Kuruvilla Chandy's Books Online

FOREWORD

The title of this book Beyond Bread and Wine, is indicative of its theme. In these chapters the writer takes us beyond symbolism, beyond ritualism, to the very heart of the Christian life-partaking through spiritual communion of the divine life of the crucified, risen, exalted Lord Jesus.

The writer has been enabled to “rightly divide the Word of Truth”—to avoid on the one hand the presentation of the Communion Service as a mere ritual, bordering upon superstition, and on the other hand its presentation as the actual physical body and blood of the Lord. He rightly states that the Bread and Wine are only symbols, but symbols endued with solemn, mystical meaning,. They remind us of what Jesus did for us on the Cross of Calvary. As we receive them into our physical bodies, so we receive or appropriate Christ’s divine life into our spirits by faith. We “feed” upon Him as we feed upon the bread and wine. As the writer says, “Not the symbols, but Jesus Christ Himself is our portion.”

Through giving emphasis to the word “till He come,” the writer makes it clear that the Lord’s Table looks both backward and forward. It looks backward to Christ’s death for us, and it looks forward to His coming again, the “blessed hope” of believers.

The subject of this book is a timely one, for many Christians partake of the symbols mechanically, unworthily, without communing with the Lord Himself. May our eyes be opened to see in the Communion Table the deep significance with which the Lord invested it, so that He may be able to accomplish His full purpose through it.

—Dorothy Gruber

Introduction

Before I was installed as Pastor of the Lalbagh Methodist Church, Lucknow, capital of Uttar Pradesh, I had served as a Lay Assistant at St John’s Church in Bangalore. I had observed then that many came to take part in communion with very superstitious beliefs and attitudes. Consequently, I contributed an article to the St John’s Parish Magazine, August 1974.

When I moved to Lucknow, I continued to study the subject and started to write a fuller treatise on communion.

My friend, the late Sarvanand Lal, was the pastor of the Bethel Church and also the editor of the Turahi Magazine. As they had a small letter press, he wanted to develop a full-fledged publishing house. Knowing that I wrote for Light of Life, AIM (Evangelical Fellowship of India), and Balance of Truth (Gospel Literature Service) and also had a book published by Gospel Literature Service, “Brother Lal” (as he was known) asked me if I would consider Turahi Publications for publishing whatever book I wrote next.

At that time Dorothy Gruber was collaborating with Bethel Church and was teaching writing skills under Masihi Lekhan Shala. Someone alerted me to her being a professional editor, and so I gave my manuscript on communion to her for editing.

In the end, Turahi Publications got its one and only book in English. A small number of copies were printed in 1977. It has long been out of print.

Originally my work was published with the title Beyond Bread and Wine. This is a revised edition. I’ve changed the title to Beyond the Bread and the Wine and in places used some newer English versions of the Bible.

—Kuruvilla Chandy

Late Bishop Joseph R Lance’s Letter

The late Joseph R. Lance was the bishop who appointed me at Lalbagh Methodist Church in Lucknow. He was an unusual bishop. He and his wife would attend services regularly just as ordinary worshippers.

The first Sunday after I took over at Lalbagh, when I saw Bishop Lance in the congregation, I called on him to give the benediction. He did, but afterwards told me that when he attended church he attended as a member and not as a bishop, and so I was not to give him any special treatment.

If they were in Lucknow, and had no official functions to perform at other churches, Bishop Lance and his wife attended services at Lalbagh. When Bishop Lance had to be out of town to attend to his episcopal duties, Mrs Lance would come to church on a cycle-rickshaw, because they gave their driver the day off on Sundays. None of the other bishops and their wives conducted themselves in this manner.

Bishop Lance and his wife attended church armed with Bibles and would follow the preaching, turning to Bible passages whenever referred to. It was obvious to me that they were serious about biblical teaching, and appreciated my ministry.

Here is what Bishop Lance wrote about my book:

I CORINTHIANS 11:17-33

¹⁷ In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. ¹⁸ In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. ¹⁹ No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. ²⁰ So then, when you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, ²¹ for when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers. As a result, one person remains hungry and another gets drunk. ²² Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God by humiliating those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? Certainly not in this matter!

²³ For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, ²⁴ and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” ²⁵ In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” ²⁶ For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

²⁷ So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. ²⁸ Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. ²⁹ For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.³⁰  That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. ³¹ But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment. ³² Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world.

³³ So then, my brothers and sisters, when you gather to eat, you should all eat together. ³⁴ Anyone who is hungry should eat something at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.

And when I come I will give further directions.

THE PURPOSE

The Lord Jesus on the eve of His death held what is today known as the “Last Supper”. In fact, this was the first celebration of the Communion. Jesus commanded His disciples that they should continue to observe this act and since then Christians have been doing just that. Unfortunately, however, very often the Communion service has sunk to mere ritual observance. Its significance is lost on those who participate in it. What is the meaning of the act we observe? The answer can be found only by rediscovering what the Lord Himself intended us to signify by it.

Jesus giving bread and wine to His disciples said, “Do this in remembrance of me.” The essential point made was that the disciples were to remember Jesus Christ. The bread and the wine were not in themselves to be valued. They were to act merely as aids to remembering the Lord Jesus. The rite, if we may call it that, is not in itself important, but the person to whom the rite pointed is important. This is what we must know and remember as we partake at the Lord’s Table. The bread and the wine of the Communion can in themselves impart no spiritual benefit to us. We derive spiritual benefit and grace from God, not from material things.

The Lord asks us to remember Him by Communion at His Table. However, it is not enough to have a vague sort of recollection of Jesus. What exactly are we to remember about Him? The Lord Jesus has Himself given specifications. It is His vicarious death—His dying in our place—that we are to commemorate. Jesus died in our stead. His blood was shed that we might be forgiven and freed from the penalty of our sins.

Remember His Body

“This is my body, which is for you” (I Cor. 11:24, RSV).

The body symbolises all that belongs to one’s earthly life. It is the vehicle of a life. It is the medium of the person. So when Jesus referred to His body being for us, He indicated that all that pertained to His life on earth was to be for our benefit. He credited His gains to us.

By bodily taking our place on the Cross, our Lord Jesus was able to bear our sins in His body in order that we may be freed from the power of sin, and be enabled to do right before God: “He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we being dead to sin should live unto righteousness” (I Pet. 2: 24). “God made Him who knew no sin to be sin for our sake, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God” (II Cor. 5:21). Oh, the depths to which God’s love went! Jesus associated Himself with our sin in such a way that He experienced the withdrawal of His holy Father (Matt. 27:46), even though He Himself had not sinned (Heb. 4:15). All that Jesus underwent was for our sake. He took our place. So He said, “This is my body which is for you.”

This is how God sees it: any person who identifies with Christ Jesus by professing faith in Him had a part in Him. God’s Word says, “Don’t you know that those of us who were baptised into Jesus Christ, were baptised into His death?” (Rom. 6:3). When we confess Christ, then the Holy Spirit baptises us into Jesus Christ so that we become a part of Him (I Cor. 12:12f, 27). This matter of having a part in Christ extends to His death which after all was vicarious. “If one died for all, then were all dead” (II Cor.5:14).

When Jesus took our sin upon Himself, rather than live with it, He died to get rid of the sin. He did not succumb to the death-dealing power of sin. He rose victorious from His encounter with sin. “We know that since Christ was raised from the dead, He cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over Him. The death He died, He died to sin once for all, but the life He lives, He lives to God” (Rom. 6:9-l0, NIV). And God is ready to credit all this to us. He is willing to reckon that what Christ achieved was the achievement of all those who have identified with Christ. And so in Christ we too are rid of sin by His death. This is our position, our status before God. According, to the Lord’s way of looking at things we are dead in Christ to sin and alive in Him to righteousness, and if God is willing to look at it that way why should we not agree? ”Even so consider yourselves to be dead to [the claims of] sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore, do not let sin hold sway in your mortal body that you should obey its lusts” (Rom. 6:11, 12). We ought to prove our position by living up to it. “We being dead to sin should live unto righteousness”.

But all this is merely an argument for being righteous. Actually our experience is quite contrary to our status and all our reasoning and all our effort. Even Paul cried out, “O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of death?” (Rom. 6:24). Sin continues to overpower us time and again. The point that we must remember is that it is only in Christ that we are dead to sin, and live righteously (cf. I Jn. 3:6). So Paul’s despairing cry turns into a triumphant one: “I thank God there is a way out through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 7:25, Phillips). It is for this reason that the Holy Spirit has been given to us. “If the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit, who lives in you…if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live” (Rom. 8:11-13, NIV) . By the Holy Spirit we shall live righteous and holy lives. We cannot by ourselves be dead to sin or live righteously. But in Christ we are able, for we have His Spirit. We cannot, but Christ in us can. We are in ourselves incapable of pleasing God, but God is ever pleased with Christ, who lives in us by His Spirit.

