Category: Theology

Classic Arm Chair Theology at its best (or should that read worst?)

Programs, Preaching and the Rest of Us (part 1)

~ fundyreformed ~ 3 Comments

Entering the sanctuary, I hear the musical prelude and realize I have made it on time. Soon the music leader starts off with a congregational song and the worship service has officially begun. I pop a mint in my mouth as I listen to the pastor welcome us to the service today before he gives a few announcements and prays. I stand again, as we sing a few more songs, pausing only to read a portion of Scripture together. Several men walk up to the front with baskets, while someone prays and the offering begins. The nice music in the background makes me almost forget that this offering is a part of our worship to God. We sing again, this time as we remain seated. And then a wonderful trio of ladies present us with a special number. Then the pastor steps up and our sermon begins. The message is moving, I must admit, although I wonder about that fellow over there who is practically snoring–oh, and then those people that keep getting up and taking their children out and then returning again. Before I know it the sermon has finished and we are praying. We rise and sing a few verses of a closing hymn and after a brief prayer or benediction we are dismissed.

This is the cycle repeated week in and week out every Sunday morning at numerous churches all over the world. It is carefully planned out and programmed. There is a bulletin with the order of service in it. Everyone who has a part up front has been notified well in advance. The songs have been selected, those praying have thought through what they will say. The pastor has prepared his fine sermon. Everything is in accord with the admonition in 1 Cor. 14:40, “all things should be done decently and in order”.

In some cases this same cycle is repeated at a Sunday night gathering. There may be a bit less formality than the morning worship, and perhaps a different pastor or church leader is speaking, but all in all it is the same. At the mid week service, there may be a time of concerted prayer before or after the service, but the service once again is largely a mirror image of Sunday morning’s routine.

Have you ever wondered if this kind of service was what the New Testament really had in view? Is this formal gathering with one man leading the show and another doing all the talking really what Hebrews has in mind when it exhorts us to not be “forsaking the assembling of ourselves together” (KJV, 10:25)? Or how about this question: Do we actually see this kind of a meeting in Scripture?

Far too often, I fear, we Christians, and especially we theologically conservative Baptists, resist asking such questions. Much more than we want to admit it, we are creatures of habit and upholders of tradition. Tradition is not all bad, in fact it can be very healthy. But if we find ourselves appalled that someone would even dare to question something as important as a programmed worship service where one man preaches the word to all gathered, perhaps a word of caution is in view. Just maybe, we are more connected to our tradition than to Scripture, and probably tradition is holding too prominent a place in our thinking.

In this article, I argue that an open, participatory style of worship is closer to what we see in Scripture than the modern programmed service. Then I give some descriptive examples as to how this might look, and finally I propose some recommendations (not without a few reservations) on how to implement this in a typical church. I understand this is controversial and radical to say the least. But I hope you hear me out and pause to think through some of the considerations I bring forth. May God bless us all in thinking through these matters together, and help us to live out church life in a way that is honoring to Him.

 

Arguments for Open, Participatory Worship

 

1) Church Services in Scripture

We do not have many examples in Scripture of believers meeting for worship and edification, but those we do have are examples of an open, participatory style of worship. The clearest example of public worship in Scripture, indeed also the most direct teaching on public worship, is found in 1 Cor. 14. The most pertinent section to our study is verses 26-33.

26 What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. 27 If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. 28 But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. 30 If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, 32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. 33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. (ESV)

Verse 26 specifies that “each one” of the brothers are participating in the service. Two or three are allowed to speak in a tongue while another interprets. And two or three prophets may speak, while the other prophets weigh what is being said. Vs. 30 highlights the spontanaity of the service by stressing that if someone receives a message from the Spirit he may interrupt another’s message (from the same Spirit). Vs. 31 is key: “For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged”. Today that verse would be rendered, “For one may prophesy so that everyone else can learn from him and be encouraged.”

Now some will argue here about my use of this passage. It seems that many would prefer to not have 1 Cor. 14 in the Bible, so little do they actually listen to what it says. Many will object that prophecy is in view and since prophecy is no longer current in the church today, we do not follow the teaching of the passage. I have actually heard people try to equate NT prophecy and preaching as almost synonymous. If so, the passage should be followed. Many today teach that NT prophecy is similar to sharing something God laid on your heart. Others obviously believe prophecy (albeit of a less authoritative nature than Scripture) is a revelation from God the Spirit for us to hear today. These all should apply the passage, still. And those who think it is referring to a prophecy no longer functioning should realize he is singling out encouragement and edification as the result of prophecy (see v. 3) and any speech today which would encourage or edify–an exhortation, if you will–would fit the bill and fall under the directions of this passage.

Others will point out that Corinth was a confused church and Paul is correcting problems here. Exactly, what you read in vs. 26-33 is Paul’s correction. It applies to us in that this is how Paul says churches should behave. As Steve Atkerson points out, “The inspired correction was for the church to have regulated, orderly interaction, and not a prohibition of it….” [1].

Other glimpses in Scripture at how church services were conducted also show us that the worship was interactive and participatory rather than heavily programmed and conducted as a one man show. Acts 15 shows us a church meeting [while vs. 6 specifies apostles and elders were considering the matter of discussion, vs. 12 and 22 suggest the entire church was together for this discussion] where Peter, Barnabus, Paul, and James all participated. In fact, vs. 7 says “after there had been much debate”. And vs. 12 which follows on the heels of Peter’s appeal, begins “And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabus and Paul…”. This suggests that there had been an open forum of discussion and Peter brought forth an appeal and then Barnabus and Paul spoke up, followed by James after the crowd had finished talking (v. 13). Now I know this was a business meeting more than a worship meeting, but it is instructive that one man didn’t run the show.

But what about Acts 1? It seems that Peter is the only one conducting a business meeting of sorts. Well, actually, vs. 14 specifies that everyone was in one accord together in prayer. And then vs. 15 says “In those days Peter stood up among the brothers…”. In the context of this gathering where many are praying, Peter stands and addresses everyone. Then everyone (or at least the apostles) together chose two men (v. 23) and cast lots over them (v. 26). It again was no one man show, but there was a mutual involvement in leadership.

