Weekly Observance of the Lord's Supper

[Herald]

This month we began the weekly observance of the Lord's Supper. Our reasons were:

1. 1 Cor. 11:26 seems to encourage the regular observance of the sacrament.

2. It is a means of calling God's people to repentance from sin (1 Cor. 11:28).

3. It is a visible means of declaring the gospel and the centricity of the cross (1 Cor. 11:26).

I am interested in the practice of other churches, both Presbyterian and Baptist.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

"As oft" only indicates what should be done as often as it is observed, not how regularly it should be observed. Every year could be a regular observance of the sacrament, as was the case with the Passover.

The preaching of the Word should accomplish this.

I assume you agree with the Confession that it is a means of grace.

I agree that there is not, in Christ's ordinance, specificity regarding regularity but why would a Church want to minimize the benefits provided by a sacrament? There doesn't seem to be a benefit to infrequent observance while frequent observance provides much benefit.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I was asking a question. Since the sacramental language that we agree upon in the WCF states clearly that the means of grace do benefit the believer and, specifically wrt the Lord's Supper:

VII. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament,13 do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.

Real benefit is expressed by the Confession. Why would we desire that benefit to be infrequent?

 

[Herald]

"As oft" only indicates what should be done as often as it is observed, not how regularly it should be observed. Every year could be a regular observance of the sacrament, as was the case with the Passover.



The preaching of the Word should accomplish this.

Matthew - yes, it could be observed annually. Paul did not indicate specificity, so it is left up to the church to decide that matter. We have chosen weekly.

I agree that the preaching of the word can accomplish some of the other points made. But the drama of the cross, through the Lord's Supper, is one of the few ways the church has to make the word come alive (baptism is the other). We do not seek to add or detract from the word of God, but to fulfill it in our worship.

 

[Herald]

I assume you agree with the Confession that it is a means of grace.

I agree that there is not, in Christ's ordinance, specificity regarding regularity but why would a Church want to minimize the benefits provided by a sacrament? There doesn't seem to be a benefit to infrequent observance while frequent observance provides much benefit.

Rich - what has been your experience (re: the Lord's Supper) when you were in a Presbyterian church?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

But the real benefit is spiritual, not carnal and corporal. Spiritual benefits are not tied to temporalities. Unless you believe that there is a real subjective benefit to be derived from eating and drinking, you could observe the sacrament once a year, and the benefit would still be the same. It only becomes a problem if there is an act of disobedience involved. But we are agreed that Scripture does not regulate regularity.

I don't agree but we can agree to disagree. There are many things that are spiritual that require regularity for our benefit. Prayer is one of them. The preaching of the Word is prescribed but are you asserting that there is no benefit to its regularity to the believer? Surely not.

I just cannot understand the line of reasoning that would look at the language of the WCF and the benefits provided to the believer and say: "Well, if I do it once a week, once a year, or once in my lifetime it's all the same because its Spiritual." Paul says that every time we celebrate the Supper we proclaim His death and resurrection. Surely such a proclamation is better done with frequency rather than infrequency.

Nevertheless, I agree that there is no strict prescription regarding its regularity. I just didn't understand why you would want to argue to celebrate it infrequently.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich - what has been your experience (re: the Lord's Supper) when you were in a Presbyterian church?

The three Churches I've attended (two PCA, one OPC) all celebrated it once a month.

 

[Herald]

We see it differently my friend. I can't help but feel a sense of awe during the Lord's supper. I do not believe the Lord hovers above or is in the elements. The "drama" is in the proclamation of grace itself. For the life of me, I don't know how one cannot be moved (emotionally) during this time. Our Lord suffered and died to pardon my sins. This is not what the Romanist believes in regards to the Lord's Supper. Perhaps my use of the word drama connotates a Romanistic view to you. To me it does not. I was raised Roman Catholic, and know very well their view of the Lord's Supper. I reject their view and all that it represents. But I cannot reject the involvement of all my senses during our observance of the Lord's Supper. My intellect, emotions and spirit are all at work in tyring to comprehend the grace that is resident in this sacrament.



P.S. As a Baptist, referring to the Lord's Supper as a sacrament seems not to be in keeping with the majority of Baptists. They prefer the term "ordinance." Once again, proof that I am indeed, a Baptist in Crisis.

 

[Archlute]

We were discussing this very issue in our Pastoral Ministry seminar this past week. The key is celebrating it weekly for the proper reason. Dr. Hywell Jones agreed with the concern of many students in the class that there is a rising sacramentalism in Reformed churches regarding the Lord's supper, and that we should be sure that this is not driving our desire to have weekly observance.

