A chiastic communion prayer

Following an extended “confessional meditation” about my experience of communion/the Lord’s Supper, I offer now a meditational prayer I wrote for communion some years ago.

This prayer is in chiastic form; the structural feature was primarily a personal, spiritual exercise, but I did mention it to a couple others who were present that morning.  Possibly, the oral reading of the prayer wasn’t in vain for others’ sake:  I suspect that some of the repetition (part & parcel of rhetorically based, chiastic structure) is universally helpful—as people hear words aloud, that is.

As you read it, you could notice the conceptual and verbal connections between indented pairs (first and last, then move inward toward the center).  You could think particularly about the very center:  the participating.  Or, you could simply pray the prayer.

Now, Father, we come.
We come, in the stillness of this time, to do something You asked us to do often.

We come, according to the desire of Jesus, and because we believe He forever opened the door (and left it open!), for us to commune.

We Christians come not to “take communion,” as though it were a thing … a possession being offered and accepted in some sort of material transaction.

We come not even to “communion,” as though it were an event more than a familial union of spirits.

We come to commune with You, YHVH the gracious Father,
and with You, Jesus the Son.

We are needy and ready to experience Your grace …

to share in Your Nature …

to participate

with our whole selves

in the most stupendous of Your provisions:

Jesus, our Emmanuel,
the grace-gift of the Father.

We come to not to an event,

Or to some magical, grace-giving transaction, but to commune with You—
and with all these who call You “Father.”

We come in the name of Jesus.

We come, on this October morning, still now in Your presence, as You desire.
We approach You in spirit, Father God.

© Brian Casey, Fall 2006

I have presented this as copyrighted not because I wish to sell it but because I would like to know if someone finds this prayer useful somewhere else.  These are “my” words, but they are words intended for the Kingdom at large.  Please don’t hesitate to ask me — publicly here, or privately, at BLCasey14 {at} g mail – dot – com.  If you don’t feel like taking the time to ask, that’s OK — you hereby have advance permission anyway, but I’d love to hear from you after the fact.

Four (or five) views

In a newly e-published book on four views of baptism, one might learn about the general positions of Baptists, of Reformed types, of Lutherans, and of the ARM (American Restoration Movement/Christian Church/Church of Christ).  Those groups represent rather disparate, significant views on this subject. I just got this book free, but I doubt I’ll read it.  I’m not very interested in those views.  I’m after the biblical view(s).  Although some of those views are more off the biblical mark than others and are of interest only in a historical or comparative sense, no sect can rightly lay claim to holding all the truth on a subject like this.  As for me and my house, we want to know what the scriptural messages are, and how the very first Christians practiced baptism and were taught about it.

In a book on five views of communion, one might learn about the typical tenets of Catholic, Reformed, Lutheran, Baptist, and Pentecostal believers.  I am a trifle more interested in those views am but, again, am really after the biblical view(s), above the historical views of any denomination or denominational grouping.  (I didn’t shell out $ for this book.)

Next:  two views of national holidays “at church”

LS Symbolisms

Here is a small collection of miscellaneous Lord’s Supper thoughts I’ve entertained in recent months.

As this little piece has developed, it reminds me of “Hook’s Points,” an erstwhile series written by Cecil Hook, now living non-physically eternally, who was a friend to many while inspiring and challenging them.  (Here is a sample selection of “Hook’s Points.”)  I don’t lay claim to Cecil’s perpetually beautiful attitude, but I like to challenge traditional thinking much as he liked to.

Lift Him up
Typically, pulpit furniture is elevated higher than the table used for communion.  In a church in Georgia about 25 years ago, one elder-shepherd convinced the others to reverse the furniture.  Then, the table was elevated, and the preacher praught from down low (although he wasn’t a low-down guy).  Problem was, the table was then more removed from the people who were said to be communing around it, and the preaching seemed even more emphasized.

By the way, the phrase “lift Him up” in John’s gospel has nothing to do with notions of worship that use “high” imagery.  And it certainly has nothing to do with furniture elevations.  It has to do with the cross.

Color me traditional, if possible
When some in my tradition are feeling threatened by change, they’ve been known to say, “Next thing you know, they’ll be wanting chips and Coke for the Lord’s Supper!”  In my experience, those who want change are customarily more careful and intentional than those who are content with the status quo; neither side is characterized by the flippant carelessness.  However, I do assume that Jesus cares more that we remember Him than that we get the elements exactly right.  After all, who knows the exact chemical makeup of the wine served at the Last Supper, or how the unleavened bread felt or looked?  If we are sincerely bent on remembering Him and His atoning death, I suppose we will do things and use things that foster that remembering.

