Communion here, there, or both (Part II): Form, Content, and Consecration

Referring to the admonition in 1 Cor. 11:29 E Rice said: "this is a very, very stern warning to not treat the sacred as the profane." Great point!

Even if one, when partaking of the Lord's Supper, treats as "common" these consecrated (read: sacred) elements set apart by the Lord for "sacred" use they are partaking "in an unworthy manner" and therefore are "guilty of the body and blood of the Lord" (v.27).

It is important to note the significance of both the consecration of these common elements for the Lord's use and the reading--and explaining--of the words of institution. After all, Paul received these instructions "from the Lord" himself (v.23). Notice he doesn't say he received these instructions from the eleven who were with Christ in the upper room, or even from his quiet time on Wednesday morning. I do believe the words of institution can be read from one of Evangelists' accounts as well. However, personal testimonies or stories, etc. are never okay during this sacred rite.

I contend that it is not just through the partaking of the elements that God blesses his people, though the greatest admonitions are certainly found there. I think a biblical case can be made that the form and content of the entire covenant renewal ceremony and meal is a vital and ordinary means of grace that God uses to bless his people. After all, in His Word the Lord Himself has given most of the form and content that we are to follow when administering the sacrament of the Lord's Supper.

The sacraments have been called "visible signs of the gospel" and places where the "clearest promises" are evident. After all, they are promises to the eye. Therefore, I believe the Lord's Supper ordinarily should only be administered after the preaching of God's Word (the Gospel) within the context of a corporate Lord's Day worship service, and even then, only if they are going to be properly administered.

Communion here, there, or both?

A question of practice resurfaced just a few evenings ago. I recall that as a high school student I took communion at Crossroads as part of the worship service, sunday morning high school class, wednesday night high school class, and a camping trip at Lake Berryessa. The unspoken idea that was conveyed during this time was that taking communion could only help you; the more you got your hands on the bread and wine, the better.

I have since come to disagree with this strategy for communion-taking and now believe that where the church exists, it should only be taken in the worship service. Coming to this view required first a clearer view of what the church is- my assumption for this post is that the Reformed tradition's definition of the church is reasonable and valid: the word preached, the sacraments administered, and church discipline.

Our idea that taking extra helpings of communion could only help does not stand up to the bibles teaching. 1 Corinthians 11 says that whoever fails to discern the body when they take communion eats and drinks judgment upon himself. Taking communion casually does not benefit, and has awful consequences. This is a very, very stern warning to not treat the sacred as the profane.

I believe that the definition of the church is key. How do we prevent people from taking the supper in vain? Someone needs to be preaching the gospel, explaining the spiritual reality behind the carnal signs, so that those who participate will sincerely remember the Lord and proclaim his death. Additionally, someone should be conducting church discipline, making sure that those who due to the hardness of the hearts would take the supper in vain are prevented from doing so. For those reasons, I think that communion should only be taken in the main worship service where pastors and elders are present (unless you're meeting in a basement in China, or whatever other exception you can think of). Where the opportunity exists to take communion every week in the worship service, why would we offer it in other settings?

So the question was: where is it right to give communion, and why? I realize that I've done mostly answering and not asking in this post, but Ive answered using only 1 scripture, and only from my own perspective, so I wanted to post here for our mutual edificaiton. I'm interested to know if you have thought about this before, and why you came to your conclusions.

The Covenant Theology of John Piper's Future Grace

I had initially titled the post on Aug 2, 2009: "How Not to Have a Theological Debate." Perhaps I should change the title back to that. The first time I watched the video (here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLEzINyXle8) I wasn’t quite sure what to think. I didn’t know if it was a joke or if there was any weight to what they were claiming. But that was before I read Future Grace again. To make a long story short, as many of you know I have the utmost respect for Dr. John Piper. The numerous resources available from Desiring God Ministries have been vital for helping me, and many I know, understand the “justification of the ungodly” and its basis.

About the video:

I don’t think the “Catholics” in the video were taking a shot at the pulpit ministry of John Piper as much as they were his writing ministry. They seemed to take issue with his book Future Grace, calling it, “A Jesuit book…and a masterpiece in Catholic teaching.” Based on the rest of the video, I assume they are taking issue with what they perceived as a confusion, conflation, or even a strict separation of justification and sanctification in Future Grace. After looking into these seemingly outlandish claims for myself, I am a bit troubled by some of the language in chapters 18-20 which begin a part VI of the book: "Unmerited, Conditional Future Grace" (229, emphasis mine). Here are some quotes from that section (below). By the way, we all know John Piper has a way with language that few possess, and it may be that I am simply misreading him. Please feel free to help me further understand what he means by the following statements.

“All the covenants of God are conditional covenants of grace—both the old covenant and the new covenant. They offer all-sufficient future grace for those who keep the covenant” (248, emphasis mine).