He reminded us that preaching has always been the primary means of grace in Protestant churches, and that the sacraments are mute without the gospel explanation of the Word. He went on to note that there is no special grace that one receives through them that cannot be received by the hearing of the Word, and that as soon as you begin to assert that there is a special grace received that is qualitatively different, at that point you have begun the move to a false and overly elevated view of the sacraments.

He was not leveling a critique against weekly observance in itself, but in the way that some are arguing for it, i.e. "it is a medicine for my soul, if I cannot receive it every week then my spiritual life is starved and weakened, etc." That is not a proper Protestant understanding, but it is a complaint that one can hear voiced in modern Reformed churches.

 

[ReformedWretch]

Our (PCA) church observes every week

 

[Robin]

The Heidelberg Catechism: LORD'S DAY 25

65 Q. It is by faith alone that we share in Christ and all his blessings: where then does that faith come from?

A. The Holy Spirit produces it in our hearts (John 3:5; 1 Corinthians 2:10-14; Ephesians 2:8)

by the preaching of the holy gospel, (Romans 10:17; 1 Peter 1:23-25)

and confirms it

through our use of the holy sacraments.(Matthew 28:19-20; 1 Corinthians 10:16)

66 Q. What are sacraments?

A. Sacraments are holy signs and seals for us to see.

They were instituted by God so that

by our use of them

he might make us understand more clearly

the promise of the gospel,

and might put his seal on that promise. (Genesis 17:11; Deuteronomy 30:6; Romans 4:11)

And this is God's gospel promise:

to forgive our sins and give us eternal life

by grace alone

because of Christ's one sacrifice

finished on the cross. (Matthew 26:27-28; Acts 2:38; Hebrews 10:10)

67 Q. Are both the word and the sacraments then intended to focus our faith on the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross as the only ground of our salvation?

A. Right!

In the gospel the Holy Spirit teaches us

and through the holy sacraments he assures us

that our entire salvation

rests on Christ's one sacrifice for us on the cross. (Romans 6:3; 1 Corinthians 11:26; Galatians 3:27)

68 Q. How many sacraments did Christ institute in the New Testament?

A. Two: baptism and the Lord's Supper. (Matthew 28:19-20; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26)

Our church observes the Holy Supper weekly.

Robin

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I would maintain that we are directed to pray daily; and preaching is central to worship.

Well, I simply refuse to accept the description of "infrequency." To those who believe in celebrating it daily a weekly observance might seem infrequent. There is something amiss in the idea of the sacramet as "proclamation" if it is believed that something more is being accomplished by celebrating the sacrament weekly.

Throughout, I have merely quoted the Confession and the Scriptures. The only thing potentially amiss is when you uncharitably read between the lines and assume I believe more than what these state. I only stated that we proclaim the Lord's death and resurrection in the sacrament, nothing more. I asked a question of you which you did not answer as to whether that was best proclaimed frequently or infrequently.

As to the defintion of frequent, as you seem to enjoy to pick nits, I think most normal people would consider an annual celebration of something to be infrequent. It certainly is infrequent if measured on the regularity of other elements of worship.

Remember, you put forward the idea that there is no benefit to frequent observance but you haven't defended it. Instead, you try and create hypotheticals of Presbyterians who might find daily celebration to be more beneficial (which would be strange as it is an element of worship and that occurs on the Lords Day). I don't care about hypothetical Churches, I'm interested in the real Church that would see no difference between celebrating the Supper once a week or once every 50 years.

Would Calvin or any of the Westminster Divines have agreed with you on this point?

 

[Herald]

We were discussing this very issue in our Pastoral Ministry seminar this past week. The key is celebrating it weekly for the proper reason. Dr. Hywell Jones agreed with the concern of many students in the class that there is a rising sacramentalism in Reformed churches regarding the Lord's supper, and that we should be sure that this is not driving our desire to have weekly observance.

He reminded us that preaching has always been the primary means of grace in Protestant churches, and that the sacraments are mute without the gospel explanation of the Word. He went on to note that there is no special grace that one receives through them that cannot be received by the hearing of the Word, and that as soon as you begin to assert that there is a special grace received that is qualitatively different, at that point you have begun the move to a false and overly elevated view of the sacraments.

He was not leveling a critique against weekly observance in itself, but in the way that some are arguing for it, i.e. "it is a medicine for my soul, if I cannot receive it every week then my spiritual life is starved and weakened, etc." That is not a proper Protestant understanding, but it is a complaint that one can hear voiced in modern Reformed churches.

