The Lord’s Supper
The Lord’s Supper is so rich with meaning that it’s hard to know what to emphasize. Let’s go with —
(1Co 10:16 ESV) 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation [koinonia] in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
The grammar tells us that “participation in” is to share in the object of the participation (or fellowship). A similar construction is found in —
(Phi 3:10 NAS) that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship [koinonia] of His sufferings, being conformed to His death;
(Phi 3:10 NRS) I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing [koinonia] of his sufferings by becoming like him in his death,
Paul means by “fellowship of His sufferings” that he shares in Christ’s sufferings by actually suffering as well. A “participation in the blood of Christ” means a sharing in the sacrifice of Jesus by actually becoming sacrifices ourselves.
Thus, the Lord’s Supper — the “blood of the covenant” — is a covenant meal in which we bind ourselves to make the sacrifice of Jesus real in our lives. We offer ourselves as co-crucified people. We promise to become like Jesus by sacrificing ourselves for his sake.
Worshiping in the assembly
Thus, we see that the New Testament doctrine of worship and the New Testament doctrine of the assembly are heavily overlapped. They all point toward Jesus, with the goal of drawing us toward a life like the life he led — a life of submission, service, and sacrifice.
The purpose of the assembly is not to rehearse a discrete list of authorized acts, but to help each other grow closer to Jesus — to be built up, encouraged, comforted, and stirred to love and good works. Part of God’s mission is to restore his people to his image, and we participate in that mission by helping each other grow into Jesus and the life that he lived — and this is ultimately empowered and reinforced by God’s Holy Spirit. We aren’t alone.
Therefore, the assembly is not about satisfying the demands of a vengeful God. The assembly is first and foremost for the benefit of the Christians present —
(1Co 14:6 ESV) 6 Now, brothers, if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I benefit you unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching?
The test of what is and isn’t appropriate in the assembly is whether those present are benefited consistently with the purposes of the assembly — that is, helped to grow more and more like Jesus, into ever-increasing glory.
Of course, as we become more like Jesus, our hearts are more attuned to God, and we will worship — not because we’ll go to hell if we don’t, but because we can’t do otherwise.
The five acts
Consider the “five acts.” Singing very often — routinely — is designed to encourage our fellow members. “Sing and Be Happy!” is an encouragement to the believers present, not to God. Yes, we also sing praise songs, but not just praise songs. Some songs are horizontally directly and some vertically, but even when we sing vertically, we are encouraging our fellow believers to focus their attentions on God.
You see, singing is a corporate, community activity. It’s fashionable to argue that worship is solely directed toward God and so we must only sing praise songs. But that’s not the messages of the scriptures. We are called to sing to “one another” in Ephesians 5:19, because the objects of our singing is often our fellow believers. It doesn’t say “sing to God.” But, of course, the text urges us to sing Psalms, and the Psalms are routinely directed toward God. The assembly has both a vertical and horizontal element. We should not emphasize one to the exclusion of the other.
Just so, the sermon is preaching to other members, not to God. When done right, it’s preaching on behalf of God, but the sermon is directed to the congregation.
The Lord’s Supper is directed toward God, but it’s a community meal shared with God. It’s a reminder of God’s covenant with his church. It’s horizontal and vertical. It’s something we do as a church.
The contribution does not make it to heaven. Most of it gets spent within the congregation — for the benefit of the church — to pay the building payment and the power bill and the preacher’s salary. Some (hopefully) large portion goes to mission work and care for the poor, but in most churches, the largest share is for each other. It’s all for God, of course, but God uses a lot of it for his children, whom he loves.
Prayers are directed toward God, but we routinely pray for one another. The usual beneficiaries of our prayers are the sick and hurting among our members and friends — but we also pray for the spread of the Kingdom. We aren’t the only beneficiaries of our prayers, but we are among those benefited.
Some argue that the quality of the singing or preaching is beside the point, as the worship is directly exclusively toward God — but it’s not. The assembly is not all about performing acts that please God so that the impact on our members doesn’t matter. In fact, God loves us so much that he designed the assembly for us.
It’s “for us” in the sense that we benefit from it more than he does — but one benefit we need is to be reminded of our place in the scheme of things — that God is over all, that Jesus died for us, and that we must live our lives based on those certain facts.
