Should We Enlarge The Lord’s Supper? (Part 3)
Here is the import of Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 11:20-22. First, all Christians must partake of the Lord’s Supper (v.21). Second, this supper is not to be a common meal (v.22). Third, it involves a limited amount of the elements (not an unlimited amount) (v.23-25). Fourth, it is to be a time of memorial and somber proclamation in reflection of the body and blood of Christ and His death (v.24- 26). Fifth, participating in a manner less than worthy has consequences (v.27-32). Sixth, the brethren are to wait for everyone to partake before moving on to other matters of worship (v.33). Seventh, the hungry should eat at home because this meal is NOT about that (v.34).
Why would one want to tamper with the Lord’s Supper? There has long been an excuse in the denominational world about not observing the Lord’s Supper weekly: “We don’t want the Lord’s Supper to become meaningless because of its frequent observance.” The concern to enlarge the supper seems to entail the same rationale: it will become more meaningful if we “eat more.” The truth, however, is that the Lord’s Supper is as meaningful as we make it to be each time we observe it. Lack of frequency has nothing to do with the significance. Enlargement of the elements has nothing to do with the significance. What makes the Lord’s Supper significant is the full engagement of our spirit and mind. We must think, be thankful, praise, and remember. The cross is meaningful! If the Lord’s Supper loses its meaning for you, don’t blame the Lord, the frequency, or the elements. Change your thinking! The Lord inaugurated this ritual; we should respect it. To those who don’t, “What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.”
God bless you, and I love you.
Kevin Cauley