Eleanor Kreider’s book, Communion Shapes Character, challenges church ministry leaders to examine their observance of Communion against scriptural and historical precedents. Her contention is that much of what is practiced as the “Lord’s Supper” in our churches today is actually a blending of biblical components and ecclesial traditions which has led us to an unfortunate omission of the nurturing intention of Communion. What’s needed, she suggests, is a renewed embrace of the Lord’s Supper not as ritual, but as an integral aspect of corporate character-shaping. Kreider’s thesis is “that full-orbed Christian worship, Sunday upon Sunday, uniting the services of the Word and the Lord’s Supper, has a life-giving, maturing effect on our churches, not least on their visible character.” Kreider aims to promote “true-worship” through the practice of Communion that “can be set free to transform and shape our everyday lives.” As a result, churches will discover a re-oriented and deeper passion for God, she writes, “when the Lord’s Supper, graced by God’s presence and Word, oriented to the living Lord and empowered by the Spirit, is fully restored to the place it had in the early centuries- as the central communal Christian act of worship.”
Kreider defines Communion as “the celebration of a joyful community gathered around a table, remembering and meeting its Lord, who is both host and guest.” Historically, however, churches have struggled to render this definition into reality. In fact, Kreider suggests, the current ecclesial practices today seem to carry “little resemblance to the meal that Christ celebrated with his disciples.
Kreider’s observance saddens my heart. Yet I must concur. Over this last year, I have grown increasingly frustrated over the practice of Communion in my own ecclesiastic tradition. At the risk of sounding irreverent, the churches where I fellowship have tended to reduce the Lord’s Supper into an overly-individualistic, legalistically heavy emphasis on guilt and spiritual pedigree. The dull march of the ushers, coupled with the monotony of the once-a-month observance has felt more like a Remembrance Day flag-folding and gun-salute dirge than a thanksgiving event. As a result, the “celebration” of the Lord’s Supper has become awkward for me. At times I have even excused myself from the service so that I wouldn’t have to “partake.”
Communion has felt more like a somber memorial service emphasizing the mortal consequence of our sin than an opportunity to share in the suffering and joy of my Savior. The procession of the celebration leans upon rote formality which leaves little freedom for spontaneity or emotional expression. Believers are encouraged to silently internalize the moment, as one would do during a silent wake for a friend. Stale pre-cut squares of bread are dispensed on silver platters through straightened rows of sitting people. This is followed by tiny shot-style, plastic cups of grape juice also passed through rows by the ushers. No words are spoken accept for the patterned system of introduction and prayers only to be offered by elected church Elders. While not theologically incorrect technically, this form of remembrance is perhaps not theologically complete. Missing in this practice seems to be the shalom of Christ, the breathing of his Spirit upon his followers, and the historical reality of his resurrection.
Also neglected, or perhaps deemphasized, is the participation of the community in the experience of the Lord’s presence. To partake of Communion, for many from my tradition, means only to have a portion of food and drink. However, the fuller definition of ‘partake’ is to “take part in or experience something along with others.” Likewise, the fuller definition of ‘communion’ is “an act or instance of sharing… intimate fellowship or rapport.” As a result, I’ve been left feeling like the disciples on Friday night and Saturday of the Passover weekend. The Lord’s Supper, as practiced in my tradition, has for me imprisoned the presence of Christ to the tomb, his body embalmed and still wrapped in strips of linen cloth.
Certainly there is a different intention and practice of the Lord's Supper than is accustomed in my church tradition! After all, 'supper' would imply a meal, 'communion' would imply community, and ‘eucharist' would imply thanksgiving. Have we over-memorialized this beautiful practice of remembrance? On the first Sunday of every month, my soul has been asking the same question as Kreider: “Is our ‘Lord’s Table’ a contradiction or at least a misnomer?”
The most influential and most encouraging of Kreider’s contributions to me personally was her study of the historical practice of Communion. In my estimation, gleaned from Kreider’s historical survey, there has been a pattern in regards to the celebration of the Lord’s Table of inauguration, celebration, customization, degeneration, legalization, rationalization and eventually re-formation.
Inauguration and Celebration: Kreider suggests that after the meal was instituted by Christ and then enlivened by his resurrection, the “memorial meals” celebrated by the disciples naturally became occasions of “thankful jubilation” as they celebrated their risen Lord. Additionally, the Jewish roots of blessing and thanksgiving that were once integral to the Passover meal would have become so rich in significance when interpreted in light of the new messianic age.
Customization: As Christianity flourished and spread across the Roman Empire, customs and traditions of fellowship began to reshape the common Jewish Communion experience. Other geographic adaptations and personal preferences served to create further variations of the Lord’s Table. Kreider writes that historically, “as the Christian movement spread out across the empire, changes were inevitable… Christian worship and fellowship no longer centered on an actual meal table. The movement became less Jewish.”
