Zeal For Truth

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.