fire works and big bangs, yet miss the power in the nothingness of the smallest of blades of grass beneath our feet.

    It goes back to the reversal of worship. Pagan religions attempt grandiose things to move god and themselves, but THE God is found savingly in the nothingness of the Cross. Where God appears to not be, a baby in a food trough, making messy diapers in the arms of Joseph, bleeding in as a very real human body on the Cross is exactly where God really is. Just like pagans of old who danced themselves into a frenzy and cut themselves to bleed, so is far too many churches today trying these things. We may not “cut ourselves any more”, seeing how in modern society that’s barbaric, but pagan churches do rise up and dance. God is not there at all, and any god that is there is Satan. But mean while God is there in the simple Word proclaimed, His name is where the water is and where He puts His name on people, some how in the bread and wine – that is where Christ crucified for you is proclaimed in Word or visible Word (water, bread and wine so instituted with the Gospel) – there truly is God. Thus, the King is masked in a paupers dress and not where the grand “tada” is.

    Blessings,

    L ky

    LikeLike

16. “It’s boring.”

    I just had to type that again.

    Hopefully, we’ll get some suggestions on how to spice things up a little so there’s at least some entertainment value.

    LikeLike

17. [Comment pulled by request. Contained a reference to the LS being “boring.”]

    LikeLike

18. The second to last post brings a good thought. Part of the problem, I suspect, with many of us, self included, is that we are SEVERAL generations down the road of the effect of infrequency. There’s the present effect of infrequency Vs. the root cause of infrequency (what has led us here). Everybody TODAY sense intuitively something wrong but cannot quite put their finger on it. It’s kind of like CS Lewis’s analogy of the boy who only knows making mud pies in the dirt never knowing what a feast by the sea is like.

    The cause that led us here is difficult to objectively determine for numerous reasons.

    1. There’s always subjective defensiveness of one’s denominational background/heritage. One cannot truly analyze a situation objectively as long as one holds to that or is not at least inherently very aware of one’s own tendencies in this area. Where ever a man stands today, broadly speaking, spiritually, he will always defend as the RIGHT way. Even an atheist does this. It’s hard to “get out of that”. For example Luther the man is a good example of someone who “got outside” of his prior moorings, Rome. At the end of the day he singularly sought the merciful God for he felt the draught of his soul so much that eventually he said, “the church is wrong”. Sometimes we forget that fact, there was no “Lutheran” church for him “defend” like it is today, thus Luther was defending the Gospel because THAT is the living water his soul needed. I told my wife, I understand that, I could care LESS about the GREAT tradition of X denomination, none of that bled for me, carried the wrath of God for me, nor gives me righteousness that will stand.

    2. One should not underplay the natural tendency of men, even one’s own self, even Christians toward legalism, even what should otherwise be Gospel things. Confessions of faith are wonderful summaries of the faith, if they are good. However, their primary purpose is to protect the Gospel, not set forth a new legal way to heaven. The subtle difference is crucial because ANY confession, office such as elders and so forth can be proper, to protect the Gospel or false, nothing more than a new way of works righteousness. Even a GREAT Gospel confession can be re-interpreted by men, who naturally gravitate that way by fallen inertia, as a new law to heaven. But there’s a BIG difference in something that GIVES Christ, Gospel and something that explicitly or by implication requires of you first to GET Christ. Often the yeast of the Pharisees may only be a single word adjective or an inversion of verbs or the presentation of another Christ that is not Christ, e.g. WWJD, Jesus the encourager, Jesus the helper, etc…those are all false Christs. Christ crucified FOR YOU is the only Jesus there is that is actually Jesus. This is why Paul’s warning language is not, “beware of legalism” but beware of another gospel, another spirit, another Christ and so forth. Because the devil will enter men’s minds and give these “others” but they will have the name “gospel”, “holy spirit”, and “jesus/Christ”. As Jesus warns the bible only persons of His time, the Pharisees, “You search the scriptures and think that by them you have life, but it are these that continually bear witness of ME!” There’s a path to hell being “bible only” and having the bible as the “only rule of life”.

    3. There’s the over numerous generations of spanning that this issue of infrequency has led, and similar issues concerning the Word and Sacraments. It’s very difficult so many generations down the road as we are here and understand how something slowly slipped away from us. Our pastor gives this great example of this: Some years ago a woman who studies her bible every night has to tie her cat to the chair leg because the cat always gets playful and distractive when she’s studying. The woman does this her whole life. Her son grows up under this and when he studies he does the same thing, ties the cat to the chair leg. He continues this in his own home when he studies, many cats down the road. His daughter grows up and observes this practice during bible study about tying the cat to the chair leg and so she too caries this forward into her household when she grows up. One day her daughter asks, “Mommy, why do we tie the cat to the chair leg when we study the Scriptures”. Her mom replies, “Honey, I don’t know why, I just know we always do.” You see this principle both throughout the Scriptures of God’s people and throughout the history of the church even unto this very day.

    But there’s nothing like the dryness of soul, that thirsting after a righteousness that is not one’s own, spiritual suffering to set a man or woman in the right conditions for the feeding of the Gospel in Word, baptism, bread and wine. If one seeks the Gospel, that is Christ purely GIVEN to YOU and FOR YOU, I guarantee it will lead you in a direction you never before thought and you’ll be surprised whose doctrines on Word and Sacrament it will forever lead you away from, and no one will ever be able to tear it away from you. Because it is like trying to take a feast away from a man who really knows hunger. A doctrine on an issue such as Word or Sacrament that begets only hunger and starvation will never be returned to by those who discover that it was really a feast. It would be tantamount of taking Christ crucified from them.

    Seek Christ and Him crucified for you in these things, that’s the advice I’d give.

    Blessings,

    Larry

    LikeLike

19. Just introduced to this site full of people who really think. WOW. I’ve received a surfeit.
    40 years ago my church had communion once a month, if that; provided no place for women in the service except in the choir; and actively believed that children shouldn’t bother the more devout adults by attending any sort of service. NOW we believe that people should be fed at least once a week; have women in all aspects of the service (I’m one of them); have an articulate, multifaceted woman as our national leader; and bend over any direction we can to include children in our worship, even to the point of feeding them adult food.
    The times they are a changing…

    LikeLike

20. this is a great post. i’ll be checking back more often for more content. thanks.

    REVOLUTION

    LikeLike

21. Dear Michael,

    I’ve resisted jumping into the comment pond on this excellent post because I suspect that the longer I follow Jesus, the less I really understand intellectually all that the Lord’s Supper means. I am really reluctant to make definitive statements anymore about the Lord’s Supper. There is too much Mystery that I don’t have all categorized and rationalized out. I do want to share my experience….

    For the last year before we moved to our current location, we were part of an extremely vigorous church plant. Because the church was a brand new thing and didn’t really have any denominational ties, the leadership were incredibly free to go in whatever direction God lead. One of those directions was weekly communion.

    That weekly communion looked lots of different ways–a common cup, little bitty cups, huge loaves of bread, broken matzo crackers, everyone going to the front, families serving each other, friends serving each other, elders serving the congregation, everyone going to the back, everyone going to stations. The delivery method was varied. The focus on remembering Jesus’ death stayed the same. For an entire year.

    During that same time, the church also had Wednesday night prayer meetings that were always very informal and ALWAYS ended in the Lord’s Supper.

    The end result for us was that we took communion twice a week for nearly a year. It also happened to be one of the hardest years of our lives. There were ways in which I was nourished spiritually during that year that I’ve never experienced before or since.

    I grew up in the Christian Reformed church and have spent all of my adult life in evangelical churches. Before this experience, I don’t think I ever took communion more than once a quarter. This background has left me without words or concepts to describe the really real nourishment I got from the Lord’s Supper. I lack the language to even understand how it nourished me. I just know that it did. I know that I would dearly love to take communion twice a week for the rest of my life.

    My question for anyone who feels that 4x a year is great plenty is this: have you ever participated in the Lord’s Supper much more frequently? I think that we, as a church, have lost something precious by celebrating communion as if it has no Mystery.

    bk

    LikeLike

22. Gary, sorry for the delay — I was out of town. I said “at the risk of coming off as regulatory”, the implication being that I do not hold to the regulatory principle. So my response is simply my personal understanding.

    While I do not believe (for even a second) the argument of those who claim that all references to wine in Scripture really refer to unfermented grape juice, I also do not believe that they all refer to fermented grape juice, either. As such, even if I was regulatory, I wouldn’t see fermentation (or lack thereof) as clearly delineated in Scripture.

    My inclination would be — at a minimum — to allow the observer the choice of drinking unfermented, in deference to children, those who have medical restrictions that contra-indicate any alcohol, and the recovering alcoholic (many of whom are instructed never to even take a sip of alcohol again). I read a statement by a strict regulationist (?) that God would not allow the alcoholic to slip back into drunkenness because he took communion with alcohol. Such a statement is no more valid than refusing to see a doctor simply because all healing ultimately comes from God — He also gave us brains and knowledge about our bodies.

    If a particular church body wishes to have only unfermented available, for any reason other than a misinterpretation of Scripture’s non-view on teetotalism, that is (IMHO) their prerogative.

    As to unleavened bread, my bad. When I think “loaf”, I think of leavened bread. My vision of unleavened bread is matzoh crackers from the “ethnic foods” aisle at Kroger. My point was that, since leaven has specific symbolism in Scripture, that it should not be involved in communion (whereas fermentation has no such symbolism).

    LikeLike

23. 1. Once mission has been successful, what then?

    “teaching them to obey…” I think follows if I recall. We work harder than any SBC I have ever been in on Spiritual Formation. It’s a growing trend with the SBC and you can blame Rick Warren. He made it okay to have new membership classes with covenants which spell out participation responsibilities. He gave us the CLASS system (we modify it) where you have touchstones and milemarkers of progress. Then we added mentors and small groups. This sort of craziness is breaking out all over the SBC, even gasp – church discipline.

    2. Without getting into theological distinctives – what is the LS, and why were we instructed to celebrate it? I mean, if Christ instructed us, it must be important, right?

