If it's a blessing, is it desirable or even prudent to
neglect it?
Is frequent or regular Communion superstitious?
I could argue those who regularly abstain are either failing
to understand its import or are themselves superstitious.
I'm thinking of those who believe having the Lord's Supper
every time we meet or frequently approaches the realm of danger wherein we might be eating and
drinking unworthily, failing to examine ourselves and thus falling under condemnation.
First of all, let's be realistic about self-examination. No
one is going to do this perfectly. No one can say they completely apprehend
what's happening in terms of Covenant symbolism and Sacrament. A 20 year old
new Christian is going to have a profoundly different understanding than an 80
year old veteran Christian. Should the 20 year old be excluded then? Of course
not.
Second, the issue of examination and discerning the Lord's
body certainly hearkens to Scriptures like:
2 Corinthians 13:5
- Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves.
Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be
reprobates?
But largely I think the passage is dealing with the
Corinthian failure to not recognize the composite nature of the Lord's
body...meaning the members of the Church. They were focused on themselves, their
own issues, and desires and were grossly missing what it was all about. There
wasn't communion there because the group wasn't a united body. Taking the
Supper was a mockery and thus they in reality... were not eating the Lord's
Supper. (1 Corinthians 11.20)
Sadly this lesson has not been learned and many turn the Supper
into a personal introspective exercise. Certainly they're not cutting the poor
out of the fellowship or potluck (as we call it in America), but they can be
just as guilty in failing to discern the body. I'm afraid the modern
understanding of Church as the building, or understanding the people as
audience watching a performance only enhances this lack of discernment.
It's also interesting many believe frequency leads to lack
of discernment, unworthy participation, and thus the danger of 'drinking
judgment'.
So they do believe the Sacraments are efficacious!...but
only in terms of curse, not blessing? Misuse it and come under condemnation.
Use it rightly in faith and...nothing.
Lack of frequency can be just as superstitious. And there's
no doubt in some High Church circles they have become more than a little superstitious
about it. The answer is not to remove it, but to correct the understanding.
The Supper shows the Lords death till he come (v26). It is
supposed to turn our eyes heavenward and focus on the Lord, our dependence upon
Him, our union with Him, and our hope in Him and His return.
It's not about us, wrestling with our own emotions and
woefully inadequate self-evaluation and assessment. It's a powerful expression
and reminder of the glory and wonder of the Incarnation and why our salvation
is absolutely dependent upon this reality.
I could also talk about the heavily symbolic and sacramental
language of John 6, but I think for now I will abstain. That I think would
press some readers beyond the breaking point.
As I've said
repeatedly...to Baptists I'm going to sound Roman Catholic...to Catholics, I'm
going to sound like a Baptist. Maybe I'm just a muddled mess, or maybe both
sides are very right but also quite wrong. Maybe they each see something of one
side of the truth of the issue, but then because they only see the one side
they add on additional doctrinal structures to compensate for the missing
pieces? If anyone is interested I can point to some other stuff I've written
that might help in trying to work through some of this.
In the end...the
Baptists are wrong...but can still possess the Gospel. I can't say the same for
the followers of Rome's Bishop.
When we innovate, when we develop new means of entering into
the covenant, worshipping, or in this case celebrating the Incarnation, it can
only lead to a detraction from the Means God has already provided.
When we think of Ecclesiastical Means and symbols to
celebrate the Person and Work of Christ.....we should be thinking of the Lord's
Supper and Baptism.
Instead when we think Ecclesiastical Means and symbols to
celebrate the Incarnation...we think, Christmas.
Is it wrong to point a little extra focus on this for a day
or a season of the year?
Aside from the Authority/Tradition dilemma... if we're doing
it every single Sunday or even twice a week...then how do we need a special season?
See to me, the argument for needing the special Incarnation
season means...you really don't appreciate the Incarnation, or at least might
be in danger of the charge. If your Incarnational focus is only for 1 day or 4
weeks of the year....then you're not properly appreciating Christ the other 364
days or 48 weeks of the year.
The Incarnation is the very essence of the Gospel. Every
aspect of Redemption flows through or focuses on this Truth.
If I were to create a liturgical calendar I guess we'd have
to have Christmas every Sunday to properly appreciate the centrality of
Christ's person and work to our faith and salvation.
But then...well, if we do it every week it won't be special,
we won't get the warm tingly sensations that accompany the season...
We might treat Christ as mundane.
So let's only really focus on Christ during this special
season.
I can't imagine a more destructive idea that puts the Gospel
in danger of being overthrown.
I would rather just stick with Scripture and the Means God
has provided. He's given us quite powerful symbols, if we would take the time
to learn about them and practice them. They've been terribly abused by some and
shamefully neglected by others.
This way of thinking about these issues would be one area in
which I really do appreciate the Medieval Dissenters. Some Waldensians took on
Baptistic characteristics, but many still maintained a high and robust
sacramentology based on Scriptural Authority...not that of the Roman hierarchy.
The Hussites also proved remarkably strong on this point. They recognized the
perilous error of the works-based Romish gospel, but reading Scripture did not
argue for a rejection of Means.
This was lost in the fog created by the Reformation and when
Protestants combined Sacrament with Sacralism...Baptism equaling citizenship
and all that goes with it...it's no wonder the Dissenters went ahead and purged
not only the covenantal efficaciousness of the Sacramental symbols, but even
the whole concept of Means. Concepts like covenant became purely metaphysical and
eschatological categories. They lost their temporal/Not Yet import.
So to answer the question...I do celebrate the Incarnation.
No hope without it. I wish Churches would celebrate more often the Person and
Work of Christ and do so by simply employing the means God has provided.
While many Christians who celebrate Christmas also pay
homage to the Incarnation, they inadvertently detract from the God ordained
Biblical order.
This proves true on many fronts. I argue virtually every
innovation ends up taking away from the revelation based pure and clear message
and makes it all the more difficult to worship in spirit and truth.
Inevitably we end up arguing about the application and
details of the man-made means or symbols we have introduced.
I remember sitting and listening to two Anglican priests
discuss liturgical reforms, arguing endlessly about whether you should turn
this way at this time, drape the cloth over your arm this way or that way,
whether the bell should be rung after this line or before that one. It was
quite amusing but also very sad.
We're not doing that with Christmas...I hear an Evangelical
saying. We're not distracting ourselves and others from the true message of the
Incarnation with all our fussing over plastic nativities, laws, state
acknowledgment, trees in the 'sanctuary', Christmas programs, decorations,
Merry Christmas v. Happy Holidays, and all rest.
Oh?
Remember the reason for the season? Well, if Christ is the
reason...in order to remember Him properly...we need to get Christ OUT of
Christmas.
Practically speaking we must show patience and love,
especially to the lost. But I assure you...you're more likely to get into a
good conversation when you don't go along with it. It's arresting and people
can't help but be inquisitive.
What's wrong with people spending time with family, having good cookies, drinking egg nog? Nothing. It's great. Let's call it Festivus, or Winter Festival. Then it's just Northern European culture. And I participate (or not) as a Christian. There's no threat to the theology of Scripture.
Call it a holy day, call it Christmas...then I have to look it all in light of Scripture, and we start running into problems. We're tangling with and substituting Scriptural concepts with cultural ones.
And even though I have both Biblical and historical legs to
stand on...thanks to the Evangelicals...people immediately think I'm a cultist.
Even worse...that in rejecting Christmas...I'm an innovator!
Alas.