Adam, I appreciate your post. We had the exact same discussions. I want to be careful in my choice of words. I do not believe that there is something missing if the Lord's Supper is not observed weekly. Nor do I believe that we achieve spiritual benefits specifically because we do observe it weekly. That said, there are benefits to observing the Lord's supper.

We have begun this new practice earlier this month. Before the elements are passed out, the word is preached. Believers are called to examine themselves and the gospel of repentance is announced to those who may be outside the family of God. Can the Lord's Supper accomplish that which the word cannot? No. To say "yes" would elevate the Lord's Supper above its place in scripture.

Baptists have historically resisted this type of observance. Anything that resembled Romanism was to be avoided at all costs. But sometimes the reaction to falsehood can be an overreaction. Our church was founded a little over six years ago. We began as your typical free will Baptist church. I was one of the few Calvinists attending. Since then, the pastor and elders (of which I am one) are all Calvinists. Our church has changed radically. It has cost us members, as many were not willing to abide the teaching of the doctrines of sovereign grace. The changes we have made were not done without much prayer and discussion. That does not mean we are right. But we are traveling down a road that not many Baptist churches in our area are on. I did not write this to justify our actions, but to explain them in context of the current discussion.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

We were discussing this very issue in our Pastoral Ministry seminar this past week. The key is celebrating it weekly for the proper reason. Dr. Hywell Jones agreed with the concern of many students in the class that there is a rising sacramentalism in Reformed churches regarding the Lord's supper, and that we should be sure that this is not driving our desire to have weekly observance.

He reminded us that preaching has always been the primary means of grace in Protestant churches, and that the sacraments are mute without the gospel explanation of the Word. He went on to note that there is no special grace that one receives through them that cannot be received by the hearing of the Word, and that as soon as you begin to assert that there is a special grace received that is qualitatively different, at that point you have begun the move to a false and overly elevated view of the sacraments.

He was not leveling a critique against weekly observance in itself, but in the way that some are arguing for it, i.e. "it is a medicine for my soul, if I cannot receive it every week then my spiritual life is starved and weakened, etc." That is not a proper Protestant understanding, but it is a complaint that one can hear voiced in modern Reformed churches.

I don't disagree with Dr. Jones. I haven't postively argued for a set frequency. I understand that grace is not some sort of substance that we can measure but, at the same time, it seems like we can be a bit rationalistic about it as well. We need not become superstitious about the benefits of the Lord's Supper and Baptism to understand that they are a means of grace of us. We don't need to try and peal back the language of the Scriptures any more to know that we feed on Christ spiritually when we partake of the Lord's Supper. But we also need not become so punctillious that we say "Well, the preaching of the Word is good enough, you don't need the Lord's Supper." If you take that theology too far, one would wonder why Christ even instituted the Sacrament and why Paul didn't just tell the Corinthians to abstain from the Supper for a while if it was causing so much trouble and he could have just said: "Stop celebrating it for a while and just sit under the Word. That's good enough."

I just have trouble with a discussion of the Lord's Supper when the discussion seems to indicate that it's completely indifferent as to its observance once the Word is preached. If that's the case then we can eat and drink judgment to ourselves on the negative end but we could have just avoided that real risk and not celebrated the Lord's Supper at all.

 

[Archlute]

Bill,

It's good to hear that your church is trying to think things through carefully. I pray that you all will continue to grow as you seek to honor the Lord in your worship.


Rich,

For what it's worth, our church observes communion weekly, and I do prefer it myself. I find it to be a fitting way to "round off", for lack of a better way of saying it, the preaching of the Word.

Dr. Jones also mentioned tongue-in-cheek that, while preaching is to be seen as the primary means of grace whereby we can receive all the benefits of the Gospel, some men's preaching necessitates the regular observance of the Lord's Supper

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Bill,

It's good to hear that your church is trying to think things through carefully. I pray that you all will continue to grow as you seek to honor the Lord in your worship.


Rich,

For what it's worth, our church observes communion weekly, and I do prefer it myself. I find it to be a fitting way to "round off", for lack of a better way of saying it, the preaching of the Word.

Dr. Jones also mentioned tongue-in-cheek that, while preaching is to be seen as the primary means of grace whereby we can receive all the benefits of the Gospel, some men's preaching necessitates the regular observance of the Lord's Supper

Maybe that's why it was instituted.

Incidentally, Dr. Jones preached at my Church in Temecula a few times when I lived there. Always enjoyed his pronunciation of Isaiah (EYE-ZY-YAH).

 

[Semper Fidelis]

These "most normal people" should probably stop suggesting they are wiser than God, as if the Lord was deficient in prescribing an "infrequent" celebration of the Passover.

