Communion versus the Lord’s Supper

                If you are not interested in Communion, the Lord's Supper, you are probably not going to be interested in this post.

                Recently, I told my sermon advisory group, I would be preaching a sermon on “Why The Lord's Supper” in a couple of months. I asked if they had any suggestions.

            One said to me, “Would it be possible to offer the people more than one little piece of cracker and one little cup full of grape juice? It always sounded strange to me to hear people talk about a supper, when what we experience is not even a good snack.

                Someone else, one who has been a Christian for a long time, said, “I agree. It just seems like what we do has very little in common with how they partook of the Lord's Supper and experienced communion in the New Testament.”

            I found our dialogue fascinating; it really gave me food for thought. (Wink. Wink.)

                  Since then, I have thought much about that conversation. I agree that what we do finds little connection with the way they did it in the New Testament. There is no implication from Scripture, and no implication from early church history, churches passed around portions of unleavened bread, from which each Christian took a tiny morsel.

               Now, since some churches passed around one cup, I can see each individual’s swallow being smaller, similar to the size of our little communion cups. However, these were experienced in the context of a complete meal. So people, by God's design, left feeling satisfied. (Indeed, one of the reasons there was a problem in I Corinthians 11 was because the more affluent Christians were sinning by not sharing their bountiful blessings of food with the poor Christians. Consequently, the poor left hungry.)

              Where did this disconnect between our experience of communion today and the early church's experiences come from? I suspect Constantine's influence on the church is partially to blame. That's the subject of another post for another day.

              Within my own fellowship, I'm wondering if there is another reason as well. In my fellowship, we practice open communion. That means, anyone who desires to partake of the bread and the cup may do so. We leave it up to each individual's conscience. Each individual is subject to God's judgment (I Corinthians 11:17ff), but each is allowed to make his or her own choice.

              Now, in a conservative and doctrinally careful Fellowship, you've got a problem. How do you share communion with someone who may not be a Christian? Especially, if it is someone you really believe is not a Christian? The solution is simple; you virtually eliminate the communion aspect of the service, and emphasize the Lord's Supper facet.

              In the Lord's Supper, it is every man for himself. You're not showing a desire to fellowship someone, who is outside of Christ. That's his problem. Consequently, your conscience can remain untroubled.

              Unfortunately, in our congregation's case, all too often we do not experience communion; rather, what is happening is 500 people are individually, and simultaneously, taking the Lord's Supper.

              This explains how we can say with a straight face on Sunday nights, “If you were unable to partake of the Lord's Supper this morning, it has been left prepared for you and you may leave the auditorium to partake during the singing of our next song.”

            Voila! A handful of people go to a back room, away from the rest of the Body. Or, everybody in the auditorium sits and watches three people, who are taking the Lord's Supper on a Sunday night.

              Whatever that is, it clearly violates the meaning of the word–communion. Not much is being held in common by the assembly.

              What's the solution? I have some ideas. But I would enjoy first hearing from you. What do you think?

Five Things I Think I Think (with a nod to Peter King for this idea)

1. When I left for Argentina in 1989, I assumed I would spend the next five years practically isolated from American news and sports. I will never forget our first night in Argentina, in the home of the Reece Mitchell family, in Buenos Aires. I mentioned to one of Reece’s sons, I cannot remember which one, that I expected to be cut off from American culture, as I had been in Papua New Guinea.

            He replied, “Oh, well we get cable here.”

            That was the first I heard of the Argentine cable service. God bless the individual, who brought cable to Argentina.

            Because of the cable service, we received a direct feed of CNN. (Later, we received ESPN as well.)

            After we settled in our house in Cordoba, I subscribed to the local cable service. Now, we had been in Cordoba for a little more than a month, so I already felt a little bit out of the loop. One night, about 10:30 our time, I turned on the TV to CNN.

            It was 7:30 PM in Atlanta—time for CNN SPORTS TONIGHT. The program’s anthem blared out, and I emotionally tasted a little bit of home.

            Virtually every night thereafter, I watched the news on CNN and SPORTS TONIGHT. Anchors Fred Hickman and Nick Charles grew to be my friends, even though I never met them.

            Nick Charles is dying. He is suffering from bladder cancer and will be taken from us soon. Patrick Leech sent me a link that offers a marvelous testimony to Charles’ faith:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/04/06/nick.charles.facing.death/index.html?iref=obinsite

         I feel sadness because of the connection of my past. Yet, I can say gratefully, that Nick Charles is dying well.

2. I got to experience LEADERSHIP TRAINING FOR CHRIST for the first time on a Sunday morning. I know of no better ministry for equipping young people, children, and adults (!) than LTC. What a blessing it is.

3. The Mavericks blowing a 23-point lead to Portland on Saturday doesn’t scare me. Of course, I may be whistling in the cemetery.

4. My heart goes out to the people, who have lost property, especially homes, to the wild fires. Yet, another reminder of how little humanity really controls.

