The Internet Monk Research Division, headquartered in the Internet Monk compound deep beneath the Boar’s Head Tavern here in the mecca of post-evangelicalism, St. Sadies, Maryland, has been conducting a research project. With the completion of extensive research conducted at the highest levels of professional standards, it’s now time to reveal the results to a world waiting to know the answers to a burning question:
Why won’t Baptists celebrate the Lord’s Supper more often than the average of four times a year?
Less than 20% of Southern Baptist churches have communion more frequently than four to five times a year. The weekly communion practiced by British Baptist Charles Spurgeon is rarer than an actual sighting of someone using the Holman Christian Standard Bible.
Christmas. Easter. Two or three other times a year. There’s no excuse too small to discourage Baptists from having communion. Inquiring minds want to know: in a denomination that talks about Biblical inerrancy and authority, why do so few Southern Baptists read the passages in Acts on “breaking bread in their homes†as meaning what they obviously mean: frequent communion?
Southern Baptists are sticklers for doing what the Bible says, right down to the point of taking up arms. Yet on this subject, thousands of Baptist ministers and scholars know what the Bible says and respond with a big shrug.
We sent our researchers into the streets, back roads, megachurches, hollers and storefront church start-ups to get the answers, and here they are: Why don’t Southern Baptists celebrate the Lord’s Supper more often?
1. “We don’t want to be too catholic.â€
Excuse me, but there’s about as much chance of your average Southern Baptist church coming off as “catholic†as there is of the iMonk being invited to be the next guest blogger at teampyro. I’ll be purchasing a corporate box at Yankee Stadium when anyone mistakes Dry Creek Baptist for Mary Help of All Christians.
I can’t see Deacon Smith leaning over to his wife during communion and saying “When was the last time we went to confession?â€
If the fact that Catholics take weekly communion ought to put a church on its toes for creeping papist tendencies, then post this list of other items to be put on careful watch: sermons, offerings, prayer, singing, hymns, organs, saying amen, reading the Bible, bingo.
Ok. You can take the bingo off the list. But keep an eye on the rest. They could be trouble.
Seriously, preachers, this sounds like a line from a Monty Python episode. No one is deciding whether you are going Catholic based on your version of the Lord’s Supper. I’ve been to a few Masses and a few Baptist Lord’s Suppers, and you can relax. No one is going to get confused unless they are having a massive cranial bleedout.
What did the research department find was the #2 answer to the question “Why don’t Baptists celebrate the Lord’s Supper more often?â€
2. “If we do it more often, it won’t be as special.â€
I’d love to see the response of these preachers if their wives came up with that line regarding sex. “I’m sorry sweetheart. More than once every three months would make it so much less special.”
Weekly preaching, weekly offerings, weekly invitations, weekly musical entertainment, weekly Sunday School……somehow these Baptist essentials have survived frequent use without being sucked dry of all meaning. Is communion just too fragile?
I’ve been to Southern Baptist communion services and, while some are “special,†some are “not special.†Some have all the majesty and mystery of standing in line at Wal-Mart. If we’re keeping things special, we could do a better job.
Most of those in Baptist life that want more frequent communion would be thrilled to have it once a month. Would communion 12 times a year make it so common we’d all have to be forced to come?
“Communion again. We just had it four weeks ago. Commune, commune, commune. It’s all we do around here.â€
And in the number three spot, a preacher’s special.
3. “I don’t want to give up the sermon time.â€
I’ve heard this one myself, uttered with a straight face and no clown make-up. The markdown from 45 minutes to 30 minutes more than 4 times a year was such a threat to the preacher’s ministry that the Lord’s Supper will just have to take a back seat.
At one deacon’s meeting, I heard a deacon ask when was the last time the church had the Lord’s Supper. He couldn’t recall. I wanted to say, “Why don’t we just say that we take the Lord’s Supper so infrequently that you’ll never need to worry about having to actually know what it means. Why don’t we just call it, “that other thing we do†and do it once every five years?â€
Southern Baptists know they are wrong on this issue. They know the Bible isn’t describing Quakerism in the books of Acts and I Corinthians. They know Spurgeon wasn’t crazy. They know they’ve erred and they need to make it right. Pastors who will never admit there’s no mention of Mother’s Day in the Bible know that communion once every 12 weeks is ridiculous.
We don’t need anyone to write a big book and we don’t need to have a big cry. We need to schedule communion once a month and design our corporate worship to emphasize and explain it as the New Covenant passover.
It’s a small thing with a huge potential impact. If someone objects, ignore them. They’re wrong. You won’t go catholic, it won’t lose its “specialness,†(as if any more could be done than we’ve already done to demean it) and pastors will survive with 15 minutes less preaching each month.
The whole flock will be fed, strengthened and reaffirmed. The scripture will be obeyed. Jesus Christ will be remembered and we will fellowship in his death and life.
Get started.
On “breaking bread in their homes” why do we think the only place to do it is in the church? Why be on their time schedule? Seems pretty Romish to think only a priest/pastor can “officiate” the Lord’s Supper.
But maybe I’m missing something…
4. “Clean-up”
Nobody will volunteer to clean up all those little glass cups that the deacon chairman’s great-grandparents donated to the church and that have to be hand washed because that’s how they did it back during the Depression.
Michael,
Funny and poignant post.
In the international (and multi-denominational) church we started here in Kuala Lumpur, I’ve tried to manage this issue by having Communion bi-monthly on Sunday mornings and encouraging home groups to observe it in the intervening month. So potentially people could participate monthly — and alternately in large and small settings.