    It is important as a symbol, but the Bible doesn’t proscribe a frequency.

    3. Leading from 1, The great Commission isn’t the Bible. It is an important instruction from the Bible. So is loving your wife, raising Godly children, baptising, celebrating the LS, worshipping with the saints, doing everything as unto the Lord etc etc etc.

    Amen and amen. No one said we weren’t striving after those things as well, but when day is done, we want to see people become Christ-followers.

    4. The minimalising of the LS, in one sense, might be the result of rampant individualism.

    I’m not agreeing with the minimalising. But we are American Christians and here’s no doubt individualism raises its ugly head. It may be as difficult for people of different denoms to grasp just how we value the local church made up of individual believers who covenant together for mission. Pastors like me are called by them, and then have to work through them if anything good is going to happen. I have to love and trust them and they have to love and trust me. Even the frequency of the LS is a congregational decision born out of prayer for guidance.

    My prayer is that we will see more ties for kingdom gain between SBC congregations and other churches. We won’t minimize the differences, but celebrate them.

    Again, I’m grateful for all of what you have written.

    LikeLike

24. Patrick,

    Thank you for asking the question about what is the purpose of worship and/or the Sunday morning service. I know from experience that it is very hard to do both evangelism and encouraging believers to grow more like Christ. Some churches are very good at getting people in the door, but then leave them eating baby food for the rest of their lives. (I happen to like tough jerky every now and then).

    How do we manage both? I don’t know. Perhaps there are churches out there that succeed. But in bouncing around the country, I haven’t seen any.

    LikeLike

25. RR is right. At one of my later Rick Warren clone churches we attended they moved the Lord’s Supper to the evening. But it was for two reasons. One was the seeker friendly issue. But the second was more of legalistic/pietism reason. As the theory went, the more involved Christians, blessed are the busy (a crowd I shamefully was part of) rather than the poor in spirit, show up in the evening. Thus, the implication was explicit; by moving it to that time zone one is “rewarded” as an “on fire for the Lord” Christian. Ironically, I ran into that at an anti-Warren SB church for which we belonged for a while that was openly “reformational” per se.

    Picking up on something Michael well observes: People do, even in formerly non-real presence churches, kind of inherently know that the Lord’s Supper is more and Christ’s presence is truly there. They may not draw all the dots as to the issue of mode but they know Christ is there for them. I saw it a lot in my former SB days. If you could get some of the laity to open up and talk about it, many times, sheepishly because they don’t want the SBC Sanhedrin to find out, they’d admit it was such.

    When I was first converted, again from rank atheism and I’m a scientist to boot so I’m not given to spiritual superstition, inherently the Lord’s Supper meant His presence. And that was waaaaay before any doctrinal learning, I was green as a gord (some might say still am, I won’t argue). It was just obvious to the Word and the institution and I was baptized in a SB church and belonged for years afterward.

    I don’t want to down play the real prescence, but another point I think is most important to many just considering things. The Lord’s Supper, even if you struggle with or are not sure about the presence, even if you are fence rider like myself right now between Reformed Vs. Lutheran on this (I’m trying to ferret it out) is to understand that the Lord’s Supper, like baptism, is a receiving function and work of God. Even a non-presence person can profit food from that. Because too many teach that baptism and the Lord’s Supper, along with worship, is primarily what we are doing or proving or lifting up to God. That’s pagan religion point blank under any name. It reverses the direction of worship to be from “earth to heaven” law and false law at that. When in reality worship (and baptism and the Lord’s Supper) are heaven to earth, gifts of the Gospel. Jacob’s Ladder comes down from heaven to earth FOR US, we don’t ascend it. I mean that’s the entire Crux of the incarnation and the idea of incarnation, that God came for us, not vice versa. And so the Lord’s Supper (and baptism) and service of the Word come to us FOR US to strengthen our faith and feed our faith, not vice versa. Faith is not proving ourselves to God, paganism, it’s the dead receiving. When Luther said on his death bed “This is true we are beggars all”, that was a confession of real faith. Literally we are bums, beggars, improvished, moochers and utterly so – that is the confession of faith. Faith says, “I cannot”. That is to know God as God and man as man in the truest sense. It’s important to understand that the prime sin was not the negative sins we all think of, the negative sins are effects of the judgment. The prime sin was attempting to be MORE pious than God, true Satanism purely distilled. The thing that more holds men from free grace is some consideration of their own piety and goodness, so they think. That literally is the true bondage of the will of the fallen man, his utter addiction to his goodness and good doings.

    So, that little shift in concept of receiving in worship is huge step different than what most run into in most churches today. Any responding praise we give is response to that received. That’s why the Word, baptism and the Lord’s Supper are all works of God, not man. God literally performs them through the hands of sinful men. Almost like you or I picking up an ink pen to write our names. The pastor/pen is just an instrument, poor instrument at that, at the end of the day.

    Blessings to all again,

    Larry ky

    LikeLike

26. for caplight,

    re: “somewhere between RCC style real presence, which is based on a theology of repeated sacrifice”

    Just to clarify, RCC theology has nothing to do with any “repeated sacrifice”. The only sacrifice in the RCC understanding of the LS is the one single sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. The RC understanding is that it is one sacrifice only, but entered into repeatedly according to the ancient concept and practice of anamnesis (or in hebrew: zakar/zikkaron) through representing by retelling and reenacting.

    peace

    LikeLike

27. I’ve been pondering David’s comments on the Bible and mission. Sort of sounds like something out of my own background.

    But here are my rejoinders:

    1. Once mission has been successful, what then? Re-evangelize the next generation? Isn’t it precisely Evangelicalism’s (not just in the SBC) failure to consider anything else but Mission and me and my bible alone that has led to the loss of youth in the church?

    2. Without getting into theological distinctives – what is the LS, and why were we instructed to celebrate it? I mean, if Christ instructed us, it must be important, right?

    3. Leading from 1, The great Commission isn’t the Bible. It is an important instruction from the Bible. So is loving your wife, raising Godly children, baptising, celebrating the LS, worshipping with the saints, doing everything as unto the Lord etc etc etc.

    4. The minimalising of the LS, in one sense, might be the resukt of rampant individualism. Why? Because you see, in Baptism, an individual is baptised. But in the LS, we celebrate together with the saints, even if we disagree with them. Baptism is an entry thing, thus in a sense individualistic, but the LS is a communion, a practice of a community. But if we are just a bunch of individuals, each with his own bible, and his own interpretation, communion and community will necessarily take a back seat.

    As I said before, these do not just pertain to the SBC (I’m non-Baptist) but to many in the Kingdom today.God be merciful on us all!

    LikeLike

28. Patrick Kyle — very good point. Let’s call it the “evangelistic perspective (EP)” and the “building up perspective (BUP)”. The EP says bring the unsaved into the church community and keep them as long as possible, or bring them back as much as possible. During the time that you have them within the community (usually the four walls of the “Worship Center”, education building or gymnasium), you drop evangelistic nuggets on them, trying to get them to a “decision”. Most of the time, effort and resources of EP churches is focused on these activities.

    The BUP says that the church community is to equip the saints for evangelism and service out in the broader community. So, they make no excuses for deeper teaching from the pulpit and Sunday school teachers, more meaningful (but uncomfortable) worship services, and fewer ancillary activities. As the believers are equipped, encouraged and strengthened, they can then go to the workplace, school, neighborhood, etc. as salt and light and evangelize there.

    Follow-on thoughts: 1) how does soteriology factor into these two perspectives? and 2) does on e perspective have the tendency to create a dual lifestyle mentality — i.e. my church life and my regular life? vs. a lifestyle of Christian service and evangelism?

    LikeLike

29. Larry asks a very good question. For me, I believe Christ is, in a way that defies exact definition, present with us in communion. Over the years my view of the LS has moved toward a higher view, but back when it was just a remembrance (involving dreadful grape juice and stale bread cubes), there was still something special there or I wouldn’t have been drawn so greatly to churches that practice it weekly. I think what that was/is is entering into Gospel teaching in an embodied way.

    But I think what reaches each person is different. My daughter has slight learning disability and so I have learned a lot recently about different learning styles. Some people learn best aurally, some visually, and some kinesthetically (by physical engagement). Teachers, esp. for the youngest children, are increasingly encouraged to try to teach in a way that incorporates all of these to some degree in order to most readily get the concepts across to the greatest number of students. I wonder if this has anything to do with worship ‘styles’? It seems to me that more liturgical/traditional/sacramental churches have inherited services that weave together all of these teaching modalities – the gospel is presented visually, aurally, and kinesthetically. I think most low churches out there include the aural and, to a lesser degree, visual components, but the kinesthetic side is largely lost. For people for whom that learning modality is unimportant, that’s may be fine, but those who learn best kinesthetically are left behind.

    I know I am primarily a visual learner and aural is the absolute worst mode for me (At work I tell people to send me e-mail. I have near zero recall for telephone conversations). Maybe that’s why 45 minutes of preaching really does little for me, but following the readings in the bible and viewing and participating in the symbolism surrounding reading the gospel and celebrating the Eucharist seldom fails to touch me.

    LikeLike

30. Michael, I do appreciate your restraint and kindness to me, as I do the sincere efforts of many a brother and sister in Christ to help me over. I’m afraid I’ve merely served to solidify some stereotypes and that’s a shame. It wasn’t my intention to do so. However we’re very far apart on this and it seems on other matters. That won’t keep me from profiting from your journey as you share it though.

    I hope one day to meet one of the thousands you point to within the SBC as believing the LS is more than a remembrance so as to try to understand what you are sincerely longing for. So far I have met none. They may be residing in the dually aligned churches of which I have no knowledge.

    When we do observe the Lord’s Supper again, I’ll certainly recall what I’ve learned here. Come see us Christmas Eve.

    LikeLike

31. You’re right: “suffer” was too strong a word.

    And just one error, really. Simply that the LS’s significance is explicitly minimized in preaching and in pastoral practice in the SBC. And that this simple reality — I thought it well known by everyone — might answer your question about the empirical neglect of the institution.

