# Communion Poll # 2 - How frequent do *personally* think communion should be?



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Sep 14, 2008)

How frequent do *personally* think communion should be?

I say weekly. I don't buy into the "communion can become an empty ritual" argument. So can singing, scripture reading, and preaching, but that doesn't keep us from doing this every week.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Sep 14, 2008)

I said weekly. I believe Scripture teaches that we should "break bread" when we meet on the Lord's Day...


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 14, 2008)

Other. The Communion, or supper of the Lord, is frequently to be celebrated; but how often, may be considered and determined by the ministers, and other church-governors of each congregation, as they shall find most convenient for the comfort and edification of the people committed to their charge.
[FONT=&quot]—[/FONT]_The Westminster Directory for the Public Worship of God_.​


----------



## Grymir (Sep 14, 2008)

Backwood's - Mega 's as the scripture saith.


----------



## ww (Sep 14, 2008)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Other. The Communion, or supper of the Lord, is frequently to be celebrated; but how often, may be considered and determined by the ministers, and other church-governors of each congregation, as they shall find most convenient for the comfort and edification of the people committed to their charge.
> [FONT=&quot]—[/FONT]_The Westminster Directory for the Public Worship of God_.​


----------



## KMK (Sep 14, 2008)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Other. The Communion, or supper of the Lord, is frequently to be celebrated; but how often, may be considered and determined by the ministers, and other church-governors of each congregation, as they shall find most convenient for the comfort and edification of the people committed to their charge.
> [FONT=&quot]—[/FONT]_The Westminster Directory for the Public Worship of God_.​





It depends on the local church.


----------



## beej6 (Sep 15, 2008)

Funny as how I was actually thinking of this question earlier in the day. I said "weekly" (our church is monthly now) but twice a month seems an okay option as well. I'm not sure "frequently" can be defined as "less than monthly," and even monthly doesn't seem that frequent to me.


----------



## larryjf (Sep 15, 2008)

I voted "other" as i believe this falls on the discretion of the Session of the local church. I see the Scriptures teaching that as often as we partake we are proclaiming the Lord's death until He comes, but i don't see them commanding weekly observance.


----------



## MW (Sep 15, 2008)

If when we commune we "shew the Lord's death till he come," I personally have difficulties with administering the communion as a seal of the covenant where the Word has not specifically proclaimed the Lord's death. Our gathering together should be to have the Lord's supper and proclaim the death of Christ, not to have an ordinary service which tacks the Lord's supper on to the end of it.


----------



## Christusregnat (Sep 15, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> If when we commune we "shew the Lord's death till he come," I personally have difficulties with administering the communion as a seal of the covenant where the Word has not specifically proclaimed the Lord's death. Our gathering together should be to have the Lord's supper and proclaim the death of Christ, not to have an ordinary service which tacks the Lord's supper on to the end of it.



Rev. Winzer,

Do you think it would be fair to say that Paul is telling the congregation what *they* are doing, rather than stating what the entire focus of a given worship service is to be, or what the presbyters are to preach on? I think I understand your point that it may be congruous and edifying for an entire service to be focused on the same theme, so to speak. 

Interested in your thoughts,


----------



## MW (Sep 15, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> Do you think it would be fair to say that Paul is telling the congregation what *they* are doing, rather than stating what the entire focus of a given worship service is to be, or what the presbyters are to preach on? I think I understand your point that it may be congruous and edifying for an entire service to be focused on the same theme, so to speak.



The apostle tells them what they are doing in v. 20, 21. They are not eating the Lord's supper because they are treating it like an ordinary meal and feeding themselves without consideration of the significance of the elements in the context of the gathered congregation. He tells them they can do this at home, v. 22. My own opinion is that the apostle has at this point provided a rationale for separating the agape meal from the celebration of communion by instructing them to have that meal at home. What he says from v. 23ff offers a corrective which emphasises the redemptive importance of the elements and hence the continuing use of giving and receiving bread and wine as a ceremony of sacred significance to the congregation. V. 26 cannot be regarded as a descriptive statement of their own action, otherwise he will have justified the abuse he has criticised. Nor could any sense be made of the "wherefore" of v. 27, with its idea of unworthy participation. "Ye do shew" must be regarded as teaching an abstract principle which is true whenever the elements are worthily received.