To sum up Paul’s whole point in Roman chapters 6 to 8, it is entirely Christ’s doing and we are given credit for what He did: Jesus died to sin, and He lives to the glory of God and in Jesus we too are dead to sin and shall live for God. Paul’s teaching may be summarised in his own words. “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ lives in me and the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me” (Gal. 2:20). Paul does not crucify himself, but sees himself as crucified with Christ. His earthly life Paul now lives by faith in Jesus Christ, and so his experience is that Christ lives in him. Paul said another time, ”For me living is Christ” (Phil. 1:21). Living is Christ! That is, my living is just Christ living. He lives my life for me. That this is Paul’s sense may be seen from the rendering of the Amplified Bible: “For me to live is Christ—His life in me.” J. B. Phillips renders it: ”For living to me means simply ‘Christ’, and if I die I should gain more of Him.” I do not live. My living is just Christ living. “Not I, but Christ lives in me.”

For a long time this was just a theory for me. I was constantly living a defeated life. Then one day I found myself in a terrible predicament. I was on an assignment with a church during a summer vacation from seminary. The very next day after my arrival there was to be a young men’s prayer meeting early in the morning, and that was my predicament for I had never been able to get up early…even with an alarm clock. I had always needed someone else to wake me up…roughly. And there I was—staying in a room all by myself. Nobody to wake me up! My ministry was at stake. Young people (and old) would not take a preacher seriously if he was not going to join in a prayer meeting. At first I thought of staying up the whole night so that I would be awake at the time of the prayer meeting. That didn’t work because I was too tired and sleepy after my journey. So that night before going to bed, I got down on my knees in desperation and said, “Lord, I’m at the end of myself. Here I am in a situation where I just can’t do anything to help myself.” Then what Paul says in Romans came to mind. Also Jesus’ words in the Gospel According to John: “Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, no more can you, except you abide in me. I am the Vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, the same brings forth much fruit, for without me you can do nothing” (15:4, 5). So I prayed, “Jesus, I know about being in you, but only in theory. Jesus, tonight I’m at the end of myself, my flesh. I want you to go sleep in me and wake up in me early tomorrow morning, and wake me up with you.” That may seem silly to you, but it made sense to Jesus. The next morning for the first time in my life, I got up without anybody waking me, and yet Someone did wake me up—the Lord who was living in me.

Beginning with this ordinary matter, I began to prove the Lord’s life in me. Later I discovered that I couldn’t take things for granted. When I forgot about Jesus and took the gaze of my faith away from Him, when I did not practise utter dependence upon him, I was once again back in defeat. It was brought home to me that moment by moment I should actively trust in Jesus. Each moment I should have confidence in Him and indicate that confidence really, if I wanted Him to live my life for me.

His body, all His life, was for us. He was our substitute on the Cross and is so even now. As He died for us, so He will live on our behalf in us. If we hunger for righteousness (Matt. 5:6), the Lord Jesus offers Himself to us as the ‘Bread of life’ (Jn. 6:35). The context makes it quite clear that He speaks not of food for the body or life on the physical plane, but of food that will sustain to life eternal (Jn. 6:27)—which life is not to be measured quantitatively as we so often do from the temporal plane, but the term is to be understood as definitive of the quality of our life, for eternal life is this, that we know the Father and Jesus Christ whom He has sent (Jn. 17:3). Apart from receiving the Bread of Life, unless we are sustained by Christ Himself, we will not have the kind of life that relates to God in such intimacy as to be in communion with Him. Christ said, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you have no life in you…He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood lives in me, and I in Him. As the Living Father has sent me, and I live by the Father, so he that feeds on me shall live by me” (Jn. 6:53, 56, 57).

Remember His Blood

“This is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26:28). In sinning against God, we bring upon ourselves His displeasure. He has declared that “the soul that sins it shall die” (Ezek. 18:14). His justice demands that a lawbreaker cannot go unpunished. Somebody has to pay for the sin. According to the Law there can be no pardon for sins without blood being shed (Heb. 9:22). But “God is love” (I Jn. 4:7) and His love decided to meet the demands of His justice. So it was that “God showed His love towards us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8).

Christ shed His blood to make atonement for us with God (Rom. 3:25). He bore our sin and took our place in punishment.

Surely he took up our pain

    and bore our suffering,

yet we considered him punished by God,

    stricken by him, and afflicted.

 But he was pierced for our transgressions,

    he was crushed for our iniquities;

the punishment that brought us peace was on him,

    and by his wounds we are healed.

We all, like sheep, have gone astray,

    each of us has turned to our own way;

and the Lord has laid on him

    the iniquity of us all (Isa. 53:4-6, NIV).

Yes, He shed His blood that we might be pardoned.

And even were we to sin again after being pardoned, His blood will still avail for us. John wrote to the church, “My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins” (I Jn. 2:1-2). The Devil, our accuser, will bring charges against us (Rev. 12:10), but praise God, we have an Advocate to plead our cause, and it is by His blood that the Devil’s accusations are silenced (Rev. 12:11). All we need to do is confess our sins, for then God will justly and righteously forgive our sins and cleanse us from our unrighteousness (I Jn. 1:9). Jesus is the propitiation for our sins. He has appeased God’s anger and turned it away from us by His shed blood.

But he has not merely brought us pardon. He has rendered us favourable to God. God does not say, “I have forgiven you, but will have nothing more to do with you.” In the blood of Christ there is the provision for a new covenant with God (I Cor. 11:25). God finds our company acceptable in the beloved Son (Eph. 1:6). We were alienated, but are now brought into close relationship with God by the blood of Christ (Eph. 2:3-13). We can be in relationship with God, for we have peace with God through Jesus Christ (Rom.5:1) who has mediated between God and us (I Tim. 2:5).

At the Communion Table we are to remember then that Jesus has included us in Himself, rendering us dead to sin and capable of holy living by His Spirit. · Through His blood, we receive forgiveness of sin and are restored to fellowship with God.

Remember Him Till He Comes

It is only as long as He is gone from us that we need to remind ourselves of Jesus. When He returns, He will be with us to bless us, and we will not need these symbols of bread and wine to remind us of what Jesus did for us on Calvary’s cross. We show His death “till he come” (I Cor. 11:26).

Thus in the Communion Service, we not only look back to the Cross—we look forward to His coming back again. This is our hope that He is coming again. In the Bible, the word “hope” always refers to something that is assured in the future. It is a sure hope that the Bible talks about. Today, when we talk of hopes, we refer to things that we have doubts about. Our hopes are hopeless hopes. Not so in the Bible! Hope is a sure thing—in spite of all the uncertainties of future life upon earth.

The Lord is coming again, and His coming is near. I believe that if I am not taken, away by death through illness or some calamity, I shall be definitely alive at His return. People of my generation who die will die unnatural deaths. My generation is not meant to die. I believe that the Lord will return in this generation.

Believing Bible scholars are convinced that a number of signs heralding Jesus’ Second Coming have been fulfilled already. Of particular mention is the prophecy concerning Jerusalem which has been fulfilled in our own day: ”They shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled” (Lk. 21:24).

In A. D. 70, Jerusalem was sacked and the Jewish nation was dispersed into exile. Until this century, Jerusalem was ”trodden down of the Gentiles.” It was in the hands of the Gentiles—or rather, under the heels of Gentiles. After centuries of dispersion, companies of Jews returned to their land under the provisions of the Balfour Declaration, and on May 14, 1948, the modern nation of Israel was born.

Nineteen years later Jesus’ prophecy about Jerusalem and its “times of the Gentiles” being “fulfilled” (ended) took place. In the Six Day War of June 1967, Israel recaptured Jerusalem, in spite of tremendous odds, and held onto their capture despite the rantings of the whole world. The “times of the Gentiles” had ended.

And our Lord said, ”When you see these things happen, know that the kingdom of God is at hand. I tell you for sure, this generation will not pass away till all be fulfilled” (21:3lf). The generation that sees Jerusalem back in Jewish hands (not to mention the other signs), will not pass away. It will remain on the scene till everything is fulfilled—till the signs and what they signify are all fulfilled. That is, they will be around till Christ returns. My generation will not pass away, but will see the Lord return. Here and there some will die by disease and calamity, but the whole generation will not die. They will see the returning Lord in all His glory.

As we commune at the Lord’s Table and keep His memory fresh, we know that now it is only for a short time that we have to resort to memory aids. Shortly we shall see Him, and then we will not need the bread and the wine to refresh our memories. He who died for us will return soon to take us to Himself. This is our hope—our certain and sure hope.

THE PREPARATION

It was Sunday, and I was having breakfast before going to church. My cousin asked, “How come you’re eating your breakfast before Communion?” Her question is not uncommon. A great many people have the notion that the elements of the Communion Table must be received on an empty stomach. This is indicative of the great importance they place upon the symbols themselves.

An empty stomach may in fact result in improper attitudes and behaviour at the Lord’s Table. The emptiness of our stomach could draw attention to itself and prevent us from really having communion with the Lord. We could so easily be thinking of the food we didn’t have and spend time wishing the service would end soon so that we could eat something. When that is what we’re focused on, although we would have eaten the bread and drunk the wine of the Communion Table, we would have failed to commune with the Lord. So it was that the church at Corinth was instructed by the Apostle Paul to eat before partaking at the Communion Table (I Cor. 11:34) because of the malpractices that had cropped up among them.

