The Center of the Christian Assembly

Dr. Mark S. Krause
Thu Jul 10 11:25:36 MST 2008

                As one reads the New Testament in regards to the worship assembly, it becomes apparent that everything that happened centered around the Lord’s Supper. This is true because the Lord’s Supper centers around the cross. So our preaching and teaching and our singing must be cross centered. Even our financial giving must be cross motivated. The following article gives us a historical perspective of the Lord’s Supper and how the churches moved away from weekly communion. As a result, preaching became the center of their assemblies. We will be able to see through the reformation movement of the 1800’s how preaching and weekly communion were both preserved. The following was written by Dr. Mark S. Krause from Westover Hills Church in Los Angles, California.

                  It would be a mistake, however, to believe that the New Testament presents the Lord’s Supper in simple purity, while the post-New Testament era begins a fall into confusion. As the famous scholar C. K. Barrett noted, even in the New Testament era there appears to have been a “good deal of variety in the way in which Christians observed their common meal.”

            Why, then, is there such variety in the frequency and method for celebration of the Lord’s Supper among churches? This is a complex historical issue, and there are different factors that come into play in each church’s tradition. However, I believe there are a couple of significant things coming out of the Protestant Reformation that help us understand this variety. Before this time (the 16th century), I know of no churches that did not celebrate the Lord’s Supper each week if they were able to do so.

            To understand the Reformers’ position on the Lord’s Supper, one must understand what the European church of the late renaissance believed and practiced. In the pre-Reformation period, there was only one church  in Europe—what we call today the Roman Catholic Church. Europe was considered “Christendom” and the political leader was called the “Holy Roman Emperor.” The Catholic church carefully guarded the Lord’s Supper (also called “Mass “ or the “Eucharist”). It could be celebrated only by an ordained priest. In the ceremony, the priest was believed to pray in a way in which the bread and wine were miraculously turned into the true body and blood of Christ. This is called transubstantiation. The priest would say the Latin words “Hoc est Corpus meum (This is my Body).” The superstitious church people of this day saw this as a magical act, and these holy words were unfortunately corrupted by the common people to “hocus-pocus,” terms for magic. The mass involved a re-enactment of the sacrifice of Christ, his body broken and blood shed. For this reason, the table used was called the “altar,” the place for sacrifice. Much of this is still true in the Catholic Church today, although in America, the superstitious aspect is minimal.

               The Catholic Church of this period considered the Eucharist to be a sacrament in the sense that ongoing participation was necessary for one to achieve salvation. Excommunication meant more than being dismissed from a church. It meant denial of participation in the sacrament, and, therefore, damnation. Since there were no other churches, an ex-communicant was in dire straights. This power was used in political ways by the bishops of the church in order to curb dissent and compel obedience. The Lord’s Supper too often became a tool for church control rather than a meaningful celebration of fellowship and remembrance.                           

              This and other abuses were the grievances that led Ulrich Zwingli, Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox, and others to “protest” and eventually withdraw from the Catholic Church. Once they made the break, they were free to establish their own traditions when it came to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. Luther remained quasi-Catholic in his understanding of the Supper, and Lutherans generally celebrate weekly, even today.  The Church of England broke from the Roman church for reasons other than doctrine, so the Anglican and Episcopal churches also retain the weekly celebration of the Eucharist.

               Churches which came out of John Calvin’s “Reformed” branch of the Reformation (sometimes called the Swiss Reformation) did not see any spiritual reality in the Lord’s Supper. For them, it was strictly a memorial ritual, and they had no theological purpose for celebrating it weekly. Much more important in the Reformed tradition was the Ministry of the Word. Because the Catholic Church had not allowed the common people to have free access to Scripture, the people of the Reformed congregations were hungry for the Bible preaching and teaching. They rejected the weekly mass as superstitious “popery,” and elevated preaching to the purpose for meeting each week. Some churches relegated the Lord’s Supper to an annual event. Others chose to celebrate it monthly or quarterly. A few, such as the Quakers, quit celebrating the Lord’s Supper altogether.

               The Christian Churches of which our church is a part arose out of this Reformed tradition, primarily the Presbyterian church of Scotland. The early leaders, however, rediscovered the biblical pattern for weekly celebration. They saw no need to make it a priestly, superstitious event, but rather a time of fellowship when the members of the body of Christ met around His table. Yet they retained the Reformed emphasis upon preaching, so we have both  in our church.