The reason why I maintain that there should be a sermon on the Lord's death is due to the reformed understanding of the sacraments, namely, that their efficacy is tied to the Word and that they seal the benefits which are taught in the Word. But if there has not been any proclamation of the death of Christ, with the believer's need to feed upon Him and His gracious benefits, what exactly does the subsequent administration of the sacrament signify and seal to the participant? One would have to hold that the sacrament benefits ex opere operato, without the use of rational consideration, in order to suppose that there is any benefit to be gained from its administration apart from the expostion and application of the death of Christ in the preaching of the Word. But if that were the case, then the need for examination would not be as absolute as the apostle teaches.


----------



## uberkermit (Sep 15, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> The reason why I maintain that there should be a sermon on the Lord's death is due to the reformed understanding of the sacraments, namely, that their efficacy is tied to the Word and that they seal the benefits which are taught in the Word. But if there has not been any proclamation of the death of Christ, with the believer's need to feed upon Him and His gracious benefits, what exactly does the subsequent administration of the sacrament signify and seal to the participant? One would have to hold that the sacrament benefits ex opere operato, without the use of rational consideration, in order to suppose that there is any benefit to be gained from its administration apart from the expostion and application of the death of Christ in the preaching of the Word. But if that were the case, then the need for examination would not be as absolute as the apostle teaches.



With all due respect, Pastor Winzer, I would ask this: How much does the minister need to say? If the elders only allow those to the table who have demonstrated an understanding of the meaning of it, is not a brief explanation of the nature and significance of the Lord's supper sufficient to refresh the participant's memory of those things he already understands and believes? Why does it have to be a sermon? Do we all forget _everything_ about the Lord's supper? I don't think we do, and therefore a short reminder of these things you mention should be sufficient.


----------



## Romans922 (Sep 15, 2008)

It shouldn't be done as often as the Preaching of the Word.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Sep 15, 2008)

Romans922 said:


> It shouldn't be done as often as the Preaching of the Word.


----------



## CDM (Sep 15, 2008)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Other. The Communion, or supper of the Lord, is frequently to be celebrated; but how often, may be considered and determined by the ministers, and other church-governors of each congregation, as they shall find most convenient for the comfort and edification of the people committed to their charge.
> [FONT=&quot]—[/FONT]_The Westminster Directory for the Public Worship of God_.​


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 15, 2008)

My personal preference is weekly. But I also agree with the Westminster Directory that the congregation (represented by the elders) should determine this.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Sep 15, 2008)

What do your CRC/RCA churches do? (Just out of curiosity)...


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 15, 2008)

Once every two months (both of them do this).


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Sep 15, 2008)

Same Lord's Day?


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 15, 2008)

Usually. I wouldn't mind staggering it a bit, actually.


----------



## Seb (Sep 15, 2008)

I'm embarrassed to say that our CRCNA Church has two "schedules" for our two morning services.

Our first Lord's Day morning service is a more traditional service. They have the Lord's Supper quarterly.

Our second morning service is a more contemporary service and they have the Lord's Supper monthly.



Personally, I'd like to see us have one service, with the Lord's Supper presented weekly.


----------



## KMK (Sep 15, 2008)

uberkermit said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > The reason why I maintain that there should be a sermon on the Lord's death is due to the reformed understanding of the sacraments, namely, that their efficacy is tied to the Word and that they seal the benefits which are taught in the Word. But if there has not been any proclamation of the death of Christ, with the believer's need to feed upon Him and His gracious benefits, what exactly does the subsequent administration of the sacrament signify and seal to the participant? One would have to hold that the sacrament benefits ex opere operato, without the use of rational consideration, in order to suppose that there is any benefit to be gained from its administration apart from the expostion and application of the death of Christ in the preaching of the Word. But if that were the case, then the need for examination would not be as absolute as the apostle teaches.
> ...



