Have you ever wondered why so many denominations only take communion quarterly? It’s pretty clear that the early church took it weekly (although there’s some evidence of daily communion), and no pre-Reformation history of quarterly communion.
I can’t confirm this, but I recall reading that the Reformed Church began the practice while Calvin was the dominant figure in Geneva, Switzerland. There was no separation of church and state, and the Geneva city council voted to limit communion to quarterly events. And Calvin saw no reason to oppose their decision.
Of course, that’s what happened. It’s not why it happened. Why the change? And why did the change survive and even expand over 500 years?
Well, by the time of Calvin, the love feast had not been practiced for a thousand years. And the communion had become a symbolic meal, with tiny amounts of bread and wine. (Grape juice became commercially available much later.)
Moreover, the Geneva Calvinists were a somber lot, and so it’s easy to imagine that they spent much of their communion time in silence, staring at their shoes, trying to remember the death of Jesus. And it was boring and not nearly as uplifting as congregational singing or the sermons of John Calvin. Moreover, with a single cup (multiple cups were first used around 1892), the process could be painfully slow for a large church — and every single citizen of Geneva attended church every Sunday. It was a crime not to!
This is essentially why I think the Baptists and many other don’t care to go to a weekly communion service. If they found the Lord’s Supper uplifting, as practiced today, they would change. But they don’t.
We in the Churches of Christ try to improve the communion service by singing or having solos or playing videos during the service, and yet it has still become very much a matter of rote — going through the motions. After all, the way we do it, there is no community in communion. It’s an individual practice, between the Christian and God. We undertake a strongly individualized ritual in a room with hundreds of other people. No wonder it feels awkward!
And so I have to ask, can we do better? In fact, can we do better while being truer to First Century practice?
It would be truer to First Century practice to take the Lord’s Supper in homes — perhaps as part of the small group ministry. I’ve done this at a house church I visited, and found it very moving.
After a time of singing and prayer, the group sat around a single table to eat a meal. Soon the hostess brought out a freshly baked loaf of bread. The smell of fresh bread filled the room. Her husband spoke briefly about the meaning of the bread, and then it was passed around for all to share.
Later in the meal, a cup was filled with wine. The host spoke about the symbolism of the one cup, and the cup was passed around the room.
The meal, combined with bread and wine shared in the First Century fashion, served to create a sense of love and intimacy that is rarely felt with such intensity in a church building.
This practice could easily be adopted by small groups or zone meetings. For that matter, with some planning, the same could be done as part of a congregational covered-dish dinner.
Now, the legalism against which we all struggle wants to know whether we would have to do this at home every week, if communion in the assembly is somehow made wrong by communion at a house, whether this must be done with leavened or unleavened bread, whether wine is permissible, what others might say? … And don’t go there. Rather, ask whether this is something that might help us truly remember Jesus.
In fact, there is no sin in taking communion once at church and again at home. The Regulative Principle is truly a false doctrine and just doesn’t matter. I mean, it’s clearly okay to pray, sing, or teach twice on Sunday. Why not communion?
On Sunday or any other day !! I’m part of a small men’s bible study group.. We finished up a 12 week study of the book of John.. We shared communion at the end of the study and prayed for one another.. It was a Monday night. Some see that as apostasy. I think that’s silly and misses the point of communion in the first place… One has to wonder if “going through the motions” so that one can check it off the “must do” list is what moves the heart of God…. I doubt that seriously.. Isaiah 1 and Amos 5 pretty much confirm that God doesn’t care so much about the ritual or obedience to the law as He does about the heart of the one doing it.. There is no longer any “love” in the “love feast” for some… Think I’m wrong…just look up and grin at somebody that passes you the plate next time.. litmus test… 🙂
I get your point as to making the form connect with the intent. How far can we go with this? Let’s say some people like coke and pizza and that helps them form deeper community bonds (or so they say). I’m thinking of a youth group. Would it be alright to let them have a special communion service at youth meetings that involves coke and pizza in lieu of old folks communion?
I guess the question I’m asking is whether there is a Biblical pattern on the form of it all and if so what is it?
I have always understood it to be weekly observance with grape juice (fruit of the vine) and unleavened bread.