5. I took my family to the site of President John F. Kennedy’s assassination yesterday afternoon. The Texas School Book Depository has been turned into a museum. We did not go inside, but we walked around the site of the murder. Sad.

            I was impressed by how many people were there—more than I saw at Ford’s Theater last year. I heard the German language spoken; it looked like others from different countries were present as well.

            One strange moment: at the grassy knoll the investigator and author, Robert Groden, was present with his books and DVDs on the Kennedy assassination.

            He believes Kennedy was a victim of a conspiracy. Part of his proof is photos taken from Kennedy’s autopsy. (How he got them, I don’t know.)

            The reason I know he had photos is, Groden had a point man, who held up some of the photos. Fortunately, he told Timothy and Annie to turn around before he did.

            I have to admit; I have mixed feelings about that. On the one hand, the photos were morbid. (I decided to turn away; I couldn’t escape the sensation I was violating something sacred.) On the other hand, we are a democracy. We must hold the government accountable. Clearly, if someone in the government was conspiring to hide evidence, it would take the people seeing the evidence to move an investigation along. And, if you run for president, there are certain rights to privacy you surrender for the sake of the democracy. 

Matter is Good; It’s Sin that is Bad

God made creation.  God dwelt in creation.  God can fellowship with matter.

Abraham welcomed three visitors. Genesis says that one of them was Jehovah, appearing as a human (Gen. 18:20) before Abraham.

If that was not enough, Jesus made it official, God become flesh and dwelt among people (John 1:14.)

All people from the beginning of time have wrestled with the idea of the gods coming into creation. This is the conscience of humanity, subconsciously, paying tribute the gravity of sin.

The Old Testament and New Testament are the only documents ever written that sufficiently address the solving of this dilemma. Even to those of us who are Christians, this seems too good to be true. Yet another reminder of why we call this the gospel.

God has never had a problem with matter; he created it. It’s sin God has a problem with. I say all of this because I believe one barrier preventing us from ever celebrating the Lord’s Supper, in the context of a meal, is our fear God will become angry at our irreverence.

There are probably a lot of reasons why we think this way. I suspect one is the residue coming from the ancient Greek philosophers who pontificated that matter was bad, while the spiritual is good. Gnostics, in the first century, infiltrated the church with this teaching. I believe Augustine bought into this belief, and it hurt him as it did those whom he influenced. These would include many of us in churches today.

Too many Christians believe that Lord’s Supper, communion, is a spiritual meal to be observed in a spiritual worship service. To them, to eat a physical meal along with the Bread and the Fruit of the Vine, would desecrate the Lord’s Supper.

This is wrong. This view is fundamentally flawed. It creates a false dichotomy. The Lord’s Supper and a physical meal are not contradictory events that should be separated. Indeed, they should be united as much as possible. Here are some reasons why:

1. To do so would remind us that our sustenance comes from God.

2. To do so would remind us that God has cleansed us from our sin; therefore, we are able to enter into His presence.

3. To do so would remind us that God’s grace has cleansed us from our sin; it has nothing to do with our human efforts.

4. To so would follow biblical example and precedence spanning both Testaments—God’s people celebrating God in the context of meals.

5. Because of numbers 1-4, we can and should celebrate our salvation. We should celebrate our reconciliation with God, redemption by God, and consecration to God, in fellowship with God and in fellowship with our fellow priests with a meal that includes the Lord’s Supper. Moreover, we should do so in the context of public worship by the community of faith.

Five Things I Think I Think (with a nod to Peter King for this idea)

1. I’ve got to brag for a moment. I just found out that my second cousin, Skip Hollandsworth, recently won the American Society of Magazine Editors award for an article he wrote in Texas Monthly last year. Here’s the link: http://www.texasmonthly.com/2009-05-01/feature2.php

     Folks, this award is in the Pulitzer class. Congratulations, Cuz!

     BTW, I have you know he attended MY wedding back in 1988. So there, I am related to somebody who is famous and successful.

2. Rest with God in eternity, Jim Jordan. You were a great man for God.

3. It's official. Summer is here. I go outside; I am soaked with sweat.

4. Nice NBA series--Boston vs. LA. I'm pulling for seven games.

5. Congratulations to you, Abby Edge. You graduated from the eighth grade. Well done.

Are We Scriptural in the Lord’s Supper?

            Shalom. It has a ring to it, doesn’t it? It means more than just a Jewish greeting. It contains components of integrity, wholeness, and completeness with God and the world. One is in proper relationship with God, and one is in proper relationship with the world.

            The Old Testament depicts an offering and a meal that reflects shalom. As a matter of fact, it was called, in derivative form, the “Shalom Offering.” Leviticus chapter three and chapter seven emphasizes that God’s people were experiencing meals with God that were to also be celebrations of shalom. Lev. 7:11-17, particularly, emphasizes this was to be a communal meal.

