An Evening Lord's Supper?

A reader wants to know about the arrangement (in the States) of taking the Lord's Supper at evening, after the entire congregation has already taken it that morning. Is this a good setup or should it be dissolved? Let's add some perspective to the matter . . .

First, without having researched why such a development ever came about, it seems clear that things like “work” or “illness” began interfering with the opportunity for some to partake of the Supper. Naturally, this led to the idea of a second opportunity.

At least in the States, our “primary” assembly is Sunday morning. But, this wasn't exactly how it was in the early church in the NT; Luke and Paul, at least, document an assembly that continued until midnight (cf. Acts 20:7). In other cases, one gets the idea that the assembly began early-ish (cf. Acts 2:13). And, from the NT background, being comprised largely of Torah-observant Jews, it wouldn't shock us if the NT church, modeled in many ways after the OT community, had an “all-day” assembly. (In fact, I think that 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 reflects this kind of scenario; the “love feast” was a fellowship meal, and Paul “brings in” the Supper to illustrate that their entire approach to the “love feast” [fellowship meal] was precisely the opposite of the way that they should have been lovingly behaving. They shouldn't have been exclusive in their table fellowship, snubbing the less-privileged and lower-classed individuals, hogging all of their own food and having private dinners. Everything about such an arrangement betrayed the entire sacrificial, selfless, in-spite-of-having-been-betrayed, loving self-giving of Christ [cf. 11:23-26]. Paul's point, then, is to show that the Supper couldn't be taken alongside/with such an attitude. It was absolutely self-contradictory for them to be selfish jerks at the fellowship meal while at a sacred moment in the same environment taking of a Lord's Supper that was by nature a reminder that they, like Christ, should not be selfish jerks but selfless lovers. The entire point of the Supper was to call attention to Christ's way and remind people that He is the example to follow; Corinth was failing in this regard. So, if we just read casually through 1 Corinthians 11:17-34, it becomes clear that the “meal,” the “dining,” was an extended period. Their assemblies weren't “done by lunch” so that they could beat the Baptists to the restaurants.) I'm suggesting that “the assembly” was a lengthy (all-day?) thing and that the congregation probably “waited” to take the Supper when all of the saints were gathered? But, surely, some of the saints were still absent? Surely, they didn't wait on 1 individual if 99/100 were gathered to partake? What if there were illnesses or interferences of another nature?

Second, in light of the foregoing, it seems that the Supper was/is to be a “collective” event; it wasn't/isn't to be done in isolation but when the congregation “comes together” (x5 in 1 Corinthians 11 [cf. 11:17,18,20,33,34]). But, even with the idea of a “collective” event, difficulties (as noted above) quickly develop. What should happen if some are absent? Should they ditch the Supper altogether or should they take of it later when they have the opportunity when later coming to the assembly with the gathered saints?

Now, it becomes clear how this impacts our modern discussion . . .

If we ask these kinds of questions, we can go one-of-two ways . . . First, we could suggest that we “ditch” the entire notion of a Sunday evening Suppering. Since the absence in the Sunday A.M. service would either be “excused” or not, there'd be no need to have the Supper offered again. On the other hand, one could argue that one must absolutely take of the Supper. But, both of these routes have difficulties . . .

If a congregation decides to “scrap” the Sunday evening opportunity for the Supper, I think they're missing an important dynamic, which is that people still desire to take the Supper. This, I think, brings out the relational element to the Supper. It is a moment when the people of God should relate to God in the reminiscence of His work in Jesus Christ. To dismiss the “need” for the Supper because one's absence from the morning service was “excused” – a horrible way to put that, I think – misses the real purpose or thrust of the Supper. There was a time that I viewed God as a “legalistic” monster, and my primary reason for taking the Supper was because He told me to do such; I viewed the entire Bible in such a way, and the God that I once knew took that same shape too. Now, without diminishing that God does command such, I've come to see God in a different light; a ritualistic observance of commands is no longer the primary reason for my taking the Supper. Now, it's because the Supper takes on a different meaning, and the Supper has a deeper relational significance about it. Should I miss the Sunday A.M. service for illness or traffic or etc., I'd like to think that I'd still have the opportunity to “take the Supper” later on. Is it wrong if I don't take it? Ah, now, I think we're getting closer to the heart of the matter.

I've heard of and witnessed congregations' taking the Lord's Supper on Sundays to people in nursing homes or to those who are in the hospitals and aren't able to make it to the Sunday assembly. I don't think that's altogether bad or wrong. But, I do think that runs the risk of sending the wrong idea about God. It runs the risk of making “the Supper” into a ritual that takes priority, and I think that that has two serious risks.

