A while back in a small Austrian Baptist church I tried to encourage the use of a lectionary and the actual reading of Scripture during the Sunday morning service. The standard practice there is (and was) that not even the sermon text was always read in full — it was basically up to the preacher whether he read his text or not. Beyond that, occasionally people would share individual verses or short passages during the prayer time — but no formal Scripture reading.

My efforts were not crowned with success. The most succinct retort I remember was this: “What for? Everyone is reading the Bible in their quiet time anyway.” This was from a missionary to Eastern Europe who attends this church.

soli uses a psalm and three lessons. Sometimes comments or context are made at the reading of the lessons. The teaching is taken from the lessons or a lesson. (Usually from all three, with the Gospel reading emphasized.)

In most Baptist and evangelical circles, the sermon series or the pastors idea of what to preach is primary, and then texts are found to support. Going through books is an exception to this, but I am still rather unimpressed with the place of scripture in evangelical worship. Very little scripture, a whole lot of preacher.

Question on something you said in the post – you said,
“We have consciously tried to place the teaching of the Word in a servant posture to the reading of the lessons. In much Baptist tradition, the reading of the scripture is servant to the sermon, and I feel this is inappropriate.”

Would you explain what you mean by the “teaching of the Word being in a servant position to the reasing of the lessons”. I think I know what you mean, but am curious what you mean and what that looks like in the context of the service.

Blessings,
Carl

If you want to debate the nature of the Lord’s Supper, this isn’t your opportunity. I’ve settled what I believe, and it’s obvious from what I wrote. If you need to convert someone, I am not a candidate for conversion.

Part of what drew me to the Episcopal church was the weekly celebration of communion and most esp. that the Eucharist rather than the sermon was the focus of the service. That places Christ at the center – not the preacher – and that was a very welcome change for me.

Since then my theology of the Eucharist has also changed from ‘just a symbol’ to consubstantiation, but that’s a longer post.

Anyway… the church I am in now has just recently started doing communion twice a month – which is a good sight better than the 3-4 times a year we were doing it before. The reason we are doing it more often is because some people in the congregation expressed an interest in it. Not a bad reason in itself but what has happened – IMHO – is that it has just become an add-on. There was no stepping back to examine the purpose of communion in a gathered setting and how it should relate to everything else that is happening. It just comes across as the next thing to mark off before we get to the preaching.

So let me ask. How do you start to emphasize communion against singing and preaching in a decidedly non-liturgical church? And I hate to say it because it sounds so bad, but the next question that pops in my head is how do we emphasize Jesus more. Like that should be a problem for any church, but really, I think it is.

Jesus didn’t “suggest” that we remember Him in the Eucharist- He commanded it. “Do this” is strong language.

Kudos to you, and peace. Perhaps I’d be less jaded about other brands of Christianity had the Baptists who operated my elementary school growing up were more like you and those with whom you fellowship.

To borrow from the Anglican liturgy: Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the Feast, Alleluia.

Dan

The Lord’s Supper

The Lord’s Supper, unlike other Christian activities, is restricted, by its very nature and meaning, to those occasions when the “body” is together. It is a group function. According to the New Testament, it was an important part of the purpose for which Christians assembled on the first day of the week (cf. Acts 20:7; in 1 Cor. 11:20 Paul’s criticism, “when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper,” implies that it should be).

It may well be the Lord’s Supper that gives special meaning to Sunday as a day of meeting. Although the evidence is not conclusive, Oscar Cullman has made a case for viewing the Sunday meals which Christ shared with his disciples after the resurrection as a necessary background for understanding the joyous Agape-Lord’s Supper celebrations of the early Christians (Early Christian Worship, pp. 14ff.). The apparent reference to Sunday as “the Lord’s day” in Revelation 1:9 may indicate a connection with the Lord’s Supper, since these are the only two phrases in which the word kuriakos (“Lord’s”) is used.