You may be scratching your head trying to come up with some other example of a church meeting in Scripture. Well, don’t forget Acts 20:7-12. And yes, this seems like a contradiction to all I have said, but upon closer look it is not at all. Here we find Paul meeting with the believers in Troas and talking with them, around a meal which seems to be also an observance of the Lord’s Supper. Now this at first glance might seem to be an argument against the position I am advocating. The ESV says “Paul talked with them…and prolonged his speech until midnight…” (from v. 7). Now I admit that many modern Bible translations are similar here, but I believe the Darby version and the NIV best capture what the Greek is actually saying.

Darby — And the first day of the week, we being assembled to break bread, Paul discoursed to them, about to depart on the morrow. And he prolonged the discourse till midnight.

NIV — On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight.

The greek for “discourse” or “talk” (the KJV has “preach”) is the word “dialogemai“. This is the word from which we get “dialogue”. Vine’s Expository Dictionary says the following here: “…primarily denotes ‘to ponder, resolve in one’s mind’ (dia, ‘through,’ lego, ‘to say’); then, ‘to converse, dispute, discuss, discourse with;’ most frequently, ‘to reason or dispute with.’…The AV translates it ‘preached,’ in Acts 20:7,9; this the RV corrects to ‘discoursed,’ lit., ‘dialogue,’ i.e., not by way of a sermon, but by a ‘discourse’ of a more conversational character.”[2] This understanding of dialogemai fits with what we see later in this passage. Vs. 11 mentions that after Eutychus was raised from the dead, they go back up to the room and eat and “converse” until daybreak. The Greek word for “converse” is homileo. Vine says of this verse: “‘to be in company with, consort with’ (homilos, ‘a throng;’ homilia, ‘a company’), hence, ‘to converse with,’ is rendered ‘to talk with,’ Acts 20:11” [3].

Now the word homileo brings up an interesting point. This word sounds like “homily” another word for a sermon. And the word “discourse” a good translation of dialogemai also can have a formal or religious sense to it. Yet when one looks in the dictionary, the formal sense of discourse is not the first sense for “discourse”, rather the idea of communication, expression, or conversation is primary. [4]

So in Acts 20, we see Paul earnestly desiring fellowship with believers before he likely will never see them again. Paul converses and dialogues, discussing the Word and other things in an edifying way to the believers present for the worship service.

Before I move on form this point about church services in Scripture, we should note two passages which expressly instruct how we are to behave as a body of Christ. Most would view them as directly informing our public worship. Let me quote the verses here.

Col. 3:16 “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.” (ESV)

Eph. 5:19 “Addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart,” (ESV)

Did you catch the “one another”? We are to be teaching and admonishing, verbally and in song, one another. This seems to be most easily accomplished in a setting where people can bring a hymn or a teaching or exhortation (prophecy) publicly before the gathered body and share it with us all. Just think, how can the believers in the pew really teach, admonish, address, or edify the church as a whole? More on that aspect later.

2) Preaching and Teaching in Scripture

“But what about the emphasis Scripture places on preaching?” I can almost hear someone thinking that right now. Well, let me tell you that most often preaching is tied to the public declaration of the gospel message. And most, if not all, of the examples in Scripture we have of preaching (think Acts) are all in contexts describing an evangelistic message to a group of mostly lost people. Teaching, however is what we see happening in the church. The believers in Acts 2 continued in the Apostle’s teaching. Doctrine is a fancy word for teaching. And teaching is stressed as something which should be a part of church life. When Paul sums up his ministry of one and a half years to the Corinthian believers, he does not say he preached to them all that time, but rather that he was “teaching the word of God among them” (Acts 18:11).

Teaching, it is true, conjures up an image of a less formal structure than that of preaching. But still the idea is that one guy is doing it all. At this point let me provide a somewhat lengthy, but I trust helpful quote from John Zens.

Among the many gifts Christ gives to his people, some are gifted as teachers (Eph. 4:11). James says, “Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly” (3:1). Paul says, “if a person’s gift is teaching, let him teach” (Ro. 12:6-7). And in 1 Co. 12:28-29 Paul underscores the fact that Christ never intended for everybody to have the same gifting by asking, “Are all teachers?” On the other hand, the writer to the Hebrews chides all the bretheren for their lack of growth by saying, “though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again” (5:12). So while it is clear that only some are gifted as teachers, all of Christ’s people are to be “teachers” in the broad sense of contributing to the overall edification of the body according to their gifting….groups of believers will vary greatly in their giftedness…some assemblies will have several gifted at teaching, some will have one person, and others may feel that they have none. The central thing to keep in mind is that all believers have the Holy Spirit (the “anointing”) and are capable of some level of sharing Christ, of manifesting discernment, of caring for one another, and of understanding the Scriptures…. [5]

A further point could be made about James 3:1, I believe. James does not make being an elder a requirement to becoming a teacher. He seems rather to be resisting the influx of people willing and apparently able to teach. Steve Atkerson says concerning this verse, “James’ warning makes sense in light of the intimate, interactive meetings that characterized the early church.” [6]

Now I do believe that pastors and elders (remember I believe in a plurality of elders, see Titus 1:5 and Acts 14:23) have a special responsibility to be pastor-teachers (Eph. 4:11) and to equip the saints through teaching (Eph. 4:12). And I will mention later that I believe there still should be public teaching including a lecture style format. More on that later. But for now notice Titus 1:9-11. Pastors must be able to teach so they can silence those who “contradict”. Those in view here are false teachers. They are speaking in these churches due to the open and participatory format. Thus they need to be silenced. Verse 11 is intriguing. The ESV says, “They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach.” But the Greek has “whole houses” not families. I think this is a reference to house churches being led astray by the influence of these false teachers “of the circumcision party”. This is similar to what is in view in 2 John 10, where house could be understood as local assembly, most of which met in houses originally.

3) Church Life in Scripture

One last and important line of reasoning which supports a participatory worship style are the many “one another” commands in Scripture. The Bible is replete with exhortations for us to love, encourage, comfort, edify, and exhort one another. In a previous post on this issue (“1 Thessalonians and Churches’ Greatest Need”), I listed 27 passages of Scripture besides almost the entire book of 1 Thessalonians which give “one another” commands. And my list is by no means exhaustive.

