Within protestant circles, there is a wide variety of practice regarding how frequent the Lord’s Supper should be celebrated. Weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, quarterly, and yearly are all practices that have been put forward. Frequency of celebration is a disputed issue because although scripture speaks a fair amount on the Lord’s Supper in general, it never directly speaks on it’s frequency.
Often churches overlook the issue and continue on with the tradition that has been established within their church, never giving the issue a second thought. Yet when this issue is brought up in the church, I believe the issue of frequency will be determined by one’s overall theology of the sacraments, particular it’s efficacy. That is, what happens when the Lord’s Supper is celebrated determines how often it is done.
Within the history of the church there has been much dispute over the efficacy of the Lord’s Supper that sometimes enters into minute details. Although such dispute is important, for the purposes of this essay I wish only to use a broad distinction between those who believe that the Lord’s Super is only a memorial in which Christ’s sacrifice is remembered, and those who believe that there is some kind of active work of grace (be that saving to any degree of sanctifying) given to the participant (ignoring the question of ex opere operato) in the Supper.
All protestants will fall on one or the other side of this divide, with the evangelical movement spanning both sides, having particular evangelical churches within the movement taking up either memorial or active work positions. This paper will focus around the evangelical tradition, and discuss the reasons for the frequency they chose to celebrate the Lord’s Supper.
The Evangelical Tradition
To define “evangelical” is a near impossible task today, and one that is beyond the scope of this paper. When using the term today, I have in mind everyone from Rick Warren, to John MacArthur, to Mark Driscoll to Norman Geisler. It’s reach cuts across the Baptist, Anglican, Reformed and Charismatic camps as well as dozens of smaller groups that were once part of these.
Therefore, within the evangelical movement there is the tension between the baptist/Zwingli tradition of the Supper being a Memorial (1), and the Reformed/Anglican understanding that it has an effect on the participant (2). Without doing an exhaustive survey, relying only on what I have personally read and experienced, it does seem that the baptist/Zwingli memorial tradition is the more influential.
Why do I see the memorial tradition as the more influential? Mainly because of the relative lack of importance I see placed on the Lord’s Supper in evangelical churches. This can be seen in many respects; lack of teaching given on it by teachers in the evangelical movement, lack of interest in it by lay church members in it, and the low frequency of its celebration. Although all three of these are important indicators of the importance placed on it, I believe how we practice something is the best indication of what we really believe about something and therefore I will focus on the frequency it is performed.
Memorial Versus Grace
The division made earlier, between the memorial and grace view of the Supper, I believe roughly corresponds to how often one celebrates it. If you believe the supper to be a memorial you will see no need to celebrate it often, if you see it doing something to the person who partakes in it then you will be more inclined to celebrate it more often. Consider the rest of our culture: when we wish to memorialize something, to remember an event, we do it yearly. Birthdays, Remembrance Day, and May Day, are all examples of this. If the Lord’s Supper is a memorial, then performing it once a year should be suitable. If however it is believed that grace is taken from the Lord’s Supper then one would want to perform it more often to receive this benefit more often.
There are, of course, other factors that put constraints on this reasoning. One could argue that although no grace is given in the Lord’s Supper, one does receive a psychological or teaching benefit from participation. On the other side, one can argue that although they would celebrate it weekly, there are other things going on in a church service that time is needed for. Often arguments like these are used to mitigate against a direct match between one’s theology of the Lord’s Supper and ones practice.
Since my own position on the Lord’s Supper is that God created it as a means of grace which is used in the ongoing process of sanctification (Ie. Grace is given through the Lord’s Supper) I will not look at arguments put forward by memorializists to allow it to be done more then once a year, but I will briefly take up the “time argument” given by some who believe that the sacrament grants graces to the partaker. I will also not take up defending my view in this paper, but leave that for a future one.
Acts 2:42 (ESV) says; “And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.” If one is arguing that the Lord’s Supper can be performed less regularly to make room for other things in the church service, then they should be willing to admit that teaching can be left out of a service for similar reasons. The two, well actually three, are placed in a list beside each other with none having precedence over the other. If one can happen only once a month in a service, why not the others?
As well, the question of what time is being made for must be answered. If grace is given both through the word (3) and sacraments, and only these two ways, what is so important that time is being taken away from these? I am not against introducing new elements in a church service as long as they do not go against a biblical commandment (Normative Principle Of Worship), but since scripture teaches that grace is given only in those two ways and there is no indication that there are other ways, then those two should be in the primary position.
Therefore, if one holds that there is grace, any kind of grace, given in the Lord’s Supper then one should want to see it celebrated as often as possible.
(1) Augustus Strong, Systematic Theology, 964: “The Lord’s Supper, like Baptism, is the symbol of a previous state of grace. It has in itself no regenerating and no sanctifying power, but is the symbol by which the relation of the believer to Christ, his sanctifier, is vividly expressed and strongly confirmed”
(2) Leonard Vander Zee, Christ, Baptism And The Lord’s Supper, 153: “Consuming the bread and wine, now designated as his body and blood, we participant in his sacrifice by eating and drinking its blessings and benefits.”