Good thing I'm not at all normal. By the way, are we talking about the Passover now?

 

[Herald]

Dr. Jones also mentioned tongue-in-cheek that, while preaching is to be seen as the primary means of grace whereby we can receive all the benefits of the Gospel, some men's preaching necessitates the regular observance of the Lord's Supper

Adam - I felt that way today while preaching!

 

[Ivan]

Matthew,

How often does your church observe the Lord's Supper?

 

[CDM]

Twice a year, in the traditional Presbyterian manner; so that everyone knows they have just celebrated the Lord's supper, not some tack-on to the end of a service.

Could you please expand upon "Twice a year, in the traditional Presbyterian manner"?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

FYI. There was a lengthy thread over some period (jan. 2004 I think) on the R-F-W list that involved Dr. Bacon, Dr. Lee and others on the frequency of celebrating the Lord’s supper. The thread I believe began on the topic of whether Midweek services could be manditory and moved on to frequency of Communion about here http://groups.yahoo.com/group/r-f-w/messages/5859

 

[Civbert]

...
I agree that there is not, in Christ's ordinance, specificity regarding regularity but why would a Church want to minimize the benefits provided by a sacrament? There doesn't seem to be a benefit to infrequent observance while frequent observance provides much benefit.

What are the benefits gained that are unique to observance of the Lord's Supper?

Increased frequency does no entail increased benefits. There are many examples were increased frequency leads to reduced benefits.

What are the costs of increasing the frequency of observing the Lords Supper. At my church, preaching of the Word is reduced. Sermons are shorter. (Some might consider that a benefit - not me.) If sermons are not shorter, is worship time reduced? Or maybe the service time is longer. If longer services are beneficial, then why not meet even longer. More worship, more preaching, etc. There would be no end to the benefits.

We can meet 5 days a week, and 4 hours a day, and 3 times on Sundays - with breaks for food and to use the restroom. Yep. I think increased frequency is always a good thing.

 

[Civbert]

... But the drama of the cross, through the Lord's Supper, is one of the few ways the church has to make the word come alive (baptism is the other). We do not seek to add or detract from the word of God, but to fulfill it in our worship.

You seem to imply the Word is dead if not for the Lord's Supper! Drama and sensation make things more real? Then Hollywood gives me the greatest experiences of reality.

Sorry to seem harsh, but you can see where your comment can be easily taken. To a epistemology of materialism and mysticism. That something is not real or true if not experienced emotionally and physically. The next claim is that the rational itself is dead and unreal. That means we can have the pure mind of Christ, and it would be dead and pointless if we don't experience with it some sort of emotional swelling.

When they read the Law of God before the whole of Israel, did it matter if the person reading it was a good actor - able to induce some emotion and feeling into the reading? Can you kill the Word by reading it without drama?
Or was it not the words themselves that mattered?

Is it faith by hearing the Word, or faith by hearing the Word with dramatic vocal intonation?

 

[wsw201]

Bill,

For what it's worth, I don't think frequency is the real issue when it comes to the Lord's Supper. Weekly, Monthly, Quarterly, etc. does not matter as much as how the Sacrament is administered. If done biblically, weekly is fine. If done wrong then annually is too often!

What I mean by administer is how the congregation approaches the Lord's Table. Does the congregation fully understand the implications of the Supper. Do they understand what the Supper is about? Are they preparing themselves accordingly? Is the Table properly fenced? Does the sermon tie to the administration of the Supper?

In the Presbyterian Church, there are perscribed methods for fencing the Table. For example, the OPC BCO give language that can be used. Has your Baptist Church worked through this? For instance, who can come to the Table? Members only; Baptized only; Baptists only?

 

[R. Scott Clark]

We believe that our gracious God, taking account of our weakness and infirmities, has ordained the sacraments for us, thereby to seal unto us His promises, and to be pledges of the good will and grace of God towards us, and also to nourish and strengthen our faith; which He has joined to the Word of the gospel, the better to present to our senses both that which He declares to us by His Word and that which He works inwardly in our hearts, thereby confirming in us the salvation which He imparts to us. For they are visible signs and seals of an inward and invisible thing, by means whereof God works in us by the power of the Holy Spirit. Therefore the signs are not empty or meaningless, so as to deceive us. For Jesus Christ is the true object presented by them, without whom they would be of no moment.
Moreover, we are satisfied with the number of sacraments which Christ our Lord has instituted, which are two only, namely, the sacrament of baptism and the holy supper of our Lord Jesus Christ.