Now how exactly are we to obey these commands? Does sitting in a pew provide you the means of exhorting and encouraging fellow believers? Perhaps every third month when you get a chance to pray publicly, but certainly not regularly. Now, I am sure the commands mentioned above are to be followed out as we interact within the community of believers in our local church. But think about how your church is structured. How exactly are these commands being obeyed? While I agree that I and you and we all must be more assertive in looking for ways to practice “one another” ministry, I think, however, that part of the blame for a lack of “one another” ministry should lie at the feet of how we structure church today. With a select few doing all the practical ministry, the rest of us merely veg being the wonderful consumers that we are.

When you look at Scripture, you do certainly see specific qualifications and responsibilites required of the elders. But it is most often the normal church members who are addressed and called to serve and work in the church. Just typing the phrase “normal church member” irritates me. That entire idea stems from the whole Catholic idea of a distinction between the clergy and the laity. The clergy must mediate the spiritual blessings to the laity. I think the whole Protestant view of preaching is tied up in this concept of clergy and laity held over from the Catholic church. When we look at church life in Scripture we see no special prominence given to the church leaders, and we see non leaders actively involved in every facet of ministry and worship within the church.

We have come to the end of part one. I still plan to describe open, participatory worship (giving modern and historical examples) and offer some final recommendations and reservations about this whole discussion. I wanted to go ahead and post what I have so far here. And the rest should follow shortly.

 

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

 

Further Resources

[1] Steve Atkerson, “Interactive Meetings”, an online article (similar to the chapter  3 in Ekklesia—see footnotes).

[2] Beresford Job and Jon Zens, “Paul Preached Unto Them”, an online article (similar to chapter 4 in Ekklesia).

[3] The New Testament Restoration Foundation, a ministry devoted to spreading and teaching about house churches with participatory, open worship.

[4] More to come in part 2.

Footnotes

[1] Steve Atkerson, Ekklesia: To the Roots of Biblical Church Life, edited by Steve Atkerson, (Atlanta: New Testament Restoration Foundation, 2003), pg. 37. [For sample of a chapter in this book, click here.]

[2] Vine’s Expository Dictionary entry for “discourse” as accessed at BlueLetterBible.Org, click herefor the online entry.

[3] Vine’s Expository Dictionary entry for “talk – B-3” as accessed at BlueLetterBible.Org, click herefor the online entry.

[4] Information gathered from the Dictionary.Com entry for “discourse” as accessed at Dictionary.Com, click here to view the whole entry.

The Dictionary.Com dictionary’s first two definitions for “discourse” are as follows: “1. communication of thought by words; talk; conversation: earnest and intelligent discourse. 2. a formal discussion of a subject in speech or writing, as a dissertation, treatise, sermon, etc.” And The American Heritage Dictionary‘s first three definitions for “discourse”, cited at Dictionary.com are as follows: “1. Verbal expression in speech or writing. 2. Verbal exchange; conversation. 3. A formal, lengthy discussion of a subject, either written or spoken.”

[5] John Zens, Ekklesia, pg. 59-60; underlined emphasis is italic in original.

[6] Steve Atkerson, Ekklesia, pg. 42.

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7

What to Do When the Joy's Not There

~ fundyreformed ~ 7 Comments

Dan Phillips has a good post challenging us to worship God even when we don’t feel like it. He describes a situation where he genuninely thanked God although at the time he did not feel necessarily thankful or joyful. From this experience Dan asks the following pertinent questions:

But did the prayer, the worship, not “count,” because I didn’t have any of those wonderful emotions we’re supposed to have? Was it not real worship, because it wasn’t emotional worship? What do you do if you don’t feel anything? [underlined word was italicized in the original]

At this point, Dan has some strong words against charismatics in general and also against John Piper.  

Here’s where Piper will point to the many passages about joy and rejoicing, assert that they’re feelings, and as much as say that they are absolutely essential. The Charismatic…will agree. And so what this mindset produces is that you chase the feeling, you chase the emotion, you do whatever you have to do to get that emotion back — because if it’s not there, what you’re doing isn’t real. It doesn’t “count.”

In fact, I’ve known people who simply stop and refuse to budge until they get the emotions back. They don’t “feel” like going to church. Therefore going wouldn’t be real worship. Therefore they don’t go. They don’t “feel” like showing love (or respect) to their wives (or husbands). So it wouldn’t be a spiritual action. So they don’t do it. They don’t “feel” like reading their Bibles, and it’s a “dry” experience. So they don’t.

Or they sing “Breathe” or some chorus ten or twenty times, or get slapped on the forehead, or babble, or do the hokey-pokey, or whatever it might take to roil up those flighty emotions. They chase the emotion, the experience, so they can get going again spiritually.

I call it “making a god of your glands.” And I call it tempting God. And I call it unbelief.   [bold emphasis mine; underlined words were italicized in the original]

I think those are some pretty strong words. Perhaps he is more concerned with the run-of-the-mill charismatic than with Piper, but the words speak for themselves.  

His conclusion is to live from conviction. To just fight on. Not to seek for emotions, but to seek for God. And to a degree I would agree. However, I think his conclusion misses something. I think he is belittling the importance of emotions.  

John Piper specifically addresses this same overall problem in his book When I Don’t Desire God: How to Fight for Joy. On pages 220-222 he sets out to answer this question: “If joy in God is the fountain of love and the root of right living–as I believe it is–can behavior that proceeds without joy be virtuous?” What follows is a quote from comments I left under Dan’s post over at Pyromaniacs. It is the answer that Piper provides to the above question. I think Piper’s answer is better than Dan’s and does more justice to the Biblical call to “always rejoice”.

He answers the question on two levels:

“First, I would say that a Christian, no matter how dark the season of his sadness, never is completely without joy in God. I mean that there remains in his heart the seed of joy in the form, perhaps only of a remembered taste of goodness and an unwillingness to let the goodness go….” (pg. 220)

“The other answer…is that we should never say to ourselves or another person in the season of darkness, ‘Just do your work. Just do your duty. Just act like a Christian, evein if you don’t feel like one.’” (pg. 220)

Before yoy say “Aha!”, Piper clarifies this assertion (the quote picks up right where I left off above):

“That’s almost good advice. but the problem is in the word just. Instead of only saying, ‘just do your duty,’ we must say four other things as well.