I suppose you may be thinking that I’m asking the wrong question, but I think Jay poses some thought provoking ideas, but I just wonder how far one can take this. This relates to his comments about legalism and the Regulative Principle.
In his book Come To The Table, John Mark Hicks presents wonderful insights about the Lord’s Supper. One of the most important ones to me was the fact that the Bible presents the Lord’s Supper as taking place at a table, not an altar. It’s not the sacrifice; it’s the celebration after the sacrifice. And who sits around a table without making eye contact, without interacting, without sharing?
I think the loss of a table attitude was one of the biggest blows to the Lord’s Supper.
[P.S.—I do wonder how anyone using the Regulative Principle can allow for grape juice while insisting on unleavened bread.]
My opinion is that the Lord’s Supper consists of sharing a meal during which bread and wine (or a similar fruit of the vine drink) is served just as Jay describes was done in one home he visited. And that it was done in homes in Jerusalem in the early days of the church is apparent. It is never in apostolic writings spoken of as a ritual or ceremony consisting of ONLY bread and wine. And particularly not a sip of wine and a bit of bread!
Paul’s exhortation to the Corinthian church about misuse of eating together should convince every reader that he was urging them to continue to eat together, but that those especially hungry should not come to the assembly still especially hungry but should eat at home and then share the meal with others, all eating normally. Some were drinking and becoming drunk. Some were eating “like a hog” so that late comers had no food. This misuse of the LORD’S SUPPER was condemned.
Ray. I appreciate your statement re the misuse of the Supper that was rebuked. Let’s not throw out the baby with the bath because someone overheated the water!
As long ago as 1973 I remember saying to one congregation that our desire “to take communion without distraction” would be better realized if we had isolation booths instead of pews. My opinion on that has not changed in the 41 years since.
Jay, when you had communion in the small group, was it with one cup or many? Or was it one cup divided into several? If the latter, did the division come before or after the prayer? (Believe it or not, all of these have been questions for discussion in some circles!)
BTW, has anyone experienced serving communion to the entire congregation on a Sunday evening instead of just to those not present in the am? When acting as “server” I always partake with those served, even though I’ve already “checked my box” earlier? Am I unique in this, or do others do likewise?
Jerry, I did the very same thing when I was a teenager. I don’t recall my exact thinking at the time, but it always seemed to me that supper was something you shared, not medicine you had to take because you missed your dose earlier. My thinking probably wasn’t any more complex at the time. Shucks, it probably isn’t much more complex now…
This has always been a memorial service even while taking it at a supper of regular food. Some early on even drank actual blood of humans and animals to represent Jesus blood.
Today we do not use blue or green grape juice but always red to represent Jesus blood. Unleavened bread to be the actual body of Jesus.
The thinkjng of only having the Lords Supper one time on Sunday is in the bible it was only served “when they all came together” That can be any time on Sunday. This was the teaching of the church of Christ for many years and followed religiously until the computers and internet took over and caused questioning everything it seems.
I wonder where we are headed and what will be practiced in later years? Will we (roll over in our graves) like the ones I know that have died in their beliefs they followed so closely in the church of Christ at the goings on and teachings of those doing the teaching and questioning in 20-30 years?.
I can’t get the feeling we are being disrespectful of our dead elders and all those gone before us out of my mind as even more importantly, out of my heart.
Who looks forward to seeing them and telling them how dumb wrong they were while on earth.
Doing things a little differently can wake one up from a routine. It can be encouraging or shocking depending on how much different. I also firmly believe that if our tradition/routine was singing or out loud praying or watching video, then many would be calling for a time of meditation in our worship for that would help us personally think about God and Jesus and their love for us.
If it was only done once,when did the sunday evening opportunity come into existence, and why ?
If I had taken the communion in the morning and was offering it to those in the evening, I never took it again, I guess it was out of fear of being sent to hell for it or just tradition.
The grape juice and cracker is a symbol, a symbol of fellowship in Jesus Christ, and a small recoqnization of what he did for us. Simply said it should bring to mind the sacrifice God made on our behalf.
I don’t know of many if any churches that fit the description below.
2Co 13:11 Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you.
2Co 13:12 Greet one another with an holy kiss.
2Co 13:13 All the saints salute you.
