Quote:
Originally Posted by tasteslikegold
I know that in some denominations the table is partaken of only once a month, or even once or twice yearly. I think the reasoning lies with the desire to cause the church to appreciate the gravity of the table. On the other hand it may even diminish the appreciation of the table, and it's certainly not what the Lord had in mind when he said, "do this often..." So is this a kind of forsaking the gathering together of the saints? For some it could be. This could be a factor of division, in fact; when some saints would want to gather together with the church to take the Lord's table more often and their traditional denomination only does it once or twice yearly.
|
For the most part, the particular post gets into issues that I will need to decipher whether there is anything I consider worthy of comment. But this one paragraph is interesting. Not so much to disagree about, but to consider all the ramifications.
The “institution” of communion, or the Lord’s Table, or whatever anyone wants to call it, is quite simple. Jesus and the disciples were having a Passover meal, and in the process, Jesus made two specific alterations that were effectively the only parts of the meal mentioned. Then he said they should do it as often as they do it in remembrance of Him.
How would a bunch of Jewish men understand that? I can think of at least two in general. He could first have intended that the entirety of the Passover meal was to be recognized as signifying his death. That would make their first consideration a once-a-year event.
But Jesus didn’t say to remember Him when they had the Passover. He said to do it as often as they did it. No quantification. Only that it was to be for the purpose of remembering Him. And while the entire evening’s meal was not chronicled, was is only the two specific items that constituted the observance? Probably so. And nothing required the arduous preparation for that observance like would have been required for a true Passover meal.
So the observance is open. Our church is actually considering this very thing. And there are reasons for retaining our once-a-month practice in favor of a more frequent observance. Some of those reasons are similar to ones you raise.
My initial preference is to retain the current practice. My reasons relate to the nature of our assembly and meetings. We are a large congregation that requires three meetings each Sunday to accommodate everyone. When doing that, there is not the way to have a separate meeting for the purpose of communion that is generally accessible to all. So it must a portion of our normal time of worship. As part of a general change in the flow of our meetings, a length of time has been moved from the “worship” time to the end for the purpose of allowing people to consider and pray in line with the preaching of the Word that has just finished. When we have communion, that time for reflection and prayer is somewhat replaced by communion. I have actually suggested that moving a little more of the schedule to after the preaching of the Word would better accommodate both. But while the two can somewhat occur together, they have a different focus and while not in actual competition, one effectively “steals” from the other. Since communion should be focused on Jesus and his sacrifice, mixing it with the time when consideration of what has been taught seems inappropriate. But to skip that time of consideration would be a step back toward the days of getting ears tickled, saying benediction, and heading out to lunch (or wherever).
But to suggest that not having communion weekly could be considered neglecting the assembling together is a bit much. To further suggest that a change from monthly to weekly or visa versa could cause for division would also be too much. That is except with respect to people who are determined that their way is the only way and that all others are seriously deficient. And there are those people all over the place. And what about how the “elements” are done? We went from passing those trays with little cups and wafers to walking to a table where wafers were present and we dipped one in juice. I have never asked, but I often wonder how well the change from a single cup of wine passed around the meeting hall went over with everyone in the LC. It is a change and there are some who think that the process is more important than the remembrance.
BTW. I have continued to say that I do like the general format of the LC’s Lord’s Table, although I have a different take on it now than I used to have. Even that meeting is not simply “communion” or the “Lord’s Table.” It is not simply a focus on the sacrifice of Jesus. It is a rather complexly themed time of focused worship that moves through many stages, in the middle of which is a period that focuses on Jesus and His sacrifice. I have no complaint against that.
The one thing that has always bothered me, even during my time in the LC, is that it is a controlled time. I have on numerous occasions observed the calling of a song that is “out of sync” with the formula and it is quickly overridden by an elder or other leading one. For a group that is so thoroughly open in its meetings and so warned against anything that smacks of tradition, this is a huge tradition. The Spirit is presumed to be only following the same formula in all cases. The Spirit would never be in the calling of a song like “Out of the Depths I Cried to Thee” while in the “Praise to the Spirit” portion of the meeting. (Don’t get too wrapped up in the meaningfulness of the exact example.)
I will return to the general discussion of terminology soon. But I think that this discussion will crop up in that one, at least a little.