First, we must say that joy is part of your duty.” He cites 1 Thess. 5:16, 2 Cor. 9:7, Ps. 100:2, Rom. 12:8 and James 1:2 here. (pg. 220)

He goes on…

“The second thing we must say when we tell a disconsolate person to ‘do their job’ is that while they do their job, they should probably be repenting and confessing the sin of gloomy faith….Failing to rejoice in God when we are commanded to rejoice is sin.” (pg. 221)

“…the third thing we say along with ‘Do your duty’….[is] As you are able to do some of your duty, ask God that the joy be restored. That is, don’t sit and wait for the joy, saying, ‘I will be a hypocrite if I do an act of mercy today, since I do not feel the joy of mercy.'” (pg. 221)

“And the fourth thing we say,…is, ‘Be sure to thank God as you work that he has given you at least the will to work.’…Your aim in loosing your tongue with words of gratitude is that God would be merciful and fill your words with the emotion of true gratitude….”(pg. 221-222)   [All bolding emphasis added by me; underlined words were italicized in the original]

[For more on this whole issue read Piper’s book When I Don’t Desire God: How to Fight for Joy. You can read it online for free here (pdf).]

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7

The Lord's Supper — Snack or Feast?

~ fundyreformed ~ 29 Comments

This is a long post. I warned you! But I felt I had to address all sides of this topic first before opening up discussion. I hope you will consider this post thoughtfully, and I really do welcome constructive criticism.

In a previous post I considered the spiritual aspect of the Lord’s Supper. In many circles today nothing really spiritual is expected to happen at the Lord’s Table, yet Scripture says we have a participation—a communion with Christ’s death (1 Cor. 10:16) through the Lord’s Supper. I won’t repeat that post here, but I would like to quote from the tail end of that post as a way of introducing this post’s topic.

One last angle on this aspect of the Lord’s Supper concerns the idea of fellowship with God around a meal. Wayne Grudem offers Ex. 24:9-11 and Deut. 14:23-26 as examples of a special fellowship with God surrounding a meal. This he describes is a restoration of the fellowship man had with God in Eden before the Fall. Yet he stresses:

“The Old Testament sacrificial meals continually pointed to the fact that sins were not yet paid for, because the sacrifices in them were repeated year after year, and because they looked forward to the Messiah who was to come and take away sin (see Heb. 10:1-4). The Lord’s Supper, however, reminds us that Jesus’ payment for our sins has already been accomplished, so we now eat in the Lord’s presence with great rejoicing….Yet even the Lord’s Supper looks forward to a more wonderful fellowship meal in God’s presence in the future, when the fellowship of Eden will be restored and there will be even greater joy….” [1]

Feasting and Fellowship

Feasting had a prominent place in the Old Testament and in Jewish life. There were seven national feasts and three of them required the males to make a pilgrimage to the Temple–where a huge national feast would commence. It was not uncommon for marriage feasts to last days or weeks even.

A natural result of feasting is fellowship. Or you could say, those you fellowship with are the ones you feast with. Ever read a tale which depicted a medieval feast? The whole idea of feasting is wholly foreign to our minds today. Maybe the closest relative to the feast of yesteryear is the Baptist potluck dinner of today!

The Last Supper & the Feast to Come

The Lord’s Supper (yes, I am getting to the point now) was instituted in the context of a feast. The Last Supper was the time Christ and His disciples celebrated the “feast” of the Passover. This is made clear in Luke 22:15. So, in the context of the Passover festive meal, Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper.

But Jesus and His disciples were not only looking back to the deliverance of Israel at the Exodus, they also were looking forward. Jesus inaugurated the new covenant at this meal, and he also looked forward to the time when he would feast with his disciples again in the kingdom of God. Luke’s Gospel makes this connection especially clear:

Luke 22:15-18 And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves. For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”

And then after the Supper…

Luke 22:28-30 “You are those who have stayed with me in my trials, and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”

So the context of the giving of the Lord’s Supper involves a look back at the feast of the Passover and a look forward to a future feast: the marriage supper of the Lamb.

Pass the Thimble! Cracker, Anyone?

By now you know where I am going with this. Anyone else fail to see the relation between loaf of bread and 1/2 inch square cracker? Or how about cup of wine with the common thimble sized variety? To quote a book which advocates a radical change in the way we do Communion, “Would the Twelve have somehow deduced that the newly instituted Lord’s Supper was not to be a true meal? Or would they naturally have assumed it to be a feast, just like the Passover?” [2]

Consider this. Every clear example of the Lord’s Supper in Scripture includes a meal. 1 Cor. 11 clearly states that a meal was involved. Acts 20:7-12 also seems to be a clear example of the Lord’s Supper, and there it is obvious a meal is included. Also, the word for “supper” is the Greek word deipnon which means the evening meal–a full meal. [3]

The Love Feast in Scripture and History

The New Testament church held an agape feast, or a love feast in connection with the Lord’s Supper. It was “a simple meal of brotherly love”. [4] Let me quote Merrill F. Unger a bit here:

It would appear that the celebration of the Lord’s Supper by the first disciples occurred daily in private houses (Acts 2:46), in connection with the agape, or love feast, to indicate that its purpose was the expression of brotherly love. The offering of thanks and praise (1 Cor. 10:16; 11:24) was probably followed with the holy kiss (Rom. 16:16; 1 Cor. 16:20). It was of a somewhat festive character, judging from the excesses that Paul reproved (1 Cor. 11:20), and was associated with an ordinary meal, at the close of which the bread and wine were distributed as a memorial of Christ’s similar distribution to the disciples. From the accounts in Acts (2:42, 46) and from Paul’s letter to the Corinthians (11:20-21) it is safely inferred that the disciples each contributed a share of the food necessary for the meal, thus showing a community of love and fellowship. To this unifying power of the Eucharist Paul evidently refers (10:16-17). [5]

Apparently most scholars agree that the Lord’s Supper was originally taken as a meal. Let me provide a few quotes regarding this:

Donald Guthrie: “in the early days the Lord’s Supper took place in the course of a communal meal.” (The Lion Handbook of the Bible) [6a]

John Drane: “Throughout the New Testament period the Lord’s Supper was an actual meal shared in the homes of Christians. It was only much later that [it] was moved to a special building…”. (The New Lion Encyclopedia) [6b]