(3) I do not wish to restrict “the word” here to only the reading of scripture, or preaching, but whenever it is taught in a variety of ways such as one on one discussion, and even things such as drama where the word is used I would not automatically restrict.
I think your main point makes complete sense and is a good way to evaluate the practice. At the same time, perhaps as expected, I do not agree with your secondary point that communion imparts some kind of grace (either required or in addition to, saving grace). I will admit that I have yet to investigate this other side fully enough to debate the issue (any resources you recommend?)
Good article, Bryan. My church has been doing a Sunday school unit on baptism, the assembly, and the Lord’s Supper. In the Church of Christ the Lord’s Supper is taken every week. It’s a highlight of the Sunday morning assembly. It’s given more prominence than the sermon. Even so, the Lord’s Supper is viewed as a memorial, and the idea that there might be any grace given through the Supper isn’t even considered. I tend to agree that the Supper is properly understood as a memorial, but I think we should consider other perspectives.
What we’ve been focusing on in our Sunday school study is the way we do the Supper. The early church met together for meals, while we today do a ritual during the assembly. We’ve cut out most of the fellowship aspects of the Supper, choosing instead to focus on the individual, personal experience. I can see some advantages to the way we do it. But the original Lord’s Supper was a meal Jesus had with the apostles, not a ritual during a corporate worship assembly. There’s something to be said for the fellowship aspect.
I went to visit a friend’s church a few weeks ago. They do a meal after church every week. Actually that’s not true. They have a meal after the sermon as part of church. That’s the way they do the Lord’s Supper. And sometimes they even skip the sermon entirely and just eat together.
Bryan said, “If grace is given both through the word (3) and sacraments, and only these two ways, what is so important that time is being taken away from these?”
Perhaps my question is rather basic, but what exactly do you mean by grace, and by “grace being given”? I ask because there are many examples throughout the NT epistles where, apparently, grace is given to someone merely by the speaker’s words, as shown in benedictions and frequently in greetings or leave-takings. Or do you interpret “May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all” as nothing really to do with grace, the word “grace” here being just a word in a verbal formula? (Kind of like us saying, “How are you?” when we aren’t really asking how you are.)
Maybe you see what I’m getting at. I think I hold to the idea that as a believer I can impart God’s grace to you via by my words–and I can receive God’s grace via your words to me. (That would be in addition to the two ways you list. Or maybe you would put my examples as part of “the word”?)
OK, that didn’t have a lot to do with the Lord’s supper, but it did have to do with imparting grace.
Our church has been doing fairly autonomous monthly fellowship groups in people’s homes. Sadie and I host one. We do communion every time, along with a meal and a short study. Communion is much more of an open “sharing” experience, and we use communion as another mechanism for fellowship. It has really changed the way I view the practice.
“…it does seem that the baptist/Zwingli memorial tradition is the more influential.” Yes, I agree. In fact, as far as I know, I’ve never been in an Evangelical church that believes the Lord’s Supper is means by which grace is dispensed.
“If one is arguing that the Lord’s Supper can be performed less regularly to make room for other things in the church service, then they should be willing to admit that teaching can be left out of a service for similar reasons.” Excellent point. Acts 2.42 definitely makes it sound like the early church took the Eucharist every time it met.
I personally don’t favor one view over the other (the memorial or the grace view). Yet I find it…interesting that, as far as I know, most Christians throughout history have favored the grace view. This doesn’t necessarily mean that this is the right view, but, if nothing else, it should encourage us to at least take the view seriously.
The grace view is unScriptural, though not nearly as unScriptural as any view which causes us to take communion disrespectfully.
Romans 4 (Contemporary English Version) said:
Rituals do not have magic power to a true believer in God. Circumcision, Baptism, Communion, all have no “magic power” that “gives grace”. Abraham was not saved as a result of performing magical rituals of sacrifice or circumcision, but rather it was his FAITH that caused God to accept Abraham. The same is true of us today. Magic symbols, objects, and rituals do not belong to true Christianity. The ordinances we are commanded to follow are nothing more than outward symbols of an internal faith. To claim otherwise is to claim that we are blessed for obedience to the law, and as Romans 4:14 states: “If Abraham and his descendants were given this promise because they had obeyed a law, then faith would mean nothing, and the promise would be worthless.” Communion does not give grace, GOD gives grace as we place our faith in Him. Anything less is not Christianity.