Piper adds, “This covenant-keeping condition of future grace does not mean we lose security or assurance, for God has pledged himself to complete the work he began in the elect (Phil. 1:6)…He fulfills the conditions of the covenant through us (Ezek. 36:27) (248, emphasis mine).

After exegeting Psalm 25 to prove his point he concludes with this bomb: “I am hard pressed to imagine something more important for our lives than fulfilling the covenant that God has made with us for our final salvation” (249, emphasis mine).

One comment, at least for now, based on my reading of Piper here:

Piper, by denying the classic understanding of the covenant of works (p.248, 413n.4) leaves believers, those who are in Christ mind you, as the ones who have to fulfill "the covenant God has made with [them] for [their] final salvation" (249). However, he also appears to argue that “[God] fulfills the conditions of the covenant through us” (248, emphasis mine).

Discerning the content of this covenant is where it gets tricky. But I will sum it up in one word faithfulness. In chapters 19 and 20 of Future Grace it’s not the faithfulness of a covenant mediator but the faithfulness—not faith—of the Christian that ultimately assures final salvation.

For Piper the subject of this faithfulness is the believer, and its twofold object is God and neighbor. Rather than the faithfulness of the second Adam (Jesus Christ the object of a believer’s faith) who as the Suffering Servant fulfilled the Law’s demands--under a covenant of works--by perfectly loving God and neighbor, bore its curse through His active and passive obedience, and thus merited for His Church a once for all eternal redemption, the believer is forced to rely on their own covenant keeping rather than Christ’s on their behalf to provide the assurance and ultimately the basis of their salvation.

Finally, there are few men who contend for the Gospel as ardently as Dr. Piper and few men that I am as great a debtor to that John Piper. Perhaps I am misreading the language he uses in an overall edifying book. But based on the way in which Piper argues for a conditional final salvation, the basis of which consists in our own covenant keeping, I cannot, at this time, exonerate his work of Future Grace on the charges of confusing justification and sanctification as they relate to a Christian’s salvation (i.e. Romish tendencies). I will change the title of the post though.

Hart on a Revivalist Ecclesiology

"Awakenings may change individuals. But what is often missed is that they also change churches. And that’s because revivals feature a form of Christianity in which the church, her clergy, creeds, and worship are peripheral" (DG Hart@oldlife.org).

How Not to Have a Theological Debate

“Unicam esse hominibus iustitiam, Dei misericordiam in Christo, dum per Euangelium oblate, fide apprehenditur” (Man’s only righteousness is the mercy of God in Christ, when it is offered by the Gospel and apprehended by faith).

Iohannis Calvini, Commentarius Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos, ed. T. H. L. Parker, Studies in the History of Christian Thought 22, (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1981), 7.

R.A. Finlayson on Heaven and Hell

Hell is eternity in the presence of God without a mediator.

Heaven is eternity in the presence of God, with a mediator.

Revivalism in the American Church (and Christian)

At our respective seminaries, my friend Ryan and I have been immersed in American Church History. This post is the fruit of a conversation we had earlier this week during which Ryan mentioned how a revivalist spirit is natural to us as humans. The question I would like to pose is: To what degree are we, as American Christians, influenced, consciously or not, by a revivalist spirit?

Now, I realize that it is virtually impossible for one to weigh-in about the way in which something affects them that they are not conscious of. So, clearly, my question is a loaded one. But, nevertheless, one that needs to be addressed. My hope, as we address this issue and others in the future, is that we will further understand the way in which our situatedness in various Christian contexts (Churches, small groups, seminaries, schools, families, etc...) has influenced, to lesser and greater degrees, our Christian theology, piety, and practice for better or worse. It is my hope that this blog will allow both those who engage, as well as those who simply wish to observe, a further understanding of God, His Church, and themselves through the various conversations taking place herein.

In Recovering the Reformed Confession: Our Theology, Piety, and Practice R. Scott Clark contrasts Reformed piety with the piety of both revivalism and pietism:

"Judged by confessional Reformed piety, religious subjectivism (e.g. revivalism or pietism) is illegitimate because it seeks what is by definition an extraordinary providence of God, which is not promised in Scripture. This desire for the extraordinary tends not only to devalue the ordinary providence of God but also the expressed promises of God. He is most free to work all manner of wonderful things; there are, for example, instances of an intense sense of the divine presence, a surprising understanding of the application of Scripture to a given situation, or some other blessing; but they cannot define the Christian life, and they are no proper standard by which to measure sanctification or Christian maturity. It is a significant mistake to make the religious experience envisioned by revivalists the organizing principal for Reformed piety" (107).

I appreciate how Clark, while acknowledging God's freedom to work as He pleases, rightfully argues against the expectation of an "extraordinary providence of God" as normative for the Christian life and maturity.

Is it fair to say that pietist and revivalist pieties are based upon a theology of glory while Reformed piety is based upon a theology of the cross? It seems to me most American Christians, myself included, have been raised and weaned on what Martin Luther would call "a theology of glory" rather than "a theology of the cross"?

Comments and questions are encouraged :)