Still, I’m not going to buy white grape juice for the purpose of communion when red grape juice is available.  The blood-symbolism is the thing, isn’t it?

And while you’re at it, what is “eschatology” again?
“Transubstantiation” and “intinction” are big words associated with communion in some traditions.  (“Eschatology” is a more important word, and it’s only indirectly connected with communion.)

Sometimes I think words obscure  more than they reveal.  Ironically, “transubstantiation” refers to a supposed revealing of the Christ in the eating of the bread:  namely, that the substance of the bread is miraculously transformed into His actual body, and that the wine also becomes  His blood.  In the course of insisting such things occur, though, what ends up being revealed more than the Christ is the audacity of human superimpositions on scripture.

Oh, the lengths to which overzealous (and, in some cases, corrupt) “Christians” have historically gone in order to develop exclusive dogmas and denominations!  Frankly, the paranormal realities that may or may not occur when I slip a bit of cracker or matzah onto my tongue are not my concern.

I have only experienced “intinction” on isolated occasions.  It refers to the mingling of bread and juice/wine before ingesting either.  Intinction doesn’t appear to reflect the commemorative pattern of which we read in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and 1Corinthians (leaving alone Acts 2 and Acts 20, which I take as referring to something larger and related, but not identical).  This “method” does, however, bring into sharp relief the symbolism of the bloody flesh that was part of our Lord’s suffering.

I would have to say that on the half-dozen occasions I’ve observed the memorial using the intinction method, my spirit has meditated differently and newly, and quite possibly more deeply.  I suspect that, just as with any other habit, the newness of the intinction experience would tend to wear off after a while, but perhaps it could be a good method to use now and again . . . until He comes (he appended eschatologically, with reference to 1Cor 11:26).

~ ~ ~

At some point in the future, I plan to jot a few more notes on Lord’s Supper methodologies, including who does the walking/serving and the eating — in other words, who’s involved in which aspects and how it might all be accomplished.  If you have other ideas, thoughts, or ponderings related to communion, please share them in the meantime.

A common church lie

Now, all y’all atheists, don’t get all excited.   This is not what you think.

While I believe there are doctrinal and philosophical lies ushered around on the arm of Christianity, my concern for today is not particularly doctrinal.  In fact, the topic here is nearly a-scriptural and merely a function of church tradition.  It has little to no bearing on “salvation” in eternity.

I’m by no means the first to have noted this negatively.  I’m concerned here with a tradition peculiar to the Church of Christ (and, I think, the Christian Church — which I have much less first-hand experience with).

I’m speaking of habits in the ritual practice of communion and the collection.  It’s the joining at the hip — the both-and — that bothers me.  Far too often, it goes like this:

  1. Sermonette/”table talk” or scripture reading
  2. Prayer for the bread
  3. Passing around of the bread trays
  4. Prayer for the “cup,”¹ with or without additional comments
  5. Passing around of the juice trays
  6. The mumbled phrase, “And now, ‘separate and apart from the Lord’s supper,’ we’re going to take up an offering for the Lord’s work. . . .”
  7. Passing around of the collection trays

Of the Sunday morning church assemblies I’ve been in, the above items have occurred in this exact sequence about 98.6% of the time, and my temperature is rising because of the communicable disease that has been spread.

Aside:  it bears asserting that, while both communion and the collection have longstanding traditions associated with them, only communion has a real biblical rationale.  The presence of the collection in the liturgy is born of the traditional understanding that we must support religious systems.  While there are very good (some explicitly biblical) supports for charitable giving, no valid, scriptural rationale exists for a weekly, ritual collection.

It also bears mention that there are scads of other aspects of communion that are more important to consider, practice, and discuss.  But the theological underpinnings of either communion or charitable giving are way too deep for my simple purposes today.  Establishing that there is or is not a rationale for one or both of these is not my raison ecrire.

Please refer to #6 above.

The main point here is this:  it is a stupidity, really, to perpetuate the illusion that the two are “separate” when they are completely conjoined in actual practice.  We say they are “separate and apart” while, in reality, they are not at all separate.  In an ironic turn of the tables, so to speak, many men who are designated “table talkers” even make a point of connecting the two through their comments.  Communion and the collection may thereby become joined not only in terms of sequence and time, but also in theological concept.