J.G. Simpson: “the name Lord’s Supper…derived from 1 Corinthians 11:20, is not there applied to the sacrament itself but to the Love Feast or Agape, a meal commemorating the Last Supper, and not yet separated from the Eucharist when St. Paul wrote.” (The Dictionary of the Bible) [6c]

Merrill F. Unger: “Apparently the Lord’s Supper and the Agape were originally one (1 Cor. 11:17-34). The common conservative view unites a simple repast with the Lord’s Supper on the general plan of the Last Supper.” (The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary) [7]

Hulitt Gloer: “By the second century the word agapai had become a technical term for such a common meal which seems to have been separated from the ceremonial observance of the Lord’s Supper sometime after the New Testament period.” (Holman Bible Dictionary) [8]

As the giving of the Lord’s Supper became more formal and sacramentally oriented, the agape feast was separated from the Lord’s Supper. And both continued to be practiced for some time, although the Agape Feast was condemned, due to excesses and problems, at a church council in the 300s. Yet the practice continued in some places until as late as the 15th century. [9]

Before moving on, I should mention that the love feast is directly mentioned by name in Jude 12, and it is possibly referred to in a parallel passage in 2 Pet. 2:13. And as mentioned above, what we see in Acts 2 and 20, and also in 1 Cor. 11 seems very similar to the love feast.

Summary (with an Objection Answered)

At this point, it would be helpful to summarize the arguments for partaking of the Lord’s Supper in the context of a meal. I will add a few extra arguments here to consider as well.

  • The Lord’s Supper was originally instituted in context of a meal
  • The Lord’s Supper looks forward to the Marriage Supper of the Lamb
  • The Lord’s Supper is called just that a “supper” not a “snack”
  • In 1 Cor. 11 and Acts 20 the clearest examples of what the Lord’s Supper as practiced by NT believers looks like both indicate a meal was eaten
  • Jude 12 indicates that love feasts were celebrated by the early church and church history confirms that such feasts were held in conjunction with the Lord’s Supper
  • The bread part of the Lord’s Supper was instituted “as they were eating” (Matt. 26:26)
  • The cup part of the Lord’s Supper was separated from the bread and it was taken “after they had eaten” (Luke 22:20, see also 1 Cor. 11:25)

Now we should respond to a possible objection.

Objection: Doesn’t 1 Cor. 11:34 say, “if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home”?

Answer: The problem in 1 Cor. was not that a meal was eaten along with the supper. The rich came to the meeting early since they did not want to eat with the poorer classes, and the poor coming late (due to work constraints) found no food left. Some of the rich remained so long at eating and drinking they became drunk. Rather than it being the Lord’s Supper, they were eating their own supper and missing what the whole feast was about. The solution to this was not to stop eating the Lord’s Supper as a meal, rather vs. 33 says, “when you come together to eat, wait for one another”. Those who could not wait, due to selfishness or lack of discipline, were to eat at home (v. 34).

Possible Benefits

Greater Unity. 1 Cor. 10:17 says “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.” Let me quote from Ekklesia (the book I referred to above) at some length here:

The one loaf not only pictures our unity in Christ, but according to 1 Co 10:17 even creates unity. Notice careful [sic] the wording of the inspired text. “Because” there is one loaf, therefore we are one body, “for” we all partake of the one loaf (1 Cor. 10:17). Partaking of a pile of broken cracker crumbs and multiple cups of the fruit of the wine is a picture of disunity, division, and individuality. At the very least, it completely misses the imagery of unity. At worse, it would prohibit the Lord from using the one loaf to create unity in a body of believers. [10]

More Fellowship. From the above verse we see that partaking of the Lord’s Supper creates unity. Now picture the typical Lord’s Supper service. Everyone has their own private celebration where they spend time examining themselves and on meditating on the wonder of Christ’s death. They are interrupted from their individual worship (sadly for some they are interrupted from their distracted thoughts or daydreams) and look up in time to chew their food or gulp their juice in unison. This creates unity and promotes fellowship, really???

Surely coming together around the Lord’s table for the Lord’s meal, sharing food with one another, tarrying until we can all eat together–this would promote more fellowship and foster unity. This too is closer to what the Passover feast looked like and what the Marriage supper of the Lamb will look like–a joyful communal feast celebrating the victory performed on our behalf by our Gracious Lord.

Steve Atkerson in Ekklesia puts forth the idea that in Acts 2:42 “fellowship” and “breaking of bread” are “linked together as simultaneous activities”. [11] He sees this because there is no “and” between them, while there is an “and” between “teaching” and “fellowship”, and between “bread” and “prayer”.

Increased Appreciation. I am of the opinion that a cracker and a thimble do not enable me to appreciate the significance of the Lord’s Supper ritual to the proper extent. Is it possible that when Christ instituted the ordinance he intended some benefit to come from the fact that we would be chewing a large piece of bread all the while we are meditating the significance of the fact that Christ’s body was broken? Could he have intended us to think of the bitterness of his life’s blood flowing from him, as we drank a good draught from a wine which is often acidic?

We are not strictly spiritual beings nor shall we ever be. We are a physical-spiritual-emotional being. What we experience physically can be felt in our spiritual senses. I think that with both baptism and the Lord’s Supper, God teaches us verbally and non-verbally. Baptism is a picture to see, the Lord’s Supper is a meal to eat. Seeing, hearing, and eating–all are physical things. I think we shortchange the physical element of the Lord’s Supper when we use a cracker and a thimble.

Especially for us who have an innate tendency to avoid anything with sacramental overtones or that remotely smells of Rome, we do not like rituals. So even in our Christ-ordained rituals, we try to be as un-ritualistic as possible. Perhaps this attitude robs us of experiencing the benefit that a physical/spiritual ritual was meant to have for us.

Greater Focus on the Cross. Many of the groups who celebrate the Lord’s Supper as a meal today, emphasize a weekly observance of the Supper. Church History (and even the New Testament–Acts 20, 1 Cor. 11) seems to clearly indicate that the church used to observe the Supper weekly. In fact the Lord’s Supper became “the focus of the church’s life and practice”. [12] Perhaps a return to a focus on the Lord’s Supper will help us as a church to become more cross-centered.

What This Might Look Like

The book that first set me to thinking along these lines, Ekklesia, also advocates house churches. In a smaller setting, such an observance of the Lord’s Supper could easily be performed as a communal, pot luck meal, with the Lord’s Supper given first, or last, or during the meal.