            In the burnt offering, atonement was made and God’s people could enter into the presence of a holy God (see Lev. 1). The natural response of this reality was for God’s people to submit to God in his service (see the Grain Offering in Lev. 2).

            In Leviticus 3, you see the logical follow up. Because of the burnt offering, God's wrath for sin had been appeased. God’s people had dodged a bullet; they had entered to God’s holy presence—and survived!

            They were thrilled to be alive. God was thrilled for them to be alive. God was pleased for their consecrated lives. God said, let’s celebrate! Let’s have a party!

            God gave instructions for how his people could enjoy a meal with Himself and with each other. He would receive His portion, a portion would be given to God’s priests, and the offerers themselves would receive a portion—meat.

            I cannot overemphasize what a big deal this was. Most of the Israelites did not have the means to regularly eat meat. Here was God commanding them to eat meat. What a blast! You talk about celebration.

            Don’t let Leviticus fool you. It is a complex book that includes the remedy for a humdrum life. Leviticus includes instructions from God on how to joyfully celebrate his presence.

            All throughout the Old Testament you find this offering and meal. Sometimes it is referred to as the Thanksgiving Offering. It is part of every major festival. It was to be eaten to conclude Nazerite vow (Numb. 6:13-17). Other places it is mentioned include:

           

            *The renewal of the covenant at Mount Ebal (Jos. 8:31)

            *By Hannah (I Sam. 1)

           *Saul's inauguration I Sam. 11:15

           *The arrival of the ark in Jerusalem (2 Sam 6:17)

           *Solomon’s inauguration (I Chron. 29:21-22)

           * Psalm 50 and many more.

             Now, wouldn't it be nice if God could come up with a meal, eaten by his priests, celebrated in the presence of God, reflecting upon the sacrifice that had been offered up to God.

            What? You mean we have one? Oh, yeah, the Lord’s Supper—Communion!

            It is interesting that in the eight (Mt. 26:17-30, Mk. 14:12-26, Lk. 22:7-38, Acts 2:42, Acts 20:7, I Cor. 10:14-22, I Cor. 11:17-34, Jude 12) references to the Lord's Supper in the New Testament, five explicitly refer to a meal being part of that supper. The other ones don't negate a meal; they just don't go into detail mentioning that it is done in a meal.

            Did you know that Paul builds his case for unity (see I Cor. 10-11) on a communion meal whose roots are found in the Shalom meal of Leviticus, as well as, the Passover Meal. Paul’s argument for unity and separation of the world is symbolized in a meal of communion.

          Luke, in his gospel, offers Jesus’ emphasis on eating and drinking and banquets in the kingdom of God. Scripture anticipates the day when the bride of Christ will eat with the lamb in heaven.

            The Didache, an ancient document written about 100 AD, speaks of the communion meal.

            A few centuries later, churches lost the meaning of the meal in the communion service. As John Mark Hicks put it, what were at one time an altar and a table became an altar only. [By the way, his book, COME TO THE TABLE, is an excellent resource. Many of his conclusions agreed with mine; therefore, I find him brilliant. :)]

            

            Since then, we have emphasized the individual in the Lord’s Supper, not the group. We have lost an exciting and vital element of communion, found throughout scripture—the meal.

            Now, I realize if you are in a church with a good number of people, experiencing the Lord’s Supper in the context of a meal can be impractical. Still, it could be done.

            Churches have captured the reverence of the Lord’s Supper, but this is only one facet. Joy and celebration are another. Unfortunately, we have been so brainwashed by tradition, whose roots were laid with Constantine, the only way we could capture the biblical ideal and precedence is through imagination.

            I am part of a movement that seeks to restore New Testament Christianity. I regret that my attempt to convince others in my movement of this biblical teaching has been an utter failure.

            I am not saying we should eliminate times of meditation during the Lord’s Supper. I am saying we would expand our vision to include that which is biblical.

            It is biblical to rejoice with God and God’s people in a meal, and within that meal, to share the bread and fruit of the vine, honor Jesus as Lord and Savior, and recommit ourselves to lives in His service.

Five Things I Think I Think (with a nod to Peter King for this idea)

1. Upon further review, I rank GETTYSBURG the second greatest war movie I have ever seen. Only SAVING PRIVATE RYAN is better. One reason I liked GETTYSBURG was it was the only war movie that explained to me what was going on well enough for me to understand.

2. Okay, I’m lost on this LOST phenomena. My understanding is that it ended last night. So were the lost, found?

3. I’ve begun my yearly reading of THE GLORY OF THEIR TIMES. One of the greatest baseball books ever written. One of the greatest history books on life at the turn of the 20^th century ever written.

4. Could morality be making a comeback? Friend Patrick Leech sent me a fascinating article written by Raquel Welch. Acknowledging that it was strange coming from a sex symbol, she encouraged society to restore the ideal of marriage. Go, Raquel, Go.

5. Congratulations to all graduates. You’ve worked hard. Say safe.