Falling over ourselves to claim the two practices are separate surely warrants the adjective “disingenuous,” at least.  I would go so far as to say we have frequently borne false witness.

We ought either to stop doing it the way we do it, or stop telling the lie.


¹ We say “cup” since we’re chicken to say “juice” and chicken to use wine, as some of the songs have it.


This post will be about a little of this-n-that.

Back East in the 70s, a capable man (who nonetheless struggled inwardly) once started a Bible class for college students.  He hung a green street sign above the door to the classroom, and the sign said “This Place.”  I have no idea what went on inside that room, but the younger me envied the situation.  It seemed as if there was something important going on in “this place.”

A new church that wanted a catchy name called itself “That Church.”  They even use those words “that church” in their web presence.  People may well remember them because of their use of the demonstrative pronoun.

An impressive man named Wes once graced the church I was part of.  He was asked — more often than most — to “head the table.”  (By that I mean “speak the devotional words that kicked off the communion ritual.”)  Wes began every communion table talk with the words “This is the Lord’s Supper.”  Although his enunciation didn’t particularly emphasize the demonstrative pronoun this, his overall emphasis was demonstrative.  It didn’t hurt that he quoted a long passage of scripture, in the anachronistic, less familiar, yet striking, King James, each time.

When Jesus was at the so-called “last supper” with his closest friends, He said, “Do this to remember Me.”  (Luke 22:19)  That was a very demonstrative pronoun that referred to an even more demonstrative event.

In Greek grammar¹ studies, I’ve learned labels for some demonstrative pronouns:  “this” and “these” are called the near demonstratives, while “that” and “those” are sometimes referred to as remote.  So, for instance, the classroom called “This Place” was in a sense near to those within.  From my vantage point, however, it was remote.  Functionally, for me, “this place” was that place.

And when Wes intoned “This is the Lord’s Supper,” he was, whether he knew it grammatically or not, conceptually drawing the experience near to the congregation.  In the same vein, I think Jesus was drawing things near when He said, “Do this” and “this is my body.”

I wish He and it didn’t seem so remote.


¹ Yes, it is Greek grammar that has most notably informed my understanding of such aspects as tenses and conjugations, moods, and cases.  I am one of those weirdos who likes grammar and usage.  I credit my parents for speaking well around me, so that I grew up pretty much knowing how to speak and write English.  I also credit one Sharon Spingler, my 8th grade English teacher, for teaching some real grammar.

I thought it was supposed to be serving

Let’s say a man is called on to “serve communion.”  (That’s about as apt an expression as “take communion.”  You can’t take communion.  You can share it or engage in it, but you can’t take it or serve it.  I digress.)

Let’s say the man is assigned to a side aisle, working with one of two center-aisle guys to pass trays back and forth.

Let’s say there are 7 people on a pew he is about to “serve,” with very little space between them, and the man hands the tray to the person on his end.

Wouldn’t the man expect the tray to be passed all the way down to the other end instead of its being passed back to him on his end?

Let’s say the man is currently irritated over some other church issues; let’s further say that he has recently allowed some scapegoat frustration to creep in.  (OK, we can give him that, because we need people to give us that sometimes.)

Still, wouldn’t he be able to recognize that he is there to facilitate the communion-serving process — to serve the people, and not to have his own way?  Why would he get huffy when the tray doesn’t come back to him so he can hand it to the next row?  I mean, what difference does it make how the tray gets where it’s going?

I thought it was supposed to be serving, not commanding those you’re serving.

When you’re serving, it’s not about you or your ideas or methods.  It’s about the meaning of what you’re doing and the people you’re doing it for.


Last Sunday, I wondered about the lines some of us draw between Christian and non-Christian.

More specifically:  I’ve been conditioned to envision this imaginary line between when a child is a child, being “brought up in the ways of the Lord” on one hand, and when, on the other hand, he is “old enough” to understand Jesus’ sacrifice and to share in communion. Is there really such a sharp line between the two?

On a recent Sunday morning, after “breaking the bread” and passing the tray on, I told my son for the 10th time (on 10 different Sundays) that this is for older Christian believers.  I’m just not so sure that there should be a line between him and me in this respect.  What’s the harm, if I’m really trying to bring Him up in the Lord, in using communion time as a teachable moment?  It’s not that I remotely think my son has a concept of sin or grace or atonement or even Jesus’ love yet — nor should he.  He’s not quite four and a half.  Maybe not yet, but maybe in a year or two?

Am I worried more about how things appear to the people in the pew behind us than about bringing my son up to understand spiritual truth and to know God?

