As I was standing in front of the church, my primary concern was not dropping the gold-covered bread and juice trays. As Pastor recounted the details from I Corinthians 11, however, my mind drifted to the early 16th century--or what I have heard about it. I thought of a young priest named Martin Luther conducting his first Communion, and I pictured him endeavoring to steady his trembling hands as he administered what he believed to be the literal body and blood of Christ. I thought of the ritualism that is so common in many of the older denominations, or, at least, the ritualism that I have heard is so common. (Sadly, I've have had very little actual interaction with any church experience other than the independent Baptist variety.) As I left the service, I thought of the typical Baptist observance of the Lord's Supper, and I thought of some questions.
Why do we (as in independent Baptists) administer Communion the way we do? These services (no matter how often a church holds them) are about as close as most Baptists get to being "high-churchy" or liturgical. It's kind of funny if you think about it. In the churches I have attended throughout my life, the service follows this basic progression: 1) The pastor will read I Corinthians 11; 2) Everyone will take a few moments of spiritual self-examination; 3) The pastor will explain the symbolism of the bread and wine (I mean juice!); 4) Everyone will sit very quietly and meditatively as the elements are distributed; and 5) On the pastor's cue, everyone ingests the elements.
Now, I must say that I don't think there is anything wrong or unbiblical about the conducting the service this way. In fact, I can see good reasons for several of these items. I guess my question is--why does the overall tone of the service always seem to be so solemn and formal? Why does the Lord's Supper Service seem to pull even the most fiercely independent of Baptists into a Catholic-like ritualism?
I understand that Communion is designed to be held in remembrance of Christ's death on the cross, and maybe that is why we tend to grow so somber on these occasions. I also understand that I Corinthians makes it clear that the Lord's Supper is not to be taken lightly. However, do these facts require us to remain so rigid and meditative? To be transparent, I often struggle during the "distribution time" of the service. I am never quite sure what to do. I try to think about Jesus and His sacrifice, but my mind tends to drift. Is there anything that would preclude us from singing a song of praise and thanksgiving or even giving testimonies about our salvation as the trays travel through the rows? Shouldn't these services have more of a celebratory feel to them? I guess I just feel as though we could pursue more of an atmosphere of realism rather than ritualism in our observances of Communion.
Not sure what the answers to these questions are. I guess I will have to give it some more thought.
What about you? What do you think?
By the way--I didn't drop any of the trays, so the solemnity of the service went uninterrupted.
In the meantime,
still looking for the genuine...
I imagine since the original last supper was done shortly before Jesus' death, the atmosphere was somber. Maybe that's why... Or maybe the church musicians like taking fast songs like, "Nothing but the Blood" and playing them with schmultzy slow chords. You try doing a happy closing to a service then getting people to walk the aisle. It can't be done. You must trick them into feeling guilty with soothing words and major seven chords then GO FOR THE KILL!!!... er...
ReplyDeleteWe have made many changes to the Lord's Supper at our church. It now is an entire service instead of a "tag on" at the end. We always give chance for testimonies which are often my favorite part. We also sing and I find it to be some of the most worshipful singing that we ever do. It is my goal to make this a meanignful time of rememberance, but also celbration and thanksgiving. I now find myself looking forward to the Lord's Supper rather than merely "observing." Oh and by the way, I don't always use Corinthians.
ReplyDeleteI preached a couple of times about this subject because I hate the way we usually do it. And "Yes" I am using the word correctly. I really, really dislike what we have done to the Lord's Supper. A quick comment about the idea that the first Lord's Supper was solemn right before Christ's death. Don't forget that the disciples (even with all the clues) were not expecting his arrest or crucifixion and are all very much surprised when it happens. The picture in the Bible is not solemn or serious by the disciples at all. The Passover was a celebration, not a memorial.
ReplyDeleteOk, for the real comment. What Jesus does is take a Jewish celebration known as the Passover and changes it to be a remembrance of Him. He takes a very simple and daily occurence and tells his disciples to remember Him when they break bread and drink wine. Breaking bread and drinking wine is basically having dinner. So what Christ does is say every once in a while when you are about to eat dinner stop for a minute and remember what I did for you on the cross. The Lord's Supper should never be compared to a memorial service where everyone is wearing black and very serious. The best illustration would be Thanksgiving Dinner. It is a great, fun time of celelbrating all that God has done for us. Often we will stop for a moment and give some serious thanks or prayer for God's blessing, but overall the attitude is one of joy and celebration. That is what the Lord's Supper is supposed to look like.
The problem is that the Corinthians misused and abused everything to an extremem. They took a great dinner of sharing and turned it into a show of wealth and segregation between the "haves" and the "have-nots." So what do we do today? We go to this one corrective passage dealing with an extremely wayward church and take that passage to an extreme and refuse to enjoy the memory of Christ. We have turned a celebration into a funeral.
I find it interesting that the verses are also not shared in their entirety. We use just those few verses from the passage in Corinthians, but neglect to view the context (as Pierre said above) there was a specific problem of abuse that Paul was mentioning. He warned against that, but I don't think He meant for us to turn it into something like the Pilgrims did, (fencing the table so that no one with any sin in their lives could partake. If that were the case, then none are worthy. Hmmm, balance. I love that word.
ReplyDelete