    But maybe my memory of a small, suburban, appalachian SBC is atypical. Maybe the phenomenon that you actually pointed out first is better explained by some other, more complex factor.

    I haven’t found a church, no. I don’t really need one without errors.

    LikeLike

32. >The fact is that actual SBC preachers and people do not think anything significant happens in communion. “Remembrance”? That’s insignificant in their worldview. That’s a thumb-twiddler. That’s a biblical word they pull out of the hat to give themselves something to do when they have to suffer through it. So they close their eyes and have a devotional moment — one they could do very well without the cracker and grape juice.

    Fortunately, Tim, there are thousands of SBCers who do believe something very significant and important happens in communion, and they don’t minimize the word “remember” to nothing and they don’t “suffer” through it. I thank God for those people and hope they can be encouraged to keep working for theological renewal.

    If you left the SBC, I pray you’ve found a church that avoids all the errors you’ve pointed out.

    LikeLike

33. Lots of interesting comments, most beside the point. The question is why a group of people don’t do a thing. So we get 500 word essays on what some other people, often dead, think or thought about it. Huh?

    I’m sure there are SBC resources to support a “rich” view of the LS, but none of that answers the original question. The fact is that actual SBC preachers and people do not think anything significant happens in communion. “Remembrance”? That’s insignificant in their worldview. That’s a thumb-twiddler. That’s a biblical word they pull out of the hat to give themselves something to do when they have to suffer through it. So they close their eyes and have a devotional moment — one they could do very well without the cracker and grape juice.

    I say “they”; I grew up a SB.

    It’s irrelevant, Michael, what somebody like you might do with SBC documents. You’re not them; they don’t do anything with those texts you read. You correctly brushed aside the ostensible explanations and asked why Baptists really don’t something very often. Occam’s razor: nobody will do something unimportant to them more than they have to.

    LikeLike

34. Michael, I am one of those “non-SBC” folks. I am RCC, and I’ll readily admit that I’m not terribly familiar with Baptist theology. I have attended Protestant services, and all those that I attended had a weekly celebration of the Lord’s supper. (Disciples of Christ, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian(I think)) I don’t think I’ve ever attended a Baptist service of any kind, but I know that the LS is not frequently celebrated. It would seem to me to be a good thing to celebrate it frequently, as a remembrance of what our Lord Jesus Christ did for us all. It does bring to mind His sacrifice, I think, which is surely central to all Christians. I don’t see that the belief in the “Real Presence” is necessary to remembering the sacrifice of the cross.

    Oh, and Michael– “Maybe we should dispatch a committee to the RCC and let them know they may be doing a few things that might be interpreted as “going Baptist.”– too funny!! Maybe I should write to Rome about this????

    God bless you all, and may I compliment you on a thread of this length that has not descended into a “bash fest”. I don’t see many in the Catholic blogosphere that can do as much!

    LikeLike

35. It seems we’re finally getting down to some basic questions, one of them being “What is the primary purpose of the worship service?” Is it for the edification of the saints or is it outreach? Or both? This seems to be a large part of the controversy regarding worship ‘styles.'( and also frequency of communion issues) Do we have a biblical mandate to use the worship service as our main evangelistic outreach? I have a theologian friend who often says ‘Christ died for the Christian too.’ When asked what this means he makes the point that so many of our worship services are devoted to evangelizing unbelievers that in the rush those who are already Christians are ignored or have to feed off the ‘spiritual’ crumbs left over from what are essentially mini evangelistic crusades. My question to those who view the service as outreach is where do we come up with this idea? Jesus said ” Go…make disciples” He didn’t say ” Make a building and a service and BRING people into it and convince them to believe in Me.”
    Many traditions view the worship service as the primary place for the building up and strengthening of the believer’s faith. (Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God) Secondarily the service may serve an evangelistic function. These considerations I think are close to the core of our discussion

    LikeLike

36. Ok, haven’t read any of the other comments, but may I just say, Mr. Spencer, that I love you sincerely in Christ?

    LikeLike

37. I think most people who have actually read Zwingli on the LS- not second hand theologians- would be thrilled if Baptists were Zwinglians. We’re much less than Zwingli, at least in practice. I don’t know of any Baptist writers who are anywhere close to as eloquent on the meaning of the LS as the best of Zwingli.

    LikeLike

38. “I am not interested in posts that basically say “Well you don’t have the Real Presence. Duh!! LOL!!”

    In regards to Michael’s comment. I hope I didn’t sound like I was saying anybody doesn’t have the real presence. If I sounded that way I apologize.

    I am trying to say that somewhere between RCC style real presence, which is based on a theology of repeated sacrifice and a Zwinglian mere memory recall event there is a middle ground where according to 1 Cor 10:14-23 there is a participation or fellowship with Christ at the table. I’m not sure I know enough about Baptist theology though I was raised in it and experienced it. but is there anything inherently against Christ through the Spirit making himself known to his people in the LS?

    If he does it in the Word as preached, read and sung why not also in the Word as enacted?

    LikeLike

39. quote: “I believe that RR (above) has actually hit on the real issue here. You provided some excuses as to why Baptist pastors neglect to celebrate LR more often, but the reality is this – communion is possibly one of the most seeker insensitive activities in which you can engage in a worship service. Way too liturgical for the seeker set.”

    Me: Right, this was what I was getting at. Communion, though only done a few times a year before at my old SBC church, was moved to Sunday nights because the Sunday morning services are for “seekers” while Sunday and Wednesday nights are said to be for committed, believing church members. Of course, the focus of the word being preached on Sunday morning was changed as well and is also now more in tune of the needs of “seekers.”
    As for non-SBCers commenting and SBC distinctives, I understand that SBC churches have no desire to become liturgical or sacramental. Still, I don’t think doing things like holding the LS a few times a year and relegating it to only Sunday evening services to avoid scandalizing “seekers” can be justified biblically. And isn’t the LS about remembering and proclaiming the Lord’s death in SBC theology? Isn’t that the Gospel? And isn’t the Gospel the whole point of what church is about anyway?
    If nothing else, more regular communion on Sunday mornings might help some SBC churches avoid becoming Lakewood/Joel Osteen clones.

    rr

    LikeLike

40. Michael,

    It’s TBN to the rescue!

    You will be happy to know that Benny Hinn has received personal revelation from God to the effect that the communion bread and wine really is the actual flesh and blood of Jesus. (Who would have ever thought?) Also, I know of at least two TBN preachers with “teachings” on CD (for the low, low, price of …) that encourage us to take communion frequently so as to participate in God’s plan for our greater health. (By the way, I’m not making this up.)

    Looks like communion is making a come back, so don’t despair!

    LikeLike

41. David,

    I sense that you are honestly thinking this through and that is great!

    You stated something that caught my eye:

    “Worship isn’t just what we do on Sundays. I’ll confess that the longing I read for the Eucharist/Communion/Lords Supper is totally outside my frame of reference. I’m less concerned about what happens for that one hour than I am with what happens the rest of the week – not unconcerned – but less concerned.”

    That’s right so what is the connection? Ponder this one, I think it will help (I’m not the author, I’m not that bright, but I didn’t want to reword it!). I think it may flip flop your paradigm about concern!

    “That Christ, by His perfect active obedience, has already fulfilled your vocation (all of one’s various callings in life – how you love your neighbor, L-KY clarification) for you and brought it to its glorious telos (perfect completion) in His all-reconciling death (which means there’s no way for you to screw it up except the refusal to be reconciled), that you’re essentially dead, you no longer live but Christ lives in you, so that it is Christ at work who serves your neighbor, and Christ is in your neighbor to serve (“as often as you have done it to the least of these, you’ve done it to me”).

    So the One who receives your ministrations of vocation (the services of one’s callings, father, mother, son, spouse, policeman, doctor, garbage man, etc…, L-KY clarification) is also the One who perfected them in His vocation as the embodiment of humanity under the Law, and who gives you His perfection as a free gift that you might enjoy your vocation in His glorious liberty and stop agonizing over it.”

    The power of the Gospel, it’s inexpressible joy and release in that one hour or so, brings about afresh every week one’s loving service to their neighbor. The Gospel thus releases one to joyful serve. This is the crucial FOR YOU is the Good News that creates love in the heart of the believer to thus serve in his/her callings every weekday. And we cycle it every Sunday, because, we still struggle in the flesh. If we must have a cheap analogy, it’s a refilling of the gas tank. Without that one hours worth of gas, the rest of the weeks driving will not occur. The freedom of the Gospel is glorious and it brings about this glorious action of loving the neighbor, but it is necessary continually, not just at “conversion”, because we partly don’t believe it is as good as it really is.

    The Gospel is always MUCH better than we imagine it to be.

    Blessings,

    Larry – KY

    LikeLike

42. Well one way to go about it, if everyone wants to be honest, is to answer a simple question or two. Why infrequently? I don’t mean pragmatically (e.g. we have a congregation of 500 and its logistically problematic). Why the increased decrease in frequency? Not because my particular church does it or pastor blow Joe and elder Berry says so. Rather, why do we do it that way? And the parallel most important question of all that will probably reveal the answer to the first question is why do you take the Lord’s Supper at all (I’m using “you” generically meaning “any of us as we individually consider it”, not anyone in particular posting here – it’s the same question I ask myself). And don’t quote confessions or standard answers, honestly examine and ask yourself, why, what does it mean that very moment when I actually eat the flesh/bread and drink the blood/wine, why do YOU take it and what does it mean/do, in your own words. That takes some real revealing deep down and dirty soul searching rather than just flashing a confessional quote like a gun slinger.

    Often that’s more revealing than sparring confessions back and forth and firing Luther bullets and Calvin bullets and Spurgeon bullets at each other (and I’m not against confessions or these men of faith, but just trying to get to the root on a very individual heart of the issues). Because quite frankly many just hang out a confession like so many certificates of achievement on the wall (in all denominations). Consider it this way: It’s one thing to confess the X points of being a fish and say, “I adhere to that”. Quite another to BE a fish. How would a fish speak of being a fish, not some taxonomist study and listing of being a fish. One is doing it from the outside alien observation point of view, the other from the nature of the thing at hand.