I can understand where they are coming from with the house church ideal, and perhaps a larger church which advocates small groups would permit the smaller groups to have communion like this from time to time. But how would this work in a larger setting?

Well, we would have to be more creative, but I am sure it could work. There could be a potluck meal on a larger scale in a fellowship hall or something. Perhaps you may not celebrate the Supper every week, but rather monthly or something. Another idea could be to go back to having a larger piece of bread and a larger cup of wine, yet not re-instituting a full meal. I think it would be a step in the right direction, but I like the idea of coming together around tables to celebrate the Lord’s Supper.

Side Note about the Elements

Concerning the elements, let me give a brief side note. It is somewhat funny to me that while Baptists, especially, are very careful to infer that since unleavened bread was used at the Last Supper (and first Lord’s Supper) we should always use unleavened bread, they turn around and say it does not really matter what kind of wine you use. It seems fairly clear that “the fruit of the vine” is a Jewish ceremonial expression referring to wine, and that Jesus only uses it in the context of the Passover because this is the expression that was used by the Jews.

With regard to the bread, we must note that nowhere are we told what kind of bread to use, and while unleavened bread was symbolic of the Exodus, we are not told that the presence or absence of leaven has any symbolic significance with regard to the Lord’s Supper. While leaven can symbolize sin or the Pharisee’s false teaching, it also is used to symbolize the kingdom of heaven and its fast and pervasive spread.

And with the drink, it does seem clear that wine was used (in 1 Cor. 11 people were getting drunk with Communion wine). Yet with the modern confusion over alcohol, it seems prudent to not demand that wine always be used. There seems to be some liberty in this matter, but not such liberty that “bagels and coke” (as Pastor Piper lamented in a recent message) could be used.

Some Final Caveats

I do not want to be dogmatic about this whole thing, however. The book Ekklesia makes a big point out of the fact that we should follow apostolic traditions. And indeed several passages are clear in this regard (1 Cor. 11:2, 16; 14:33b-34; Phil. 4:9; 2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6-7a). However, the particular practices which Ekklesia wants us to follow are not themselves abundantly clear from the text alone. So I view this particular thing–eating a meal with the Lord’s Supper, as not ultimately clear enough in Scripture.

I do not see it specifically mandated for us to follow. Although there seems to be some awful strong implications in this regard. I found it interesting to note that in a defense of the Brethren position on the Lord’s Supper from 1915 (ISBE), that they saw the need to divorce the Lord’s Supper from the historic Passover meal in order to find support for the modern requirement of observing an Agape feast (they also advocated foot-washing, and celebrated the Lord’s Supper only once or twice a year). [13]

Also, Barnes brought up a point which seems to show that this modern house church movement is a little inconsistent here. He points out that “supper” means evening meal, and he actually says it is wrong to celebrate the Supper in the morning/midday. [14] Yet it seems that they celebrate the Lord’s Supper and Agape meal in the early afternoon.

So, while I believe there is liberty here, I do see much benefit in considering changing from bread crumbs and drops of wine, to something closer to a meal.

At last my post is at an end. Now I am interested to hear what my readers think. Am I totally off base? Or do you have similar thoughts or concerns?

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

Further Resources

The Lord’s Supper celebrated weekly as a full, fellowship meal and as the main reason for the weekly church meeting (Ac 2:42 , 20:7, 1Co 11:18 -20, 11:33 ). In the center of the feast there is to be the one cup and the one loaf (1Co 10:16 -17), both symbolizing and creating unity. The mood of the meal is to be joy, not solemn reflection, because the focus of the Lord’s Supper is the excitement of the Second Coming. It is a rehearsal dinner for the future Wedding Banquet of the Lamb (Re 19:6-9)! [See all their beliefs here.]

Footnotes

[1] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 1995), pg. 969.

[2] Steve Atkerson, Ekklesia…To the Roots of Biblical Church Life (New Testament Restoration Foundation: Atlanta, 2003), pg. 24. [You can click here to download a sample chapter of this book, or click here to order it/learn more.]

[3] Atkerson, pg. 25. Also, Barnes Notes at 1 Cor. 11:20

[4] Merrill F. Unger, “Agape”, The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary (Moody Press: Chicago, 1988), pg. 32.

[5] Merrill F. Unger, “Lord’s Supper”, The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary, pg. 783.

[6a-c] These 3 quotes are taken from Atkerson, pg. 26 (no bibliographical info on the quotes given).

[7] Unger, “Agape”, ibid.

[8] Hulitt Gloer, “Love Feast”, Holman Bible Dictionaryonline edition (Trent C. Butler, editor, Broadman & Holman, 1991).

[9] William Smith, “Love Feasts”, Smith’s Bible Dictionary online edition (William Smith, editor, 1901). Also, see Unger, “Agape”.

[10] Atkerson, pg. 28.

[11] Atkerson, pg. 29.

[12] Henry Riley Gummey, “Lord’s Supper”, “General” section, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia online edition(James Orr, editor, 1915), under the heading VII/2./(1) Ignatian Epistles.

[13] Daniel Webster Kurtz, “Lord’s Supper”, “According to the belief and practice of the Church of the Brethren (Dunkers)” section, ISBE online edition.

[14] Albert Barnes, Barnes New Testament Notes online edition, on 1 Cor. 11:20.

Charles Finney and The Altar Call

~ fundyreformed ~ 33 Comments

Should we emphasize the altar call?I recently came across two posts which led me to spend some time considering the legacy of Charles Finney.

First, I read this post by Ryan Debarr: “Depravity and the Altar Call, part one“. Ryan focuses on the altar call (or the invitation) in respect to Christians, not its evangelistic use. I agree with him that the altar call’s emphasis on making decisions may very well harm true Christian growth. Ryan says, “Rarely does a person give up a sin with a one-time act of the will….We should be more honest with people. It is usually not so easy as a mouthing a few words one time.”

Then I came across a post by Captain Headknowledge(aka John Chitty) on Charles Finney. He was celebrating Finney’s 214th birthday! Well, if you read his post, you may not think he is actually “celebrating” the occasion at all.