Have you heard the argument that since Passover was only once a year, that Communion should be annually also? I suppose that since Jesus didn’t specify the frequency, we’re left to discern by His Spirit the interpretation of His words, “as often as you do this…”
Blessings from SE Asia…
I left a baptist church where it was done almost every month, and ended up at a brethren church where it was done every week. Currently in my journey, the Lord’s supper is pretty much the only spiritual experience that has any meaning left for me, and I’m now a part of a community that doesn’t really celebrate it at all. On occasion, I’ll drop into a local Episcopal assembly just to experience it again.
So two weeks ago, about a dozen of us were out for pizza after our Sunday morning meeting, and I bought a bag Mediterranean pita bread and a $2 bottle of red wine from the supermarket next door, and we shared the Lord’s table on an outdoor patio of a pizza parlor. I’m not much for using emotional validation, but it felt about as right as anything can.
Great post!
Great post! Too Catholic, the very idea. It would help the average So. Baptist to be a little more Catholic. As for losing it’s value; it sounds like it’s not special at ALL given it’s curent practice. Being a former So. Bapt. myself, I’d love for the pastor to relinquish 15 or more minutes EVERY week to releave some of the pain we endure[d]. Honoring our Lord and procaliming His death until He comes would be a good way to spread the Gospel and rescue the congregation from the all too prevalent narcissistic EISegetes inhabiting the average pulpit in the So. Baptist churches.
Have you ever read ‘The Failure of the American Baptist Culture”? It’s here:
http://www.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/21ce_47e.htm
I’m glad I found your site. Same cheeky tone I write with! We’ve got the same basic premise too: while you’re Internet Monk, I’m at My Hermitage.
Will keep reading, it’s very good stuff!
Thanks Michael for the thoughtful post. I’ve read as you’ve talked about liturgy and your personal preferences for a more “orthodox” worship style. I’m filing this in that bucket.
I’m a pastor of one of those 5-6 times a year Baptist churches. Hopefully, people don’t experience a need for 15 minute shorter sermons and long for more Lord’s Suppers.
We center our worship on the Word expressed in the reading of it and the teaching of it. If I recall correctly, that’s been the pattern since the Reformation.
So I don’t know I’m wrong, and I don’t know any other Southern Baptist pastor that’s convinced of that either.
When I come to the table, I’m not looking for mystery or majesty either. Jesus instituted this at a common meal with the elements he had on hand, that were at every common meal. It’s symbolic, a remembrance. You will not be wowed by the observance at most Baptist churches. And for the vast majority of us, that’s exactly what we intend. Took me 7 years to get the tablecloth off. The whole folding of it like a flag at Arlington cemetery was too much. It’s a simple time, devoid of all the trappings that Rome has added.
As to the comments that followed, yes, in an area that’s over a quarter Catholic, I would be concerned by anything that people saw as leaning their way. There are huge differences in what we believe that cannot be papered over. (Besides, the pope would just rip the paper off.)
We’ll just have to disagree. That’s why we have different denominations.
Could a pot-luck in fact be closer to Biblical communion than a few hundred people taking a “shot” of grape juice and a sliver of bread?
Was Jesus’ emphasis on the fellowship or the elements?
I agree communion is lacking in a great number of churches, but I’m not sure passing juice and wafers during more Sunday services is the answer.
In our last deacon/staff meeting we talked about this very thing. Our pastor brought up the topic of doing the Lord’s Supper more often…possibly even weekly. I am personally in favor of this, but it will be interesting to see how it all turns out. Concering the supper itself, I am not too thrilled with the stale crackers. I think that it misses symbolism about Jesus’ body being broken. I think that a loaf of bread should be used and then broken into little pieces. I guess someone would probably raise hygenic issues to that.
I have been working my way through Leviticus before I begin seminary this fall, and was struck by the concept of the sacrificial offering. Though Jesus gave the once-for-all sacrifice and sat down as Chief High Priest afterwards (thanks Hebrews 10!), I am intrigued by the idea of the physical sacrifice that God once demanded from us for our sins. I saw for the first time that it was the sacrificer who slaughtered the lamb/goat/bull for their own sins and presented it to the priest to sacrifice before the Lord. That means people had a physical representation and reminder of the consequences of their sin and offense to YHWH.
While I certainly do not propose breaking out the levitical sacrifice, I really, really deep down think now after reading and meditating through this section of Leviticus that communion can be that very physical reminder of our sin, it’s consequences and the beauty of Jesus’ sacrifice. After attending an Episcopal gone Anglican (CANA) church for a year and a half and experiencing regular communion, I feel a huge disservice is done to followers of Jesus who’s faith communities do not regularly provide space for reflecting upon and experiencing the rite of holy communion that this Jesus-provided mystery offers…
my 2 bits,
-jeremy
I grew up taking communion weekly, and it was always extremely meaningful. Ironically, now that I’m at a church where we only partake of the Lord’s Supper once a month, it seems to be less impactful.
The – “too catholic” line of reasoning seems to me to point to some lack of security, even more – lack of confidence. Are they so scared of Rome that they stay away from everything, not only those things that are problematic?
If celebrating the Lord’s Supper weekly endagers your “protestantism”, you’ve got deeper problems…
Note to David Wilson: both Luther and Calvin firmly believed in celebrating the Lord’s Supper on a weekly basis; Calvin pushed hard for that in Geneva, but could never get the city fathers to get off the “too Catholic” line–he had to settle for monthly. The pattern of the Reformation is “Word *and* sacrament”; this once-in-a-blue-moon pattern doesn’t grow from that root.
Jeremy, my “conversion” to understanding the Lord’s Supper as the central act of Christian worship also came from the Old Testament, and more specifically, reading the New Testament with Old Testament presuppositions. (If the New Testament is not read in this way, I do not see why we would even leave the Old in our Bibles, just throw it aut a la Marcion.