There is nothing particularly spiritual about taking Communion on an empty stomach, nor is it sacrilegious to take the bread and the wine of the Communion after having had a meal.

It is not our physical condition that should bother us, but our spiritual condition. It is a spiritual communion and, therefore the elements of the communion service are not themselves to be treated as having mysterious or magical powers.

On another occasion, a friend thought I could not have prepared for Communion because I had not read a set of prayers in preparation. Those who go through some sort of ritualistic preparation are not ready for Communion every time it is celebrated in their churches.

Reading a set of prayers ritually will never prepare us for Communion. That sort of thing can be done without mental alertness and awareness of the meaning of the words. Actually, our right to commune at the Lord’s Table does not depend on our own preparations. It depends entirely on our relationship with the Lord.

Entering into Relationship with Christ

Are you related to the Lord Jesus Christ? What is He to you? It was only to those who loved Him that the Lord had said, “Do this in remember of me.” So you can or will want to remember Him, only if you yourself are related to Jesus Christ. To you, is He more than just the Saviour of the world? Is He especially your Saviour?

No doubt He died to save the whole world, but only some of the people in the world realise that Jesus died for them personally—that He died in their place. Others could not care less. As far as they are concerned, He died in vain. His death is not effective for them. It was therefore a totally useless and unnecessary death.

Paul spoke of “the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, especially of those that believe” (I Tim. 4: 10). He meant that while Jesus died for all, only those who believe receive the benefit of salvation. Christ is the Saviour of all, but His death is effective only for those who “believe” in Him.

Such belief in the Lord Jesus will come only if people realise:

• their own sinfulness,
• their need to be saved from the effects and consequences of sin,
• their utter inability to save themselves, and
• that Jesus is the only one who can save anyone and everyone.

The Son of God had to die for us so that we could be saved from our sin and its consequences. He died because we needed saving—to be rescued from sin’s ruin.

Some of us like to think of ourselves as respectable people and do not like to be thought of or described as sinners. However the Bible very plainly says, “There is not a just man upon earth that does good and does not sin” (Eccl. 7:20). Even the good are guilty of sin. ”All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23).

In our own eyes we are better than others, but God sees us all as having failed to meet His requirements. Suppose that a man were to arrive at a railway station one minute after the train had left and another man five minutes after the train had left. Can the first man turn to the other and claim to be better than him? Is he any better off than the second man? No, they are both on the same platform: they have both missed the train.

I may tell ten lies and you only one: but we are both liars. We have both failed to meet God’s requirements of holiness and have “fallen short of the glory of God.” So you see that there is some salvaging to be done in every human life.

Realising this, some people try to save themselves by their good works. That’s as impossible as trying to lift oneself. Even though there is an English saying about lifting oneself by the bootstraps, no one can do that. Try it sometime. You will never succeed in raising yourself off the ground.

God requires total holiness from us. If we sin even once, it is impossible to cancel the unholiness with any number of good works.

Let’s say that one year a father tells his son that if he would get 100% in mathematics at every examination, he would get him the fancy cycle he has been wanting. The boy plays the fool in the first school term and gets only 80%. In the second term he does better and gets 90%. He has only the last term left. He would need to get 130% in his final term, if he is to meet his father’s challenge. But getting 130 marks out of 100 is an impossibility.

God requires 100% holiness of us—every moment of our lives—past, present and future. He wants us to be as holy as He is (Lev. 11: 44-45; 19:2; 20:7, 26; 21:8; 1 Pet. 1:15). If we fail to be that holy even for a little while, the only way we can hope to gain the lost holiness is to be holier than God requires. But that is impossible, for we cannot be holier than God.

Failing to be as holy as God is not just being unable to take up God’s challenge. It is worse than that. It is a case of disobedience; an instance of lawbreaking (I Jn. 3:4). A law broken has its own consequences or fallout. That is only lawful. If there were no consequences to broken laws, they wouldn’t be laws. The breaking of God’s law demands spiritual death. “The soul who sins shall die” (Ez. 18:20).

Let’s have no doubts on this: we need rescuing because we have offended God, and because we are unable to save ourselves. We are in dire peril.

God saw our need. However He could not in justice waive the punishment for sin. But God’s love found the way out: God decided that He would meet His own demands for justice and let us go scot-free. There is nothing remarkable about the legality of substitution, for so much of life is by representation. An underage child is represented by somebody taking responsibility, including bearing the punishment for wrongs, such as paying the cost of replacing windowpanes broken by the child playing ball or throwing stones. It is no surprise therefore that God should represent His children whom He loves dearly. Thus It was that Christ died in our place on the cross.

As we realise our condition apart from God, and His graciousness towards us, we respond with a deep appreciation for Him and what He did. This appreciation is what the Bible calls “belief.”

Such believing is not mental assent. We “believe” many things, meaning that we know them to be facts. Some facts do not make any difference to our lives. We know that the sun does not rise or set, but that the earth goes round the sun. Others who have not had our kind of education don’t know that. However there is no difference in the way we conduct our day to day lives and how they conduct theirs. They and we rise up sooner or later when the sun rises and go to bed sooner or later when the sun sets. During our waking hours we fend for ourselves, providing food and ensuring that we have homes. So do others who don’t have the facts right. Knowledge of some facts makes no difference to living.

In the Bible, the word “belief” means ”trust”. If you are willing to trust Jesus Christ and cast yourself upon His grace and mercy, He will save you. We might say that you have to take a “risk” and cast away all the security of trying to save yourself.

As far as I am concerned, however, there is no risk involved. I would rather trust in God’s efforts than in mine. In spite of all that I do to try to save myself, I would never have the assurance that I had done enough. So, there really is no security risk.

But there is risk: you would have to risk the pleasures of sin in the hope that Christ would satisfy your quest for salvation. You have tried other things in your search for satisfaction. Try Him. You will not regret it. Many, many have proved the truth of the prescription: “Taste and see that the Lord is good” (Ps. 34:8).

When I was a teenager there were a few times when I heard youth preachers say things like, “Accept Jesus Christ. He was a he-man. If you accept Jesus Christ, you’ll be a he-man too.” Or, “Accept Jesus, he is good fun.” That sort of invitation was an appeal to human carnality and turns Jesus into one of the participants in a popularity contest. Moreover, they made it sound as if one “accepts” Jesus among other things. We accept Him. He becomes a part of our lives. He must fit in with our way of life.

The Bible does talk about “receiving” Jesus (Jn. 1:12) which is the same as accepting Him. However we are to receive Him into our lives as our Lord. Accepting Christ’s lordship is to commit ourselves to being His followers or obedient students.

When people make a commitment, nothing else can lay claim to them or interfere with that commitment. Thus the husband does not merely “accept” his wife, he commits himself to her, and he is committed to her alone. He does not hold his wife as one among many others, nor does she hold her husband as one among many. Interestingly, the Old Testament compares the covenant relationship between God and His people to marriage (Ez. 16:8; Hos. 1:2), and the New Testament compares the relationship between Christ and His Church similarly (Eph. 5:31-32). Indeed, we are in an exclusive relationship with our Lord Jesus.

The commitment to the Lord is to be so exclusive that we should not even be committed to ourselves. “He died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again” (II Cor. 5:15). The Lord says to would-be disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me” (Lk. 9:23). “Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price” (I Cor. 6:19-20).

Belief plainly implies obedience. In at least one place, the Bible uses the words “belief” and ”obedience” interchangeably. Romans 10:16 reads, “But not all have obeyed the good news, for Isaiah says, ‘Lord, who has believed our report?’” To prove his case that the Gospel had not been obeyed Paul cited Isaiah on Israel’s lack of belief.

Similarly, the connection between faith and obedience is seen in the historical narrative that “a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith” (Acts 6:7). Clearly belief is not a matter of knowledge that need not make a difference to our conduct. Belief, according to the Bible, requires a difference—the difference that obedience makes. We were once disobedient to God. Now through Jesus Christ we shall be obedient: we shall be obedient as children (I Pet. 1:14-17).

That first Communion at which the Lord Himself presided was meant only for His disciples, and it is ever so. Are we Christ’s disciples? That is the most essential question that needs to be answered to determine our eligibility to participate at the Lord’s Supper.

How can we know for sure whether we are Christ’s disciples or not? Here is our Lord’s answer: “If you obey my teaching, you are really my disciples” (Jn. 8:31, GNB; cf. 15:14). If you acknowledge His Lordship in your life, He will claim your obedience: “So why do you keep calling me ‘Lord, Lord!’ when you don’t do what I say?” (Lk. 6:46, NLT).