We worship in the assemblies because God is present and because, as we’re reminded of these truths, we can only respond in worship. But we don’t worship to conform to a prescribed list of rituals. We worship in response to being reminded of the generosity and love of God. We worship because, as we are drawn toward Jesus and seek to imitate him, we have to worship.
Quality matters
The following is from a Church of Christ website and is very typical of our thinking:
A lot of the problem is that people have lost the true purpose of worship. Worship is supposed to be an act done by us and directed toward God. Many churches today seem to have turned that around. They have made the focus of worship the individual in the pew. He is to be entertained, made to feel good, gotten excited, stroked. But, true worship is supposed to be adoration and honor rendered to God by the individual in the pew. In worship we’re not there to have something done “for us.” We’re supposed to be there to do something “to God.”
In fact, we’ve lost the true purpose of the assembly, which is to benefit the members by shaping them more and more into the image of Christ — an image of sacrifice and self-emptying. We are to be built up or edified to be like Jesus. And this will please God far, far more than getting the rituals right.
And so, both positions mentioned in the quote are wrong. I agree that the assembly is not about entertainment, but I just as strongly disagree with “we’re not there to have something done ‘for us.'” You see, God loves us so much that he is most happy when we are being benefited. He doesn’t need our singing, but we need each other’s singing — if the singing helps shape us into the image of God.
True worship is being shaped into God’s image. We do that through adoration and honor of God, but also through mutual edification and encouragement. And therefore it matters whether the assembly is fact edifying. God is part of the audience, but so are the members and the visitors. Quality matters because quality affects whether we are accomplishing God’s purposes.
Now, in actuality, our conduct is closer to what the Bible teaches than is our rhetoric. We like to say that it’s all about God, but we preach sermons to the members, sing songs that encourage the members, pray for the members, and otherwise have services that often very member-centered. And this is good — if the goal is forming the members into the image of Christ.
But many are concerned that changes in the assembly will lead to error — and they certainly could. But changes force us to re-discover what the assembly is for. What is the test that decides whether a change is a good idea or not? And so some are inventing a rhetoric that the assembly is not for the members in order to resist change — that is, we’ve invented a theology to avoid change, rather than testing the need for change against theology.
And a proper understanding of the purposes of the assembly tell us that it should be tested, as Paul wrote, by whether it benefits the members by helping to shape them into the image of Christ.
(Gal 4:19 NRS) My little children, for whom I am again in the pain of childbirth until Christ is formed in you …
Therefore, within the purposes of the assembly, we have great freedom. It’s not about whether X or Y is authorized, but whether we can fairly conclude that they will edify the body. And we therefore have room to experiment and be very creative — to use the full range of gifts God has given us to form our members into the image of Christ.
You can tell more about church and people in general by what they sing.
The words sung and feelings expressed most times brings a better message than the sermon.
Its good that both men and women sing together and equally participate in enthusiastically praising God in worship.
If all we did was sing our worship, many of the arguments pertaining to gender and pecking order would be of no consequence.
Do you think so John? Do you really think so? :@
Participation in communion is first and foremost, as Jesus said, "eating his flesh" and "drinking his blood". In other words we are saying "I want Jesus to be my Savior, Lord, and Friend over all else". Communion is about us communing with Him and reveling in Him and His glory. Communion reminds us off the debt of gratitude that we owe. This then leads to our desire to live a transformed life. Before we can be transformed we must drink in the Savior. As Jesus said in John 7:37, "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink". Communion is not first and foremost about me deciding to change. Communion is first and foremost about communing with my Savior. Change then will follow. It is all about carts and horses. Which should come first our gratitude to Jesus or our commitment to serve Him.
When Satan tempted Jesus in Luke 4, Jesus responded in verse 8 with "Worship the Lord your God and serve him only". Worship comes first and then service follows.
A worship focus only leads to Calvanism. A service focus only leads to Arminianism. Fortunately communion allows us to worship first and then to make decisions to serve Him better.
laymond,
When we meet at the river, at a woodsy camp, and have a worship service regardless of the day of the week its on, women as well as men all participate, not just in the singing.
Then anyone that want to tell something that has happened in their life, good or bad that we can all pray to be fixed or to thank God for is told by women and men both.
No one objects. I guess its because we are outside and not in a Church Building.
