Geoff Willour  1/4/12

In my previous post ("A Case for Weekly Communion, Part 1") I began to address various objections that are raised against the practice of weekly communion in the church.  The first two objections I addressed were:

Objection # 1:  Knee-jerk anti-Romanism

Objection # 2:  Pragmatic Considerations

In this post I want to address a number of other objections that might raised against weekly communion and in favor of infrequent communion.  In a future post (or posts) I hope then to begin laying out a positive case in favor of the practice of weekly communion.

Objection # 3:  Invalid Theological Concerns

There are a number of theological objections that could be or have been raised against the practice of weekly communion.  However, upon careful consideration these concerns are biblically and theologically invalid.

(1) Implicit Zwinglianism / "Mere Memorialism":  Many Protestants (especially evangelicals and even many within the Reformed fold) understand the Lord's words "Do this in remembrance of Me" to mean that the Lord's Supper is merely a remembrance/memorial of Jesus dying on the cross for our sins.  In other words, the Lord's Supper is only an occasion for mentally recalling the fact that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, and nothing more.  Certainly most believers holding to this understanding of the Lord's Supper would view partaking of the Lord's Supper as an occasion for their faith to be strengthened.  Nevertheless, in this view of "mere memorialism" Christ is not really present in any special or unique way when the Lord's Supper is celebrated, nor do believers in receiving the Supper commune with the Body and Blood of Christ in any vital or living way (other than by subjective mental recollection).  From this viewpoint the Lord's Supper means "I am remembering what Jesus did for me on the cross by dying as a sacrifice for my sins" rather than "Christ is feeding me with the benefits of His sacrifice (His broken Body and shed Blood) as I receive the elements of bread and wine with a heart of faith in Him, and thus He strengthens and supports my union and communion with Himself."  This "mere memorial" view (which could also, perhaps more cynically, be described as "the Real Absence of Christ") has been ascribed (whether rightly or wrongly) to the Reformer Ulrich Zwingli (hence "Zwinglianism").

It is perhaps this implicit Zwinglianism or "Mere Memorialism" that undergirds the notion held by many Protestants that the Lord's Supper would lose its "special-ness" if it were observed every week.  If the Lord's Supper is fundamentally about my remembering Christ's sacrifice for my sins, then I can understand how this man-centered approach to Holy Communion would lead its adherents to view it as something that is not all that important (certainly not something that needs to be observed every week).  In order to make this not-so-important "ordinance" of the church more meaningful we have to be sure not to observe it too often.  However, if Christ is really present in a special way in the celebration of the Lord's Supper, and if the Holy Supper is a genuine means of grace whereby Christ feeds me spiritually (that is, by the Agency of the Holy Spirit) as I partake of the elements with a heart of faith in Him and His cross-work, thereby strengthening my union and communion with Himself, then it would be vitally important to my spiritual well-being and to the well-being of the corporate church to receive Holy Communion on a frequent (even weekly) basis.  As a ministerial colleague of mine, Rev. Larry Wilson, wrote to me recently in an email:  "...the objection (to weekly communion - GLW) assumes a Zwinglian expectation for the Supper.  That is, the objection sees the meaningfulness of the sacrament as something that we supply.  In this understanding, the Supper is a devotional tool by which we renew and rededicate ourselves to the Lord.  On this understanding, the objection is reasonable.  If we must supply the emotion, etc., to accomplish this, then the more frequently we have the Supper, the harder it is to keep it meaningful.  If, however, the Supper is a genuine means of grace, as our Standards insist, then it is the living God, not we, who supplies the meaning by graciously communicating Christ and his benefits to the mouth of faith -- whether or not we feel it.  So -- at least in my case -- I had to repent of a practical unbelief as part of my letting go of that objection."