    BTW: I know of at least one Baptist church (in my state) that believes in the real presence, stronger than many who presumably confess it so. And I know of at least one other, in my state, that is strongly leaning that way (and is SB). So the we Vs. them battle lines do break down in some cases.

    But that’s not the question at hand.

    Christ’s grace be richly yours in MUCH abundance,

    Larry – KY

    LikeLike

43. David: There’s a lot I’d like to say, but I don’t want to be critical of you. You are saying that Christianity = The Great Commission + whatever works. If that’s the case, let me off at the next stop. Christianity is missional, but it’s not a make it up as you go matter. SOmething does matter other than me and my Bible and the last expert I liked.

    On Non-SBC Commenters: I’ve addressed this before. You folks are VERY welcome, but I am not interested in posts that basically say “Well you don’t have the Real Presence. Duh!! LOL!!” We’re all aware of the confessional differences, and I think we’re aware that part of the issue is those confessional differences. But I’d put Fr. Creson up as an example of the “way” to do it. His RCC tradition and confession are very different from our own, but his contributions to the conversation are within shared concerns, so its actually a conversation, not a revisiting of what has been obvious for centuries.

    LikeLike

44. “Pretty strong stuff, gentlemen. Is style and pragmatism EVERYTHING in the new SBC?”

    For some, yes. If it reaches people – makes disciples who through their changed lives live out the Kingdom values every day, and then go on to replicate through their witness to others in Jesus’ name, then yes.

    Worship isn’t just what we do on Sundays. I’ll confess that the longing I read for the Eucharist/Communion/Lords Supper is totally outside my frame of reference. I’m less concerned about what happens for that one hour than I am with what happens the rest of the week – not unconcerned – but less concerned.

    My house and office probably contain upwards of 8,000 books (though we are in culling mode) and our family bent is history. So I’m not ignorant of the church’s path to where it got today. While I don’t agree with the conclusions the Founders Movement have come to about that history as it affects the SBC, I appreciate their work. I’ve corresponded with Tom Ascol several times and would count it a pleasure to meet him or Mark Dever some day.

    But history is like fish, you eat what is profitable and spit out the bones. Tradition is fine, until it impacts mission negatively.

    And I will not budge one inch on the essential Baptist doctrines of autonomous local churches, soul competency, and the priesthood of every believer. That’s what I read between the lines here in some of the comments. We have (speaking for the majority of SBC people) no desire to be liturgical, confessional, hierarchical in nature. Our burning desire is to make disciples and baptize them, teaching them to obey Jesus’ commands.

    So I plead guilty as charged.

    LikeLike

45. C’mon, Monk – I think you pulled some punches on this one. I believe that RR (above) has actually hit on the real issue here. You provided some excuses as to why Baptist pastors neglect to celebrate LR more often, but the reality is this – communion is possibly one of the most seeker insensitive activities in which you can engage in a worship service. Way too liturgical for the seeker set. There seems to be a perception (or perhaps the polls, focus groups and surveys have told us) that the seeker set doesn’t like stuffy, formal worship. They want it relaxed and casual. Designer coffee and Danish prior to the service is much more in line with this than bread and wine (or grape juice) administered in a reverent, meaningful ceremony.

    Consider as well – every good Baptist pastor (and probably many not-so-good ones) know the significance of 1 Cor 11:23-34. So, what is a pastor to do? A) Allow the congregation to partake of LR without the strong cautionary language of 1 Cor 11? B) Provide the cautionary language and scare away many of the seekers (and this is especially frightening if you are conducting the LR frequently ‘—“Ooh, honey, let’s not go back to that church; they are always doing that bread and grape juice thing and talking about sin.”); or C) Just avoid the LR as much as possible.

    The safest thing to do is to show a movie scene of the Last Supper on the Jumbotron and call it a wrap.

    LikeLike

46. The frequency issue is not just a SB issue, it’s in the PCA, Methodist, and from what I’m told some Lutheran churches. So, we ought not waste our time picking on each other, but as a new generation of Christians setting forth the future – recover Christ in all things for His people’s faith, hope and love. Because one day very real persecution will come to American Christians, it may be decades from now or millennia, but it will come. And THAT generation will need all of Christ to hold them. What we pass down is important. Take the labels off and examine the paradigm occurring. The fact that confessing sacramental churches (non-Baptistic) have an issue with frequency betrays that while being sacramental in words and theory, practice betrays a different “faith” (similar to what James is saying, what you do reveals the reality behind what is or is not confessed). There are two ways to deny Christ crucified, by actual Words (e.g. Trent) and by actual church practice and life (most of American Protestantism today, some may call it pietism). Make NO mistake, BOTH, deny their Lord. Infrequency even in confessing sacramental churches, thus, betrays a non-sacramental (that is no Gospel) shift in sacramental churches, a disconnecting of God’s reality in the service.

    This is the church equivalent of secular deism. It makes baptism and the Lord’s Supper man’s work and not objectively God’s and drains them from any efficacy to the believer’s ear. Once again we smell the sulfur of the devil using the Word of God, sacraments in this case, to destroy God’s people by taking the Gospel out of them per se. The real battle is always Satan trying to remove Christ crucified FOR YOU from the Word and the Sacraments. And we are fools to think other wise. Suffering brings this out, no Gospel in suffering and the devil has you in some form of spiritual suffering and you will fall. The devil is not a stupid strategist and he is not inactive despite modern society’s denial of him.

    In all honesty the best way to approach the issue is not “denominationally”. I’m not advocating rebellion and I’m not advocating “anti-denominationalism”, but the examination of paradigms. One should take off all denominational blinders and examine doctrine in light of, “where is Christ crucified for me” in this. If He cannot be found there, then you ought to suspect it right away, regardless of who (person or denomination) said it (e.g. The Bereans). Otherwise you are manifestly following the opinions of men. It’s not about “I’m right and you are wrong” or “You are right and I am wrong”, false law. It’s about Christ and Him crucified for you/me. Only THAT will carry you through suffering, only that will BE THERE for you when you lay dying wracked with cancer, heart disease, any number of killing disease, or entangled in some accident, or even of old age in your death bed. Only THAT will carry you through when your mother, father, spouse, child or loved one dies, you loose your means of income, become homeless, are alone, are suffering depression. Nobody else will be there with you dying when you die, you will be the one dying not the group gathered around your bed. You will be there alone in a full room because everybody else will be eating at Applebees 30 minutes after you’ve past. And the devil will attach at the last time, so you better have Christ crucified FOR YOU or you are in trouble.

    Perhaps this “neutral” stance helps one at least objectively examine the paradigms. When that happens finger pointing goes away. I discuss this with my closest brother in the faith, a baptist pastor/elder. And he’s used it to change all kinds of issues from music to alter calls. The congregation began to see that in the end the pastor is preparing them to die and suffer with the only thing that will stand. So they began to see that what the music says does matter, what you learn and repeat every Sunday does matter and so do the Sacraments/ordinances.

    I told him in all honesty I came from the outside in from the farthest most point, rank atheism. I recall years ago before coming to the faith always pondering, which religion is true and if Christianity which denomination. From an atheist or agnostic point of view Baptist, Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, Buddhist, Muslim are just 7 differing religions. Coming in to the faith (Christianity) that afforded me a true “neutral” situation from which to grow. I was not bound particularly by my history or upbringing to any one “denomination” by tradition or emotion or prior loyalty or even defensiveness. I had heard the Law strongly in my soul and the Cross and all I’ve ever sought is the merciful God, I always ask myself, “Where is Christ GIVEN FOR me and others in this”.

    In summary the problem of frequency is much wider than just SB. A PCA or Lutheran church that practices infrequently, for example only, is practicing as if no means of grace is there. Luther, before the “Lutheran church” arose saw the similarities and the devil’s hand in both Rome and Anabaptist, he saw both deny Christ crucified for people. The cry is always to the next group down that “X” didn’t finish the reformation so “Y” carried it out further. But in reality the Reformation begun and stopped at Christ Crucified, the recovery of the Gospel. Anything beyond that was a return to fallen religion be it Roman Catholic or Anabaptist or any other name/group. The reformation was singularly Christ and Him crucified for the believer.

    Blessings,

    Larry KY

    LikeLike

47. I don’t mind you non-SBCers commenting on this, but the fact that you have a sacramental theology that differs from ours is not exactly news. You can read previous posts in the “Baptist Way” series and see that I have addressed how our own confessions give us a basis for a rich celebration of the LS.

    Regarding the above quote from Michael:
    I’m not an SBCer though I was raised as a fundementalist Baptist. but from the above quote I’m not sure if we non-SBCers are supposed to be posting.Some guidance would be helpful. I truly wouldn’t want to invade the comments section in a way that is inconsistent with the purpose of the blog.

    I am a part of a denomination that for most of the twentieth century practiced a very Baptistic view of the sacrements even though our history and theology were more open to a sacramental approach. In the past two decades that has begun to change and many of our churches having experienced a renewal in worship have also experienced a deepening of the sacramental aspects of worship. For many of us it has been a welcomed change and a theological re-orienting. I say this to say that drawing a line as Michael seems to do around current SBC theology and practice and saying it must happen within these constraints may be the problem.

    If this about post evangelicalism then it seems to me that more things need to be on the table than merely how often we do the Lord’s Supper. The theological underpinnings that got us where we are today must be examined.

    That’s just how it seems to me. Again, if a non-SBCer is just going to frustrate the dialogue, then I am happy to just view the discussion and enjoy Michael’s journey.

    LikeLike

48. Michael, You mentioned a rich celebration of the Lord’s Supper. Personally this can make a routine Sunday into a true rememberance of the life, death and resurrection of our Lord. While Christ is present regardlees of our enthusiasim; good music, inspired preaching, and active participation raise our hearts higher. I celebrate Mass almost every day and I consider it a privilege. My often pitiful daily prayer life is salvaged by the ‘breaking of the bread’. A second century communion prayer speaks of ‘gathering your people like bread scattered among the hills’. These comments from a variety of individuals shows how scatteed we really are.