Keeping the discipline of the Lord is the index of discipleship, and at the Lord’s Table, only His disciples will be able to participate exactly as the Lord wants them to. Only His disciples commune with the Lord Himself or stay in love with the Lord, for He said, “If you keep my commandments, you shall abide in my love” (Jn. 15:10). All others will go through the motions—they will eat the bread and drink the wine and only their mouths will be involved or benefit. They won’t have any communion with Jesus Himself, because they won’t have Him in their hearts.

Jesus did say, “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice, and opens the door, I will come in and sup with him, and he with me” (Rev. 3:20). Enter into communion with Him by inviting Him into your life as your Saviour and your Lord. Have you ever personally asked Jesus to come into your life?

Maintaining the Relationship with Christ

Communion or fellowship is impossible in broken relationships. Hence we must make sure that we maintain the right relationship with the Lord.

Every time we sin, we break communion with the Lord because sin is rebellion. (I Jn. 3:4). Disobedience always results in a breakdown of communication between us and God. This is why the Psalmist says, “If I had harboured sin in my heart, the Lord would not have listened” (Ps. 66: 18, NET). So before we commune with the Lord at His table we need to put things right in order that the holy God may permit us to fellowship with Him. The Holy one cannot commune with unholiness and sin (cf. 2 Cor. 6:14).

Those who have received Christ into their lives are sons and daughters of God (John 1:12) and so cannot have a predilection to sin or a preference for sin: “Whoever is a child of God does not continue in sin, because God’s very nature is in him; and because God is his Father, he is not able to continue in sin” (1 Jn. 3:9, GNB). That is the essential condition of a person in Christ—but only in Christ.

However, we are not to claim sinlessness: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in sin” (1:8). John was the one who wrote this to Christians. After years of being a Christian and an apostle, John still said that if he claimed to have no sin, he would be a self-deceiver.

Having dismissed all ideas of sinlessness as self-deception, the apostle John said that when we do sin and break communion the Lord has a remedy: ”If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and, to cleanse us from all righteousness” (1:9). He will not merely forgive our sins, but cleanse us and fit us for communion with Himself. The only prerequisite is that we confess our sins. “Whoever conceals their sins does not prosper, but the one who confesses and renounces them finds mercy” (Pro. 28: 13)

While everybody wants forgiveness, cleansing is not on their agenda. However forgiveness and cleansing are offered as a package deal. You cannot receive forgiveness without being willing to be cleansed.

Confession with no desire for cleansing is nothing more than pretended penitence. Where there is no forsaking of sin, there can be no getting right with God. The Lord will not honour confessions that are nothing more than a list of sins committed. Such confessions seem to be more like boasting about sins as there is no “godly sorrow” (2 Cor. 7:11), no desire to be holy. How can the Lord forgive what is no more than a “sin parade”?

God is “faithful and just” to forgive and cleanse us when we truly confess. He justly forgives us on the grounds that Jesus was the propitiation for our sins (1 Jn. 2:2). Jesus paid the price of appeasing God’s anger, and so God does not remain angry (Psalm 103:9). He pleaded on our behalf (Heb. 7:25; Rom. 8:34), for He is our Divine Advocate (I Jn. 2:2).

The word ‘communion’ is not in the Bible. However it is a good word to describe what happens at the Lord’s Supper. The word was used by Augustine (AD 354-430) as a derivation from the Latin words com meaning ‘with, together’ and unus meaning ‘oneness, union.’ Communion should therefore be all-engrossing. It is after all a relationship of deep intimacy that excludes others who do not share that oneness.

Our Lord was hated by the world and if we are identified with Christ as His followers we should expect to be hated in the same way. In fact this is the heritage left us by our Lord: “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master’. If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also” (Jn. 15:18-20). If we continue to find acceptance with the world it is because we are not like the Master and have ceased to represent and serve the Lord Jesus. Are we still His servants?

Since the Lord would have nothing to do with the world, it crucified Him. He was dead to the world before the world put Him to death. Now in Jesus not only are we to die to sin, but we are also to die to the world: “By the Lord Jesus the world is crucified to me, and I to the world” (Gal. 6:14).

In His matchless love the Father has bestowed on us the honour, that we “should be called the sons [or, daughters] of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew Him not” (I Jn. 3: l). That’s from the King James Version. Notice how the KJV puts it: after referring to our God-given status of being His sons/daughter there is a colon followed by the word “therefore”. While punctuation marks are not there in the original Greek text, this rendition of the verse emphasises that the aloofness of the world is a given if we are God’s. As far as the world is concerned we do not exist for we serve no worldly purpose. We are fit only for godly purposes. We are “crucified to the world”, and the world to us.

Our response to the world’s hatred should be one of accepting it as something that fits our identity and calling. We are enjoined in Scripture: “Love not the world neither things that are in the world,’ (I John 2:1 John specifies what things. “For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life is not of the Father, but is of the world” (v. 16). “All that is in the world is of the world.” We must not therefore love any of it. John particularly mentions the lust of the flesh, our baser desires from within; the lust of the eyes, the temptations that come to us, not from within, but from without, through the eye-gate; and the pride of life, “arrogance or vainglory relating to one’s external circumstances, whether wealth or rank or dress, ‘pretentious ostentation’…’the desire to shine or outshine others’ in luxurious living…” (John R Stott, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: The Epistles of John, p. 100). To love the world, John says, is to not love the Father (I John 2: 15). Loving the world and loving the Father are mutually exclusive and incompatible. James puts this idea in far stronger terms. He calls Christians who love the world “adulterers and adulteresses”. That is fighting language. He then goes on to say: “Know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God” (James 4:4).

But worldliness remains elusive when we want to put a finger on it. How does one gauge worldliness? Paul gives us a clue to recognising it. He says: “Be not conformed to the world” (Ro 12 2). The word “conformed” means the same as “fashioned.” Paul is saying; don’t be fashioned according to the dictates of the world. As Phillips translation puts it: “Don’t let the world around you squeeze you into its mould.”

I used to think that young men sporting long hair were being worldly. But once when I was delayed in getting to a barber, I myself ended up with slightly long hair. I began to hanker for a haircut, but when I took stock of myself, I realised that I was bothered by the image I was projecting—that of being one of those young men. I realised I was conforming to my own crowd that dictated that keeping hair short was the non-worldly thing to do. Actually it is neither long hair nor short hair that is worldly. It is our motive for adopting something that determines its worldliness.

When we do something just because “everybody else does it” we are being worldly. We might as well say, “The world does it.” If our only reason for doing something is that everybody—the world—does it, the thing is automatically suspect, for it is indicative of our desire to be conformed to this world. Are we an index to the world? Do we register every change in outlook, fancy and fad?

If we do something it must be for a godly reason. Instead of being shaped by the world we should seek to be more and more like Christ. Peter said that Christians should be “as obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to your former lusts in your ignorance, but as He which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of behaviour” (I Peter 1:14, 15). God’s children must have His likeness in their lifestyle, and not shame Him by their ways.

As Paul said even commonplace acts such as eating and drinking should keep the glory of God in mind (I Corinthians 10:31).

There is the danger here that having seen that something we have been doing was worldly, in reaction we might do the exact opposite and think we have escaped being worldly. But the opposite reaction is as much determined by our worldliness. It is the product of our worldliness. The world is still our point of reference.

When I found my hair long, and discovered that my preference for short hair was the worldly thing for me, I was tempted to keep my hair long just to get away from being worldly, even at the cost of personal discomfort. Today I keep my hair short, not to conform to my crowd, but for the sake of personal comfort. Had I kept it long, I would have been registering a change effected by the world though negative and in reaction.

The point I am making is that we should not react, but continue with the Lord. “My brothers [and sisters] let everyone of us continue to live life with God in he state in which he was when he was called” (I Corinthians 7:24, Phillips). If a thing is not specifically sinful in itself, there is no need to give it up, but we need to just go on with the Lord. The important thing is to be in fellowship with the Lord, not just nonconformity in itself.

One of the dangers a believer faces is the temptation to pattern himself after the “Christian world”—the world in Christian garb. We let the world of Christians determine our behaviour. For example, my hang-up about long hair was on account of the consensus among Christians. Having escaped conformity to the non-Christian world, we fall into the trap of conformity to the Christian world. We begin to display certain spiritual styles and mannerisms, lest fellow-Christians should think that we are unspiritual. We dare not be ourselves. We dare not be Christians in our own way. These mannerisms can get into any area of our lives.

We can have prayer-mannerisms, speech-mannerisms, and the like. We subscribe to some given customs and taboos. We may not particularly resemble our Master, but we certainly do resemble our world of Christians. This is a very subtle trap that the devil has manufactured for followers of Christ.

We must escape worldliness in all of its forms, non-Christian and Christian. Charles Spurgeon comments on the Nazarites vow of abstinence:

Nazarites were barred from drinking wine by one of the vows they had taken. They were also forbidden anything that came from the vine, to secure the integrity of their vow, to avoid all appearance of evil. Surely this is a lesson to the Lord’s separated ones teaching them to come away from sin in every form, to avoid not merely its grosser shapes but even its spirit and similitude. Strict walking is much despised these days, but rest assured, dear reader, it is both the safest and the happiest. He who yields a point or two to the world is in fearful peril; he who eats the grapes of Sodom will soon drink the wine of Gomorrah…Worldly conformity, in any degree is a snare to the soul (Morning and Evening, August 29, Evening, emphases mine).