Certainly the Reformed Faith affirms that the Lord's Supper involves a remembrance or memorializing of Christ's sacrifice on the cross.  However, in line with the teaching of God's Word, classical Reformed theology denies that the Lord's Supper is a mere memorial.  Rather, as the Holy Scriptures teach, the Lord's Supper is also a "holy communion" with and participation in the Body and Blood of Christ.  "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation (Greek - koinonia; "communion"; "fellowship") in the blood of Christ?  The bread that we break, is it not a participation (koinonia) in the body of Christ?" (First Corinthians 10:16, ESV)  Of course, the Reformed Faith rightly rejects as unscriptural all notions of Christ's carnal or bodily/physical presence in the elements of the Supper, or of those elements somehow being miraculously transformed into the physical Body and Blood of Christ; thus we reject both the Roman Catholic understanding of Christ's presence in the Supper (transubstantiation) and the Lutheran understanding of the Supper (often called "consubstantiation").  At the same time, Reformed theology does affirm the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Supper.  His Presence is not tied or confined to the emblems of His broken Body and shed Blood (the elements); rather, He is specially, covenantally, spiritually present in the celebration of the Holy Supper.  (Let the reader understand that Christ's human nature is in heaven at the right hand of God the Father, and cannot be present in multiple places; only in His Divine nature is Christ omnipresent and ubiquitous.  The Roman Catholic and Lutheran understandings of Christ's presence in the Supper compromise the Lord's genuine humanity by teaching that Christ's humanity - including His Body and Blood - can be present in multiple places at the same time - for example, on thousands of Roman Catholic "altars" in the celebration of the Mass.)  Christ is present, not physically or carnally, but by the Agency of the Holy Spirit (Spiritual Presence) and to the faith of believing communicants.  Through the Holy Spirit the Lord Jesus Christ causes the communicant who partakes by faith in a worthy manner to commune with the benefits of His atonement (His broken Body and shed Blood), thereby strengthening the communicants objective union with Christ and subjective faith in Christ.  If such wonderful spiritual, faith-strengthening benefits result from the worthy partaking of the Lord's Supper, why would any believer want to deprive himself or herself of receiving such spiritual blessings on a frequent (even weekly) basis?

(2) Concerns for proper self-examination and worthy participation:  It would seem that some object to the practice of weekly communion because they fear it would undermine the biblical call for communicants to engage in careful self-examination prior to receiving communion.  (The Apostle Paul issues such a call to self-examination and worthy partaking in First Corinthians 11:27-29.)  The idea seems to be that if the church celebrated communion every week, communicant church members would grow lax in their self-examination before the Lord.  On the other hand, it is thought that a less frequent celebration of the Holy Supper (for example, monthly or even less) would do more to promote serious self-examination, since its lack of frequency would make the time of its celebration a more serious, special occasion.  (Perhaps this is the thinking that undergirds the practice of "communion seasons" as observed in some Presbyterian and Reformed churches.)  But, once again, this kind of reasoning is based more upon pragmatic considerations and (I would argue) implicit Zwinglian thinking than it is upon Scriptural considerations.  Our subordinate Standards affirm this biblical call to self-examination, and I certainly affirm that serious self-examination prior to receiving communion is a biblical duty.  At the same time, the notion that serious self-examination and weekly communion are incompatible with each other is simply nonsense.  In fact, I would urge that the practice of weekly communion (combined with a robust belief in Christ's Real Presence in the Holy Supper, biblically-understood) could do much to promote, rather than hinder, serious-minded self-examination.  Shouldn't we believers engage in serious self-examination before the Lord on a more frequent (say, weekly), rather than a less frequent, basis?  And if any communicant in a church practicing weekly communion fails to engage in such serious self-examination prior to partaking, where does the real fault lie:  in the practice itself, or in the communicant who fails in his/her duty of self-examination?  Thus I would judge this objection to be unbiblical and invalid.

Objection # 4:  Appeal to Tradition

When it all boils down, if we are honest we must admit that often the basic, gut-level objection to weekly communion involves an appeal, not to Holy Scripture, but to mere human tradition.  "But we've always practiced monthly/quarterly/annual/whatever communion!"  The "but we've always done it this way" objection may not be so bluntly or forthrightly stated, and it may be dressed up with allegedly biblical and theological arguments.  Nevertheless, I believe that this final objection is often (though not always) at the bottom of why many Christians would have a problem with weekly communion.  Many have been either raised in or saved in a church which practices infrequent communion, and thus they have become comfortable with the practice.  Now, let's be honest:  All of us have our "traditions" (in the sense of that which has been "passed down" to us).  "Tradition" is not, in and of itself, necessarily a bad thing, if such "tradition" is based upon, agreeable with, and subordinate to the Word of God.  But, as I hope to show in a future post (or posts), I do not believe the tradition of infrequent communion observance is a biblically-based tradition.  Though it may be a "comfortable" practice for many, if it is a practice that is contrary to apostolic precept or example as recorded in Holy Scripture then we who claim to be followers of the Lord Jesus Christ must be willing to reconsider our present "tradition" (i.e., "the way we've always done things") and to step out of our comfort zones onto the pathway of further reformation and more consistent obedience to our Savior's will.  Let us seek to subordinate our "tradition" - whatever it might be - to the requirements of God's inspired, inerrant, infallible Word, the Holy Bible.  After all, we confess the Bible as our only infallible rule for faith and practice (including our communion practice).

To be continued...