Recently in Communion Category

Last week, the Wesleyan Church General Conference voted unanimously in favor of Memorial 190 (I might call it a proposal or resolution—don't ask me why they call it a "memorial"). The full text reads thus:

OBSERVANCE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER: Discipline recommendation for monthly observance.

Whereas, The Wesleyan Church, as indicated in paragraph 242 of The Discipline, espouses a high view of the Lord's Supper as a sacrament of our redemption and our eternal hope as well as a sign of Christian love and a means of grace;

Whereas, Jesus clearly commands his disciples to partake of the Lord's Supper (Luke 22:14-23);

Whereas, The Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 clearly indicates that this mandate applies to all believers as a means of proclaiming the gospel and anticipating the return of Christ;

Whereas, John Wesley in The Duty of Constant Communion contended that it is the duty of every Christian to receive the Lord's Supper as often as possible because of its benefits including giving believers the strength to perform their duty and leading believers on to entire sanctification;

Whereas, The Lord's Supper is not only a sign of Christian love within a local church, but it is also an expression of Christian unity globally and throughout history; and

Whereas, The current policy of one observance per quarter is out-dated as it originated in the worship of the early Methodist Quarterly Meetings of the 1700's, which were necessitated by the lack of ordained ministers to administer the sacraments within in the circuit system [cf. Dr. Lester Ruth, A Little Heaven Below: Worship at Early Methodist Quarterly Meetings, Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2000);

Resolved, That the second sentence of 725:6 be amended to read:

"Each pastor is encouraged to provide for the observance of the Lord's Supper at least once each month, but is required to do so at least once every three months (293)." ["The Wesleyan Church Memorials: General Conference 2008", 75.]

It is a wonderful thing that the Wesleyan Church has finally acknowledged that reception of Holy Communion should not be limited to once per quarter. This has been too long in coming. I am hopeful that this is a first step in a theological renewal for Wesleyans. Now, you may say I am too cynical, but as wonderful as this is, it raises questions for me.

First, should we simply encourage or should we require pastors to offer Communion monthly? The policy has always been to celebrate this sacrament at least once every three months, so pastors have always had the option of celebrating as often as they like. In fact, the Discipline gives pastors the right "To preach the gospel and to administer baptism and the Lord's Supper, to perform all parts of divine worship and to solemnize the rite of matrimony" (Discipline, 2000, 3075:1). If pastors already have the right to celebrate Communion as often as they like, then why have they not celebrated the sacrament more often? Why is a vote needed at all? I see two possibilities: Pastors either lack a full understanding of Communion or they feel like meeting the minimum requirement is enough. I hope it is the former. If there is simply a lack of understanding, we must re-educate our pastors on the importance of Communion. However, if there is only a desire to meet minimum requirements, then nothing short of a requirement will suffice.

Second, why is the encouragement for only monthly celebration? In support of its recommendation, the memorial presents John Wesley's argument that receiving Communion benefits us by "giving believers the strength to perform their duty and leading believers on to entire sanctification." I wonder if the drafters of this memorial read Wesley's entire sermon. His point was that because Communion provides these benefits, it is important enough to celebrate constantly. Wesley said that a "frequent" reception of Communion "is absurd to the last degree.... For if we are not obliged to communicate 'constantly', by what argument can it be proved that we are obliged to communicate 'frequently'?" ("Constant Communion," II.1). Monthly Communion is hardly constant Communion.

I think the answer to these questions stems from the central problem of Protestantism: we all try to make up our own thing. Protestantism divorced itself from the first 1,500 years of Church tradition and so had to start from scratch with its theological development. So we Wesleyans now find ourselves 500 years after the Reformation voting on whether it is a good thing to encourage monthly celebration of Communion. That the vote was unanimous does not change the fact that we still had to vote. Rather than decide for ourselves the best course of action, we would do well following the example of the New Testament Church which met daily for "the breaking of the bread, and the prayers" (Acts 2:42, Young's Literal Translation). Wesleyans are on the tip of rediscovering the belief of the ancient tradition from which the Protestants separated themselves—that the breaking of the bread/Lord's Supper/Communion/Eucharist is "the fount and apex of the whole Christian life" (Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 11). I hope that we Wesleyans will eventually discover this for ourselves.

In my church there is frequent talk about the necessity of revival. And we are quite serious about it. So serious, in fact, that we talk about it very often. And, we hire a preacher every six months or so to come and preach for four or five days so that through his message the fire in our hearts for God might be rekindled and we might reach the world with the Gospel. I don't know how popular this practice is in mainline Protestant churches like the Presbyterians and Lutherans, but for some years it has enjoyed great popularity in the evangelical world. In the Wesleyan Churches I have attended, revivals are expected, almost a requirement, although the practice of "holding revivals" seems to be in decline among the larger churches. But my church still clings tightly to it.

But rather than resorting to a modern practice to satisfy our hunger for revival, why not figure out what vivified the Church in the first place? The answer can be found in the practice of the apostolic Church of the New Testament. The early disciples met daily for "the breaking of the bread, and the prayers" (Acts 2:42, Young's Literal Translation). More to the point, the disciples on the road to Emmaus found that Jesus "was made known to them in the breaking of the bread" (Luke 24:35, YLT). So, just what is this "breaking of the bread" for which the disciples met daily and through which Jesus makes himself known? The answer is very simple: the Eucharist, or Holy Communion which Christ himself gave to us. Paul describes its institution this way:

The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. (1 Cor. 11:23–26, New International Version).

Jesus alludes to the life-giving principle of Communion in a discourse he gave at Capernaum:

I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.... If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.... I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink (John 6:35, 51, 53–55, NIV).

This discourse is difficult for most Protestants (and apparently for some of the earliest disciples—see John 6:60 ff.) Their doctrines on Holy Communion require them to reject the ancient belief of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist—that the bread and wine of Communion are literally the body and blood of Christ. This is a very important topic for discussion and I may cover it later. However, whether Jesus is being literal or figurative in this passage is irrelevant to my point here.

My point in this case is that if we truly want to have life within us (which is what the viv in revival means), then our best bet is probably not hiring preachers to talk to us every six months. What would be far more effective is to do what the early disciples did daily, what Christ himself gave us to do, and what Christ himself promised would bring us everlasting life. What gave life to the early Church can give life to us today.