Acts 2:42 (Contemporary English Version) wrote
1 Corinthians 11 (Contemporary English Version) wrote
Basically what we see described about the early church is that they regularly ate together and “observed the Lord’s Supper”. This was NOT a fancy little ritual with tiny cups and cracker wafers that they did as part of the worship service, but a meal they ate together “in memory of Christ” as a witness until his return. Eating it in a disrespectful manner shows disrespect for Christ’s sacrifice, and therefore is worthy of punishment. While we are never commanded to do it on any given basis, I fully agree that there is strong Scriptural precedence for observing it whenever we gather as a body of believers, and definitely whenever we dine together. The key is to be respectful in our commemoration of Christ’s sacrifice.
“Abraham was not saved as a result of performing magical rituals of sacrifice or circumcision, but rather it was his FAITH that caused God to accept Abraham.” Agreed.
“Magic symbols, objects, and rituals do not belong to true Christianity.” Magic does not belong to Christianity, but God does. And God can certainly work miraculously through objects and rituals.
“The ordinances we are commanded to follow are nothing more than outward symbols of an internal faith.” Are you sure? I don’t think the NT is quite so unambiguous.
“To claim otherwise is to claim that we are blessed for obedience to the law, and as Romans 4:14 states: ‘If Abraham and his descendants were given this promise because they had obeyed a law, then faith would mean nothing, and the promise would be worthless.’” But faith impels us to act. If one is impelled by his faith to take the Eucharist, then I see no reason why God would not bless that action.
“Communion does not give grace, GOD gives grace as we place our faith in Him. Anything less is not Christianity.” Nobody’s arguing that communion gives grace. God is obviously the one who gives grace. I just think it’s possible that God chooses to give grace when believers, acting in faith, take the Eucharist.
In that case I would highly suggest you read it.
Many things are possible, but only what the Bible teaches can be certain. The Bible does NOT teach that magic rituals obtain grace, but rather that faith is rewarded with grace. We are commanded to take the Lord’s Supper as a memorial and witness of His sacrifice, and are warned that we will face hardship if we do so in a disrespectful manner. We get “grace” from it in the same way that we get grace whenever we obediently act in faith. If you have reason from Scripture to think otherwise, I would happy to reconsider my position, but if all you have to offer is human wisdom I hope you will understand if I would rather stick to what Scripture teaches. It is easy for the church to get pulled into spiritualistic superstitions, but it is better to cling to the teachings of Scripture.
“If you have reason from Scripture to think otherwise, I would happy to reconsider my position, but if all you have to offer is human wisdom I hope you will understand if I would rather stick to what Scripture teaches. It is easy for the church to get pulled into spiritualistic superstitions, but it is better to cling to the teachings of Scripture.”
Sure, I understand where you’re coming from, and I agree. I’m not saying that I definitely believe that communion is a means by which God imparts a special grace to believers. But I don’t see where the NT ever tells us that such an act of grace doesn’t occur during communion. Communion is a time of remembrance; it is a proclamation of Christ’s death; but maybe it’s more than that; maybe. That’s all I’m saying.
I’m leaving on Thursday for a week, and don’t have time between then and now to give detailed answers to these worthy questions. When I get back I’ll write a specific post answering the main ones I think.
I will quickly point out that the idea of grace being conferred as a “magical power” that is a work is something I would take exception to. I don’t see what I hold to as being a type of “work magic” at all. I see nothing inherently wrong with saying that God uses physical objects to do a supernatural work within us, saying it’s magic implies that it’s from a source other then God which anyone who hold to a “grace view” of the sacraments would disagree with.. I also don’t see the taking of an object as a work anymore then having faith, or making a decision is a work. It’s God that gives us to strength to have faith, it’s God who gives us the strength to take communion.
Think of it this way, is scripture a means of grace? God uses it to increase our faith does he not? Why can communion not work in a similar fashion? Or can faith only be increased by direct appeal to the intellect?
Communion is no more (or no less) a means of grace than a quality time of prayer is. Communion is, as shown clearly by Christ’s own words, merely a memorial time. One must consider the history of such events in Judaism. The original Passover was a means of grace to the Israelites, but every Passover celebration since then only serves as a remembrance (a pile of stones, if you will) for what God DID at some point in the past. The Lord’s Supper was clearly intended to continue this tradition, a tradition that God himself had repeatedly set out for Israel in the OT.
Bryan, I look forward to hearing your arguments for the grace view!
Darius did a fine job summarizing my position on this subject. I apologize if I came on rather strongly about it, but the pastor of my wife’s church growing up always stated that the bread of communion healed physical injuries while the grape juice forgave sins. This is not a teaching found anywhere in Scripture. I fully agree that baptism and communion are commanded acts of obedience by believers, and that they are important observances of internal changes and historic events (respectively) that we want to remember and celebrate. They are also both definitely taken far too trivially by most churches in America, and things we should never practice in an inappropriate fashion.
Atanamis did a fine job of adding to my comments.
Communion is definitely taken too trivially by the Western church. And those churches that don’t take it so lightly still screw it up. The traditional evangelical takes the communal aspect out of it, and the Emerging church generally takes the introspective repentance/remembrance part out of it. Neither get it right.