Now it goes without saying that Finney is lauded in many circles, especially among fundamentalists. He was required reading at my alma mater. While IFBx fundamentalists warn against reading the likes of MacArthur or Piper, they encourage the reading of Finney. Yet Finney is a heretic!

Yes, I said it, a heretic. If you have any doubt read this article by Phil Johnson which documents his heresy in detail. He denied original sin, substitutionary atonement (penal satisfaction), and even justification by faith alone. For proof on the last point I submit the following quote from his own Systematic Theology.

By sanctification being a condition of justification, the following things are intended:

(1.) That present, full, and entire consecration of heart and life to God and His service, is an unalterable condition of present pardon of past sin, and of present acceptance with God. (2.) That the penitent soul remains justified no longer than this full-hearted consecration continues. If he falls from his first love into the spirit of self-pleasing, he falls again into bondage to sin and to the law, is condemned, and must repent and do his “first work,” must turn to Christ, and renew his faith and love, as a condition of his salvation. . . .

Perseverance in faith and obedience, or in consecration to God, is also an unalterable condition of justification, or of pardon and acceptance with God….[1]

Charles Grandison FinneyYet it is not Finney’s theology for which we most remember him today. Indeed most evangelicals have forgotten that he was a heretic. His theology may have influenced some liberals, but it is his methodology which has come to influence almost every sector of evangelicalism today.

Finney was known for his “new methods”. He measured the value of methods based on how well they produced results. Thus, pragmatism was the hallmark of his ministry. Some of the methods that he either originated or popularized include “a more dramatic form of preaching”, “public prayer used as a tool for applying pressure to sinners”, protracted evangelistic meetings[2], and the “use of the ‘prayer of faith’and the ‘anxious bench'”[3]. The invitation system as we know it today (also known as the altar call) was popularized by finney in the 1830s. According to Albert Dod a professor at Princeton who was a contemporary critic of Finney, “one will search in vain for a single example of this practice [i.e. the invitation system] before the 1820’s”[4].

This leads us back to thinking about the altar call. Finney had theological reasons for utilizing the altar call. He believed that salvation was dependent on sinners using their will to reform/repent and believe. The methods he used had to be effective in breaking the stubborn will of sinners.[5] So Finney used the altar call to put pressure on people to believe on the spot. And the tactic worked. It produced results. Yetthe results Finney produced (by some accounts as many as 500,000 converts) are contested. Even Finney’s own contemporary supporters recorded that the vast majority of the converts had not remained true to the Christian faith years later.[6]

Today, the altar call continues to be used prominently. And it continues to present inherent problems. I came across another blog post by Tim Irvin from a blog named “If Error is Harmless…Then Truth is Useless” (HT: Thirsty Theologian) which highlights how exactly the altar call can be harmful. Let me provide an excerpt from a quote Timgives by Jim Ehrhard which gets to the crux of the issue.

Here we have one of the greatest dangers of the invitation system. Even those employing it go to great pains to make clear that “going down the aisle” does not save anyone….Billy Graham, for example, says:

“There’s nothing about the mechanics of coming forward that saves anybody’s soul. Coming forward is an open acknowledgment and a testimony of an inward experience that you have had with Christ. But this inward experience with Christ, this encounter, is the most important thing.”

But examination of the invitation used by Graham shows just how confusing the system is. Keep in mind that Graham has already noted that the coming forward is a “testimony of an inward experience that you have had with Christ.” When is the person converted? Why are they coming?

“I’m going to ask you to come forward. Up there – down there – I want you to come. You come right now – quickly. If you are here with friends or relatives, they will wait for you. Don’t let distance keep you from Christ. It’s a long way, but Christ went all the way to the cross because He loved you. Certainly you can come these few steps and give your life to Him….”

At the “altar,” the confusion continues as he addresses those who have come: “You have come tonight to Jesus Christ, you have come to receive Him into your heart….” Which is it? Have they already come to Jesus, or are they coming now to receive Him? Graham continues: “He receives you; He died for you; He says, ‘Thy sins are forgiven.’ You accept that. The past is forgiven, God forgets…. He cannot even see your sins.”…Then he leads them to repeat a prayer known as “the sinner’s prayer.” The question again is obvious: have they been forgiven, or will they be when they pray the prayer?

To make matters worse, many often add so many things to the invitation that one cannot be certain what he is being asked to do. This was especially true in the invitations of Billy Sunday who often exhorted people to “Come on down and take my hand against booze, for Jesus Christ, for your flag.”[7]

From the above quote you can see that the danger of the altar call is its propensity to confuse the responders. Putting people on the spot might very well result in half-converts, or more precisely, converts that aren’t. In Finney’s case the vast majority wilted as the years passed, and I think it is safe to say that such is the case today. Of the numbers that have responded in Graham crusades or in the evangelistic meetings and general preaching of fundamentalists, how many have truly remained? Could the use of the altar call have been a factor in at least some of these cases? I think so. Perhaps even the ritual of the sinner’s prayer (many times it has devolved into a ritual) is to blame. See my post exploring that question here.

In many respects evangelicals and fundamentalists in particular, have become hand-cuffed to this methodology. Can you imagine how else an evangelist could close an evangelistic appeal to Christ? What can one do other than lead people in a prayer or ask them to come forward? Before 1820 no one ever had utilized either of those methods in preaching the gospel. Paul certainly didn’t. Even Charles Spurgeon did not employ this method. He did have an inquiry room, where awakened sinners could go for personal counseling. Yet even he was wary on depending on that scheme too much. He said: “Sometimes shut up that enquiry-room. I have my fears about that institution if it be used in permanence, and as an inevitable part of the services…. If you should ever see that a notion is fashioning itself that there is something to be got in the private room which is not to be had at once in the assembly, or that God is more at that penitent form than elsewhere, aim a blow at that notion at once.”[8]

In closing, I would like to briefly offer Asahel Nettleton as an alternative. He was the last in a long line of well known Calvinist evangelists, and was a contemporary of Finney’s. Ministering in a much smaller geographical region, with fewer people than the large population centers Finney preached in, Asahel still saw thousands of converts. His numbers do not match Finney’s in sheer magnitude, but they tower above Finney’s in another respect. Nettleton’s converts almost never apostasized. He had 95% or better “perseverance rates”.[9] And you know what? He did not use the altar call. I wonder if this is a lesson for us?