    LikeLike

49. Patrick: The SBC does have a history and a confessional tradition that can renew it. The Founder’s Movement has succeeded beyond any expectations and remains a growing force in SBC life. See also 9 Marks, which comes from an SBC church. But the majority of SBCers are ahistorical and aconfessional with the exception of their fluctuating interest in the Baptist Faith and Message Statement.

    SBC has a remarkable record of cooperation around MISSION. We have done more TOGETHER than any Protestant denomination in American history: more schools, largest mission forces, more church starts. This is because of a remarkable amount of cooperation. Look at the squabbling in the PCA and what it portends for their ability to work together on those same things.

    But the SBC is deply affected by its refusal to be theological and its hypocritical attitude toward its view of Biblical authority. It is highly pragmatic, highly anti authority, too pastor centered and increasingly infected with the diseases that are rendering evangelicalism meaningless.

    Its a mix of good and bad.

    LikeLike

50. As an outsider looking in (although I did a short stint in the SBC 20 years ago)it looks like you guys have your work cut out for you. Without a binding confession, a cohesive theology that dictates worship practice( practice taken from the scriptures and doctrine, not doctrine and practice crammed into a ‘relevant’ form under the guise of ‘reaching people’) and no unified sense of the history of the denomination, what unifies the SBC into one body? How will your congregations remain in fellowship with each other?

    LikeLike

51. Someone sent me an email commenting on one poster here. I’ve edited the comment a bit, but it’s still on target.

    “I win again. [This discussion] proves my thesis that the one nonnegotiable dogma for the local church and its leader(s) is style. [Several] comments [don’t] remotely consider what Scripture presents about the LS. The LS isn’t an ordinance to [the commenter] at all; it’s something churchy that is completely pliable into whatever shape the Authority wishes to give it. The LS isn’t about the body and blood of Christ, it’s about style. You have your style, the “high church” folk have their style, and the youth pastor has his style. They’re all peachy. Just like liturgy, just like polity, just like everything. “Thus saith the Lord?” Pah–no one has the right to tell [a leader] that.

    FWIW, my personal experience in the SBC [in the south]is that the vast majority of its pastors and congregations are totally on board with [the comment.] Is this not one more example of the active eradication of historical consciousness? Even someone with pride in their SBC heritage …obviously has seems unalarmed by the historical discontinuity with the norms in the history of the SBC. History has no authority and thus no fertile areas from which something might grow and evolve. Communities and communions have no authority. Does the Bible even have no authority? Is there a greater sin than submission to any authority besides one’s own conscience on all matters of faith and practice? Is there even one rule of faith that isn’t self-determined or self-made? What enables such indiscriminate relation to the authority of the Bible? My only answer is that there is one dogma of dogmas: style. Theology and this one dogma have nothing to do with one another. Therefore, theology has nothing to do with what you do in church (and work, and home …)

    Pretty strong stuff, gentlemen. Is style and pragmatism EVERYTHING in the new SBC?

    LikeLike

52. I don’t mind you non-SBCers commenting on this, but the fact that you have a sacramental theology that differs from ours is not exactly news. You can read previous posts in the “Baptist Way” series and see that I have addressed how our own confessions give us a basis for a rich celebration of the LS.

    LikeLike

53. I think the debate boils down to: what is the Lord’s Supper?

    If it’s no more than a symbol, then that symbol can be pretty abstracted, as long as the meaning is clear. This is the typical SBC point of view (I grew up SBC, now high-church Anglican).

    The more sacramental, liturgical view, is that it is: a. an objective thing that happens, an objective encounter with God, and b, it is more like a medicine in many ways. i.e., it helps us get through the days, resist temptation, etc.

    I will say, in my family’s experience, more frequent communion became more, and not less, special. I serve on the Altar Guild at my church, and help set up before Mass, and clean up afterwards. I have come to love everything surrounding the Lord’s Supper and, in loving these external symbols, have come to a deeper knowledge and love of God.

    Also, let’s remember that the Word is ideally a sacrament too. Even in high-church congregations, the first part of the service is dedicated to the reading of God’s word. In fact, we do 4 readings: 1 OT, 1 Psalm, 1 Epistle, and the Gospel reading. How many SBC churches read that much Bible in a service? How many carry the Bible down the aisle, preceeded by candles, and bound in gold, to be read to the congregation, who stands to receive it?

    Just some thoughts.

    LikeLike

54. 14Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. 15I speak as to wise men; you judge what I say. 16Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? 17Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread. 18Look at the nation Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers in the altar? 19What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons. 21You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. 22Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? We are not stronger than He, are we? 1 Corinthians 10:14-23 NASB

    It’s odd to me that in these discussions the above text rarely comes up. It would seem to indicate that the Lord’s Supper is way more than just a recall event. It is a reliving/relational event with the risen living Lord. Why wouldn’t we want to come to the Table and enjoy the experience of sharing (v16-17; from the greek-koinonia-sharing, partnership, fellowship)in the presence of Christ through the bread and cup?

    LikeLike

55. David Wilson: Yea, we’ll love ya, but in following Jesus’ example, we might like to chastise y’all sometimes (or all the time..)…

    God Bless

    LikeLike

56. Another day in the life of David Wilson, SBC apologist. (everyone who knows me is now suffering from whiplash after turning quickly around and shouting WHAT?)

    There’s no way to categorically say “the SBC churches…” because as autonomous local churches, we do what we are led to do by the Holy Spirit (hopefully) in everything. So you can have a church that is liturgical where the LS is done every week and the pastor follows the lectionary, church observing the church year, down the street from a KJV only Southern gospel church and just around the corner a new plant features secular music and a light show. Oh and just up the way, there’s another church led by elders and reformed in theology. We’re bound together by mission more than anything else.

    If you miss regular communion, there’s probably a Baptist church for you as well as many other faith communities.

    Just for background, I’ve been all over the map. I’ve observed the church year, used the lectionary, observed Lent, led Ash Wednesday services, and yes, observed the LS every week. Then I’ve done the seeker sensitive thing, been Purpose Driven.

    But in recent years I’ve settled into the rhythm of maybe 6 times a year and don’t follow much of those earlier practices either.

    As for symbols, I agree the culture is more visible than ever, so I’m investigating the use of ancient Christian symbols as we redo our sanctuary in an ancient-future vibe. And yes, I’d value the cross over any symbol, and no, we don’t have flags in our sanctuary, even in the most conservative county in the US 400 yards away from Eglin AFB. But there’s a church down the road that has the biggest US flag I have ever seen and no steeple. And yes, they are SBC.

    Yeah, we’re mongrels. But you have to love us. Jesus said so. 🙂

    LikeLike

57. Thanks, Michael, I love reading this stuff. Makes me smile and laugh.

    (and also for everyone’s comments, such fun!)

    nW

    LikeLike

58. For what it’s worth, this is not a uniquely Baptist problem (or characteristic, depending on your point of view). I grew up Presbyterian, and spent a good deal of time in the Methodist church, and even made a small excursion into Congregational and Bible churches, before I went Baptist several years ago. I think that one of those churches in that mix had communion once a month. None of the others held comunion more than once a quarter.

    LikeLike

59. We don’t want to do it like the first century to check off a box. We should want to emulate it because the meaning is so rich and because it reminds us that one day we will take it in heaven with Christ. Brett Maxwell above makes a point that many have made and it does have validity – that there are better ways to partake of the supper than completely minimizing its form in order to check off a box that we do it each week. You have to start somewhere and frequency is not a bad place to start. Glad you posted on this.

    LikeLike

60. OK, she must have prayed, cause here we go. First, you totally stole my line about married sex frequency as an analogy to how often we have Communion. I’ve used that quite a few times – “so, what you’re saying is you really only want to have sex with your wife like 2 times a year — so it’ll be more special” Yeah, uhhh, I don’t think so. NEXT? The thing is, if it IS meaningful and “special” then you will then have a desire for something more frequently – and then you’ll keep on making a point to do it BECAUSE of what it means or what it is.

    I certainly commend you, Michael, for even bringing this up in your arena. I wonder, though, how far you’ll get. Somebody’s already mentioned this but the fact that most Baptists have no faith that there is anything all that significant happening in or during Communion. That is what it is. I bring it up because this will guide how often they make a point of doing it. If the “strengthening” you mentioned is not in their spiritual vocabulary, they simply won’t see any need for it and therefore, it won’t git done. Having a fond memorial about the Last Supper or the Crucifixion is fine, but not a huge incentive I wouldn’t think, in that context.

    On the too Catholic thing – Mary, help of all Christians (that’s purty funny raht thar, I dont’ kyur who ye are) – I think this has already been mentioned too in the comments. I’m sure this exists. Depends on where you live I imagine. Let’s here from those Louisiana Baptists. I think, as you suggest, that the outer practice is not likely to be confused with the Mass, but I think it may be the attitude rather than the action that puts the fear into Baptists who use this line of reasoning. To move in this direction might represent a change in attitude toward a more Sacramental view of the… Sacrament (sorry, I am Catholic, so there you go). Oh, and forget once a week, dude, Catholics are having Communion every day! (not that 90% of Catholics are taking advantage of that or anything.) Probably no fear of seeing that happen at Frist, Second or Calvary Baptist anytime soon. As in the last paragraph, I’ll say, there really is no view that anything terribly significant is happening there so why would they do it more often? That’s not a slam by the way, just saying what seems logical.

    Again, the logical conclusion on the sermon deal – that IS the center of Baptist worship pretty much, isn’t it? The pulpit and the sermon – everything else surrounds that and effectively bows to that. I bet Baptists don’t know they’re wrong on this. I’d bet they, by in large, think they’re right to put the emphasis where they do, or they wouldn’t do it. People mostly do what they think is right. There are some hyper traditionalist Catholics who get all wound up about people holding hands during the Lord’s Prayer at Mass (eyes rolling). “Surely they know this is wrong!” Well, surely they don’t think so or they wouldn’t do it right out in front of everybody. Anyway, I think you mostly see the result of what people believe in your circles or in mine. Now, perhaps what they believe needs to change, but that’s another story. Interesting stuff though man. Peace to you.