First, one risk is that such a view of the Supper can quickly transform into heartless ritual. Now, if this is the way that the Supper is viewed, the fellow who is ill or is in traffic isn't benefited by “taking the Supper” that evening. Why, that kind of heart is benefited by “taking the Supper” in the A.M. service! Whether it is Sunday A.M. or Sunday P.M., it is critical that “the Supper” is not viewed as heartless ritual. It is ritualistic, of course! But, whoever decided that “ritual” and “full of heart” can't go hand-in-hand with each other?! In that case that one does miss the A.M. service, perhaps one simply has the kind of heart that longs for worship to God, longs to take the Supper, longs to engage relationally not only with God but also with His people, who are inseparable from Him. If one desires at the P.M. service to the “take the Supper” but is told that his morning absence was “excused,” I'd think that the one saying that his A.M. absence is “excused” is an individual that is seriously missing the relational dynamic of the Supper. I'd think that such a one is a legalist that doesn't understand the nature of the Supper itself. (If the morning absence were illegitimate or “unexcused” – again, a horrible wording – I'd think that a “taking of the Supper” in the evening is useless, since the heart that willfully rejects assembling with the saints not only misses the nature of “the Supper” but entirely of how to approach God.)

Second, another risk with this kind of view of “the Supper” – a view that delivers it to the shut-ins and etc., that is – is that it runs the risk of making the Supper more important than everything else, and that's just not the case. Where did we ever get the idea that the Lord's Supper needs special delivery to all of the shut-ins but that the songs, prayers, sermons, fellowships, etc. are not as important? Again, I don't think it's wrong for the little old widow to receive the Lord's Supper from a family or gentleman that seeks to provide it every Lord's day – after all, who'd chide the lady for simply wanting to take the Lord's Supper on His day?! But, I do think that it can quickly transform, if we're not holding such a view already, that the Supper is “more important” than the rest of the things that God would have us do.

But, what if one insists that a taking of the Lord's Supper is a must? What if one is able to make it to the evening service only (because a child had been sick that morning or something of that sort)? Must that individual take of the Supper that evening, alone, apart from the morning service when the whole assembly had already taken of it? On the one hand, I don't know anyone that would insist that it absolutely must be taken; what if the congregation doesn't even offer it at the evening? But, on the other hand, if the congregation does offer it, must the individual take of it? Again, I'd think that this would come back to a proper understanding of 1) the nature of the Supper and 2) the nature of the heart and how it should approach God. Why one would object to taking the Supper – even if in isolation, alone, on a front pew or in a back room – makes little sense to me if one understands the nature of both the Supper and the heart towards God. If one understands the Supper to be a relational moment and sees it as a special opportunity with significance to reflect on God's love for humanity in the self-giving of the Messiah Jesus, I'm not sure why one would object. If one were to object because “the Supper” was never intended as an isolationist event but as a collective enterprise, I'd concede that “the Supper” was never intended to be individualist but collective, but I'd also be quick to point out that there are times that the “ideal” is simply not to be met.

Paul makes it clear that men are to lead the assembly (1 Tim. 2:8); the passage is in an assembly context, though that needs some proving. But, I'd wonder if women should lead the assembly if it is an all-female gathering? Paul makes it clear that all of the saints are to sing before God (Eph. 5:19), but I'd question if a mute person is able to engage in this element. Paul makes it clear that women – and men, for that matter! – are not to be disruptive “at church” and even offers a specific context where they can ask questions if their curiosity is that strong; he tells them to ask their husbands at home (1 Cor. 14:34,35), but I'd wonder about the single women and the widows. Where am I headed with all of this?

Literature ALWAYS has context. Without context, meaning is void and things would be absolutely senseless. In this particular instance (of worship to God), the normal context is assumed. Paul assumes the normal circumstances of mixed, male-female assemblies, assumes people aren't mute and assumes that women are married. The context that Paul speaks from is a normal or assumed one. He's not interested in providing legal literature, legislation, that has clauses and subclauses for all of the different nuances about the matters. He's satisfied to give the general idea, leave the interpretive work to the honest and good-hearted reader and let the chips fall where they may. In other words, Paul assumes an ideal scenario but is fully acquainted with the fact that the “ideal” is not always (or is rarely?) the case.

In the case of the Supper, Paul assumes that all of the saints should gather for it and writes with an ideal, collective partaking in mind. But, that's not real-world, and Paul knows that's not real-world. He's writing with an assumed context, a normal context, an ideal context, but he's also aware – as any living human being is – that there are variables in real life. I wonder how Paul would advise on this question of an evening, isolationist, non-collective taking of the Supper?

Here's what I think (for whatever that's worth) . . .

I think that Paul would want us to understand the nature of the Supper itself. I think that Paul would want us to understand how to approach God with full hearts that honor Him and honor His word. I think Paul would ideally desire for us all to take of the Supper together. I think that Paul would concede that there are imperfect ways to carry out things that God has designed even when the ideal arrangement can't be met. I think that Paul knows that the man with a heart towards God is going to do his best to please God and seek God, even when various obstacles get in our way . . . and that, I think, is the most important thing of all (see Psalm 40:6-8; 51:16,17).

For another time, we need to discuss the length and purpose of the Supper. For another time, we need to discuss “virtual worship” and the Supper. How might we have eroded the significance of the Supper since the first-century? Have we watered-it-down? Have we lost some of its significance? These are things that need our consideration, too.