Would like to try this in a Church Building on Sunday at noon service and have everyone, women too, sing the lesson. ALL sing the prayers for the Lords Supper and sing the prayers for the ill and those that heed help. Most of our songs in the book are lessons aren't they.
I don't think anyone would object.
Somethings wrong with that thinking I believe that women can sing and teach by singing, but to speak is wrong. .
AJ wrote:
"enthusiastically"
Not everyone expresses emotions the same way. Who gets to say what counts as "enthusiastic"?
–guy
Jay,
i'm definitely on board with the claim that the assembly should be one-another driven. But that doesn't mean people have misunderstood the word "worship" and it's inherent God-directed-ness. Rather i think it manifests that people have misunderstood the assembly and its nature.
Anyway, even if our conduct reflects this better than our rhetoric, that doesn't mean our conduct is terribly good either. Jay, wouldn't you say that CR is very one-another driven? And yet there's not really any structural allowance for that kind of one-another-ness in a traditional assembly.
The LS is ceremonial to the point of being one-another in nature only nominally. And singing is typically far more about people's tastes or visitors' impressions than about any particular need. (In fact, i don't really see evidence that singing occupied near the place of focus and prominence in the NT that it enjoys in the 21st century.)
There is a difference between saying that i assemble to get something for me and that the assembly ought to be designed so that members benefit from it. i think the latter is true, but the former is sketchy. i'm there to give and to serve. If i'm just there to get something, i'll be on the fast track to church-hopping cafeteria style.
Jay, i know that was all over the place, but just what do you think about this one thing: Shouldn't there be some sort of structural allowance in assemblies for more personal interaction? As far as a traditional assembly goes, my obedience to all the "one another" commands is indirect and strained and in a lot of ways just plain ineffective at dealing with people's needs. Shouldn't something be done about that?
–guy
Guy,
God does.
AJ,
i'm leery of language that suggests obligations to certain emotions. If my mother just died Saturday night and i'm in the assembly Sunday morning, if i'm melancholy and mournful during the singing, does that mean i've sinned or that my worship is sub-par because i'm not singing enthusiastically? What if i have a general emotional disorder? What if my marriage is in the dumps? What if i love God, believe in Christ, and sincerely affirm everything i'm singing, but i'm just plain in a bad mood?
i'm also leery of language that suggests obligations to express emotions in a certain way. A few months ago someone said to me that if our (meaning our congregation) worship was more Spirit led, then people would be more passionate. i immediately wondered, how do you know they aren't already passionate? Just because they don't express that passion the way you would or the way you expect?
This sort of pressure to feel a certain way or express a certain way or to judge the level of spiritual depth by such things was tremendously put upon me when i was a teenager going to camps and youth ralleys and teen gatherings. It did severe damage to my relationship with Christ and frankly my own emotional health and led to a lot of hypocrisy in myself and other members of my youth group with whom i grew up.
Sometimes people just aren't going to feel enthusiastic and that's okay.
–guy
I see a lot of confusion arise from misapplications of Biblical Terms.
Jay is absolutely right that the term "worship" in the New Testament is much broader and refers to our daily sacrificing ourselves and to serve orphans and widows … and … yeah, right, but almot always ignored: To stay undefiled from the world. So worship is every-day-life.
Even more interesting: Worship in the New Testament is never used for our meetings. I know some quickly point to Acts 13:1 where the word λειτουργε?ω is used for the minstry of the prophets and teachers. But I am convinced that this describes their overall attitude of their ministry and not the specific assemblies. The other two occurences of this word describe a) the OT worship of the priests (Heb 10:11) and b) the benevolence towards the needy Jerusalem church (Rom 15:27).
λατρει?α, the word for worship in Rom 12:1 is never used for a NT asembly; and θρησκει?α in Jas 1:27 is also not used for a NT assembly, but rather describes "religion" in general.
So – please – try to eliminate the term "worship" for our meeting, since this is extremely misleading. We are simply assembling as a church; it is a Christian assembly, a meeting, a time for (Acts 2:42): The teaching of the Apostles, Fellowship, Prayer and the Breaking of Bread.
Now, here we have four things we do, when we come together. We can add singing from other passages, and certainly eating together is one of the more neglected activities. Collecting money for the needy is only mentiond in 1Co 16:2 as something that was done on the 1st day of the week. I think it is debatable whether this was an "ordinance" or just because of the special need in Jerusalem.