The danger of worldliness is that it chokes the Word of God and keeps it from taking effect in our lives. “The cares of world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and lusts of other things entering in, choke the word and it becomes unfruitful” (Mark 4:19).

The Christians in Corinth were a worldly lot. They were conforming to the Corinthian world and eating things offered to idols. Paul wrote, “I would not that ye should have fellowship devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers the Lord’s Table, and of the table of devils” (I Corinthians 10:20f). It is ever so. We cannot commune both with the Lord and with the devil. To be worldly is to be in fellowship with Satan and at enmity with God (I John 2: 15; James 4:4) “What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial?” (I Corinthians 6:14).

Being Right with our Fellow-Men

Having set things right with our Lord, we need to be right with our fellow-men for we commune with Jesus Christ along with others who love Him. At the Communion, when you offer your gift of thanks to the Lord, He cannot accept your pretensions if you are out of fellowship with a brother or sister. The Lord does not believe you can appreciate Him, when you grieve one whom you can see. “If any man say, I love God and hate his brother, he is a liar, for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? Therefore this commandment have we from him, that he who loveth God, love his brother also” (I John 4:20-21).

The Lord does not want you at His Table if you have not shown love and done right by a brother or sister for whom He died. “If you remember, even when offering your gift at the altar, that your brother has any grievance against you, leave your gift at the very altar and go away; first be reconciled to your brother, then come back and offer your gift” (Matthew 5:23f, Moffatt).

If you grieve one for whom Jesus died, you also grieve Him who died. Even if the other person is the offender, we are told, “And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins” (Mark 11:25) If you are unforgiving toward a fellow-Christian you are actually declaring that the death of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins is unacceptable to you. Considering the fact that the Lord has forgiven you for all the times you have grieved Him, oughtn’t you to forgive others? To disobey God in this matter of forgiving our fellows, is to stop God’s forgiveness from ourselves (Mark 11:26)

If we have been admitted to the fellowship the Lord’s Table by virtue of being His disciples, then all the subsequent preparation we need in order to participate is just to be right with God, fellow-Christians and other people.

THE PARTICIPATION

The Communion Table is the Lord’s Table. He is the Host. How careful we are about our behaviour before men! Just so we need to make certain that we are honouring the Divine Host.

Not only is it the Lord’s Table, but the meal itself is no common meal. At the Table, the food offered to us is the Lord Himself. He is always the portion of those for whom He died. He is ever available to those who want to experience the life in Him. Such being the case, Paul wrote to the church at Corinth of their need to “discern” the Lord’s body in the Communion (I Corinthians 11:29). “…Do you discern the Lord’s body in the Sacrament…he who clearly understands that this is no common meal, but the outward symbol by means of which God offers to us Jesus Christ, is not likely to desecrate the Sacrament” (Marcus Dods, The Expositor’s Bible, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 268).

But the bread and the wine remain the same materially. The bread and the wine are not at any point in the act converted into the physical body and blood of Jesus Christ, though there are some who believe this. It was while Jesus Himself was present that He holding out the bread said, “This is body.” We cannot therefore take this literally.

The Bible is full of such metaphors. For instance, Jesus said, “I am the door,” but no insists on taking this literally. If we take words “this is my body” literally, then how do we explain the fact that the Lord spoke on the occasion as if His body was already “broken” and his blood already “shed,” when in fact, the body was to be literally ”broken” and the blood “shed” only the following day?

When the Sacrament was instituted, Jesus was present in His physical body. To believe that He meant that the bread was literally His body is to suggest that the Lord Jesus duplicated His body, and that is a ridiculous suggestion.

The Communion, or rather the Roman Catholic Mass, has been referred to as ”a blood­less repetition of the crucifixion.” It is the teaching of the Bible that only Christ’s earthly (pre-resurrection) body could suffer. His resurrected, glorified body cannot suffer (Romans 6:9). Therefore to suggest such a thing as a repetition of the crucifixion actually taking place, while Christ is resurrected, is again to suggest that Christ has two bodies—a body in glory, and a body still suffering in the Mass. Also such talk of crucifying the Lord afresh is against the whole tenor of biblical teaching, for the Bible looks on such a thing with horror (Hebrews 6:6).

Bishop Ridley, speaking of the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence, points out that, ”It destroyeth and taketh away the institution of the Lord’s Supper, which was commanded only to be used and continued until the Lord Himself should come. If, therefore, He be now really present in the body of His flesh, then must the Supper cease: for a remembrance is not of a thing present, but of a thing past and absent. And as one of the Fathers saith—‘A figure is vain where the thing figured is present'”(Quoted by J. C. Ryle, Knots Untied, p. 135).

Paul does not mean us to think of literally eating the body and drinking the blood of Christ, when he asks us to discern the body of the Lord. For Paul refers to the consecrated bread, as simply “bread”, even after the proclamatory word “This is my body” has been uttered (I Corinthians 11:26-28).

To remind us of Himself, the Lord used the bread and the wine as symbols. However, as P. T. Forsyth said, “The symbolism is not in the elements but in the act.” The Lord Jesus Christ’s intention in giving us this Sacrament was that we may remember Him, not that we may physically eat His body and physically drink His blood. We are to be reminded of our departed Lord by the act, and not to be enamoured, fascinated and taken up with the symbols that are to remind us of Him. The elements point us to Jesus, but they are not Jesus Himself. Let us then turn to Him, forgetting the bread and the wine.

Once when I was having Communion, I was so conscious of the bitter taste of the wine, I forgot all about the Lord. Reflecting on this later, I came to the conclusion that there could be times when I would “feed” on Jesus Christ much more without the symbols of bread and wine—for I could be too conscious of the symbols themselves.

We can commune with the Lord at any time and any place, but the bread and wine, can serve to make us more conscious that His life is available to us. At the Lord’s Table we can be reminded and reassured of our being in fellowship with Him. Dods, quoted earlier, says, “‘This is my body’ says the Lord, meaning that this bread will remind the communicant that the Lord freely gave His own body for the life of the world. And whoever accepts the bread and the wine, because they remind Him of this and bring Him into a renewed attitude of faith, is a worthy communicant” (The Expositor’s Bible, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 268).

At the Communion Service we are not to spend our time adoring the elements. We eat the bread and drink the wipe. The picture of eating and drinking is to convey to us the idea that as food and drink have to be received into the body, to be beneficial, so must the benefits of the Lord’s vicarious death be appropriated by receiving Him into our lives.

…He has given another sacrament to His church by the hand of His only-begotten. Son—namely, a spiritual feast at which Christ testifies that He Himself is living bread (John 6:51), on which our soul’s feed, for a true and blessed immortality…But as this mystery of the secret union of Christ with believers is incomprehensible by nature, He exhibits its figure and image in visible signs adapted to our capacity. Nay, by giving, as it were earnests and badges, He makes it certain to us as if it were seen by the eye, the familiarity or the similitude giving it access to minds however dull, and showing that souls are fed by Christ just as corporeal life is sustained by bread and wine (John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book chap. 17, Para I; translated by Henry Beveridge).

The symbols of His body and blood were intended to keep us in mind that all that gave Him a place among men He devoted to us. By giving His flesh and blood, He means that He gives us His all, Himself wholly; inviting us to partake of His flesh and blood means that we must receive Him into the most real connection possible, must admit His self-sacrificing love into our heart as our most cherished possession (The Expositor’s Bible, The First to the Corinthians, p. 271).

The symbolism of eating the bread and king the wine also serve the purpose of a point contact. We are of such little faith that we need the bolstering of our faith by concrete symbols. Thus the woman, who was healed upon touching the hem of Jesus’ garment, was treating His garment as her point of contact (Mark 5: 27-28). The clothes had no power to heal her, but she touched them for the sake of her faith, as a way of releasing it. The bread and the wine serve us in just the same way.

The Lord Jesus well knew the weakness and infirmity of the holiest believers. He knew the absolute necessity of keeping them in intimate communion with His own vicarious sacrifice, as the Fountain of their inward and spiritual life. Therefore, He did not merely leave them promises on which their memories might feed, and words which they might call to mind. He mercifully provided an ordinance in which true faith might be quickened by seeing lively emblems of His body and blood, and in the use of which believers might be strengthened and refreshed. The strengthening of the faith of God’s elect in Christ’s atonement was one great purpose of the Lord’s Supper (Ryle, Knots Untied, p. 132).

Leon Morris in his commentary on First Corinthians (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries) quotes T. C. Edwards as saying, “The sacrament is a medium of communion with the body of Christ, and a real means whereby faith appropriates the blessings which flow from the glorified Christ in virtue of His death.” The sacrament is only a medium. It is not itself the communion of the body and blood of Christ. Not the symbols, but Jesus Christ himself is our portion.

