Thanks to all who responded last time. I will seek to write a new blog each week, so mark this page in your favorites and check back regularly!
As I indicated in my Easter sermon, the cross has no meaning without the resurrection. And yet, I heard precious little about the resurrection as I grew up. (Perhaps I was too busy playing lines and boxes in church!)
Without the resurrection, the cross can become a symbol of guilt. The Lord's Supper can become a time in which we beat ourselves up each week. The predominant prayer at the LS is that we remember and visualize the pain and agony of the cross. You almost get the idea that the more we visualize blood flying (the gore), the more spiritual we are. That the point of communion is to beat ourselves up and feel guilty for all that we have done in the week.
However, Jesus didn't say, take the LS to remember the blood and gore. He said, do this in remembrance of me. Through the LS meal, we are to remember Christ. And the gospels make abundantly clear that Christ is alive and well. Both Luke and John record accounts of Jesus eating meals with his disciples after he has been raised--and they are filled with joy at these meals. Luke makes clear that Jesus is taking the Lord's Supper at this time with them (compare Lk. 22:19 with 24:30). In the book of Acts, the early church broke bread (took LS) with glad and sincere hearts (2:46).
Resurrection only makes sense in light of the cross, so we have to go through the cross to get to resurrection. But we do not take the LS on Friday. It is not a funeral meal (which, by the way, most funeral meals seem more joyous than our LS meals--people laugh and talk and smile). We take the LS on Sunday--the most awesome, joyous day in history of the world. The Lord's Supper on the Lord's day. It is not a time of private meditation and guilt. Christ has taken all the guilt away. It is a joyous time of fellowship with our risen Savior and one another. If we leave the LS at the cross, we have missed both the Lord's Day & the Lord's Supper.
Posts
2 comments:
Good points. I doubt the Lord's Supper in the New Testament Church looked anything like what we do today. Now we dare not smile, much less speak.
You mentioned Acts 2:46. Depending on how you read this, it suggests the Lord's Supper may have been eaten on more than Sunday? As Sunday was the day of Jesus' resurrection, we have good reason to celebrate through the Lord's Supper on Sundays, but it seems it's not something we should fight over if others choose to celebrate it on different days. I don't buy Acts 20:7 as setting forth a requirement about this. Thoughts?
I think one thing that makes taking the Lord's Supper a somber occasion is our concern about taking of it in a worthy manner and examining ourselves. We're sometimes so worried we might do it "wrong" that we don't have the right focus. I know you've taught on this before and explained the context of why Paul was reprimanding the Corinthians, but I think it may take more repetition to get beyond years of tradition. Perhaps we should sometimes use the 1-2 minutes that the "presider" speaks each Sunday to address some continued misconceptions people may have about what they have to think about while they partake. I know I could use it.
Devin,
Thanks for your thoughts. Yes, Acts 2:46 can be translated in a way that suggests more than a weekly observance. The historical practice of the church, however, is clearly weekly. This leads me to believe that Acts 2:46 probably refers to a weekly observance.
While I do not know that you could say that taking the LS on other days is wrong, I think that without the link to the resurrection it loses its intended meaning. We are given the freedom to individually set aside special days if we choose, as you indicate.
Continued teaching on the LS is definitely needed. If we are going to have a "Jesus died" song at each LS, then we ought to also have a "Jesus rose" song. Or at least alternate these songs each week.
Post a Comment