That’s why while I once thought as Brett does, that everything in the New Testament should be read as informal and anti-liturgical, I now believe exactly the opposite. All worship, both true and defiled, throughout history has been centered on sacrifice: Canaanite worship, Aztec worship, Hebrew worship, and yes, Christian worship. Since the sacrifice around which Christian worship is “once and for all”, it remains for Christian worship to keep its once-for-all sacrifice central through remembrance and representation – and the Lord is clear in the New Testament that the way he has devised for this to be done is through the Christian passover, the Lord’s Supper.
Now, I do believe that Brett has a point, which is that the ritual of the Lord’s supper can be incorporated into a much larger feast. The early church did this. The bread and wine were consecrated and consumed as part of a larger meal, the “Agape Feast.” It wasn’t, however, as informal as the modern potluck. Again, the passover meal is the guide and the passover meal is not at all “informal” in the sense that it has a very clear and definite “form” which is followed.
Practicing weekly communion can be simple. There is no rule which states that the more often we participate in the Body and Blood of Christ (see I Cor. 10) the more elaborate the ritual must be. I better stop now before I ramble. . .
Actions follow theology, even unconsciously. Since Baptists don’t think anything happens in the Eucharist, they’ll never do it more than minimally, and even that just in order to check it off the list of obediances.
No group of people will ever do anything very much which has no significance. Since getting “saved” is the only thing that has significance in the Baptist church, and the Eucharist has no connection with getting saved, it is a mathematical certainty that it will shrivel to minimal.
You can’t build a high church style on a Baptist soteriology. Not for long.
How could earlier Baptists have done it? It took a generation for the high church flower to shrivel after the soteriological roots were pruned.
I believe a great deal of Baptist practice or lack there of comes from their theology of sacraments. i believe they would call it an ordinance. They see the word “remember” as a recall of facts. The biblical concept of memory, especially corporate, sacred memory is a reliving and participation in the original event. That’s why Jews are still celebrating Passover 4000 years later, even very secular ones.
I remember a candid conversation with the pastor of a large and well known Baptist church who admitted that the Lord’s Supper was just something that they endured once a month but no one really looked forward to it. That is the legacy of a memorial that is a mere recollection of facts rather than an eschatological moment to be entered into.
After reading Michael’s post, I almost feel fortunate. In my current church, and the churches I’ve attended in the past, the practice was to celebrate the Lord’s Supper on a monthly basis. I’ve long thought that wasn’t often enough, but now that I hear other churches practice Communion even less frequently I realize I ought to feel grateful.
I was intrigued that some pastors gave for not practicing the Lord’s Supper more often the rationale that to do so would render it less special. It occurs to me that if the pastors really thought it was special/worthwhile/beneficial/meaningful, they would practice it more often. That they don’t suggests that they don’t think it very special at all.
In the spirit of full disclosure, my church has Communion about 14-15 times per year (once a month plus a few special occasions that don’t necessarily appear on that calendar you bought at Walmart).
David, your statement that “in an area that’s over a quarter Catholic, I would be concerned by anything that people saw as leaning their way” is troubling. While I won’t claim knowledge of how often your church should observe it, this statement puts the perception — not even knowledge — of at-best-imperfect or at-worst-unregenerate man (who the Bible describes as blind) above the direction of God. I would be more concerned about what God knew than what some goofball down the road thought.
Gary, re: stale crackers / loaf of bread. At the risk of coming off as regulatory, please recall that Communion is born of the Passover meal. Before Passover, the Israelites were commanded to bust their butts to be sure that all leaven was purged from the house. In Scripture (both OT and NT), leaven is representative of sin. Now I’m not saying that you should throw away that loaf on bread that’s in the kitchen cabinet before you observe Communion. But to have the Lord’s Supper with leavened bread strikes me as misrepresentative.
Maye we should dispatch a committee to the RCC and let them know they may be doing a few things that might be interpreted as “going Baptist.”
Brendt,
In the interest proper regulatory representation, how do you feel about wine vs. grape juice? I have had freshly baked unleavened bread for communion and it is much preferable to a stale cracker. Was that loaf of unleavened bread we had not called a loaf?
Michael, too funny!
I was thinking even more about this and it really makes sense given the architecture of the buildings and services: they are word not sacramental.
A few years ago ago a friend of mine clued me into this when he was sharing some things he learned from a religion and architecture class he had in college. He was sharing how anglican/episcopalian and I think RCC churches have a sacramental architecture because everything about the building points toward the altar, where the sacraments are blessed, remembered and distributed. Whereas “bible-believing” churches like SBC/non-denom churches are built around the pulpit and the spoken word.
And the same is true for the architect of the service, at least in my experience in the Episcopal/Anglican service (and RCC?), everything about it was building to the communal experience of the holy sacraments. Not true in the services of baptist, non-denom, etc… They revolve around the preaching of the Bible; everything about the service points toward the spoken word.