I would not presume to answer on behalf of Rev Winzer, but, I think preaching is more than 'a brief explanation'. Preaching is the vehicle by which faith is delivered. There is an aspect of preaching which is to teach and make people 'understand' but it is so much more. Even if you already 'understand the meaning of it' the attendance to preaching is still of great benefit.

WLC Q 159 Q. 159. How is the Word of God to be preached by those that are called thereunto?

A. They that are called to labour in the ministry of the Word, are to preach sound doctrine,[1017] diligently,[1018] in season and out of season;[1019] plainly,[1020] not in the enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit, and of power;[1021] faithfully,[1022] making known the whole counsel of God;[1023] wisely,[1024] applying themselves to the necessities and capacities of the hearers;[1025] zealously,[1026] with fervent love to God[1027] and the souls of his people;[1028] sincerely,[1029] *aiming at his glory*,[1030] *and their conversion*,[1031] *edification*,[1032] and *salvation*.[1033]


----------



## MW (Sep 15, 2008)

uberkermit said:


> If the elders only allow those to the table who have demonstrated an understanding of the meaning of it, is not a brief explanation of the nature and significance of the Lord's supper sufficient to refresh the participant's memory of those things he already understands and believes?



Is the Lord's supper merely a communion for believers, or does it also proclaim the Lord's death to those viewing it from the outside of the table? There will likely be those present who do not participate but yet ask the pertinent question, What mean ye by this service? The supper will thus serve as a means of grace to them also, and one for which a brief explanation is not sufficient.

Then there are the weak. We encourage them to come forward in order to strengthen their faith. But is it supposed that their faith will be strengthened by a brief explanation and the bare administration of the sacramental action? Of course not. The supper only strengthens faith as the Holy Spirit blesses what it signifies to the soul of the believer. Hence deeper understanding is required, and deeper understanding calls for faithful exposition, not brief explanation.

And what about the strong? Will a brief explanation suffice to make the Supper effectual for renewing their repentance and faith? It may do. God's Spirit is able to do much with a little, and it requires only the whisper of the Lord to fan the believer's heart into flame. But the overruling of the Spirit does not free the steward from the blame to be laid upon him for giving only a little to God's people, especially when he had an opportunity to give them much; and who knows what blessings might flow from the more abundant exposition of Christ and Him crucified? But I suppose it is a sign of our earthly-minded age to be content with but a taste of heaven rather than to feast on the Lord and His bounty.


----------



## moral necessity (Sep 16, 2008)

I personally think it is a good and healthy thing to do weekly. I am greatly blessed by the reminder of Christ uniting himself to me, out of grace alone, while I was ungodly. And, the degree of this unity is a pleasant reminder as well, symbolized by the degree in which food and drink become one with our bodies after being injested. I need reminded near daily that it is all of grace alone, if for nothing more than to provide another coating of a layer of defence against my, or, should I say, man's sinful tendency to gravitate backwards to works righteousness, or, to his more deceitful tendency of adding to the work of Christ something else, however small it may be. And, if others are prone to such seduction from their sin and from the devil, I would surmise that Peter was not overstating the need to remind his audience of these things every time he spoke with them.

Blessings!


----------



## Matthew1034 (Sep 16, 2008)

I believe the Lord's Supper should occur both in the church and in the home, with Brothers and Sisters, of course.


----------



## KMK (Sep 16, 2008)

Matthew1034 said:


> I believe the Lord's Supper should occur both in the church and in the home, with Brothers and Sisters, of course.





> LBC 28:2 These holy appointments are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ.



Brothers and sisters and those who are qualified and called, of course.


----------



## jwithnell (Sep 17, 2008)

A practical consideration: when communion is held less frequently, and you are providentially hindered from attending, you can go a long time without this provision that has been made as a means of grace. This hugely affects mothers with young children and emergency responders.

In the home? How is that under the courts of the church?


----------

