Thursday, May 27, 2004 AD
Frequency of the Lord's Supper
The final point which I wanted to pass on from our membership class last night was the discussion we had with our pastor about how often the Lord's Supper is celebrated. Our church celebrates the Lord's Supper on the second, fourth and fifth Sundays of each month. Apparently some of the elders would like to move to weekly communion, while others wish to retain the present pattern.
This is an issue on which I'm torn, and always have been. On the one hand, there seems no better way to follow the proclamation of the Gospel in the sermon than with the distribution of Christ's saving benefits in His body and blood in the Lord's Supper. On the other hand, it does feel easier to invite guests to services without Holy Communion. Even setting to one side the "close communion" issue, a totally unchurched guest is likely to be pretty freaked out by the Lord's Supper itself.
Our younger son's Baptism is scheduled for 20th June, and alert readers will notice that this is the third Sunday, i.e. a non-Communion service, precisely because we wanted to avoid any "awkwardness" from having guests being either freaked out by the Supper itself, or offended at being "excluded" from the Table.
But speaking with our pastor last night, it struck me that the problem with this general approach is that it suggests there is something shameful and embarrassing about the Lord's Supper in general, and the practice of close communion in particular. If the Lord's Supper were celebrated "every Lord's Day and on the other festivals" (Apol. XXIV, 1) then it would just be "there", as a given, and we'd have to learn to explain ourselves to visitors in as clear, friendly and loving a way as possible. (Our pastor inclines to that view himself).
But equally, we have to be careful not simply to "please ourselves", to structure our church life simply for the benefit of the believers already within the fold. If the weekly celebration of the Lord's Supper had the effect either of "putting off" visitors, or made us more nervous about inviting people along, then (even if we were to conclude that it was right and biblical to proceed anyway) this is not a decision to be taken lightly.
So, I'm undecided - and, frankly, relieved that it's "not my call". But it's still a question that greatly interests me, as it goes to the heart of how we strike a balance - and even as to whether "striking a balance" is the right aim - between maintaining the fullness of Christian worship, and reaching out to the unchurched millions around us.
So as Chris Williams would put it: "What thinkest thou?"
This is an issue on which I'm torn, and always have been. On the one hand, there seems no better way to follow the proclamation of the Gospel in the sermon than with the distribution of Christ's saving benefits in His body and blood in the Lord's Supper. On the other hand, it does feel easier to invite guests to services without Holy Communion. Even setting to one side the "close communion" issue, a totally unchurched guest is likely to be pretty freaked out by the Lord's Supper itself.
Our younger son's Baptism is scheduled for 20th June, and alert readers will notice that this is the third Sunday, i.e. a non-Communion service, precisely because we wanted to avoid any "awkwardness" from having guests being either freaked out by the Supper itself, or offended at being "excluded" from the Table.
But speaking with our pastor last night, it struck me that the problem with this general approach is that it suggests there is something shameful and embarrassing about the Lord's Supper in general, and the practice of close communion in particular. If the Lord's Supper were celebrated "every Lord's Day and on the other festivals" (Apol. XXIV, 1) then it would just be "there", as a given, and we'd have to learn to explain ourselves to visitors in as clear, friendly and loving a way as possible. (Our pastor inclines to that view himself).
But equally, we have to be careful not simply to "please ourselves", to structure our church life simply for the benefit of the believers already within the fold. If the weekly celebration of the Lord's Supper had the effect either of "putting off" visitors, or made us more nervous about inviting people along, then (even if we were to conclude that it was right and biblical to proceed anyway) this is not a decision to be taken lightly.
So, I'm undecided - and, frankly, relieved that it's "not my call". But it's still a question that greatly interests me, as it goes to the heart of how we strike a balance - and even as to whether "striking a balance" is the right aim - between maintaining the fullness of Christian worship, and reaching out to the unchurched millions around us.
So as Chris Williams would put it: "What thinkest thou?"