Now I say this not to set communion over and against the sermon. But from my perspective, the sunday gathering (or saturday or friday or whenever the “event” happens) is about re-capturing out identity as followers of Jesus as a tribe and community of the Son of God. So my question is: should we re-discover that identity in a speech or a remembrance experience of the sacrifice of Jesus? And I hesitate to throw out us finding our identity on the Bible, but I wonder if that’s what God desires…
more thoughts,
-jeremy
A “doing†of the Lord’s Supper less infrequently, baptist or other denomination (e.g. PCA), in order to ‘make it more special’ reveals a tremendous problem in modern American Christian churches:
1. A non-sacramental means of grace under pinning (mere memorial) regardless of what is confessed (action here revealing the truth in spite of confession); and 2. That the meal becomes no Gospel but works, which is in line with viewing it as ordinance rather than Gospel or means of grace. So, then, the power is seen (falsely I might add) in the “making it special†to the emotions by infrequency, works and one’s ability to ‘must up from within’ the memory for the memorial. Rather than the power being in the bread and wine as the Word of Gospel is given to it and used by the Holy Spirit to strengthen, sustain and help faith. But only the eyes of faith will actually see and receive this. It is no mystery these many decades now of this that trying to make it special by the works of man (memorial and infrequency) it falls away over time and becomes exactly the opposite, not more special but nearly if not entirely (depending upon the congregation) nothing at all. Since grace and Gospel (means of grace/sacrament) are removed from it, there is nothing “special†about it at all and so we find in these same churches new inventions seeking what was lost, not knowing or refusing to believe you lost it the way you lost it, reducing the supper to a memorial/ordinance of infrequent use. The “ordinance†view and memorial view are not biblical as much as they are just anti-Rome. Over steering, they wreck the car on the other side of the street to avoid Rome’s accident on the opposing side of the street.
If one needs blood pressure medicine or cholesterol lowering medicine for their health, you cannot make these medicines more “special†by taking them less frequently as if their healing properties are enhanced by your flip flopping emotions and giddy excitement. In fact to do so in the realm of medicine reveals the complete foolishness of this, much more the sacraments/means of grace as in the Lord’s Supper. One has to wonder why a Christian gets “bored†in the first place of hearing as wine is given every Sunday, “The blood of Christ given FOR YOUR SINSâ€. Such a Christian must think they are really working their way to heaven and improving much, at least in their own estimation. You could at LEAST respect a Christian stricken by his/her sins who wanted more frequency than weekly understanding the need, but less frequency reveals the same old stumbling stone and the same old eschewing of the shame of the Cross of Christ, this time in the Lord’s Supper rather than the Word alone.
What is failed to be seen is the that the bread as the body of Christ and the wine as the blood of Christ presented before the believer to see, touch and eat is: 1. That a body, Jesus’, was sacrificed and 2. The blood of the Lamb of God was actually shed…this blood that fulfills the old covenant of works FOR ME/YOU. IF that doesn’t encourage the faith of the believer and free one from works, then one doesn’t really know one’s need at all.
Larry – KY
Very interesting discussion. For the record, I trotted out the Reformation card not to embrace all of it. I’m a Baptist and no friend of Calvin or Luther, and not technically a protestant though we get lumped in there. And since I consider Catholicism a defective church with flawed ecclesiology, soteriology etc., I’ll not apologize for not wanting to appear Catholic in any way. I’m sure the pope would feel the same way about appearing too Baptist.
And yes, it is an ordinance. Just a remembrance. Nothing more than that… unless the Holy Spirit chooses to use it to touch hearts. We’ve used soda crackers, communion wafers, matzo wafers – I’ve even heard of youth guys using oreos and kool-aid.
Maybe we should just do it once a year like Passover and have love-feasts of fried chicken and green beans every Sunday. Might be more biblical.
Tim Smith is incorrect to say that Baptists don’t think anything happens at the Lord’s Supper. Like most evangelicals, Baptists regard it as a “remembrance” where the worshipper reflects on the completed sacrifice, not a “reenactment” where God mystically imparts something to the worshipper. And should anyone think that calling something “symbolic” instead of sacramental somehow diminishes the worth of the ritual, try burning an American flag at a VFW gathering. The fact that the veterans recognize the flag as “symbolic” doesn’t diminish its significance. In fact, the flag’s significance is found precisely in what it symbolizes. Just so with the Lord’s Supper.
As to frequency, why is the Acts phrase “breaking bread in their homes†reduced to just once a week in most of the comments on this page? If it’s right that Baptists aren’t reflecting this kind of frequency in quarterly observance, neither is any other congregation that limits Communion to once a week on Sunday morning. The line in Acts refers to anytime they were together, so what about your midweek services? What about before board meetings? What about when the small-group meets around a member’s pool?
I’m settled with Christ’s words (as Paul refers to them in 1 Cor. 11): “As often as you do it.” Seems to cover the range of whatever someone considers the “proper” frequency. (For the record, our congregation celebrates Communion every 4-6 weeks on the Sundays we welcome new members to the Family.)
Michael,
Some Catholics actually think that having Bible studies, evangelism, and being disciples are going Protestant. . (Those who think and write that way dislike enthusiastic adult converts.)
We need to pull things apart a bit so as there being no confusion, for the goal here is always for faith not against it. It is a means of grace. I think the real problem lay in the fact that the Law is not being preached and/or heard by many Christians today. Many really don’t know their need. They don’t sense that continuous feeding upon Christ because they are today as much as yesterday still sinners, even worse. They reduce “justification†to a one time event and mere formality of entrance. Justification is once, but the state of being for the Christian is continuously within that tension 100% sinner and 100% saint. The Christian can confess with Paul as they grow that they are seeing themselves as worse sinners not getting better. This paradox of seeing one’s self as worse and more and more clinging to Christ is the humbling paradox in which real growth occurs, but it doesn’t look like growth as the world perceives “spiritual growthâ€.
Means of Grace: For to hear “this blood shed FOR YOU†attached to the wine and “this body broken for you†is the very communication of the grace that makes it means of grace whereby the Spirit has been promised to work, strengthened and increase faith. To deny this to it is to deny the Gospel and Christ altogether. No grace would be communicated if, for example, someone comes up to a person hands him a piece of fish and says, “here this meat is given for your brain functionâ€. No grace is communicated there and the elements, fish meat, where not ordered. Now, it is an ordinance but not an ordinance in the sense of law. It does not “prove your faithâ€, such faith is false faith. Rather it is an ordinance that “orders†if you will the Gospel FOR your faith. It is like the doctor who orders your prescription for your life sustaining medicine. It is an ordinance, the prescription, but its ends is unto you’re the medicine for your health. How stupid a man would be to think that “by obeying the doctor, since it is an ordinance, and getting the medicine by this order, I proof my faithfulness to the doctor and that heals me.†Rather it is the medicine that heals and gives life. We are commanded to give the Gospel, an ordinance. But that command is not the power nor the life, the message, the Good News is. The message is literally in every sense life eternal. The order to do it in reality does nothing, the message is the miracle, it is literally God calling into being that which was not before, namely faith.