At some point, can’t my young son begin to get the connection between the lines in the cracker and the whip-lines on Jesus’ back?  And can’t he get this before the time that he’s really accountable for his own sin?  Could such an early bit of learning be part of bringing Him up in the Lord?

To borrow a depiction (see here), I think some see a frowning Jesus Who says, “Thou shalt not touch the emblems before confession, repentance, and immersion.”  I think we will do better to see a smiling Jesus Who says, “Yes, go ahead.  Let him.  He’s wanting to participate in something.  Of course he doesn’t know what it is yet, but if you let him, he will begin to feel a part of the whole, and will be ripe for remembering Me more fully as he grows up.”

Three conventions

Over time, various traditions appear — and remain — in churches.  I’ve chosen two relatively unimportant sub-cultural conventions as illustrations, before highlighting a more significant one.

greeter_handshakeOne—the greeter.  In many churches, either by decree or by choice, someone serves as a greeter.  For as long as I can remember, I have found this convention slightly annoying.  Whether the greeter was 1) a person in my own church that I didn’t particularly want to represent us all, or, in an unfamiliar church, was 2) a person that I merely wanted to bypass without the bother of the obligatory questions and handshake, I figure these greeters can make better use of their time.  This is obviously merely an opinion; it comes partly from my personality type and partly from my observations of inefficiencies and ineffectivenesses in organizations.

praise-bandTwo–the “worship band.”  These days, in any church that purports to be “happenin’,” it’s assumed that a praise band of some sort will be part and parcel of the assembly.  The praise band has become a convention.  In the last few years, I have tired of this method/model and have been ready to put it aside . . . but, back in February, the Sons of Thunder group in Searcy, AR convinced me that it still has a place, when used skillfully and rightly.  I’ve seen and heard probably 150-200 different bands/teams in live settings, and the men who led in a building just off Race Street seemed to have both musical skill and insight into how to lead hearts.  The praise team or worship band model, although not much more than a trendy, culture-bound convention, is not necessarily without merit.

Three–the centerpiece of the assembly.  The question which event serves as the centerpiece of the Christian Assembly? is perhaps less subject to ephemeral trends than either of the above.  By that, I mean there is less vacillation through the years, decades, and centuries.  However, consider this foundational dichotomy:

  • In evangelicalism, there is generally a preacher- (sermon-) centered assembly.¹  Even if the pastor or preacher does not do several things, including announcements and some preach-bibleworship leading and praying, as well as delivering a sermon, most people in the pews get a clear sense that everything that is done leads toward, and then away from, his sermon.  The sermon’s central nature is a convention.  Think of your predominant experience in, say, a Baptist group, a Church of Christ group, a community church group, or an Assembly of God group, and you will likely find a sermon-centric approach.

  • In Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism, there is an even more longstanding convention:  the eucharist-centered “service.”¹  (See footnote below.)  This might be said of Lutheranism and other groups, too.  The scripture-based emphasis on remembering Jesus Christ’s sacrifice was morphed into a mystical, highly charged set of practices.  eucharistIn these “liturgical” churches, the convention is a communion-based approach.

Perhaps oddly, and perhaps not, the Church of Christ and Christian Church find themselves situated among both the above groups, to some extent:  the importance placed on the delivery of rather information-laden sermons, the one hand, and the ritual, weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper, on the other, have long been hallmarks of this category of churches.

Consider 1) the sermon/message/homily and 2) the Lord’s Supper/communion.

Is one more important than the other?

If so, why?  

What else — an idea or a practice — could be said to be important on the “centerpiece” level?

I hope to gain from your responses to the above questions.  And/or, if you prefer, use the poll below to register your opinions more quickly.


¹ I intentionally used the word “service” when referring to liturgical churches here, although I rarely use that term when referring to what the church does when it gathers.  For more on the distinction between worship and service, and some rationale for the assertion that the two should not be joined in the expression “worship service,” see these posts:


Maybe it was just me


Maybe it was just me . . .

. . . but I grew up thinking 1) the Lord’s Supper was a requirement, and 2) its essence was pretty much summed up in its being a requirement.  (2), at least, was a misconception.

Christians and only Christians (according to “our” definition) were to partake of the Lord’s Supper precisely once (no more, no less) per Sunday, or else.  What coursed through our minds as we sat on the pews during communion?

I shudder to think whether there were those who spent their communion time spying.  Were they more concerned with people who didn’t partake but “should have,” or with people who were partaking but “shouldn’t have”?  I suppose most thought that partaking when you were not “authorized” was also sinful.