So we can easily come up with a reasonable list of things that simply describe what ought to be done, when we come together. Some of it is horizontal, as Jay put it, some of it is vertical; but all should be done in the Name of God (Col 3:16).
I understand Jay that these things became a list of five "required " acts of "worship" in the churches of Christ. While I think it is not right to call them this way, I do affirm that we cannot let go of them either. We should speak and think differenty about them, but keep and eventually improve ore revive them. THe way this was done for instance was spirit filled and spirit led, not so much structured and ritualized as we have it today … and no one looked at the clock on the wall making sure it would not last longer than 75 minutes.
How about this approach:
One may ask: "What are you doing in your meetings on Sunday?"
Answer: "We learn more about the Apostles Teaching concerning Christ and His Kingdom, we sing songs to honor him, he break and eat bread and drink wine as a covenant sign – we remember him and become partakers of His life. We lay aside some money for the needy … and we pray for our needs and the ones of people we know, for the government and that Chrsit will return soon. And we have time for fellowship with one another."
Sounds a lot better that: "There are five acts of worship and we do all five of them (not more and not less), sow e know that what we do is acceptable worship to God." I think I got your point, Jay.
But my proposal and goal is to follow the example of the Early Church in what they did at their meeting, because I am convinced that this is the most profitable and balanced way – on one hand. On the other hand: What the churches did back then is a result of Apostolic teaching, which is sometimes spelled out in detail (1st Corinthians and 1st Timothy are examples) or sometimes just alluded to. It is part of the faith handed down to us and I believe we should not alter it. And if we've altered it already, we should let go of these alterations – but not in order to feel free to do whatever we think is fitting, but in order to return to "The Ancient Order of Things".
In my opinion the Restoration strated by the Stone Campbel movement remaind unfinished. And in some areas we also lost what had been practiced correctly 100 years ago.
Alexander
a) If we come to have a meeting as a church it is not dependent on the building or day of the week.
b) Various contributions by men or women is not (necessarily) teaching the church, but sharing and mutual edification – if one ofthe teachers and leaders of the church would give a devotion or a teaching, this would be something only men are allowed to do.
Anyway, the "ordinances" must be observed.
Alexander
Guy,
I certainly agree with you on that. it must be real, not a way of acting to be sincere.
We are the church and if three or more are in a boat and choose to share a lesson just learned from Jays blog with the boat occupants it would be proper and fine to hear what was said whether it be told by a woman or man in that floating church assembly.
Alexander,
A lot, actually a large part of what was practiced and people condemning one another about 100 years ago was tradition and not law at all and man playing one-up-man-ship to make themselves look important and a better Christian by condemning everyone else to make themselves look superior. Hopefully that is not true here.
Alexander, sometimes I wonder about the faith level of those early Christians who were able to handle the pain and suffering of martyrdom so confidently. I wonder if the current crop of Christians could bear the same circumstances?
I wonder if some of their strength wasn't through the Spirit and if they didn't receive that strengh of the Holy Spirit through or by way of their assemblies together? Then I wonder if our assemblies provide the same level of Spiritual food as theirs?
Perhaps we are singing the wrong songs or too much of only one kind of songs? We need to broaden our repetoire, I think. People are mightily blessed when we sing "Blessed be your name" or "Desert Song".
Faith that isn't really tested won't grow very strong – one coudl say.
Or faith that does not recognize its tests. Or faith that avoids the tests at hand.
How is our faith challenged in Western society?
We certainly find less problems enjoying and doing things the Early Chrsitians abstained from. Self-denial is not one ofthe key teachings today; but if we don't learn to die to self and to the world today, we won't have the strength to persevere in persecution.
Under this link you'll find an interesting video avout the Northkill Amish Massacre which took place in the 1700s in Pennsylvania. It raises the same questions, but took place not that lomg ago: http://www.elcristianismoprimitivo.com/english/no…
Alexander
Alexamder,
I was not referring to the early preachers, but those of 100 years ago as you asked.
I knew some of them from100 years ago personally and they spent the night in our home when traveling through and ate at our home table. They were young 100 years ago and were in their 50's-plus when I knew them in the late 40's up. Spent many a night sitting at the feet of Gamaliah, so to speak.