    LikeLike

61. I once heard a Reformed Baptist minister ask the question – why do we call ourselves a Baptist church? Why not The Lords’ supper Church? Why choose one sacrament above the other?

    He didn’t have a ready answer to that though – it was more rhetorical.

    LikeLike

62. Once a month won’t do it, though. We do it that up here in the North (never been to an ABC church that took communion less than once a month). Trying to get folks to go weekly is really hysterical.

    “Who will clean up and set up the communion?”
    “Won’t it become routine?”
    “Won’t taking communion every week be too expensive?” (that’s my personal favorite)
    “Baptists have never taken communion every week, why should we start now?”
    “I don’t like the idea and that’s that.”
    “Wow, communion on the third Sunday of the month, that threw me for a loop!” (said to me after preaching a sermon on the nature of communion)

    Well, it’s hysterical in a, “OhmygoshIwanttocrysoIwilllaughinstead” kind of way. I’ve heard all these excuses, and more. And what it comes down to is that where there’s no theology of communion beyond, “it’s this thing we do to remember” and there’s no experience of the reality of Christ in it – then once a quarter, once a month, once a week just doesn’t make a lick of difference. It’s just a waste of time.

    I’m glad that you recognize that the increase isn’t going to do anything without some serious spiritual education on the very nature of worship and why communion is central to it. Maybe the Holy Spirit can wake us up. From the great nap we’ve all be taking.

    CrossPoint takes communion every time it gathers – and no one seems to complain much. In a year or so (as we move a bit further down on the path of our current transition) I’m going to make a push for weekly communion (hopefully I can get rid of the blasted shot-glasses again as most of our resident whiners are no longer pulling the strings here).

    LikeLike

63. I didn’t authorize it Patrick. If you reread my comments I said “I’ve even heard of youth guys using oreos and kool-aid.” But, while I wouldn’t personally do that, it was as someone wrote “the commonplace made sacrament”, so I suppose that (and youthful immaturity) that led the youth pastor that way.

    I get uneasy reading the comments on this too, but I’m happy to live with the differences and diversity within the Body of Christ.

    We don’t have sacraments, but in 6 hours yesterday I preached from Jude 24-25 and led a small group through a study on human depravity, so I’m thinking we’re handling law and grace in balance. Still, it spurs my thinking anytime I read an impassioned plea from others expressed out of their understanding of what any of the “sacraments/ordinances” mean. That’s why I enjoy reading iMonk. He thrashes about with issues like that very personally.

    BTT, just heard from a friend who planted a very successful church in Canton, GA that they have observed the Lord’s Supper 6 times in 4 years and never on Sunday morning. Quick, everyone go beat on him. Just kidding.

    Shalom,

    David

    LikeLike

64. I left a Protestant denom that had infrequent communion, and when I experienced weekly communion I never went back. Even from a strictly ‘It’s a symbol’ pov, I don’t see how it can be lightly dismissed. The bible says, and Jesus affirms as the greatest commandment, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your mind and all your strength.’ The strength part in Hebrew clearly implies ‘your body/physicality’. Protestants so frequently focus on only loving with our intellects or engaging our emotions, but leave out any physical element. Yet God created us physical beings who respond to kinesthetic learning (often most deeply), and I’m sure He knew what He was doing. So just hearing the Word, just getting a rush from the music is leaving out an important part of worship.

    Even with a very low view of the LS, skipping communion is missing something – the tangible experience. The entrance into Kingdom time/space in the way Jews enter it during Passover when ever person at the table is also in a real sense present with their ancestors in the Exodus. It is a thing that reinforces our oneness and continuity. I forward every week with the sense of walking among the ‘cloud of witnesses’ who have gone before me and my brothers and sisters around the world who are also sharing in this feast. Like one of the few modern hymns I truly love says

    One bread, One Body,
    One Lord of all
    One cup of blessing
    Which we bless.

    And we, though many
    throughout the world
    We are One Body
    in this One Lord.

    We can experience powerfully our oneness with Christ and with each other as members of His Body when we commune together in worship. It is a shame to dismiss that as mere ordinance or avoid it for fear of seeming too Roman.

    LikeLike

65. I grew up Baptist, but since then have decamped from the SBC to the LCMS. Baptist communion practice was part of the reason for my switch.
    I was raised in an SBC church that ran about 250 in attendance on Sunday morning. When I was in high school the church brought in a new pastor who decided that he wanted to adopt Willow Creek and Rich Warren methods of church growth. While this watered down the content of worship quite a bit (i.e. “seeker sensitive” entertainment type music, pop-psychology sermons), it did bring in a crowd and the church now runs over 1,000 on Sunday morning. As part of the whole “seeker sensitive” approach, the LS, which wasn’t done often to begin with, was relegated to 4 times a year (plus Christmas Eve) during the Sunday evening service.
    This means that if you only go to church on Sunday morning (which is the case for many people) you will never have the LS. So I wonder if buying into the whole “seeker sensitive” approach is another factor in the downgrading of the LS in SBC life.
    Of course, I would agree that theology is part of this as well because I think Zwinglianism generally strips the LS of importance. Symbols like the flag can be important, but the fact of the matter is that for the vast majority of churches that take the Zwinglian view of the LS today communion is nowhere near as significant as is the flag is to a group of veterans. In my experience in SBC circles, symbols like the cross, the Christian flag or even a WWJD bracelet are seen as more powerful symbols than the LS.
    I don’t doubt that the LS is a very important symbol in a few SBC churches. But I haven’t personally run across any churches where this was the case.

    rr

    P.S. How on earth is using Oreos and Kool-aid for the LS Biblical? Sorry if this sounds strong, but it really sounds like a mockery of the LS to me.

    LikeLike

66. A question for David Wilson.
    I understand that we may disagree on the way the LS edifies the believer and the mechanics of how this happens. My question to you is; by what authority do you change the words of Christ concerning the bread and the wine in the LS and authorize the use of Oreos and Kool-aid? Because its a symbol and really doesn’t do that much, its OK to redefine (or ignore) His words about what we are to use when celebrating the LS?

    I don’t know… that makes me really uneasy.
    Good luck with that.

    LikeLike

67. When our Pastor decided to go from communion a couple of times a month to every week, the biggest objection was it would take too long.

    The argument that finally carried the day was the Apostle Paul’s admonition that doing communion was proclaiming Christ’s death until He comes again.(1Cor.11:26) Our Pastor’s wish was for our church to proclaim Christ’s death in both word and deed every week. That along with a ‘trial period’ in which we would re evaluate weekly communion after so many months. Once we had weekly communion for several months no one was interested in going back to a less frequent celebration.

    LikeLike

68. Test – left a big comment yesterday – too hard to recreate it. Maybe if Mary, the help of all Christians, prays for me enough, I’ll get froggy and try to recreate it. 🙂

    LikeLike

69. We need to pull things apart a bit so as there being no confusion, for the goal here is always for faith not against it. It is a means of grace. I think the real problem lay in the fact that the Law is not being preached and/or heard by many Christians today. Many really don’t know their need. They don’t sense that continuous feeding upon Christ because they are today as much as yesterday still sinners, even worse. They reduce “justification” to a one time event and mere formality of entrance. Justification is once, but the state of being for the Christian is continuously within that tension 100% sinner and 100% saint. The Christian can confess with Paul as they grow that they are seeing themselves as worse sinners not getting better. This paradox of seeing one’s self as worse and more and more clinging to Christ is the humbling paradox in which real growth occurs, but it doesn’t look like growth as the world perceives “spiritual growth”.

    Means of Grace: For to hear “this blood shed FOR YOU” attached to the wine and “this body broken for you” is the very communication of the grace that makes it means of grace whereby the Spirit has been promised to work, strengthened and increase faith. To deny this to it is to deny the Gospel and Christ altogether. No grace would be communicated if, for example, someone comes up to a person hands him a piece of fish and says, “here this meat is given for your brain function”. No grace is communicated there and the elements, fish meat, where not ordered. Now, it is an ordinance but not an ordinance in the sense of law. It does not “prove your faith”, such faith is false faith. Rather it is an ordinance that “orders” if you will the Gospel FOR your faith. It is like the doctor who orders your prescription for your life sustaining medicine. It is an ordinance, the prescription, but its ends is unto you’re the medicine for your health. How stupid a man would be to think that “by obeying the doctor, since it is an ordinance, and getting the medicine by this order, I proof my faithfulness to the doctor and that heals me.” Rather it is the medicine that heals and gives life. We are commanded to give the Gospel, an ordinance. But that command is not the power nor the life, the message, the Good News is. The message is literally in every sense life eternal. The order to do it in reality does nothing, the message is the miracle, it is literally God calling into being that which was not before, namely faith.

    The reason a sacrament appears to not be a means of grace to many and they so deny it, is exactly the same reason unbelievers can hear the Gospel and deny it walking away. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with the message, but the flesh is so resisting the holy Spirit, that very message literally is thrown off by them as if it is filth. Now that’s not saying said believers are unbelievers, but they do themselves harm by not believing the sacrament is a means of grace. It’s self inflicted to their detriment. It really really really does take faith to receive the sacraments as means of grace, you literally have to trust it and receive it as Christ for you. If you don’t you are literally like wise unbelieving as far as the means of grace are concerned in say the Lord’s Supper. One or the other is true, there is no middle ground to be had. One man believes it and is fed Christ and his faith grows and emboldens, another man refuses to believe it and is not fed and his faith does not grow but rather the flesh does.

