-----------------------
Ms. Lesley answers a question about communion without quoting any Scripture except for the communion text itself. How is this possible? Well, it's rather easy when all she is doing is explaining her tradition.
Ms. Lesley answers a question about communion without quoting any Scripture except for the communion text itself. How is this possible? Well, it's rather easy when all she is doing is explaining her tradition.
There is one fundamental mistake Ms. Lesley makes, and that is she misunderstands a single word, "home(s)" (1Co. 11:22, 34). She writes:
Look at the language in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 and how it differentiates between eating outside the church gathering (at home) and partaking of the Lord’s Supper inside the worship gathering of the church.
There were no churches (buildings) in the first century! The worship gathering of the church was at someone's home:
Ac. 2:46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts...
This is communion in a nutshell. Breaking bread is communion, and they did this together in various homes, because the church met in peoples' homes:
Ro. 16:5 Greet also the church that meets at their house.
1Co. 16:19 The churches in the province of Asia send you greetings. Aquila and Priscillagreet you warmly in the Lord, and so does the church that meets at their house.
Col. 4:15 Give my greetings to the brothers at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house.
Phile. 2 to Apphia our sister, to Archippus our fellow-soldier and to the church that meets in your home...
Remember that Saul (Paul) was zealous to stop this movement. How did he proceed?
Ac. 8:3 But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison.
The church met in houses. Saul needed to go from house to house to destroy it.
So the Corinthian church, meeting in someone's house, was being corrected for the way it treated people at the Lord's Supper meal they ate together when they gathered as the church. In someone's house. Thus Paul tells them that they should properly regard the body (every believer in attendance) (1Co. 11:29). Paul's point is, if someone is really that hungry, they should eat at home so that there is enough food for everyone (1Co. 11:34).
We really don't need to go any farther. But because this idea of communion as a solemn church ceremony done in silence is not found in the Bible, we feel compelled to make a more thorough case. So let's examine the aftermath of Peter's vision of the sheet descending from heaven. A man called Cornelius sent some men to Peter to invite him to his house, so he went:
Ac. 10:25-27 As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. 26 But Peter made him get up. “Stand up,” he said, “I am only a man myself.” 27 Talking with him, Peter went inside and found a large gathering of people.
Cornelius invited a lot of people to hear Peter. So Peter gave a Gospel message, which concluded with:
Ac. 10:43-48 All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” 44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message.
This was a momentous occurrence, for it was here that the Jewish believers finally understood that the outpoured Holy Spirit (Ac. 2:17) was also for the gentiles:
45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, 47 “Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” 48 So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.
Notice they were baptized at Cornelius' house, which Ms. Lesley also thinks should only be done in a church building. Let's keep reading:
Ac. 11:1-3 The apostles and the brothers throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. 2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him 3 and said, “You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them.”
This is the last piece of the puzzle. Not only did Peter have a church service at someone's house, he baptized new believers and also ate with them (communion).
Ms. Lesley states, you wouldn’t (I hope) baptize people at your Tupperware party or even your weekly women’s Bible study, and you shouldn’t be observing the Lord’s Supper in those sorts of venues either.
Well, Peter did it, so why not? Ms. Lesley will not supply any Bible verse in support of her opinion, so we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.
Communion.. the Lord’s Supper… the Lord’s Table… the breaking of bread and drinking of wine (or grape juice) as a memorial to our Lord’s suffering and death is an extremely solemn and serious ordinance of the church.
I mean, in the Corinthian church, people were getting sick and dying because they weren’t handling the Lord’s Supper in a godly way.
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.1 CORINTHIANS 11:27-30Take a moment and meditate on what that means. How seriously does God take the Lord’s Supper?
The Lord’s Supper is an ordinance of the gathered church, just like baptism is. You wouldn’t (I hope) baptize people at your Tupperware party or even your weekly women’s Bible study, and you shouldn’t be observing the Lord’s Supper in those sorts of venues either.
Look at the language in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 and how it differentiates between eating outside the church gathering (at home) and partaking of the Lord’s Supper inside the worship gathering of the church. The language assumes that the Lord’s Supper takes place in the church gathering: “When you come together…” (17, 20), “When you come together as a church…” (18), “Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God…” (22), “when you come together to eat” (33), “if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home—so that when you come together…” (34).
When you unbiblically remove the Lord’s Supper from the worship gathering of the church body, you immediately cheapen it. It becomes lesser. Just some little thing we do so we can feel like we’re being holy, or because we crave ritual. It’s reduced to the level of hors d’oeuvres or a party game. The purpose of the Lord’s Supper is for the gathered church to proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes (26).