I shudder to think that a lot of us spent more time making sure the requirement was satisfied “decently and in order” than that communion was experienced communally (!) as a dynamically meaningful, adoring, and faith-filled commemoration.

I also shudder to think back on a few I noticed exiting the “auditorium” immediately after communion.  Were they ex- or closet-Catholics who believed they got grace by biting crackers and sipping juice?  Were they simply shallow “converts” who had been sadly acclimated to think that once they were dipped, they were supposed to partake, and that was about the sum of Christianity?  Of course we never saw this sub-group of folks on Sunday nights¹ or Wednesday nights. . . .

Recently, I heard, “Every time you miss the Lord’s Supper, you rebel against the Lord’s will.”

I wished there were a deeper concept of what the Lord’s Supper is about.  Somehow, I think the Lord meant for it to be more than a requirement that may be submitted to, or rebelled against.  Why do so many otherwise thoughtful souls seem to suggest that this is all there is to it?

I grew up thinking the Lord’s Supper was a requirement. I don’t think it was just me.


¹ Diabolically, I once plotted to force the Sunday-morning-only adherents in my congregation into a crisis of conscience by observing the Lord’s Supper at church on Sunday nights only.  This never would have worked:  the structure doesn’t allow for intentionally forcing scores into not having the opportunity to partake.  That would have been tantamount to partial spiritual genocide and institutional suicide.

The beginnings of communion

Mark was moving expeditiously, gracefully down the aisle, doing that tray-passing thing many church “servers” (men only, of course — see the end of this post on that point) do.  During communion, you know, it’s supposed to be efficient and “decently and in order” and quiet.

As Mark neared our row to hand us the tray of “bread,” my 3-year-old son — very quietly, because he is a good boy — waved at Mark.

And Mark waved back.  (And I was so glad he did, rather than fearing any propriety police who might be glancing his way, presuming he should be more staid and “proper.”)

Communion is, after all, multi-directional.  Communing with one another is included as we commune with Deity.  As our son comes to understand this special thing we do in Christian gatherings, it seems to me that a relational, smiling reach from person to person is appropriate and even exemplary.

A communion meditation

An elder statesman of the Restoration Movement—one who has lived through about half of its history personally—wrote of a story of surrender–of a specific account of Steve Jobs’s death on NBC’s Evening News with Brian Williams.  The report was that (and I quote) . . .

Steve Jobs’s sister had revealed that her brother, while dying, said in an upbeat manner — and these were his last words — Oh, Wow!   He went on to repeat this interjection twice: Oh, Wow! Oh, Wow!    He was apparently conscious, lucid, and fully aware of what he was saying and what was going on.  Here was the co- founder of Apple, the ultimate entrepreneur, and “the secular prophet” as the Wall Street Journal described him, who supposedly did not believe in any reality beyond this world, crying out affirmations of something transcendent.  A cry of Wow!  is akin to a shout of Hallelujah!

… In a recent commencement address at Stanford University, he talked to the students about death, describing it as “Life’s change agent.” …

He also warned them against being trapped by dogma, which he saw as blindly following other people’s thinking. He urged that they be their own unique selves, follow their own dreams, and listen to their own inner voice, heart, and intuition.  It was an appeal for an authentic and meaningful life.  It was as if he might have urged them to be prepared to face life’s mysteries — the wonders that are beyond our reach — and to have the heart and mind to unashamedly cry out Wow!

Now, I would say that “Hallelujah” is a good deal above and beyond “Wow,” but I get the point here.  There is something beyond.  Something wonderful.  Something transcendent.  Something to be lived for beyond the present and the things right in front of our faces.

For us, that “Something” is a Who.  And that Who is the One we are called to give reverent attention to in the passage from Revelation—Jesus as the Worthy One, the Lamb without blemish, offered for us.  And this is the very One we are called to worship now.  It’s a redundant expression, but I’ll repeat it here anyway:  “Come, let us worship and bow down” … here … today.

. . .

“This is the Lord’s Supper.”  And in the Lord’s Supper we are called away to a reality beyond ourselves.  Yes, in a sense we are called to be fully present, right now, bringing ourselves as we are, with all our dirt and distractions.  But we are also called away from the observable into the realm of the eternal.  We are called to worship this Lord, this Jesus.  We are inspired not to regurgitate “thankyouforthesegiftsweareabouttoreceive” or some other memorized mumblings … but to express intentionally, consciously, lucidly, with the vision of the Lamb at the right hand of the Father rising in our spirits, “Wow.  Hallelujah!  Praise to God.”

