The following post is a response to an article by John Stevens published in "Foundations" in 2015, and currently featured on the Affinity website. This is not intended as a personal attack on John Stevens, who is National Director of the FIEC, and a lovely Christian man and brother. The purpose of the blog post below is to stand for the historic Reformation teaching on the Lord's Supper in response to what I consider to be a novel view which is not supported by the Bible.
The Lord's Supper, the monthly or weekly celebration of the bread and the cup, has always been at the heart of the Christian faith and church life. Instituted by Christ himself, the Lord's Supper has been practised by Christians across the world and by all traditions (with very few exceptions) for over twenty centuries.
Today, for the first time, I came across a theological/Biblical articulation of what I will call the "communal meal" view of the Lord's Supper. My source for this is a web link on the Affinity website: https://www.affinity.org.uk/fo
In a nutshell, this view teaches that the Lord's Supper has been misunderstood by the church since the 200s, and is in fact a communal meal for believers. This meal begins with "the breaking of bread" and concludes with the shared cup. In the middle, the church family enjoys a generous meal and time of fellowship. Arguably, according to this view, this communal mean is the true and Biblical Lord's Supper ("Lord's Dinner").
To give credit where it is due, the author recognises that this is a radical break and departure from the entire Christian tradition since at least the 300s until the present day, including not only the church from the time of Constantine, and also the entire Protestant Reformation.
This also means that all discussion over the precise meaning of the words, "This is my body," or indeed the nature of how we receive communion, and what benefits we receive - all this is swept aside. The communion we enjoy is simply the fellowship with other Christians and with the Lord as we think about the meaning of the cross.
The author describes the practice of Birmingham City Church during his time as pastor, where such communal meals were celebrated. In his article, he recommends similar gatherings in homes in the context of "home groups" as a modern-day application of his teaching.
Let me be absolutely clear: whatever the merits of communal meals (and I am a huge believer in church lunches), and whatever the personal godliness of John Stevens (and my brief acquaintance would say that he is a lovely Christian brother), this view is clearly outside the scope of Reformed and/or Baptist Christianity and at odds with virtually every Christian tradition bar perhaps a handful of churches that have adopted this strange view. More importantly, it flies in the face of the teaching of Christ and his Apostles.
Let me try, as clearly and as irenic way as I can, to engage with this view, and to commend the reformed teaching on this subject.
Assertion # 1: the Lord's Supper was a communal meal
Now, the early church *did* have weekly communal meals, the so-called Agape or love feast. These are well attested in the New Testament, and outside. They were open to all, and often attended by non-Christians.
However, even if the two celebrations coincided (arguably until about 150 AD), the Lord's Supper is not the same thing as the Agape/Love feast. In the wording of the New Testament, there is every difference in the world between "breaking bread" - whether in homes or at the "Agape" (Acts 2:46) and "the breaking of bread" (Acts 2:42) which took place centrally, in one place for each church, and is the Lord's Supper. Indeed, when the Apostolic Fathers, the first generation of Christian thinkers came to think through what defined a local church, they defined it as those who celebrated one Eucharist. If you have two eucharistic gatherings, you have two churches.
From this very earliest time and going forward, there is simply no historical evidence for the "communal meal" theory of communion. Christians from the very start had the highest possible view of communion, and clearly distinguished between "eating together" and "holy communion" - even if those two things happened, circumstantially, at the same time. For example, in 1 Corinthians 11:20, the Apostle Paul says based on inconsiderate behaviour at the communal meal, "It is not the Lord's Supper that you eat", and, in 1 Corinthians 11:22, "Don’t you have homes in which to eat and drink?" The phrase "Lord's Supper" never refers to a communal meal, and always refers to the "blessed cup" and "broken bread" by which we "partake of the body and blood of Christ."
Assertion # 2: the presence of Christ and fellowship/communion is mediated not by the bread and wine, but by the brothers and sisters present
Now, it is true that the presence of Christ is promised where "two or three are gathered" and the language of temple and so forth belongs to the gathered community, not to buildings or even Christian practices/ceremonies. It is also true that the phrase "body of Christ" means both the physical incarnate flesh of the Son of God, and the community of those in union with him.