Since there is nothing magical that takes place in the bread and the wine to change them into the very body and blood of Jesus Christ, only those who are already in communion with Him will “discern” His body in this symbolic act that serves as a point of contact. Thus Richard Hooker could say, “The real presence of Christ’s most blessed body and blood is not to be sought in the sacrament, but in the worthy receiver of the sacrament.”

If you are not already in communion with Jesus, you will not be able to commune with Him at a Communion Service. Therefore, only a disciple of Jesus Christ must participate at the Lord’s Table, as only the Lord’s own are able to discern His body. All others in eating the bread and drinking the wine of the Lord’s Supper do so unworthily, not having fellowship with Jesus Christ. They regard the Communion lightly, when they thus go through this act that symbolises being in communion with the Master, when actually they are not in communion with Him. They depict a lie in their symbolism. It is a vain symbol, an empty act that they observe. The Lord will not hold them guiltless that take His name in vain (Exodus 20:7) as they pretend that He is their Lord, and that He is in communion with them. He will not excuse them who call Him Lord and yet bring dishonour to His name. He will surely hold them guilty that declare to the world that God is in communion with their unholiness, and thus suggest that God favours wickedness. These are not merely inferences: we are told by Scripture very plainly. “He who eats and drinks unworthily [at the Lord’s Table], eats and drinks condemnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body” (I Corinthians 11:29). We clamour for the judgement of God when we so lightly treat things that are sacred, things of His appointment.

If we have the right to participate at the Lord’s Table, and do indeed discern the Lord’s body and our involvement with Him and in all that He was and is for us, we will come to the Table in grateful appreciation. Our participation will then be an acknowledgement of His grace that was bountifully showered upon us. Meaningful participation in the Communion will be “retelling the message of the Lord’s death, that He has died for you” (I Corinthians 11 6, LB).

We who discern the Lord’s body in the Communion Service remember him thankfully. That is why another name given to this act is ‘Eucharist.’ This term is derived from the Greek word eucharisteo, which means ‘I thank you.’ Our communion is not a memorial service at which we keep a long face and express condolences, but a thanksgiving service at which our faces light up and we congratulate Jesus.

What is involved in the participation is well expressed in the words of the old Anglican Communion Service, as penned by Thomas Cranmer: “Feed on him in your heart by faith with thanksgiving.” The feeding is in the heart. By the mouth we eat mere bread and drink mere wine. The feeding on Jesus is a matter of faith. If you have faith in Him, then your spiritual life is sustained by your dependence upon Him. The feeding is accompanied by thanks.

That is all that we need to have Communion.

• Receive the bread and thank Jesus that He died for you, that His life substituted for yours.
• Take the wine and thank Him that your sins are all forgiven through His blood.
• Remember that it is only while He is away, that you must resort to such memory aids. Shortly He will return, and so thank Him for the fact that He is coming back.

Since it is the Eucharist, a service at which we gratefully acknowledge the Lord’s vicarious work on our behalf, we should be at His Table as often as it is celebrated. It was the Lord’s desire that the disciples should remember the Lord’s death as often as they drank wine in company (I Corinthians 11:25). Thus we read in the history of the Early Church that daily they kept this feast instituted by the Lord (Acts 2:42,46). Later in Luke’s history of the infant church, we read that it was customary for the disciples at Troas to come together on Sundays to break bread as the Lord taught them (Acts 20:7).

Today there are some who decry partaking of the Lord’s Table even weekly. They feel that to make it a weekly observance would render it meaningless for the participants, that they might come to the Table unworthily. However, even monthly attendance can be done unworthily. Rather, the ones who participate in the communion only a few times a year do so unworthily and with an attitude of sacramentalism, worshipping the symbol instead of the Lord.

In spite of the fact that the Eucharist had fallen into abuse in the Corinthian church, Paul does not instruct them to cut down on their Communion services. His emphasis was not, “do not take part unworthily”, but, “take part worthily”. He could not but say this, for had he asked them to have fewer celebrations of the Lord’s Supper, he would have been contradicting the Lord’s own teachings. Jesus asked us to remember Him. Can we remember Him too often or too much? The Lord’s desire is that as often as we come together we should celebrate His death and atoning work. Not to do so would be downright disobedience. Can we disobey, and He still be our Lord?

To go beyond ritual, you must be profoundly thankful that the Lord died in your place to atone for your sins. You must see Jesus beyond the symbols. You must commune with the Lord Himself, and not just munch some bread and swallow some wine. And you must be thankful that He is coming back soon to take you home to our Father.

THE PEOPLE

Cecil Northcote Parkinson writes in one of his books the story of the visit of one businessman with another. The visitor had made an appointment, At the fixed time he entered the other man’s office. The man whom he was visiting did not even bother to look up from the papers he had before him. He kept going through them one after the other, and laying each one aside as he finished with it. The visitor cleared his throat in order to make his presence known, but it was no use. He decided he would take a seat anyway. He sat down noisily, but was still unacknowledged. The other man continued to peruse the papers before him. Then the telephone rang. Immediately the other man reached for it and spoke to the person on the line. The conversation ended, he returned his attention to his papers. After a while the phone rang again, and once again the man gave it priority over the papers. When this happened a third time the visiting businessman had a brainwave. He got up and left the office, but for all the attention he got from the other man he might not even have moved, let alone existed. He stepped into a telephone booth and called the man whom he had been visiting. When he stepped out of the booth, his business was taken care of.

Phones, paper, people: that is what the world has come to. Impersonal things and matters are the most important-people count for nothing. They come last in the order of things. An impersonal world is what we have today.

Jacques Ellul, philosophising on our technological age, writes about the problem of people relating to things and not to one another: “Men became accustomed to listening to machines and talking to machines, as, for example, with telephones and dictaphones. No more face-to-face encounters, no more dialogue” (The Technological Society, p. 379). Ellul’s description of the effect of radios and television might well be applied to what happens at Communion. Ellul says of television that it “doubtless facilitates material reunion. Because of it the children no longer go out in the evenings. The members of the family are all present physically, but centred in the television set, they are unaware of one another. If they cannot stand or understand one another, if they have nothing to say, radios and television make this easy to bear by re-establishing external relations and avoiding friction” (The Technological Society, p. 318). As we sit in rows in our churches, with no face-to-face encounter with people, we relate to our prayer books and the elements on the table, but not to other people at Communion.

People rush to take part in Communion. They look neither to the left nor to the right. The only people who acknowledge their friends are the young, and they are considered impious for acknowledging people at the Service itself. Having eaten the bread and drunk the wine, people return to their seats. And then some quickly say a prayer and leave before others have finished partaking in the Communion. None of them would leave before all have finished eating when they are at dinner in the houses of men. But at the Church’s fellowship dinner (that is what Communion is) they do this. They despise the Lord and the people of the Communion, while virtually worshipping the elements. The elements of the Sacrament—the bread and the wine—have been given a scripturally unwarranted importance, in utter disregard of the people at Communion.

The Lord’s Presence in His People

Yet the people are important, even more important than the elements themselves. None partaking of the bread and wine by himself (or herself) can say that he (or she) has communion

People are essential; they are necessary at the celebration of the Lord’s Table. At the Lord’s Table, you cannot commune with Him apart from His people. It is the congregation of the people at Communion, as well as the Lord’s presence, that makes this act communion. I make bold to say, and yet I say it reverently, that at the Lord’s Table all who commune together are to one another as important as the Lord with whom they commune together. Their communion is not only with the Lord, but also with one another. If it was only with the Lord, surely He would have made provision for us to observe this act individually, in just the same way that we can pray both individually and in fellowship with one another. Instead, the Lord has constituted that the Communion be kept by his people in fellowship with one another, never alone.

Therefore we may legitimately conclude that it is the presence of the Lord’s people that ensures His presence at the celebration of communion. He is present even if there are two or three gathered together in His name (Matthew 18:20). He is present in His people, not in the elements. The Church really is His body, not the consecrated bread. Being in communion with the Lord’s people is therefore essential to communion with the Lord.

Communion with the Lord’s People

What then is communion? It is to hold intimate relationship and interaction with one another.

To have communion with one another is not merely to have no quarrels, but to be actively involved with one another. We should be taken up with one another. Our relationships should be such that “if one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured all the members rejoice with it” (I Corinthians 12:26). Do you suffer when a fellow believer in the Church suffers? Or do you suffer really from envy when he is honoured?

Such intimacy is possible only in the bond of love. We must be knit together in love (Colossians 2:2). This follows spontaneously wherever there is love for God. It is impossible to prove our love for Him apart from our love for our neighbour. Especially ought we to love those who belong to the Lord. Our love for Him is showered on those whom He loves. Loving Him, we would love His own for His own sake. His people present us with an opportunity to love Him. “If anyone say, ‘I love God’, and hates his brother he is a liar: for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen…Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is a child of God, and everyone who loves the parent loves the child” (I John 4 :20;5: l, RSV). In his article, “The Proof of Love”, I.R. Clark said: “There is no room for denominational differences; no place for personal prejudices; no scope for class barriers or racial discriminations. ‘Everyone who believes’ presents us with a challenge which we cannot evade before going on to say ‘I love God'” (The Balance of Truth, February 1973).