    Now that being said the great tragedy of our time is that too many have thrown away literally this manna from heaven not so much because they are trying to be openly rebellious, but rather are listening to the devil’s deception. It is like this: the devil has labeled for some the bread and wine as far as it is a means of grace to be “Poison”. That is the very idea of it being literally a means of grace whereby the Holy Spirit truly works faith is considered so Roman Catholic, the real poison, that any idea of it being means of grace is equivalent to it being poison for death rather than food for life. Thus, they cannot take the Lord’s Supper as a means of grace for to do so would be to enter into or tantamount to taking “poison” and thus they do not so take it (as means of grace), and it really doesn’t do much for them if anything at all. But in reality the devil has made it poison to them, yet they think it to be food. Rome gave all the power to the elements of bread and wine, which was poison and wrong, it lost the import of the Word of Gospel this way, where the power and the Spirit lay. But the later groups such as Anabaptist attributed nothing at all to the elements, rendering it as nothing at all.

    The flag analogy or similar memorial analogies completely fail because the Holy Spirit has not been promised to human memorials, but to the message of the Cross and the institutions, the sacraments, to which this message is given. The US flag as a memorial may indeed engender a bravado, but bravado is not faith. Faith is a suffering receiving instrument.

    Which leads to how real saving faith grows by suffering. It suffers in tension of the contraries of this life where it appears that God abandons us as a people or individually. When for example your sins seem to never get better but worse and you suffer and cry out wondering has God abandoned me, thinking where is the grace and power. This is actually faith crying out for it is by this kind of suffering, the appearance of God hidden to you, not giving you some precious power to ‘be better’ FOR the very reason of faith. Literally only then is grace grace to you, this is how one grows in true saving faith and grace; the breaking down and burning up in suffering of the prideful essence of the fallen man to be so good and better before God…reduced to nothing, the real sinner not the pretend sinner so that now the believer is called into being who nakedly sufferingly clings to the grace and mercy of God found at the Cross of Christ. But it is a rub against the flesh for it is infinitely embarrassing for me/you to confess that I am a real sinner, NOW and not just in some misty pre-conversion fanciful theoretical past (which is tantamount to confessing one’s self to not be a sinner) – such a real sinner that God on high had to come down and suffer, be beaten, crucified, rise again and STILL intercede for me. That’s a real justified sinner who stays in that continuity until death. Corporately this works too for the church in which it appears that the church is failing and the world winning, again we cry out, “where is God”. We long for the power but the real power lay in the suffering that clings to the Cross. To be HAD by the Cross, owned by it, IS true saving faith and nothing else. Faith that tries to “prove itself” is the devil’s faith, but faith that refuses ever so weakly it may be to relinquish the Cross is real saving faith that cannot be moved by man or devil. This is why Jesus saw GREAT faith in the weakest of people that approached Him and NO faith in the so called religious folks who attempted to prove their faith by their doings.

    If faith is continually suffering, then it must be continually fed by the Gospel in both Word and Sacrament. For it is no small thing to have the Good News come onto and into one’s very own body. Thus, one knows that this Gospel is not just some theoretical Good News to others but FOR ME. When it is FOR ME and FOR YOU, then you have the Gospel and the Cross of Christ.

    Blessings,

    Larry – KY

    LikeLike

70. Michael,

    Some Catholics actually think that having Bible studies, evangelism, and being disciples are going Protestant. . (Those who think and write that way dislike enthusiastic adult converts.)

    LikeLike

71. Tim Smith is incorrect to say that Baptists don’t think anything happens at the Lord’s Supper. Like most evangelicals, Baptists regard it as a “remembrance” where the worshipper reflects on the completed sacrifice, not a “reenactment” where God mystically imparts something to the worshipper. And should anyone think that calling something “symbolic” instead of sacramental somehow diminishes the worth of the ritual, try burning an American flag at a VFW gathering. The fact that the veterans recognize the flag as “symbolic” doesn’t diminish its significance. In fact, the flag’s significance is found precisely in what it symbolizes. Just so with the Lord’s Supper.

    As to frequency, why is the Acts phrase “breaking bread in their homes” reduced to just once a week in most of the comments on this page? If it’s right that Baptists aren’t reflecting this kind of frequency in quarterly observance, neither is any other congregation that limits Communion to once a week on Sunday morning. The line in Acts refers to anytime they were together, so what about your midweek services? What about before board meetings? What about when the small-group meets around a member’s pool?

    I’m settled with Christ’s words (as Paul refers to them in 1 Cor. 11): “As often as you do it.” Seems to cover the range of whatever someone considers the “proper” frequency. (For the record, our congregation celebrates Communion every 4-6 weeks on the Sundays we welcome new members to the Family.)

    LikeLike

72. Very interesting discussion. For the record, I trotted out the Reformation card not to embrace all of it. I’m a Baptist and no friend of Calvin or Luther, and not technically a protestant though we get lumped in there. And since I consider Catholicism a defective church with flawed ecclesiology, soteriology etc., I’ll not apologize for not wanting to appear Catholic in any way. I’m sure the pope would feel the same way about appearing too Baptist.

    And yes, it is an ordinance. Just a remembrance. Nothing more than that… unless the Holy Spirit chooses to use it to touch hearts. We’ve used soda crackers, communion wafers, matzo wafers – I’ve even heard of youth guys using oreos and kool-aid.

    Maybe we should just do it once a year like Passover and have love-feasts of fried chicken and green beans every Sunday. Might be more biblical.

    LikeLike

73. A “doing” of the Lord’s Supper less infrequently, baptist or other denomination (e.g. PCA), in order to ‘make it more special’ reveals a tremendous problem in modern American Christian churches:

    1. A non-sacramental means of grace under pinning (mere memorial) regardless of what is confessed (action here revealing the truth in spite of confession); and 2. That the meal becomes no Gospel but works, which is in line with viewing it as ordinance rather than Gospel or means of grace. So, then, the power is seen (falsely I might add) in the “making it special” to the emotions by infrequency, works and one’s ability to ‘must up from within’ the memory for the memorial. Rather than the power being in the bread and wine as the Word of Gospel is given to it and used by the Holy Spirit to strengthen, sustain and help faith. But only the eyes of faith will actually see and receive this. It is no mystery these many decades now of this that trying to make it special by the works of man (memorial and infrequency) it falls away over time and becomes exactly the opposite, not more special but nearly if not entirely (depending upon the congregation) nothing at all. Since grace and Gospel (means of grace/sacrament) are removed from it, there is nothing “special” about it at all and so we find in these same churches new inventions seeking what was lost, not knowing or refusing to believe you lost it the way you lost it, reducing the supper to a memorial/ordinance of infrequent use. The “ordinance” view and memorial view are not biblical as much as they are just anti-Rome. Over steering, they wreck the car on the other side of the street to avoid Rome’s accident on the opposing side of the street.

    If one needs blood pressure medicine or cholesterol lowering medicine for their health, you cannot make these medicines more “special” by taking them less frequently as if their healing properties are enhanced by your flip flopping emotions and giddy excitement. In fact to do so in the realm of medicine reveals the complete foolishness of this, much more the sacraments/means of grace as in the Lord’s Supper. One has to wonder why a Christian gets “bored” in the first place of hearing as wine is given every Sunday, “The blood of Christ given FOR YOUR SINS”. Such a Christian must think they are really working their way to heaven and improving much, at least in their own estimation. You could at LEAST respect a Christian stricken by his/her sins who wanted more frequency than weekly understanding the need, but less frequency reveals the same old stumbling stone and the same old eschewing of the shame of the Cross of Christ, this time in the Lord’s Supper rather than the Word alone.

    What is failed to be seen is the that the bread as the body of Christ and the wine as the blood of Christ presented before the believer to see, touch and eat is: 1. That a body, Jesus’, was sacrificed and 2. The blood of the Lamb of God was actually shed…this blood that fulfills the old covenant of works FOR ME/YOU. IF that doesn’t encourage the faith of the believer and free one from works, then one doesn’t really know one’s need at all.

    Larry – KY

    LikeLike

74. Michael, too funny!

    I was thinking even more about this and it really makes sense given the architecture of the buildings and services: they are word not sacramental.

    A few years ago ago a friend of mine clued me into this when he was sharing some things he learned from a religion and architecture class he had in college. He was sharing how anglican/episcopalian and I think RCC churches have a sacramental architecture because everything about the building points toward the altar, where the sacraments are blessed, remembered and distributed. Whereas “bible-believing” churches like SBC/non-denom churches are built around the pulpit and the spoken word.

    And the same is true for the architect of the service, at least in my experience in the Episcopal/Anglican service (and RCC?), everything about it was building to the communal experience of the holy sacraments. Not true in the services of baptist, non-denom, etc… They revolve around the preaching of the Bible; everything about the service points toward the spoken word.

    Now I say this not to set communion over and against the sermon. But from my perspective, the sunday gathering (or saturday or friday or whenever the “event” happens) is about re-capturing out identity as followers of Jesus as a tribe and community of the Son of God. So my question is: should we re-discover that identity in a speech or a remembrance experience of the sacrifice of Jesus? And I hesitate to throw out us finding our identity on the Bible, but I wonder if that’s what God desires…

    more thoughts,
    -jeremy

    LikeLike

75. Brendt,

    In the interest proper regulatory representation, how do you feel about wine vs. grape juice? I have had freshly baked unleavened bread for communion and it is much preferable to a stale cracker. Was that loaf of unleavened bread we had not called a loaf?

    LikeLike

76. Maye we should dispatch a committee to the RCC and let them know they may be doing a few things that might be interpreted as “going Baptist.”

    LikeLike

77. In the spirit of full disclosure, my church has Communion about 14-15 times per year (once a month plus a few special occasions that don’t necessarily appear on that calendar you bought at Walmart).

    David, your statement that “in an area that’s over a quarter Catholic, I would be concerned by anything that people saw as leaning their way” is troubling. While I won’t claim knowledge of how often your church should observe it, this statement puts the perception — not even knowledge — of at-best-imperfect or at-worst-unregenerate man (who the Bible describes as blind) above the direction of God. I would be more concerned about what God knew than what some goofball down the road thought.