The reason a sacrament appears to not be a means of grace to many and they so deny it, is exactly the same reason unbelievers can hear the Gospel and deny it walking away. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with the message, but the flesh is so resisting the holy Spirit, that very message literally is thrown off by them as if it is filth. Now that’s not saying said believers are unbelievers, but they do themselves harm by not believing the sacrament is a means of grace. It’s self inflicted to their detriment. It really really really does take faith to receive the sacraments as means of grace, you literally have to trust it and receive it as Christ for you. If you don’t you are literally like wise unbelieving as far as the means of grace are concerned in say the Lord’s Supper. One or the other is true, there is no middle ground to be had. One man believes it and is fed Christ and his faith grows and emboldens, another man refuses to believe it and is not fed and his faith does not grow but rather the flesh does.
Now that being said the great tragedy of our time is that too many have thrown away literally this manna from heaven not so much because they are trying to be openly rebellious, but rather are listening to the devil’s deception. It is like this: the devil has labeled for some the bread and wine as far as it is a means of grace to be “Poisonâ€. That is the very idea of it being literally a means of grace whereby the Holy Spirit truly works faith is considered so Roman Catholic, the real poison, that any idea of it being means of grace is equivalent to it being poison for death rather than food for life. Thus, they cannot take the Lord’s Supper as a means of grace for to do so would be to enter into or tantamount to taking “poison†and thus they do not so take it (as means of grace), and it really doesn’t do much for them if anything at all. But in reality the devil has made it poison to them, yet they think it to be food. Rome gave all the power to the elements of bread and wine, which was poison and wrong, it lost the import of the Word of Gospel this way, where the power and the Spirit lay. But the later groups such as Anabaptist attributed nothing at all to the elements, rendering it as nothing at all.
The flag analogy or similar memorial analogies completely fail because the Holy Spirit has not been promised to human memorials, but to the message of the Cross and the institutions, the sacraments, to which this message is given. The US flag as a memorial may indeed engender a bravado, but bravado is not faith. Faith is a suffering receiving instrument.
Which leads to how real saving faith grows by suffering. It suffers in tension of the contraries of this life where it appears that God abandons us as a people or individually. When for example your sins seem to never get better but worse and you suffer and cry out wondering has God abandoned me, thinking where is the grace and power. This is actually faith crying out for it is by this kind of suffering, the appearance of God hidden to you, not giving you some precious power to ‘be better’ FOR the very reason of faith. Literally only then is grace grace to you, this is how one grows in true saving faith and grace; the breaking down and burning up in suffering of the prideful essence of the fallen man to be so good and better before God…reduced to nothing, the real sinner not the pretend sinner so that now the believer is called into being who nakedly sufferingly clings to the grace and mercy of God found at the Cross of Christ. But it is a rub against the flesh for it is infinitely embarrassing for me/you to confess that I am a real sinner, NOW and not just in some misty pre-conversion fanciful theoretical past (which is tantamount to confessing one’s self to not be a sinner) – such a real sinner that God on high had to come down and suffer, be beaten, crucified, rise again and STILL intercede for me. That’s a real justified sinner who stays in that continuity until death. Corporately this works too for the church in which it appears that the church is failing and the world winning, again we cry out, “where is Godâ€. We long for the power but the real power lay in the suffering that clings to the Cross. To be HAD by the Cross, owned by it, IS true saving faith and nothing else. Faith that tries to “prove itself†is the devil’s faith, but faith that refuses ever so weakly it may be to relinquish the Cross is real saving faith that cannot be moved by man or devil. This is why Jesus saw GREAT faith in the weakest of people that approached Him and NO faith in the so called religious folks who attempted to prove their faith by their doings.
If faith is continually suffering, then it must be continually fed by the Gospel in both Word and Sacrament. For it is no small thing to have the Good News come onto and into one’s very own body. Thus, one knows that this Gospel is not just some theoretical Good News to others but FOR ME. When it is FOR ME and FOR YOU, then you have the Gospel and the Cross of Christ.
Blessings,
Larry – KY
Test – left a big comment yesterday – too hard to recreate it. Maybe if Mary, the help of all Christians, prays for me enough, I’ll get froggy and try to recreate it.
When our Pastor decided to go from communion a couple of times a month to every week, the biggest objection was it would take too long.
The argument that finally carried the day was the Apostle Paul’s admonition that doing communion was proclaiming Christ’s death until He comes again.(1Cor.11:26) Our Pastor’s wish was for our church to proclaim Christ’s death in both word and deed every week. That along with a ‘trial period’ in which we would re evaluate weekly communion after so many months. Once we had weekly communion for several months no one was interested in going back to a less frequent celebration.
A question for David Wilson.
I understand that we may disagree on the way the LS edifies the believer and the mechanics of how this happens. My question to you is; by what authority do you change the words of Christ concerning the bread and the wine in the LS and authorize the use of Oreos and Kool-aid? Because its a symbol and really doesn’t do that much, its OK to redefine (or ignore) His words about what we are to use when celebrating the LS?
I don’t know… that makes me really uneasy.
Good luck with that.
I grew up Baptist, but since then have decamped from the SBC to the LCMS. Baptist communion practice was part of the reason for my switch.