Jesus said, “Love your enemies” (Matthew 1: 43-48; Luke 6:32-36). Here is an eloquence that has nothing to do with words. It is the eloquence of love itself. Our love is to extend to all, not just to the lovable. “For if you love those who love you what’s so great about it? Don’t the non-Christians also do as much?” (Matthew 5:46f). We should love as Christ loves (John 15:12). So Paul said “Love never fails” (I Corinthians 13:8). At all points love manifests itself in all its loveliness. It does not fail to love someone by discriminating against the person. Love that is of God knows no distinctions in its loving. But at Communion, and even otherwise, we who claim to be God’s children show unlovely differences in our relationships with one another. We avoid kneeling for the sacrament beside someone whom we don’t like. It was so in the church at Corinth (I Corinthians 11:18), and Paul had to reprimand them for their divisiveness.

In the Church, the one great lesson to be learned about love is that the body of Christ is one (I Corinthians 12:12). There are many members, but the body is one. We are members of one another (Roman 12:5). In Christ we cannot think of any one as unnecessary (I Corinthians (12:21) nor of any member of members as more necessary to us than others, but we are to “have the same care for one another” (I Corinthians (12:25)

In the Church—in Christ—distinctions, discriminations and divisions are out of order. They belong to our pre-Christian days. In Christ we “have put on the new nature which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of the Creator. Here there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, freeman, but Christ is all, and in all” (Colossians 3:10-11, RSV). We originally identified ourselves with some group, but now we have only one identity, that of belonging to Christ—yes, and even of being in Christ Himself. Have we put on Christ without putting off our old man of discriminations (Colossians 3:9-11), so that the little old man is peeping out from under Christ? In Jesus Christ, old things have passed away; all things have become new (II Corinthians 5:17). We are to be no longer like our old clan, but Christ-like. Christ is all. We identify not with segments in the Church, but with the whole body of Christ. Our old distinctions do not count. As children of God, we recognise all other members of the family of God—without discrimination. As communion with the Lord requires communion with His people, we cannot show unlovely traits by identifying ourselves with some group or other. Our only identity is that of belonging in Christ, and therefore to one another, to all of the body of Christ. We don’t belong to any group with which Christ Himself cannot identify Himself. Can Christ be numbered with Syrian Christians of Kerala? Can He be classed with upper caste converts?

Maintaining these distinctions is ultimately depreciating the Lord’s vicarious death for everyone. Jesus Christ died for all His people. To disregard or ignore His people is therefore to slight His death, to imply that His death was not good enough to render these people wholly acceptable to you. Jesus died for His people. The celebration of the Lord’s Table should ever remind us of this fact—that He died, and that He died for His people, for all His people. lf you do not realise this, you have not really discerned the body and the blood of Jesus Christ beyond the bread and the wine.

Let us love all of God’s people—indiscriminately. But what is love? Paul gives a good definition of love in I Corinthians chapter 13.

“If I could whisper sweet nothings and have no love, I would be just a bag of hot air. If I could foresee and have much insight, and be able to resolve all difficulties without having love, I’m just a zero. If I give away all I have, and even suffer martyrdom without a bit of love, it would will be empty, devoid of meaning and useless” (verses 1-3, paraphrased).

“Love is patient and kind” (v.4, RSV). But I like the King James Version here: “Charity (love) suffereth long, and is kind.” As Rev. Paul B. Smith of People’s Church, Toronto, has pointed out: “Charity suffers; it not only suffers, but it suffers long; it not only suffer long, but it suffers long, and is kind”.

Kindness is nothing abstract. Kindness, as someone has said, is the language of love—the only medium that gets through to everyone. The blind can see love, and the deaf can hear love, because love is kind. John who has said that we cannot love God without loving our brethren (I John 4:20-21), has also pointed out that love can never be satisfied with words.

“Hereby perceive we the love of God, because He laid down His life for us, and we ought also to lay down our lives for the brethren” (3:16). John seems to be aware of those who will jump to claim willingness to lay down their lives—as long as the opportunity to prove the point does not present itself, and so he quickly says, “But whoso hath this world’s goods, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?” (v.17). The point is that love which originates with God would be self-giving. But self-giving must still be proved, even when there is no opportunity to give life itself, and the proof of it is in the giving of what we have according to the need of the occasion (cf. James 2:15-16).

There are many needy people in the Church. But most of us shun involvement (communion) with them, getting to know them and their needs, lest it should tax us. Do we care nothing for people? We cannot care for them without caring for their needs and their heartaches. Sometimes they need love and understanding. Sometimes they need material help. Whatever the need may be, it calls for the giving of oneself.

You may give gifts without caring, but you can’t care without giving (Frank A. Clark).

The greatest thing a man can do for his heavenly Father is to be kind to some of His other children (Quoted by Henry Drummond, The Greatest Thing in the World).

“Love is not jealous” (l Corinthians 13:4, RSV). Love knows no envy. It is never sorry about another’s well-being. It rejoices with those who rejoice (Romans 12:15).

“Love is not boastful” (Corinthians I3:4, RSV). Such smallness, such pettiness, is not becoming of love. Love never says, “Look how loving I am.” Drummond commented in his famous exposition, “Put a seal upon your lips and forget what you have done. After you have been kind, after love has stolen into the world and done its beautiful work, go back into the shade and say nothing about it. Love hides even from itself. Love waives even self-satisfaction” (The Greatest Thing in the World).

“It is not arrogant or rude” (verse 5, RSV). Love is polite, and “politeness has been defined as love in trifles. Courtesy is said to be love in little things” (Drummond, The Greatest Thing the World). Such politeness ”seeketh not her own” (v.5). Arrogance and rudeness that demand their own way are not characteristic of love. Politeness that gives in, is more the way of love. As Drummond points out, “seeketh not even that which is her own…Paul does not summon us give up our rights. Love strikes much deeper. It would have us not seek them at all, ignore them, eliminate the personal element altogether from our calculations.” Give in and give away because “the most obvious lesson in Christ’s teaching is that there is no happiness in having and getting anything, but only in giving.”

“Is not easily provoked” (v. 5). The word “easily” is an interpolation. Real love is never provoked. It is never irritable. When love is provoked, it is still love that flows out. When love is provoked, it is provoked to love. It cannot but be itself—even under provocation—for the content determines the outflow. “What you are filled with, spills over when you are tilted” (Theo Williams).

“Thinketh no evil” (v. 5). Love sees everything in love-light. Love is not resentful, because it does not feel wronged. Love always wants to give people the benefit of the doubt. It puts the best construction on whatever happens. It does not impute motives. Drummond remarks that to think no evil is redeeming. You influence the people whom you believe in and think well of. In an atmosphere of love, they blossom. This is the winsomeness of love.

“It does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right” (v. 6, RSV). Love’s delight is in the good and not in the bad in life. Love never gossips, but always remarks on the lovely. “Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report, if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things” (Philippians 4:8).

“Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things” (I Corinthians 13:7). Love can stand any strain: Love has faith at all times. It never gives up hope, and so it can endure. “Charity never faileth” (v.8). Love will last. Love is never a “has-been.” Love will never say, “There used to be a time when I loved him, but not anymore.” Love has to last. It must always be what it first was—love. No matter who the person, no matter what or how changed the circumstances, love will always be love.

God is Love

Love is patient, Love is kind,

Love to other’s faults is blind;

Love suffereth long—

With a happy song,

For God is love—Yes, God is love.

Love’s not proud and Love’s not rude,

Love on grievance does not brood;

Takes no offence,

Nor’s on the defence,

For God is love—Yes, God is love.

Love is gentle, Love is meek,

Love for praises does not seek;

Love endureth,

And believeth,

For God is love—Yes, God is love.

Lord, fill me with Thy love divine

That with Thy radiance I may shine;

Let others see

Christ lives in me

For God is love—Yes, GOD IS LOVE.

—Vinoo Jacob

The House of Love

The Church should be the house of love, since it is the house of God. But we live in an age of alienation and loneliness. Churches are not full of friendly people, but alienated people. Oh yes, there are church cliques, but by nature they are limited to the “in” crowd. The large majority are left out, and made to feel in no uncertain way that they are left out—cold.

Many people I know go from church to church, hoping that somewhere theywill feel wanted. I attended services in a church for a whole year, and nobody even asked me what my name was. In most churches I have seen that the people do not welcome the outsider. Their clans and groups are already made up. After the service, the gang congregates, while the stranger stands forlorn, hoping that somebody will be friendly. But nobody is bothered. What burdens has he come with? What sorrows or heartaches? Is there no one at all that cares? The stranger goes out of that church and goes to another church. The same thing happens again. Will the man go under in despair? If he does (and how many do grow hardened and cynical or even end their lives when their last hope of fellowship is gone), the church has pushed him to it. No, we have pushed him out and into despair.

