Things I Would Change
APPENDIX 5 SERMON 3
II. The Lord’s Supper fuels our partnership
A. The Lord’s Supper is a celebration.
1. Celebration is implied in Jesus’ mood at the Table’s institution.
i. Luke 22:15
ii. “earnestly desired.” = with desire, I have desired.
2. Celebration is implied in the theology of the Table.
i. The Lord’s Supper doesn’t just picture the gospel, it proclaims the gospel!
I Corinthians 11:26 ~ Proclaiming the Lord’s death (shorthand for the gospel, not a memorial – why the LS is not primarily a memorial – (50%). The gospel’s definition – good news – implicitly means celebration!
ii. Romans 8:1~ “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”
iii. How can you not celebrate that?!
iv. This is why we do not dim the lights and have people come up to the table. This is a celebration service, not a memorial service.
3. Implication: The Lord’s Supper is not meant to be a mourned. It’s a time of celebration.
B. The Lord’s Supper is a celebration meant to be shared.
When we want to celebrate something, we seek someone to share the moment with us. Celebrating alone isn’t as fun. Although this meme seems to make it cool.
1. Sharing is implied in the language about the Table
i. Vs. 26 “You” = plural. All of you. We don’t typically have different words for singular or plural “you” in English. “You guys or you all typically covers it.” Except if you are from the south – there is a somewhat redundant “all y’all”
ii. Participation. Koinonia - The whole point of koinonia, or communion, is togetherness and participation. It is difficult to signify communion or participation if the explicit and implicit modes of celebration are privatized rather than corporate.
iii. If we eat w/o love for one another (Koinonia) then we are guilty of profaning the Lord’s body – 11:27.
iv. Because the Lord’s Supper signifies identity in Christ, it is
important that the whole family sit down together for the meal—or at least every member who is able to be present at the Table.
The only time Paul addresses the Lord’s Supper is in the context of a church gathering (1 Cor 10, 11). Paul’s language leaves no room for doubt of this fact.
Four times in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul describes the context of the Lord’s Supper as the church “coming together” or “gathering together” (vv. 17, 18, 20, 33-34).
v. Similar to Paul, when Luke mentions the Lord’s Supper in Acts it is in the context of the early church gatherings (2:42; 20:7).
In the first century, celebrating the Lord’s Supper also included a love feast—this is the difficult issue Paul was writing the
Corinthians about in 1 Corinthians 10 & 11.
The fact that a larger meal was attached to the Lord’s Supper celebration indicates that it was a celebration intended for the entire church, not a small group of the church.
vi. Implication: The language surrounding the Lord’s Supper indicates that it is meant to be celebrated together.
2. Sharing is implied in the symbolism at the Table.
i. 10:17 –“ One bread” – why we use one loaf. (43%)
ii. Table / Supper –
“The church should revision the supper as an experience of interactive communion with the people of God. The table is a communal experience. It is not a private, individualistic moment. On the contrary, the sacrificial table in the Old Testament was shared with family and community. If the table is a meal, then it is interactive because meals are interactive.
Tables are filled with conversation. The table is a place for fellowship where people share their lives with each other.
Unfortunately, the church practices the supper in private silence.” – John Hicks
iii. The intention of the Lord’s Supper is that it is to be a communal event. There is not the slightest hint of private celebration of the Lord’s Supper in the New Testament.
Brian Vickers explains why ignoring the communal aspect of the Lord’s Supper in favor of individual introspection is not helpful.
iv. “The problem with excessive introspection is that it leads us only back to ourselves. . . . The Supper, as a proclamation of the Gospel, leads us away from ourselves to Christ who invites us to come to His Table to remember Him, believe in Him, and wait for Him.”
3. Implication: The symbolism of the Lord’s Supper indicates that it is intended to be celebrated in a corporate setting, not among friends at a Bible Study or even at weddings by the bride and groom.
4. So, why do Baptist churches tend to observe the Lord’s Supper in a privatized, solemn manner?
i. Table vs. Altar – John Hicks in Come to the Table ii. The predominant atmosphere of the supper in the
contemporary church is an altar mentality. The church usually approaches the supper with penance and confession of sin. We come to the “altar” with our guilt and remorse, or we come to the
“altar” with deep introspection. We are encouraged to think about the death of Christ, especially its pain and gore. We are told to concentrate on the meaning of Christ’s atonement and focus our attention solely on what Christ did on the cross. From childhood we are socialized to eat the supper in silent contemplative prayer or meditation. No one talks while they eat and drink. No one looks up but everyone prays with a bowed head, and certainly no one looks anyone else in the eye. The altar is a time for private, silent meditation on the cross of Christ. In practice, the table became an
altar in the church. We still use the language of “table,” but we practice it as an altar.
iii. In contrast, Hicks believes that the Lord’s Supper should be seasoned with the implications of the Table metaphor:
iv. The table, as a meal, was an interactive event where people talked with each other and “fellowshipped” each other. They not only shared food, but they shared their lives. Rather than private introspection, the table was a public, expressive and communal event. Rather than approached in penance, sorrow and remorse, people experienced the table with joy and peace. Rather than feeling remorse for what Christ had to do on the cross because of our sin, the table was a celebrative thanksgiving meal for what God did in Christ. It expressed commitment more than penance. Table was more about eating and drinking with the risen Lord than it was a gruesome remembrance of the death of Christ.
5. Hicks nails our two points about the Lord’s Supper fueling our
partnership: The Table is intended to be celebrated and it is intended to be celebrated with others.
6. Again, this is why we like for people to come up to the table. It invites celebration together. This is why I often will say “Broken for you” to people at the table. This is why we sing…we are celebrating together when we sing. This is why I love it when I see some of you come with arms around each other to the Table. Participate! Celebrate! Interact with each other!
7. To clarify, few, if any, would argue that the Lord’s Supper be strictly a private event—meaning, to be observed in solitude. However, the approach that many take to the Lord’s Supper is functionally a private event. For example, looking at others is implicitly discouraged through dimmed lights, or celebrating the Table together is hindered by asking people to bow their heads and close their eyes in meditation before, during, and after the elements are disbursed.
8. So, the Lord’s supper isn’t a private devotional we do with 125 other people in the room. Instead, the Lord’s Supper is something we do not just with the church but as a church.
Conclusion
The supper fuels our Discipleship.
Therefore, we celebrate Christ making us worthy to eat at His Table.
The Supper fuels our Partnership.
Therefore, we celebrate with the church.
The Lord’s Supper can be personal, but never private. This is why we come forward to the Table together in a church context with singing.
So, let’s have our discipleship and partnership fueled by the Lord’s Table this morning.
APPENDIX 6