    Gary, re: stale crackers / loaf of bread. At the risk of coming off as regulatory, please recall that Communion is born of the Passover meal. Before Passover, the Israelites were commanded to bust their butts to be sure that all leaven was purged from the house. In Scripture (both OT and NT), leaven is representative of sin. Now I’m not saying that you should throw away that loaf on bread that’s in the kitchen cabinet before you observe Communion. But to have the Lord’s Supper with leavened bread strikes me as misrepresentative.

    LikeLike

78. After reading Michael’s post, I almost feel fortunate. In my current church, and the churches I’ve attended in the past, the practice was to celebrate the Lord’s Supper on a monthly basis. I’ve long thought that wasn’t often enough, but now that I hear other churches practice Communion even less frequently I realize I ought to feel grateful.

    I was intrigued that some pastors gave for not practicing the Lord’s Supper more often the rationale that to do so would render it less special. It occurs to me that if the pastors really thought it was special/worthwhile/beneficial/meaningful, they would practice it more often. That they don’t suggests that they don’t think it very special at all.

    LikeLike

79. I believe a great deal of Baptist practice or lack there of comes from their theology of sacraments. i believe they would call it an ordinance. They see the word “remember” as a recall of facts. The biblical concept of memory, especially corporate, sacred memory is a reliving and participation in the original event. That’s why Jews are still celebrating Passover 4000 years later, even very secular ones.

    I remember a candid conversation with the pastor of a large and well known Baptist church who admitted that the Lord’s Supper was just something that they endured once a month but no one really looked forward to it. That is the legacy of a memorial that is a mere recollection of facts rather than an eschatological moment to be entered into.

    LikeLike

80. Actions follow theology, even unconsciously. Since Baptists don’t think anything happens in the Eucharist, they’ll never do it more than minimally, and even that just in order to check it off the list of obediances.

    No group of people will ever do anything very much which has no significance. Since getting “saved” is the only thing that has significance in the Baptist church, and the Eucharist has no connection with getting saved, it is a mathematical certainty that it will shrivel to minimal.

    You can’t build a high church style on a Baptist soteriology. Not for long.

    How could earlier Baptists have done it? It took a generation for the high church flower to shrivel after the soteriological roots were pruned.

    LikeLike

81. Jeremy, my “conversion” to understanding the Lord’s Supper as the central act of Christian worship also came from the Old Testament, and more specifically, reading the New Testament with Old Testament presuppositions. (If the New Testament is not read in this way, I do not see why we would even leave the Old in our Bibles, just throw it aut a la Marcion.

    That’s why while I once thought as Brett does, that everything in the New Testament should be read as informal and anti-liturgical, I now believe exactly the opposite. All worship, both true and defiled, throughout history has been centered on sacrifice: Canaanite worship, Aztec worship, Hebrew worship, and yes, Christian worship. Since the sacrifice around which Christian worship is “once and for all”, it remains for Christian worship to keep its once-for-all sacrifice central through remembrance and representation – and the Lord is clear in the New Testament that the way he has devised for this to be done is through the Christian passover, the Lord’s Supper.

    Now, I do believe that Brett has a point, which is that the ritual of the Lord’s supper can be incorporated into a much larger feast. The early church did this. The bread and wine were consecrated and consumed as part of a larger meal, the “Agape Feast.” It wasn’t, however, as informal as the modern potluck. Again, the passover meal is the guide and the passover meal is not at all “informal” in the sense that it has a very clear and definite “form” which is followed.

    Practicing weekly communion can be simple. There is no rule which states that the more often we participate in the Body and Blood of Christ (see I Cor. 10) the more elaborate the ritual must be. I better stop now before I ramble. . .

    LikeLike

82. Note to David Wilson: both Luther and Calvin firmly believed in celebrating the Lord’s Supper on a weekly basis; Calvin pushed hard for that in Geneva, but could never get the city fathers to get off the “too Catholic” line–he had to settle for monthly. The pattern of the Reformation is “Word *and* sacrament”; this once-in-a-blue-moon pattern doesn’t grow from that root.

    LikeLike

83. The – “too catholic” line of reasoning seems to me to point to some lack of security, even more – lack of confidence. Are they so scared of Rome that they stay away from everything, not only those things that are problematic?

    If celebrating the Lord’s Supper weekly endagers your “protestantism”, you’ve got deeper problems…

    LikeLike

84. I grew up taking communion weekly, and it was always extremely meaningful. Ironically, now that I’m at a church where we only partake of the Lord’s Supper once a month, it seems to be less impactful.

    LikeLike

85. I have been working my way through Leviticus before I begin seminary this fall, and was struck by the concept of the sacrificial offering. Though Jesus gave the once-for-all sacrifice and sat down as Chief High Priest afterwards (thanks Hebrews 10!), I am intrigued by the idea of the physical sacrifice that God once demanded from us for our sins. I saw for the first time that it was the sacrificer who slaughtered the lamb/goat/bull for their own sins and presented it to the priest to sacrifice before the Lord. That means people had a physical representation and reminder of the consequences of their sin and offense to YHWH.

    While I certainly do not propose breaking out the levitical sacrifice, I really, really deep down think now after reading and meditating through this section of Leviticus that communion can be that very physical reminder of our sin, it’s consequences and the beauty of Jesus’ sacrifice. After attending an Episcopal gone Anglican (CANA) church for a year and a half and experiencing regular communion, I feel a huge disservice is done to followers of Jesus who’s faith communities do not regularly provide space for reflecting upon and experiencing the rite of holy communion that this Jesus-provided mystery offers…

    my 2 bits,
    -jeremy

    LikeLike

86. In our last deacon/staff meeting we talked about this very thing. Our pastor brought up the topic of doing the Lord’s Supper more often…possibly even weekly. I am personally in favor of this, but it will be interesting to see how it all turns out. Concering the supper itself, I am not too thrilled with the stale crackers. I think that it misses symbolism about Jesus’ body being broken. I think that a loaf of bread should be used and then broken into little pieces. I guess someone would probably raise hygenic issues to that.

    LikeLike

87. Could a pot-luck in fact be closer to Biblical communion than a few hundred people taking a “shot” of grape juice and a sliver of bread?

    Was Jesus’ emphasis on the fellowship or the elements?

    I agree communion is lacking in a great number of churches, but I’m not sure passing juice and wafers during more Sunday services is the answer.

    LikeLike

88. Thanks Michael for the thoughtful post. I’ve read as you’ve talked about liturgy and your personal preferences for a more “orthodox” worship style. I’m filing this in that bucket.

    I’m a pastor of one of those 5-6 times a year Baptist churches. Hopefully, people don’t experience a need for 15 minute shorter sermons and long for more Lord’s Suppers.

    We center our worship on the Word expressed in the reading of it and the teaching of it. If I recall correctly, that’s been the pattern since the Reformation.

    So I don’t know I’m wrong, and I don’t know any other Southern Baptist pastor that’s convinced of that either.

    When I come to the table, I’m not looking for mystery or majesty either. Jesus instituted this at a common meal with the elements he had on hand, that were at every common meal. It’s symbolic, a remembrance. You will not be wowed by the observance at most Baptist churches. And for the vast majority of us, that’s exactly what we intend. Took me 7 years to get the tablecloth off. The whole folding of it like a flag at Arlington cemetery was too much. It’s a simple time, devoid of all the trappings that Rome has added.

    As to the comments that followed, yes, in an area that’s over a quarter Catholic, I would be concerned by anything that people saw as leaning their way. There are huge differences in what we believe that cannot be papered over. (Besides, the pope would just rip the paper off.)

    We’ll just have to disagree. That’s why we have different denominations.

    LikeLike

89. I’m glad I found your site. Same cheeky tone I write with! We’ve got the same basic premise too: while you’re Internet Monk, I’m at My Hermitage.

    Will keep reading, it’s very good stuff!

    LikeLike

90. Have you ever read ‘The Failure of the American Baptist Culture”? It’s here:

    http://www.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/21ce_47e.htm

    LikeLike

91. Great post! Too Catholic, the very idea. It would help the average So. Baptist to be a little more Catholic. As for losing it’s value; it sounds like it’s not special at ALL given it’s curent practice. Being a former So. Bapt. myself, I’d love for the pastor to relinquish 15 or more minutes EVERY week to releave some of the pain we endure[d]. Honoring our Lord and procaliming His death until He comes would be a good way to spread the Gospel and rescue the congregation from the all too prevalent narcissistic EISegetes inhabiting the average pulpit in the So. Baptist churches.

    LikeLike

92. Great post!

    LikeLike

93. I left a baptist church where it was done almost every month, and ended up at a brethren church where it was done every week. Currently in my journey, the Lord’s supper is pretty much the only spiritual experience that has any meaning left for me, and I’m now a part of a community that doesn’t really celebrate it at all. On occasion, I’ll drop into a local Episcopal assembly just to experience it again.

    So two weeks ago, about a dozen of us were out for pizza after our Sunday morning meeting, and I bought a bag Mediterranean pita bread and a $2 bottle of red wine from the supermarket next door, and we shared the Lord’s table on an outdoor patio of a pizza parlor. I’m not much for using emotional validation, but it felt about as right as anything can.

    LikeLike

94. Michael,

    Funny and poignant post.

    In the international (and multi-denominational) church we started here in Kuala Lumpur, I’ve tried to manage this issue by having Communion bi-monthly on Sunday mornings and encouraging home groups to observe it in the intervening month. So potentially people could participate monthly — and alternately in large and small settings.

    Have you heard the argument that since Passover was only once a year, that Communion should be annually also? I suppose that since Jesus didn’t specify the frequency, we’re left to discern by His Spirit the interpretation of His words, “as often as you do this…”

    Blessings from SE Asia…

    LikeLike

95. 4. “Clean-up”

    Nobody will volunteer to clean up all those little glass cups that the deacon chairman’s great-grandparents donated to the church and that have to be hand washed because that’s how they did it back during the Depression.

    LikeLike

96. On “breaking bread in their homes” why do we think the only place to do it is in the church? Why be on their time schedule? Seems pretty Romish to think only a priest/pastor can “officiate” the Lord’s Supper.

    But maybe I’m missing something…

    LikeLike