I was raised in an SBC church that ran about 250 in attendance on Sunday morning. When I was in high school the church brought in a new pastor who decided that he wanted to adopt Willow Creek and Rich Warren methods of church growth. While this watered down the content of worship quite a bit (i.e. “seeker sensitive” entertainment type music, pop-psychology sermons), it did bring in a crowd and the church now runs over 1,000 on Sunday morning. As part of the whole “seeker sensitive” approach, the LS, which wasn’t done often to begin with, was relegated to 4 times a year (plus Christmas Eve) during the Sunday evening service.
This means that if you only go to church on Sunday morning (which is the case for many people) you will never have the LS. So I wonder if buying into the whole “seeker sensitive” approach is another factor in the downgrading of the LS in SBC life.
Of course, I would agree that theology is part of this as well because I think Zwinglianism generally strips the LS of importance. Symbols like the flag can be important, but the fact of the matter is that for the vast majority of churches that take the Zwinglian view of the LS today communion is nowhere near as significant as is the flag is to a group of veterans. In my experience in SBC circles, symbols like the cross, the Christian flag or even a WWJD bracelet are seen as more powerful symbols than the LS.
I don’t doubt that the LS is a very important symbol in a few SBC churches. But I haven’t personally run across any churches where this was the case.
rr
P.S. How on earth is using Oreos and Kool-aid for the LS Biblical? Sorry if this sounds strong, but it really sounds like a mockery of the LS to me.
I left a Protestant denom that had infrequent communion, and when I experienced weekly communion I never went back. Even from a strictly ‘It’s a symbol’ pov, I don’t see how it can be lightly dismissed. The bible says, and Jesus affirms as the greatest commandment, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your mind and all your strength.’ The strength part in Hebrew clearly implies ‘your body/physicality’. Protestants so frequently focus on only loving with our intellects or engaging our emotions, but leave out any physical element. Yet God created us physical beings who respond to kinesthetic learning (often most deeply), and I’m sure He knew what He was doing. So just hearing the Word, just getting a rush from the music is leaving out an important part of worship.
Even with a very low view of the LS, skipping communion is missing something – the tangible experience. The entrance into Kingdom time/space in the way Jews enter it during Passover when ever person at the table is also in a real sense present with their ancestors in the Exodus. It is a thing that reinforces our oneness and continuity. I forward every week with the sense of walking among the ‘cloud of witnesses’ who have gone before me and my brothers and sisters around the world who are also sharing in this feast. Like one of the few modern hymns I truly love says
One bread, One Body,
One Lord of all
One cup of blessing
Which we bless.
And we, though many
throughout the world
We are One Body
in this One Lord.
We can experience powerfully our oneness with Christ and with each other as members of His Body when we commune together in worship. It is a shame to dismiss that as mere ordinance or avoid it for fear of seeming too Roman.
I didn’t authorize it Patrick. If you reread my comments I said “I’ve even heard of youth guys using oreos and kool-aid.” But, while I wouldn’t personally do that, it was as someone wrote “the commonplace made sacrament”, so I suppose that (and youthful immaturity) that led the youth pastor that way.
I get uneasy reading the comments on this too, but I’m happy to live with the differences and diversity within the Body of Christ.
We don’t have sacraments, but in 6 hours yesterday I preached from Jude 24-25 and led a small group through a study on human depravity, so I’m thinking we’re handling law and grace in balance. Still, it spurs my thinking anytime I read an impassioned plea from others expressed out of their understanding of what any of the “sacraments/ordinances” mean. That’s why I enjoy reading iMonk. He thrashes about with issues like that very personally.
BTT, just heard from a friend who planted a very successful church in Canton, GA that they have observed the Lord’s Supper 6 times in 4 years and never on Sunday morning. Quick, everyone go beat on him. Just kidding.
Shalom,
David
Once a month won’t do it, though. We do it that up here in the North (never been to an ABC church that took communion less than once a month). Trying to get folks to go weekly is really hysterical.
“Who will clean up and set up the communion?”
“Won’t it become routine?”
“Won’t taking communion every week be too expensive?” (that’s my personal favorite)
“Baptists have never taken communion every week, why should we start now?”
“I don’t like the idea and that’s that.”
“Wow, communion on the third Sunday of the month, that threw me for a loop!” (said to me after preaching a sermon on the nature of communion)
Well, it’s hysterical in a, “OhmygoshIwanttocrysoIwilllaughinstead” kind of way. I’ve heard all these excuses, and more. And what it comes down to is that where there’s no theology of communion beyond, “it’s this thing we do to remember” and there’s no experience of the reality of Christ in it – then once a quarter, once a month, once a week just doesn’t make a lick of difference. It’s just a waste of time.
I’m glad that you recognize that the increase isn’t going to do anything without some serious spiritual education on the very nature of worship and why communion is central to it. Maybe the Holy Spirit can wake us up. From the great nap we’ve all be taking.
CrossPoint takes communion every time it gathers – and no one seems to complain much. In a year or so (as we move a bit further down on the path of our current transition) I’m going to make a push for weekly communion (hopefully I can get rid of the blasted shot-glasses again as most of our resident whiners are no longer pulling the strings here).
I once heard a Reformed Baptist minister ask the question – why do we call ourselves a Baptist church? Why not The Lords’ supper Church? Why choose one sacrament above the other?
He didn’t have a ready answer to that though – it was more rhetorical.
OK, she must have prayed, cause here we go. First, you totally stole my line about married sex frequency as an analogy to how often we have Communion. I’ve used that quite a few times – “so, what you’re saying is you really only want to have sex with your wife like 2 times a year — so it’ll be more special” Yeah, uhhh, I don’t think so. NEXT? The thing is, if it IS meaningful and “special” then you will then have a desire for something more frequently – and then you’ll keep on making a point to do it BECAUSE of what it means or what it is.