However, the view, boldly asserted, that the presence of Christ and communion is allegedly *not* mediated by the bread and wine is patently at odds with the teaching of the Lord and his Apostles. For example, the Apostle writes: "Is the cup that we bless not the communion of the blood of Christ? Is the bread that we break not the communion of the blood of Christ. We who are many are one body because we all partake of one bread." (1 Corinthians 10:16-17). Clearly the fellowship/communion enjoyed at the Lord's Table, whether horizontally with brothers and sisters, or vertically with the crucified Lord, is mediated through sharing in the bread and cup. Notice the logical sequence: it is not that we share the broken bread and blessed cup because we are the body of Christ, but rather we are the body of Christ because we share the broken bread and blessed cup. To take those words to mean something different is only possible if you come to them having previously decided that they do not mean what they have meant to Christians throughout the ages.
The Reformed teaching on this point is that eating this bread and drinking this cup with faith, we feed on Christ by faith and have communion with his body and blood. See here .
Assertion # 3: "Our faith is strengthened when we meditate on Christ, remembering what he has done for us and the blessings he has brought us"
Now, this is, in a sense, is true, but this whole approach seems to be unduly focused on our initiative in remembering and meditating, rather than the Biblical model of God's initiative in grace - which we receive and respond to.
While sharing in bread and wine, and as I relax at the church lunch, my mind may or may not wander to think about the Saviour who died for me. However, this is so not what is being said in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11. The Apostolic teaching in these two chapters is not about what I chose or don't chose to think about as I enjoy a sit-down meal with brothers and sisters. Rather, it says, "Do this is remembrance of me," and, "You proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." The commemorative action at the Lord's Supper offers to each one Christ crucified with all the blessings that come with him - to be received with faith, resulting in enjoyment of communion with the body and blood of Christ. That is a far cry from my choosing to "remember" and "meditate" perhaps prompted by the taste of the bread and cup.
In both chapters, the Apostle is urging upon his Corinthian readers the solemn obligations that come from participation in the Supper. Look at 1 Corinthians 10:21-22 ("You cannot share in the Lord's Table and the table of demons. Or are we provoking the Lord to jealousy?") and 11:29 ("Whoever eats and drinks without recognising the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.) Paul is not talking about "pot luck lunch"! He is talking of participating at the Lord's Table, sharing by faith in the body and blood of Christ.
Assertion # 4: "Those sharing in the Lord's Supper [do not] experience some kind of special mystical communion with Christ by reason of eating the consecrated bread and drinking the consecrated wine"
Yes, we do.
If anyone feels the need to question or deny this, one can only conclude that their own experience of the Lord's Supper has been inadequate. But read the countless hymns and poems of Protestant/Evangelical Christians throughout the ages, and you will clearly see that what is here described as "mystical communion" is something that has been experienced throughout the ages, and is experienced every time the church meets for the "breaking of bread" in Christ's name.
Here is just a meagre sample of such testimony:
"Come then, my soul, partake, The banquet is divine: His body is the choicest food, His blood the richest wine." (Beddome, hymns)
"Thy flesh is meat indeed, Thy blood the richest wine; How blest are they who often feed On this repast of thine!" (Stennett, hymns)
"What food luxurious loads the board, When at His table sits the Lord! The wine how rich the bread how sweet, When Jesus deigns the guests to meet." (Spurgeon)
Of the many psalms sung at Communion, a special place is reserved for Psalm 34, "*Taste* and see that the Lord is good."
There is more that can be said on this subject, but my appeal goes out to all my fellow evangelical brothers and sisters: please do not hold on to such low and empty views of the Lord's Supper! Listen to the Lord! Listen to his Apostles! Listen to the testimony of your forebears in the faith, and your brothers and sisters across the world!
Here are the words of the prayer of humble access from the Anglican prayer book:
"We do not presume to come to this your table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in your abundant and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under your table; but you are the same Lord whose character is always to have mercy. Grant us, therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of your dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood, and that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen."
Christ said, "my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink." (John 6:55)
Comments
Post a Comment