And because it is an ordinance of the church, those who shepherd the church – pastors and elders – are responsible for administering it in a biblical way. That responsibility has not been given to any Tom, Dick, and Harry (or Dawn, Pat, and Mary, if you will) who decides he or she wants to offer it at a private shindig. It is a pastoral responsibility, which includes fencing the table.
So the answer to all of your questions is no. The Lord’s Supper should not be observed at parachurch meetings or social gatherings at all. (Or weddings. You didn’t ask about that, but I’m going to throw that in there, too, for the same reasons.) And the only reason I can think of that a church would have women administering the Lord’s Supper during a worship service instead of the pastor, elders, and/or deacons is either to appear egalitarian or because they are egalitarian, so that’s a “no” too.
Anticipating the questions I’m sure will be asked…
What about situations like COVID, when the church can’t gather? Is “online communion” (taking the Lord’s Supper at home with whatever elements I have on hand while watching the pastor “administer” it online) OK?
No. First of all, as we learned from COVID, while there may be very temporary emergencies, the church can gather if it is being obedient to the Lord. Sometimes obedience is costly, but it can be done. Just ask our Savior, whose obedience cost Him torture and death.
Second, there’s no requirement for how often the church must observe the Lord’s Supper. Jesus said “as often as you do this,” not “every week” or “twice a month”. Once the temporary emergency is over the church can come back together and observe the Lord’s Supper as a body, in person, as indicated by Scripture.
“What about homebound, hospitalized, or dying people who are Providentially hindered from gathering with the church? Can a pastor administer the Lord’s Supper to those people outside the church gathering?”
I would leave that to a pastor’s discretion, but, if I were a pastor, I would be very reluctant to do so. Personally, I would urge those people, as well as anyone else who wants to observe the Lord’s Supper outside of the gathering of the church body to consider why they want to do that. I mean, dig deep and do some serious introspection about your reasons and what you actually believe about the Lord’s Supper.
I suspect some Christians, without even realizing it, may hold some Roman Catholic-adjacent or superstitious beliefs about the Lord’s Supper.
It’s not the thing you do right before you die (or any time) to make you right with God, forgive your sins, or secure your place in Heaven. That’s what Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection were for. And if you’re placing your faith for any of those things in partaking of the Lord’s Supper instead of, or in addition to Christ’s finished work on the cross, that’s idolatry.
It’s not something you do to assuage misplaced guilt about not being physically able to attend church (or, for that matter, to assuage appropriate guilt about forsaking the assembly when you actually could be there). If you are legitimately Providentially hindered from faithful church attendance, God knows that. He’s the One who allowed or placed you in that situation in the first place. You don’t need to “make it up to Him” or try to get “back” into His good graces by performing for Him by partaking of the Lord’s Supper. Rest. Rest in His grace, mercy, and divine Providence. You can partake when you’re able to go back to church, or when the whole church is one day gathered for the marriage supper of the Lamb.
It’s not something you do to somehow conjure up or invoke God’s presence into your midst. That’s a variant of necromancy or witchcraft. God is omnipresent. There’s not a millimeter of the universe in which He is not present. He’s at your social gathering. He’s at your parachurch meeting. What you want to do at those events is to pray, not observe the Lord’s Supper. In prayer, you recognize God’s presence, submit yourselves and your gathering to Him, and ask Him to guide your meeting. And, no, observing the Lord’s Supper isn’t “leveling up” on “just prayer”. Prayer and the Lord’s Supper are two different worship practices with two different purposes.
And, finally, the Lord’s Supper isn’t something you do to secure God’s blessing on whatever activity or venue you’re observing it in. It’s not a talisman. It’s not like rubbing a rabbit’s foot for luck or a baseball player going through his superstitious pre-game rituals so he’ll play well and win the game. Participating in the Lord’s Supper with your church family is a blessing – it’s the blessing of unity in Christ and the fellowship of proclaiming His death together until He comes, but you don’t do it to get God’s blessing on your marriage, your dinner party, or your pro-life meeting.
We run into trouble when we start trying to “improve” on God’s Word and His ways. The Lord’s Supper is an ordinance of the church, to be observed in the gathering of the church body, and to be rightly administered by the pastor, elders, and/or deacons. Let’s leave it at that – nothing more, nothing less – right where Scripture leaves it.
No comments:
Post a Comment