I certainly commend you, Michael, for even bringing this up in your arena. I wonder, though, how far you’ll get. Somebody’s already mentioned this but the fact that most Baptists have no faith that there is anything all that significant happening in or during Communion. That is what it is. I bring it up because this will guide how often they make a point of doing it. If the “strengthening” you mentioned is not in their spiritual vocabulary, they simply won’t see any need for it and therefore, it won’t git done. Having a fond memorial about the Last Supper or the Crucifixion is fine, but not a huge incentive I wouldn’t think, in that context.
On the too Catholic thing – Mary, help of all Christians (that’s purty funny raht thar, I dont’ kyur who ye are) – I think this has already been mentioned too in the comments. I’m sure this exists. Depends on where you live I imagine. Let’s here from those Louisiana Baptists. I think, as you suggest, that the outer practice is not likely to be confused with the Mass, but I think it may be the attitude rather than the action that puts the fear into Baptists who use this line of reasoning. To move in this direction might represent a change in attitude toward a more Sacramental view of the… Sacrament (sorry, I am Catholic, so there you go). Oh, and forget once a week, dude, Catholics are having Communion every day! (not that 90% of Catholics are taking advantage of that or anything.) Probably no fear of seeing that happen at Frist, Second or Calvary Baptist anytime soon. As in the last paragraph, I’ll say, there really is no view that anything terribly significant is happening there so why would they do it more often? That’s not a slam by the way, just saying what seems logical.
Again, the logical conclusion on the sermon deal – that IS the center of Baptist worship pretty much, isn’t it? The pulpit and the sermon – everything else surrounds that and effectively bows to that. I bet Baptists don’t know they’re wrong on this. I’d bet they, by in large, think they’re right to put the emphasis where they do, or they wouldn’t do it. People mostly do what they think is right. There are some hyper traditionalist Catholics who get all wound up about people holding hands during the Lord’s Prayer at Mass (eyes rolling). “Surely they know this is wrong!” Well, surely they don’t think so or they wouldn’t do it right out in front of everybody. Anyway, I think you mostly see the result of what people believe in your circles or in mine. Now, perhaps what they believe needs to change, but that’s another story. Interesting stuff though man. Peace to you.
We don’t want to do it like the first century to check off a box. We should want to emulate it because the meaning is so rich and because it reminds us that one day we will take it in heaven with Christ. Brett Maxwell above makes a point that many have made and it does have validity – that there are better ways to partake of the supper than completely minimizing its form in order to check off a box that we do it each week. You have to start somewhere and frequency is not a bad place to start. Glad you posted on this.
For what it’s worth, this is not a uniquely Baptist problem (or characteristic, depending on your point of view). I grew up Presbyterian, and spent a good deal of time in the Methodist church, and even made a small excursion into Congregational and Bible churches, before I went Baptist several years ago. I think that one of those churches in that mix had communion once a month. None of the others held comunion more than once a quarter.
Thanks, Michael, I love reading this stuff. Makes me smile and laugh.
(and also for everyone’s comments, such fun!)
nW
Another day in the life of David Wilson, SBC apologist. (everyone who knows me is now suffering from whiplash after turning quickly around and shouting WHAT?)
There’s no way to categorically say “the SBC churches…” because as autonomous local churches, we do what we are led to do by the Holy Spirit (hopefully) in everything. So you can have a church that is liturgical where the LS is done every week and the pastor follows the lectionary, church observing the church year, down the street from a KJV only Southern gospel church and just around the corner a new plant features secular music and a light show. Oh and just up the way, there’s another church led by elders and reformed in theology. We’re bound together by mission more than anything else.
If you miss regular communion, there’s probably a Baptist church for you as well as many other faith communities.
Just for background, I’ve been all over the map. I’ve observed the church year, used the lectionary, observed Lent, led Ash Wednesday services, and yes, observed the LS every week. Then I’ve done the seeker sensitive thing, been Purpose Driven.
But in recent years I’ve settled into the rhythm of maybe 6 times a year and don’t follow much of those earlier practices either.
As for symbols, I agree the culture is more visible than ever, so I’m investigating the use of ancient Christian symbols as we redo our sanctuary in an ancient-future vibe. And yes, I’d value the cross over any symbol, and no, we don’t have flags in our sanctuary, even in the most conservative county in the US 400 yards away from Eglin AFB. But there’s a church down the road that has the biggest US flag I have ever seen and no steeple. And yes, they are SBC.
Yeah, we’re mongrels. But you have to love us. Jesus said so.
David Wilson: Yea, we’ll love ya, but in following Jesus’ example, we might like to chastise y’all sometimes (or all the time..)…
God Bless
14Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. 15I speak as to wise men; you judge what I say. 16Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? 17Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread. 18Look at the nation Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers in the altar? 19What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons. 21You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. 22Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? We are not stronger than He, are we? 1 Corinthians 10:14-23 NASB
It’s odd to me that in these discussions the above text rarely comes up. It would seem to indicate that the Lord’s Supper is way more than just a recall event. It is a reliving/relational event with the risen living Lord. Why wouldn’t we want to come to the Table and enjoy the experience of sharing (v16-17; from the greek-koinonia-sharing, partnership, fellowship)in the presence of Christ through the bread and cup?
I think the debate boils down to: what is the Lord’s Supper?
If it’s no more than a symbol, then that symbol can be pretty abstracted, as long as the meaning is clear. This is the typical SBC point of view (I grew up SBC, now high-church Anglican).