What is the meaning and purpose of the Lord’s Supper, according to the New Testament? Although Protestants have generally rejected the traditional Catholic view of the Lord’s Supper as a sacrifice, the sacramental concept of “Holy Communion” has certainly influenced the thinking of the whole Christian world. An attitude toward “the elements” as holy or consecrated is not uncommon. The table, in many instances today, has been elevated to a kind of altar. The whole “Communion Service” as a special act of worship has taken on the character of sacred ceremony. This is not how the Lord’s Supper is characterized in the New Testament.

The Lord’s Supper is rightly accompanied by prayers of thanksgiving (1 Cor. 10:16; 11:24) and certainly evokes a response of praise. However, its purposes, as they are presented in the New Testament, are not basically God-directed, but are rather aimed toward the edification of the body. Both Luke and Paul present the remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice as a basic aim of the Supper (Lk. 22:19,20; 1 Cor. 11:24). As a weekly “reminder” (anamnesis) of the central truth of the “new covenant” — that Jesus died as the payment for our sins — it serves to strengthen our faith and renew our hope. Contrary to the view implied by the traditional treatment of the Lord’s Supper as an offering or a sacrifice, it is we who need to be reminded, not God.

Secondly, Paul says that the Lord’s Supper is a proclamation (1 Cor. 11:26). Sharing in this visual proclamation of the gospel serves as an open confession of our faith in the Lord’s death and in its meaning for us. It is an expression of faith that is mutually edifying to all who are present.
Thirdly, we can recognize the idea of anticipation in the words “until he comes” (1 Cor. 10:26). The Lord’s Supper should intensify our expectation and hope of Christ’s second coming.

“Recognizing the Body”

Finally, Paul sees the Lord’s Supper as communion (koinonia, fellowship), not only with Christ (1 Cor. 10:16), but also with his body, the church. Paul writes, “Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread” (10:17). The Lord’s Supper should manifest the unity of those who share the cup and bread, which represent the blood and body of Christ. But this was precisely the problem at Corinth! There were “divisions” among the members of the body there (1 Cor. 11:18; cf. 1:10ff.; 3:3ff.; 12:25), and this is the problem to which Paul addresses himself. Paul’s criticism is not so much directed at the way in which they were actually partaking of the Lord’s Supper as at the way in which they were completely disregarding each other in the meal preceding it (vv. 21, 22). By thus “despising the church of God” (v. 22) they were failing to “discern” or “recognize” it as “the body” of Christ (v. 29; for the meaning of “body” here, compare 10:17; 12:12ff., 27). Their actual attitude toward “the body” (the church) made the Lord’s Supper as “communion” impossible (v. 20). Their hypocrisy destroyed its meaning. Paul admonished each one to “examine” his own attitude toward “the body” before he took part in the Lord’s Supper, so that he might do it in a way “worthy” of its intended meaning (vv. 27-29). Paul insisted that the Corinthians change their attitude and demonstrate this change by eliminating their practice of discriminating against certain people at their common meals (vv. 33, 34). Otherwise, their coming together would result in “judgment” (v. 34; cf. v. 29).

In summary, the Lord’s Supper, in its Biblical meaning, epitomizes the very character and purpose of the Christian assembly. As “communion” it portrays the spirit of mutual love and fellowship that should characterize Christian assemblies, and all of its purposes coincide with the primary aim of these meetings, which we have seen to be the “building up” of the body of Christ. The end result of such edification is that God is glorified in the lives of his people.

“To come to the Lord’s table is to return to that night when Jesus gave the supper to his disciples. It is to be reinvited to believe, to be reinvited into the community of Jesus’ followers. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are literal moments from the ministry of Jesus, re-lived and re-joined with all the power of that moment.”

We can talk about this kind of making present, this kind of really making the story real before we even get into a sacramental economy of grace!

Gathering at the table and telling that story over and over again – please God let the story become rote memory – is a key way that we re-orient our lives to the Gospel. It enables us to understand our own lives as Eucharistic that we might see ourselves as a body broken and life poured out for the good of God’s world. When we tell the story of the table, it becomes the basis by which we re-tell and understand anew our own personal stories. Let us be a people who only make sense in the context of the service of Word and Table!

And I was quite surprised to learn that your soli deo liturgy is so very similar to that of VBCC…