Reformed Living

I have been rethinking what the Bible teaches about the Lord's Supper and what I believe about it personally.  The major change in my understanding comes from a major change in my approach.  Through the years I have interpreted the passages involved according to my Theology, especially the Doctrine of Salvation by faith alone.  Hence, as a good Baptist, I have held a Zwinglian or Memorialist view of the Supper, seeing it primarily as an Ordinance to be obeyed as a memorial to the atoning death of Jesus (the usual Evangelical view).  Nothing happens in the Supper (it is not a real Meal).  We do not receive anything objective from Communion, it is simply something we do.  Of course the Lord is present, but He always is, especially wherever two or three gather in His Name.  This is what I believed for years.

But when I apply another Doctrine I believe, i.e.-Scripture alone as primary authority for faith and practice, I come to a different understanding, especially when I interpret the verses involved in a more literal or "realist" way.  Thus the Bread and Wine are, in fact, the Body and Blood of Jesus!  Why? Because Jesus said so and I believe His Word.  If you respond with, "But what about Salvation by faith alone (no Sacraments involved, etc"), as I used to do, then you and I are putting our Theology above Scripture rather than under it.  [There is a good reason why the Doctrine of Scripture comes first in most Theology textbooks and why it is the first of the "5 Solas" of the Protestant Reformers. "By Scripture alone" is the Formal Principle of Protestant or Reformed Theology.  It forms or shapes or is the norm and source of all other Theology]  Using a literal, realist approach to interpret the relevant texts led me to the position outlined in the Essay that follows.  I wrote it to clarify my own understanding and my conclusions surprised me. (This is not intended as an academic paper with footnotes and sources, but be assured I did the research)

Roland Allen was a Parish priest, missionary and missiologist who died in 1947.  But his  most influential book was published in 1917.  "The crises of his early experience led him to a radical reassessment of his own vocation and the theology and missionary methods of Western churches. He was an early advocate of the Nevius plan to establish churches that from the beginning would he self-supporting, self-propagating, and self-governing. He wanted the forms of the church to he adapted to local cultural conditions and not be mere imitations of Western Christianity. To accomplish this, missionaries would have to hand over responsibility to the local leaders in the community, who would not be professional clergy either in their training or in their compensation. Allen criticized missionaries for their paternalistic and protective attitudes and their failure to trust in the Holy Spirit to guide the new church in its development."

http://www.bdcconline.net/en/stories/a/allen-roland.php  Roland Allen: A: By Person: Stories: Biographical Dictionary of Chinese Christianity

I was very impressed by Allen's "Missionary Methods: St Paul's or Ours?" when I was a young Pastor.  His work was generally ignored when he was alive, but he began to be discovered in the 1960's and what he had to say is very much in sync with today's theories about missionary work.

Among many other Principles, Allen observed (as many others have done) that part of Paul's strategy for spreading the Gospel was to focus on evangelizing cities that were centers of communication at the time.  People coming and going on the highways that cris-crossed in those cities would take the Gospel heard there with them on their travels to outer areas.  (e.g.- England allegedly received the Gospel first from Roman soldiers stationed there in the early 3rd Century and from men like Joseph of Arimethia who, according to Legend, came there on business.)

At any rate this has proved to be a reliable strategy.  Thus, church planters today would do well to reach a new large area by beginning with preaching the Gospel and organizing a church in a key city of that area.  That should result in the planting of other churches in the surrounding region.  However, many cities are divided into social and economic sectors.  The key component for chosing a city might better be the people who live there rather than the location itself.

Many Pastors I hear  these days are not good Preachers.  It is because they do not have confidence that the Bible is the Word of God.  Many evangelical Christians claim the Bible is the ultimate authority for Faith and Practice; but they do not see it as Authority.  They have been cowed by those who teach there are no absolutes (except that one) or we can not trust, with any real confidence, what any book might truly mean, including the Bible. Lacking that confidence, they put their trust in what a group together might think a book means, at least for them at this time or place.  They have confidence in the group process and trust interpretation and application by community consensus.  There is no room in a sermon to  declare "Thus says the Lord!", i.e.- the Word of the Lord (even though many repeat that response after the Lectionary Reading).   Rather the Preacher tries to share what [he] thinks the Bible might be saying.  [He] does not see [himself] as actually proclaiming the Oracles of God.