The more sacramental, liturgical view, is that it is: a. an objective thing that happens, an objective encounter with God, and b, it is more like a medicine in many ways. i.e., it helps us get through the days, resist temptation, etc.
I will say, in my family’s experience, more frequent communion became more, and not less, special. I serve on the Altar Guild at my church, and help set up before Mass, and clean up afterwards. I have come to love everything surrounding the Lord’s Supper and, in loving these external symbols, have come to a deeper knowledge and love of God.
Also, let’s remember that the Word is ideally a sacrament too. Even in high-church congregations, the first part of the service is dedicated to the reading of God’s word. In fact, we do 4 readings: 1 OT, 1 Psalm, 1 Epistle, and the Gospel reading. How many SBC churches read that much Bible in a service? How many carry the Bible down the aisle, preceeded by candles, and bound in gold, to be read to the congregation, who stands to receive it?
Just some thoughts.
I don’t mind you non-SBCers commenting on this, but the fact that you have a sacramental theology that differs from ours is not exactly news. You can read previous posts in the “Baptist Way” series and see that I have addressed how our own confessions give us a basis for a rich celebration of the LS.
Someone sent me an email commenting on one poster here. I’ve edited the comment a bit, but it’s still on target.
“I win again. [This discussion] proves my thesis that the one nonnegotiable dogma for the local church and its leader(s) is style. [Several] comments [don't] remotely consider what Scripture presents about the LS. The LS isn’t an ordinance to [the commenter] at all; it’s something churchy that is completely pliable into whatever shape the Authority wishes to give it. The LS isn’t about the body and blood of Christ, it’s about style. You have your style, the “high church” folk have their style, and the youth pastor has his style. They’re all peachy. Just like liturgy, just like polity, just like everything. “Thus saith the Lord?” Pah–no one has the right to tell [a leader] that.
FWIW, my personal experience in the SBC [in the south]is that the vast majority of its pastors and congregations are totally on board with [the comment.] Is this not one more example of the active eradication of historical consciousness? Even someone with pride in their SBC heritage …obviously has seems unalarmed by the historical discontinuity with the norms in the history of the SBC. History has no authority and thus no fertile areas from which something might grow and evolve. Communities and communions have no authority. Does the Bible even have no authority? Is there a greater sin than submission to any authority besides one’s own conscience on all matters of faith and practice? Is there even one rule of faith that isn’t self-determined or self-made? What enables such indiscriminate relation to the authority of the Bible? My only answer is that there is one dogma of dogmas: style. Theology and this one dogma have nothing to do with one another. Therefore, theology has nothing to do with what you do in church (and work, and home …)
Pretty strong stuff, gentlemen. Is style and pragmatism EVERYTHING in the new SBC?
As an outsider looking in (although I did a short stint in the SBC 20 years ago)it looks like you guys have your work cut out for you. Without a binding confession, a cohesive theology that dictates worship practice( practice taken from the scriptures and doctrine, not doctrine and practice crammed into a ‘relevant’ form under the guise of ‘reaching people’) and no unified sense of the history of the denomination, what unifies the SBC into one body? How will your congregations remain in fellowship with each other?
Patrick: The SBC does have a history and a confessional tradition that can renew it. The Founder’s Movement has succeeded beyond any expectations and remains a growing force in SBC life. See also 9 Marks, which comes from an SBC church. But the majority of SBCers are ahistorical and aconfessional with the exception of their fluctuating interest in the Baptist Faith and Message Statement.
SBC has a remarkable record of cooperation around MISSION. We have done more TOGETHER than any Protestant denomination in American history: more schools, largest mission forces, more church starts. This is because of a remarkable amount of cooperation. Look at the squabbling in the PCA and what it portends for their ability to work together on those same things.
But the SBC is deply affected by its refusal to be theological and its hypocritical attitude toward its view of Biblical authority. It is highly pragmatic, highly anti authority, too pastor centered and increasingly infected with the diseases that are rendering evangelicalism meaningless.
Its a mix of good and bad.
Michael, You mentioned a rich celebration of the Lord’s Supper. Personally this can make a routine Sunday into a true rememberance of the life, death and resurrection of our Lord. While Christ is present regardlees of our enthusiasim; good music, inspired preaching, and active participation raise our hearts higher. I celebrate Mass almost every day and I consider it a privilege. My often pitiful daily prayer life is salvaged by the ‘breaking of the bread’. A second century communion prayer speaks of ‘gathering your people like bread scattered among the hills’. These comments from a variety of individuals shows how scatteed we really are.
I don’t mind you non-SBCers commenting on this, but the fact that you have a sacramental theology that differs from ours is not exactly news. You can read previous posts in the “Baptist Way†series and see that I have addressed how our own confessions give us a basis for a rich celebration of the LS.
Regarding the above quote from Michael:
I’m not an SBCer though I was raised as a fundementalist Baptist. but from the above quote I’m not sure if we non-SBCers are supposed to be posting.Some guidance would be helpful. I truly wouldn’t want to invade the comments section in a way that is inconsistent with the purpose of the blog.
I am a part of a denomination that for most of the twentieth century practiced a very Baptistic view of the sacrements even though our history and theology were more open to a sacramental approach. In the past two decades that has begun to change and many of our churches having experienced a renewal in worship have also experienced a deepening of the sacramental aspects of worship. For many of us it has been a welcomed change and a theological re-orienting. I say this to say that drawing a line as Michael seems to do around current SBC theology and practice and saying it must happen within these constraints may be the problem.
If this about post evangelicalism then it seems to me that more things need to be on the table than merely how often we do the Lord’s Supper. The theological underpinnings that got us where we are today must be examined.
That’s just how it seems to me. Again, if a non-SBCer is just going to frustrate the dialogue, then I am happy to just view the discussion and enjoy Michael’s journey.