2Co 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.
(fellowship in the spirit)
When serving in the evening, I also give comments as full as in the morning. One thing I stress is that Jesus didn’t say “Remember my death,” but Remember me.” When we forget his life to make our remembrance into a funereal ritual, we have not remembered him. Is his death a part of remembering him? Of course it is. But it’s not all of what he meant when he said, “Do this in remembrance of me.”
Laymond, I wholeheartedly endorse your comment above.
The bread and wine were supposed to feed the soul. I have not heard that in a long time. Part of the Eucharist in high church tradition is being told that the host was given for you as was the blood.
Mark,
I’ve been in the very same place — but it communion is a “meal” — how rude is it to ask people to eat alone or to refuse to eat with those who do? I mean, the whole dynamic shifts when we change from “ritual that must be done exactly right on penalty of damnation” to “a meal that feeds the soul.”
Price,
I think it was hospitals and doctors and nurses who had to take Sunday shifts to heal the sick. That and swing shifts and 7-day work schedules at factories. People couldn’t make the morning service, perhaps for months or even years. It was an accommodation – and far better than telling people they are going to hell for taking on shift work.
Rich W —
Meditation can be a good thing — but I just don’t think it’s what the Lord’s Supper was intended to provide. (More in the next two posts.)
AJ wrote,
I have two grandchildren. Hope to have more. And if they need to change what I and my generation have done to be truer to God’s word and intent, they have my blessing. I’d be a little miffed if they did otherwise. They should worship Jesus, not me and not my generation.
The Reformation had a slogan: semper reformada — always reforming. Amen. I’ve only scratched the surface in my studies. I hope all of our children and grandchildren keep learning, keep going deeper, and always feel free to change as their study and prayers direct them.
Jerry,
It was one cup. Very true to the Gospels. And I’ve never experienced a Sunday night communion where all the congregation participated. Although I can see a pretty good argument for that. And I’ve known a few to take communion a second time as server and a few who did not. But does seem rude to share a “meal” and not invite all present to participate.
Tim,
The communion was instituted at Passover, in which unleavened bread was used, and so the example of Jesus is binding and excludes all else.
The Gospels are silent about the presence of alcohol, giving us freedom to choose what kind of “fruit of the vine” although we know it was grapes because it was Passover and they drank wine.
Got it? Don’t make me say it twice!
Justin asked,
Cheeky response: Far more community is formed over pizza and Coke than over a crumb and a sip in dead silence.
Much truer response: Rejecting the Regulative Principle does not mean disobeying. It means not finding prohibitions in silences. Hence, Noah really should use gopher wood (having been specified) but he can use any brand of hammer he wishes (not specified). Nadab and Abihu must use the fire from the altar (commanded) and not other (strange fire). Nor should they disrespect the holy by doing the services drunk. And I would definitely carry the ark of the covenant on poles so it doesn’t tip over (commanded) and tempt someone to touch it contrary to the Torah.
But “sing” only means “sing” and so I agree that we should sing — but “sing” only excludes doing something other than singing (such as “not singing” or playing drums instead of singing). And approved examples authorize but do not bind.
But our freedom is constrained by looking at the real purpose behind these holy things (and we should definitely revere them as holy). We may only do those things that honor God’s intentions. This is a far cry from seeking out rules inferred from inferences discovered only 500 years ago. It requires trying to understand the heart of God and the passions of Jesus and why what was done was done — without starting over entirely. After all, what the scriptures teach us is for a reason — it’s for our instruction to help us better understand what all this is about. And CENI does nothing toward that end.
Hence, bread and “fruit of the vine” are mandatory (where available — but in mission fields, for example, other elements may have to be substituted with great sensitivity to what the substitutions mean in that culture — Welch’s and grape wine are not universal on this planet). But may we add an entire meal to the Lord’s Supper? Well, Jesus did. So did the early church. And they talked and remembered Jesus and shared their lives and grew in love in community rather than staring at their feet in stone cold silence. Meditation is not bad but it’s not the purpose of communion (which means “fellowship” or “sharing” or “community” or “partnership” and not “silent meditation”).