-- Belgic Confession Art 33

Calvin's Short Treatise

Larry Wilson on Weekly Communion

Hart and Muether on Frequent Communion

John Mason on Frequent Communion

John Erskine on Frequent Communion

The Evangelical Fall from the Means of Grace

rsc

 

[py3ak]

When I was in Indiana, we would always read this from the Larger Catechism in connection with communion.

Question 175.
Question: What is the Duty of Christians, After They Have Received the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper?

Answer:
The duty of Christians, after they have received the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, is seriously to consider how they have behaved themselves therein, and with what success;a if they find quickening and comfort, to bless God for it,b beg the continuance of it,c watch against relapses,d fulfil their vows,e and encourage themselves to a frequent attendance on that ordinance:f but if they find no present benefit, more exactly to review their preparation to, and carriage at, the sacrament;g in both which, if they can approve themselves to God and their own consciences, they are to wait for the fruit of it in due time:h but, if they see they have failed in either, they are to be humbled,i and to attend upon it afterwards with more care and diligence.j
a. Ps. 28:7; 85:8; 1 Cor. 11:17, 30–31.
b. 2 Chron. 30:21–23, 25–26; Acts 2:42, 46–47.
c. Ps. 36:10; Song 3:4; 1 Chron. 29:18.
d. 1 Cor. 10:3–5, 12.
e. Ps. 50:14.
f. 1 Cor. 11:25–26; Acts 2:42, 46.
g. Song 5:1–6; Eccl. 5:1–6.
h. Ps. 123:1–2; 42:5, 8; 43:3–5.
i. 2 Chron. 30:18–19; Isa. 1:16, 18.
j. 2 Cor. 7:11; 1 Chron. 15:12–14.
Smith, M. H. (1996, c1990). Larger catechism of the Westminster Confession Standards. Index created by Christian Classics Foundation. (electronic ed.) (2). Greenville: Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary Press.

Where it seems to me that the phrase I underlined and even the instructions to attend afterwards with more care seem to presuppose fairly frequent opportunities for communion. That may be, of course, nothing more than my historical ignorance. But what did the divines mean by encouraging us to frequent attendance?

 

[CDM]

"traditional Presbyterian"???

Twice a year, in the traditional Presbyterian manner; so that everyone knows they have just celebrated the Lord's supper, not some tack-on to the end of a service.

Could you please expand upon "Twice a year, in the traditional Presbyterian manner"?

*bump* for Rev. Winzer (or anyone else that can shed light on this)

 

[wsw201]

I always thought the traditional Presbyterian manner was quarterly based on Geneva.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

From Pardovan's Collections (circa 1709):
Book 2 Title 5 Sec 23:
In the manuscript acts of Assembly, there is an act, December 1562,
appointing the communion to be celebrate four times a-year in towns, and
twice a-year in country parishes; yea, it was administered then once a
month, as may be seen by the old discipline bound in with the old psalms,
and forms for prayer in Mr. Knox's time. And by the 14th article, cap. 12 of
the French church-discipline, it is recommended to their national synod, to
give directions about the more frequent celebration of the Lord's Supper,
and their custom then was four times a-year: but our acts of Assembly 1638,
sess. 23 act 12, act 19 of Assembly 1701, and Directory for worship, do only
recommend the frequent celebration of the Lord's Supper; but how often is to
be determined by the kirk-sessions, as they shall find most convenient for
the people, their comfort and edification. These recommednations seem to be
treated with little or no regard among us; for as yet, so far as I know, not
one parish hath celebrate it once more than ordinary upon their account. I
am sure, if they would have it but once a-year, yet parishes in the
neighbourhood may so correspond, as to have it in that bounds all the months
of the year, which will supply the want of its frequency in one parish, at
least unto such as may well travel unto their neighbour churches.

From Dictionary of Scottish Church History and Theology, "Communion
Seasons".
"Although the BCO [Book of Common Order] of 1564 (Knox, Works IV, 191)
directed that the Supper be celebrated once a month, 'or so oft as the
Congregation shall thinke expedient', the First Book of Discipline
recommended a quarterly holding of the sacrament." See also "Lord's Supper".

 

[Herald]

Twice a year, in the traditional Presbyterian manner; so that everyone knows they have just celebrated the Lord's supper, not some tack-on to the end of a service.

Matthew - I was going to ignore this post, but I have thought better of it. Your comment, "not some tack-on to the end of a service" seems a bit smug. I know that Christian churches differ on the frequency of the Lord's Supper. That is one of the reasons I started this thread. I am genuinely interested in the practices of other churches. But do not think for one moment that our approach is to simply "tack-on" the Lord's Supper to any part of the worship service. Me' genoito!