———————————————————————–

Footnotes & Resources for Further Research

[1] Charles Finney, Systematic Theology(Minneapolis: Bethany), 372-73; quoted from “A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing: How Charles Finney’s Theology Ravaged the Evangelical Movement” by Phillip R. Johnson, an online article accessible here.

[2] Rick Nelson, “How Does Doctrine Affect Evangelism? The Divergent Paths of Asahel Nettleton and Charles Finney” Founder’s JournalSummer 1998 Issue 33–available online here; quote is from paragraph just before the “Applications for Contemporary Evangelism” section (HT: Captain Headknowledge).

[3] Tom Browning, “Charles G. Finney: The Architect of Modern Evangelism”, available online here or in a blog post here.

[4] Albert Dod (in his review of Finney’s Lectures on Revival), quoted by Massimo Lorenzini, “The Modern Invitation System Examined”, available online here; quote taken from this blog post by Tim Irvin.

[5] Rick Nelson, Ibid.

[6] Rick Nelson, Ibid, see text where footnotes 19-22 appear.

[7] Jim Ehrhard, “The Dangers of the Invitation System”, available online here; quote taken from this blog post by Tim Irvin.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Rick Nelson, Ibid, see text where footnote 31 appears. Also, Massimo Lorenzini, ibid (see above #4 for bibliographic info).

Background picture for “The Altar Call” above was borrowed from here; and the Finney picture above was adapted from Phil Johnson’s article listed above.

The Lord’s Supper & Spiritual Participation in Christ’s Death

~ fundyreformed ~ 7 Comments

Last Sunday, our teaching pastor, John Piper, gave a message on the importance of the Lord’s Supper. We then partook of the supper together after his message. It was a very moving service and a great message; I encourage you to read or listen to it.

That sermon prompted me to post on at least two aspects concerning the Lord’s Supper. What follows will be part 1, with part 2 following later this week.

Spiritual Participation in Christ’s Death

What do we mean by spiritual participation? If any Baptists are reading this (as most surely there are), giant, bright, red-colored flags are popping up. “Remembrance“”we only remember Christ in the Lord’s Supper.” “Oh, he’s speaking of a mystical presence of Christ to be gained or sought in this act! Ugh!” It is a fact that transubstantiation, consubstantiation or even the view that communion is a “means of grace” are scorned in Baptist circles.

I can appreciate the reasons why Baptists so resolutely give a knee-jerk reaction to such talk. Clearly there are many errors surrounding communion, and many traditions make it into a supernatural religious ceremony with powers all its own. Yet the Baptist reaction to such errors is perhaps also a serious error in itself. Many Baptists approach the Lord’s table with no expectation of any spiritual participation.

Pastor Piper in his message last week pointed out that our church elder affirmation of faith states:

Those who eat and drink in a worthy manner partake of Christ’s body and blood, not physically, but spiritually, in that, by faith, they are nourished with the benefits He obtained through His death, and thus grow in grace.

“Where does the idea of ‘spiritually’ partaking of Christ’s body and blood ‘by faith’ come from?” you may ask. You could go read Piper’s sermon because he explains why. But I will be glad to tell you. It comes from this passage of Scripture:

1 Cor. 10:16-21 “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.”

Piper explains what “participation” (koinonia) means with the help of v. 18. Those who ate the sacrifices were participants in what happened on the altar. Let me quote Piper at this point, as he says this better than I could:

What does sharer/participant/partner in the altar mean? It means that they are sharing in or benefiting from what happened on the altar. They are enjoying, for example, forgiveness and restored fellowship with God.

So I take verse 16 and 17 to mean that when believers eat the bread and drink the cup physically we do another kind of eating and drinking spiritually. We eat and drink””that is, we take into our lives””what happened on the cross. By faith””by trusting in all that God is for us in Jesus””we nourish ourselves with the benefits that Jesus obtained for us when he bled and died on the cross.

Just as believing Israelites would joyfully bask in their restored fellowship with God on the basis of the shedding of blood, just as they would joyfully eat and rejoice in their hearts partaking spiritually in what was happening physically on the altar, we can joyfully participate in and experience spiritually all the benefits of Christ’s death on our behalf. His sacrifice is once for all, so our joy and fellowship is greater and fuller and more complete.

Wayne Grudem discusses this very thing in a helpful way as follows:

…Jesus promised to be present whenever believers worship: “where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them” (Matt.18:20). And if he is especially present when Christians gather to worship, then we would expect that he will be present in a special way in the Lord’s Supper: We meet him at his table, to which he comes to give himself to us. As we receive the elements of bread and wine in the presence of Christ, so we partake of him and his benefits. We “feed upon him in our hearts” with thanksgiving….Yet we must not say that Christ is present apart from our personal faith, but only meets and blesses us there in accordance with our faith in him….Certainly there is a symbolic presence of Christ, but it is also a genuine spiritual presence and there is a genuine spiritual blessing in this ceremony. [Systematic Theology, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), pg. 995-996]

In his footnotes he addresses the view which denies such a spiritual presence with an insightful quote from Millard Erickson:

“Out of a zeal to avoid the conception that Jesus is present in some sort of magical way, certain Baptists among others have sometimes gone to such extremes as to give the impression that the one place where Jesus most assuredly is not to be found is the Lord’s supper. This is what one Baptist leader termed ‘the doctrine of the real absence’ of Jesus Christ” (Christian Theology, p. 1123). [Ibid, pg. 995]

One last angle on this aspect of the Lord’s Supper concerns the idea of fellowship with God around a meal. Wayne Grudem offers Ex. 24:9-11 and Deut. 14:23-26 as examples of a special fellowship with God surrounding a meal. This he describes is a restoration of the fellowship man had with God in Eden before the Fall. Yet he stresses:

The Old Testament sacrificial meals continually pointed to the fact that sins were not yet paid for, because the sacrifices in them were repeated year after year, and because they looked forward to the Messiah who was to come and take away sin (see Heb. 10:1-4). The Lord’s Supper, however, reminds us that Jesus’ payment for our sins has already been accomplished, so we now eat in the Lord’s presence with great rejoicing….Yet even the Lord’s Supper looks forward to a more wonderful fellowship meal in God’s presence in the future, when the fellowship of Eden will be restored and there will be even greater joy…. [Ibid, pg. 989]