@ AJ… My guess is that those who’ve gone on before us already know exactly where they may have not been perfect….and that they’re safe in Christ… My guess is that they’d LOVE to come back down and tell us how dumb and stupid WE ARE !! LOL
Jay,
In a couple of comments, you mention that it would be rude to have a meal in your home and exclude a visitor in your home from participating in the meal. I agree and John Mark Hicks, in Come to the Table, makes the same point, in particular as it relates to children. Based on that, along with some other thoughts I have about children, in our family, we now allow our children to take communion with us when they are present. Though they are very young (3 and 6), we whisper in their ears about Jesus’s sacrifice and resurrection and why we do this.
As an anecdote, the last time our kids were with us when communion was served was when we were visiting family a couple of weeks ago to attend the funeral of my children’s great grandmother. As we talked about Jesus’s death, my son asked about his great-grandmother and it presented a wonderful opportunity to talk about resurrection and how we hope (expect) to see her again in Heaven.
However, I remember asking to take communion as a child and being told no until I had been baptized. Because of that upbringing, I still feel a little conscious when I allow my children to take communion with me, though I feel it less and less as it happens more frequently. It puzzled me then and still puzzles me now how we can put a dollar in our kid’s hand to put in the collection tray, but they may not take a bite of cracker or a sip of juice. If our kids are expected to participate in the worship assembly, shouldn’t they be full participants?
When we go back and look at Exodus and the first Passover, we must notice that one of the purposes of reenacting it as a memorial is the opportunity it presents to teach the children about God’s powerful work to redeem Israel out of Egypt. God tells the people how to respond when their children ask them about the purpose of the meal. To this day, an important part of the Seder is the interaction between the young and old and the recitation of the story of the Exodus.
Jay, as you do this series, I hope that you will address the idea of who may “sit at the table”. Not only from a closed/open communion viewpoint, but also from the viewpoint of inviting our very young, unbaptized children to eat with us and to allow the meal, symbolic or full, to be a moment of instruction for our children.
Jay,
do you think those that come after us seeing our changing from what we were taught by Elders and followed will point their fingers at us at judgment and call us in damning error? I don’t and call it available light among other things! Just to hit you a lick !!!!! So glad you’re back.
Price,
Now that is an answer I appreciate and agree with!!!
Thanks!
Jerry,
around here theones that missed Sunday regular services go in a seperate room after services on Sunday night to partake.
Also in some churches a few raise their hand on Sunday night and its taken to them only while the rest sit quietly.
Both these are pretty new since not having it at all on Sunday night was the norm.
Brian B,
I agree that if communion were served as part of a real meal, it would be unthinkable to exclude children and visitors. It’s just a matter of explaining to those present that, to those Christians present, the elements carry a special meaning. They aren’t holy. Rather, they are a reminder — as the Passover was. Therefore, to a non-Christian, bread is bread and wine is wine. Why not serve them? But to Christians, there’s a memory bound up in the elements that needs to be recalled in community. The visitors hear the presentation but don’t have the memory that the Christians have — but they hear about it. They are included as beloved friends, and because of that, they hear the story of Jesus. And they aren’t excluded because they are unbelievers. They just don’t have something in common that the believers share — not the bread by the story of Jesus and their own stories of Jesus as they’ve walked with him over the years.
Hey, Jesus rose from the dead. Communion is not a funeral service. Sure, he was crucified, but he is alive. The scripture says they ate together with GLAD and sincere hearts, not in silence.
Regarding the bread and wine: people living in the arctic circle in the 1500s didn’t have wheat and didn’t have grapes. (Do I have to ask the obvious question?)
“Can Laplanders be saved?”
“Can folks living in frigid climates be saved?” Yes, of course, and they can share communion by using whatever the liquid is that is served for their meal and whatever “bread” is served with their meal. Jesus picked common foods to serve to remind us of His love: bread and wine. The “bread and wine” of any community will serve as memorials if we love Him and wish to honor Him. As for being baptized in a frigid climate, it will take warmed water rather than ice or ice water in which to obey the command to baptize each NEW believer.
Should try to have a red liquid to represent and remind us of His blood and plain bread of some kind if possible. Seen it done with c ration crackers from the 40’s and red kool aid type of liquid
God looks at the intent and heart.
Never known of a person even getting a cold from being baptized.