Degeneration and Legalization: Kreider does well not to glamorize the practice of Communion in the early centuries. She summarizes, for instance, how the innocence of the initial practice of Communion evolved into abusive ritual, such as was admonished by Paul and Augustine. As a result, the freedom and informality of worship that was associated with the meals ultimately gave way to more rigidity in practice as leaders sought to protect the sanctity of the remembrance of Christ’s death. While some believers still shared an agape meal more intimately and casually in their homes, another distinct form of Communion, known as the Eucharist, was instituted by church leaders.
The Eucharist was the organized answer to the excessive lawlessness which became customary of the agape meals. In the Eucharist, a joyous tone of thanksgiving was maintained, but the meal was substituted for a more formalized ceremony focusing on the cup-and-bread in a service for the larger church community. The instituted corporate celebration, while capturing some of the solemnity of the Lord’s Passion and the semblance of the elements, served to mystify and depersonalize the experience. Within 200 years after the first Communion with Christ, the growth of the church and the institution of the Eucharist created a sense of mystery in the celebration itself. A liturgy was developed to orchestrate the procedure of Communion for the congregants. “The implicit message,” Kreider writes, “was that the mysteries, known and handled by the clergy, were awesome, fearful things.” Centuries of this sacred, but distant process eventually made the practice of Communion the measure of one’s salvation. The emphasis shifted from the participation of the community in a celebration of thanksgiving to the prominence of the soulful status and sinfulness of the individual “communicant.” Kreider identifies the consequential problems as a growing lack of true participation, a growing dominance of the clergy, a sobering emphasis on death and sacrifice, and an increased tone of “dourness.”
Rationalization and towards Reformation: The move towards recapturing the essence of the Lord’s Table has been slow. Reformation attempts have been catalyzed throughout the centuries, but the institutionalism of the practice of Communion has left a gapping neglect of the full passion and theological significance inaugurated by Jesus. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and others sought to renew the spiritual experience of the Eucharist by making the language more common and applying new songs of praise to the celebration, but the tone remained penitential and unintentionally ritualistic. Enlightenment church leaders then attempted to rationalize and moralize the experience to accommodate the prevailing worldview’s fear of spiritualism. Now, nearly two-thousand years after Christ first invited his followers to “do this in remembrance of me,” there is again a renewed interest to rediscover the Scriptural and Jewish roots of the meal, as well as defining the positive characteristics and contributions of centuries of ecclesial practice while somehow adapting it appropriately for the postmodern context.
Helpful in this regard will be the embrace of the spectrum of themes inherent in the definition of the symbols of the Lord’s Table. The bread and cup, the spoken words and prayers of Christ, the foot washing, the Passover, the covenant language, the fellowship- these all point to themes of forgiveness and restoration, healing, Christ’s sacrifice, our emulation, his offering, obedience, discipline, gratitude, thanksgiving, praise, community, discipleship and Christ’s resurrection and exaltation. Kreider is right to suggest that searching for and embracing the rich depth and full range of meaning embedded in the practice of Communion will “remind us “that we are a chosen people, a people with a character and a mission. We are to be a distinctive people, made holy in the likeness of God’s holiness.” The themes of Communion, when infused within us, will enable us to live according to God’s character and for his purpose. And to the degree that such an infusion is implemented will determine whether the Lord’s Table serve as it should in our churches. Kreider suggests simply yet profoundly that “how we celebrate communion makes a difference.” Ultimately, Communion shapes the character of each believer by sharing the remembrance of the story of Good News through Jesus Christ.
Kreider’s book has encouraged me to explore how the practice of Communion will shape the culture and mission of this new service and the people who will participate. I have many unanswered ponderings, but I find encouragement in the anticipation of discovering the way forward alongside dozens of other vibrant believers who seek to know Jesus Christ and make him known. I am intrigued by the value and arguments of Kreider’s “Open Table” and “Many Table” discussions.
_____
Ibid., 26. Krieder also writes: “For many of us, the presence of Christ at communion is too often a matter of dogma or of conflicting opinions. We may hesitate simply to anticipate and to delight in communion without having to explain it in rational detail. But if we follow our earliest Christian brothers and sisters, we will embrace the unabashed joy and cleansing release of Jesus’ encounter with us at his table. Jesus’ words “Do this” are not so much a command as invitation to his friendship and to vulnerable fellowship at his table. As we come to his table again and again, we learn to bring more of ourselves, to receive more of him, to experience the deeply joyful solidarity with others at the Lord’s Table with us.” Ibid., 26.