I think that the trouble is that our churches are too big and unwieldy. With the great masses of people it is not easy to be involved with individuals. We live in a world that is fast drifting apart, and people cease to be regarded as persons. In a hospital, a patient is “bed number such and such.” Instances such as this which indicate the depersonalised state of society could be multiplied by the score. However, they would be redundant. Turning to the churches we find that people are not even known as “number so and so.” The only acknowledgement of a person’s existence is in the subscription book, and this acknowledgement has reference only when there is money to be collected.

The great mass of people attending church services is unknown. Nobody, not even the pastor (the shepherd) knows what their life is like. Their worries, especially, are hidden. The church is full of people with problems, but they hide their troubles to avoid inquisitiveness that is disguised as sympathy. People want to know that you are concerned with them personally, not with discovering their private affairs to their disadvantage. Only when you are concerned and as a result of the concern are involved with others, can you know people. But our unwieldy churches, with their large numbers of people, prevent any one of us from knowing any more than our own clique. It is too much for us. We feel inadequate for involvement with more than our own group. As Robert Raines has written, “There cannot be real first hand koinonia [fellowship] among hundreds of people” (New Life in the Church, p.71). Real fellowship requires “personal participation and mutual sharing with others”. He quotes Lewis Mumford on the need for “a group small enough for intimacy and for personal evaluation, so that its members can meet frequently as a body and know each other well, not as units, but as persons: small enough for direct face-to-face meeting, for discussion and decision on the basis of intimate understanding.” Raines remarks, “It is no small coincidence that there were 12 disciples, not 120, or 1,200, but 12—a small group of men with whom Jesus could share deep fellowship” ( p. 69).

We need to go back to “house churches.” In the Early Church that was how the believers met (Acts 2:46; Romans 16:5; I Corinthians 16:19; Colossians 4:15; Philemon v.2). Massive congregations and ornate, ritualistic worship services, leave people cold and with no feelings for one another. House churches would restore this greatly needed element of fellowship in worship.

In conclusion, communion is not communion except for the people at communion. If you do not care for the people, you must not celebrate the thanksgiving feast of the Church. To do so would be mocking God. You would be scorning that for which the Eucharistic service thanks Christ—redemption, and the community of the redeemed that comes into being by that redemption. You are celebrating the end of all alienation and that includes the alienation between man and man. In fact, the end of alienation between men is the only indication that our personal alienation with God has ended (I John 4:20).

NOTES

These notes are additional information about communion.

DON’T RUSH, LINGER LONG

“Even the word which is used to describe the sacrament is suggestive. We call it the Lord’s Supper (I Corinthians 11:2); but the word supper is to some extent misleading. Usually to us supper is not the main meal of the day. But the Greek word is deipnon. For the Greek breakfast was a meal when all that was eaten was a little bread dipped in wine; the midday meal was eaten anywhere, even on the street or in a city square; the deipnon was the main meal of the day, where people sat down with no sense of hurry and where they not only satisfied their hunger but lingered long together. Deipnon is far more the equivalent of dinner than it is of supper. The very word shows that the Christian meal ought to be a meal where people linger long in each other’s company” (William Barclay, Daily Study Bible, The Letters to the Corinthians, p. 113).

SIGNS OF COMMUNION

In the Early Church communion manifested itself in the agape, the community of goods, and the spiritual care of one another.

The Agape:

The term “breaking of bread” (Acts 2:42,46) can be identified in the light of Paul’s usage (I Corinthians 10:16; 11:24) to be a reference to the Lord’s Supper. But in verse 46 of Acts 2, there is a distinction made between ”breaking bread” and ”they took their food…” So, too, in Acts 20:11; there we find that the breaking of bread is linked to, but kept distinct from, eating a meal. Also, Paul’s description of the activities of the Corinthian Church (I Corinthians 11:2lf, 33f) indicates that a full meal was eaten. The term agape (love feast) used by Jude (v.12) is found early in Second Century usage and is often afterward used as a technical term referring to the common meals of the church. On the basis of this, we might conclude that Jude referred to those common meals. It must be further remembered that the Lord himself instituted the Communion at a meal. It is commonly held that there was a common meal in the meetings of the church which culminated in the observance of the Lord’s Table. These common meals were a very real token of fellowship among believers, of their common life together. It is probable that partly because of the abuses that arose at these feast (I Corinthians 11:21) the agape was finally given up. But as J. C. Lambert says, the chief cause for its being given up was the ”growth of the ceremonial and sacerdotal spirit by which Christ’s simple institution was slowly turned into a mysterious priestly sacrifice” (International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Vol. 1 p. 69)

Community of Goods:

Luke tells us that “all that believed were together and had all things in common; and sold their possessions and goods, and distributed them to all men, as every man had need” (Acts 2:44-45). And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul, neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common…Neither was there any among them that lacked; for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the Apostles’ feet; and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need” (4:32, 34-37). The Church today needs to restore a fellowship that will cease to be abstract and comes down to earth. So Francis Schaeffer has said, “There is no use saying you have community or love for each other if it does not get down into the tough stuff of life. It must, or else we are producing ugliness in the name of truth. I am convinced that in the Twentieth Century, people all over the world will simply not listen if, though we have the right doctrine and the right polity, we are failing to exhibit community…There is no use talking about love if it does not relate to the stuff of life in the area of material possessions and needs. If it does not mean a sharing of our material things for other brothers in Christ close at home and abroad, it means little or nothing” (The Church at the End of the Twentieth Century, pp. 89-90).

Spiritual Care:

The Church is the body of Christ, and believers are members one of another (I Corinthians 12:27). And so believers ought to have the care of one another v. 25). Paul asks the members of the Church to “bear one another’s burdens” (Galatians 6 2). This naturally extends to the spiritual care of fellow-believers. They were exhorted to pray for all saints, those who were the redeemed of the Lord (Ephesians 6:18). These words come in the context of the armour of God (v. 11ff), and so we not only understand this to be another part of our armour, but also an instruction that prayer be made for the fellow believers to be likewise equipped with God’s armour. So it seems from Paul’s request for prayer for himself that he may preach boldly (v. 19), and preaching of the evangel is part of the armour (v. 15).

It was not enough that members of the church should pray for fellow believers. Others must have some clear indication that they were on their hearts. This was seen in the care they took to teach one another, and nurture one another, in the things of the Lord (I Thessalonians 4: 18; 5: 11; Ephesians 5: 19).

But the best evidence of their care of members of the Body was in their restoring those that were fallen from their company (Matthew 18:15-17; Galatians 6:1; James 5:19,20; I John 5:16). Other companies of men did nothing to win the fallen back. (They might forcefully restore such to conformity, but that was all). Such spiritual care was typical only of the Church. It really hurt to lose a brother or sister’s fellowship. Sadly, the Church today fails to manifest this spiritual care, while claiming to have fellowship. If we commune together at the Lord’s Table we must be involved with and committed to one another to the extent-of spiritual care. This is communion­ in-depth.

HOMELINESS

The Early Church met in homes. For a time it did also meet at the Temple, but by force of circumstances, it had to give this up and meet exclusively in the homes of believers. “The phrase ‘the church in their house’ indicates that it is the small, domestic, intimate, highly personal unit that is the Church in apostolic times and terms. So far from being a mere sub-division of a larger congregation, it was the essential—and almost certainly the only—unit of church life” (John Tanburn, Open House, p. 30). The advantage of meeting in homes was that in the domestic atmosphere, among intimate people, it was impossible to give the service an officious air. It had a homely, personal atmosphere. The group was too small for the rise of institutionalism that destroys personal intimacy and fellowship.

With the rise of ritualism, the Church ceased to meet in simple homes and gathered in magnificent buildings. Thus we see that ritualism and church buildings go hand in hand and were together responsible for the depersonalising of the Church. It is highly questionable whether the reversion to institutionalised worship is of God. Under the old covenant, the people of God had an institutionalised variety of worship practices. Under the new covenant, ceremonialism was set aside by the Lord, and the Church, the new people of God, began to worship God in simplicity.

To revert to the old order of rituals and “temples” (church buildings) is to go back on the new order, to go back on God Himself and what He has ordained.

Jesus told the Samaritan woman that the hour would come when God’s people would no longer worship in “holy places” such as the Temple at Jerusalem or Mount Gerizim. God’s people would worship Him in spirit and in truth (John 4:21, 23). In so saying, He divorced true worship from externalism and places, and transported it to a spiritual plane. The hour came when the Early Church began to meet in common homes. In giving up house churches, we have gone back on Jesus, whom we call Lord.

Since Christians have met in church buildings for centuries, these services cannot be done away with entirely. There will always be people who congregate in church buildings. Perhaps after due teaching on this subject, morning service could be continued but evening services done away with. Then an all-out effort should be made to bring house churches into being on Sunday evenings, in place of church services. The gatherings should be according to the localities in which people find themselves, not on the basis of denomination. This calls for inter-denominational co-operation.