It’s an opportunity to worship.  This is the Lord’s Supper.”

Maybe you remember the first time you communed in this way.  Maybe you can’t even remember the last time.  They have all been significant.

“This is the Lord’s Supper.”

Perhaps a bit strange that we eat “supper” in the morning hours, and equally strange that the morsels and thimbles are the sizes they are.  Nevertheless, despite our tradition-bound handling of an important spiritual legacy, I’m convinced that in eating and drinking, we have a unique opportunity to be with Jesus in grateful adoration—in worship.  And in this communal love shown, we can please our Lord, Jesus, the Christ—who in an upper room near Jerusalem first did this with His closest followers.  “This is the Lord’s Supper.”

The Lord’s Supper–(mis)conceptions 2

[In the ARM (American Restoration Movement), we have a lot of conceptions around the Lord’s Supper.  Some of these are only decades old; others are a couple of centuries old, and others may be older than that.  Some, I’ll flatly suggest, are misconceptions.  Please see yesterday’s post, and perhaps this one and this one, for prior, framing material]

I have for years taken exception to those ARMers who try to suggest that the reference to “breaking bread” near the end of Acts 2 refers to what we think of as the Lord’s Supper.  (Please stay with me to the end of this post.)  In verse 42, many of “them” have said, it is the “Lord’s Supper” being referred to, while virtually none of “them” would have said “breaking bread” in v. 46 has the same event as its referent.  That inconsistency is galling.  It’s the same expression, penned by the same writer, in the same book, and in the same immediate context.  How could it possibly mean anything different the second time?  Whatever “breaking bread” means in v. 42 must be what it means in v. 46.

Moreover, the nearly amusing (to us, at least, two millennia later) incident wth Eutychus has shown to some that it was very important to Paul and to the disciples there that they have “the Lord’s Supper” together.  Some, however, have conveniently ignored the second reference to breaking bread after midnight. Without checking other time references in Luke-Acts, I would suspect that Luke reckons time as the Greeks would have, not as the Jews would have; if this assumption is correct, you have these Acts 20 Troas folks meeting on Sunday evening and observing “the Lord’s Supper” on the 2nd day of the week, after midnight. Or, perhaps, you have them meeting to observe the Supper and then having a six-hour sermon and then observing “the supper” again.  I don’t really think either of these expresses full truth.

What if there was a table fellowship that they all looked toward, and there was a special significance on the first day of the week, when they remembered Jesus’ body and blood in a special way?  What if they did this twice at Troas (Acts 20)?  Or what if the ceremonial remembering didn’t actually occur at all that night, because of the near-tragedy with Eutychus?  Had they erred¹ religiously (here I’m intentional with the choice of “religiously” over “spiritually”) and displeased God, simply because they didn’t observe a ceremony?  Isn’t communion more than ritual observance?

At this point, I would formally put forward the notion that the “Lord’s Supper” might never have been conceived by Jesus or by the Father in the way that most of us have conceived of it through the years.

I do absolutely think He wanted us to remember him in a focused way at the table.  But I also think he wanted us to participate in table sharing for its own sake, because of what such sharing of food and conversation can create among us, pausing during the meal to remember his sacrifice especially, through bread and vine juice.  Pardon my bold speculation, but I doubt He particularly prefers the stoic observances that are the rule these days in liturgical and non-liturgical churches alike.  The dis-integrated experience of bread and thimbleful of vine juice, while looking at the backs of others’ heads or at Bibles or while praying silently, whether in silence or with “special music” being offered, has very little to do with the communion practiced by Jesus at the Last Supper or with that He wants for us today.

Alan Knox’s minor flaw, by the way, was semantic and was found in his summary calculations–that certain phrases were used X number of times to refer to “the Lord’s Supper.”  The term “the Lord’s Supper,” I think, throws us off the scent.  It is not what we think of as “the Lord’s Supper” that’s the issue.  Instead, it is the nature of the Christian assembly that deserves a serious look (which is consistent with how I read Alan’s overall thrust).

Let’s eat together more often.  In homes, preferably.  In the church building or in restaurants, if necessary.  But let’s eat together, and let’s be spiritually minded enough not only to bless the food in the name of God, but to remember—specifically and intentionally, during the meal—the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus.  In doing this, the “supper” (or lunch or brunch or whatever) can become “the Lord’s” in a very meaningful way.


Continue reading