Introduction⤒🔗

One of the issues that has commanded a good deal of attention and study in recent years among Reformed and Presbyterian churches is the frequency of the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. In the Canadian Reformed Churches, too, some consideration has been given to the subject over the past decades.¹ The observation was made almost three decades ago already by the late Rev. G. VanDooren that “we by far do not follow the example of the ancient church as to the frequency of supper-celebrating” (The Beauty of Reformed Liturgy). Rev. Paul Aasman observed over a decade ago that “it is becoming increasingly so that people would like to see this sacrament enjoyed more often than it is presently the case in any of our churches” (p. 78). In light of growing interest and attention to this topic, not only within the Canadian Reformed Churches, but also among many churches with whom we have ecclesiastical fellowship,² it is both worthwhile and necessary to explore this subject more closely.

We will begin by taking note of what the Scriptures teach on the matter and we will consider some of the church historical and confessional aspects. We will conclude by addressing the spiritual benefits, common objections, and finally the pastoral and practical factors that need to be borne in mind.

The Old Testament←⤒🔗

The most obvious Old Testament connection to Lord’s Supper is the Passover. The Lord Jesus Christ instituted the Lord’s Supper, in fact, during the Passover (Matthew 26:17-19; Luke 22:1-15). The question arises, naturally: why did the believers begin celebrating communion so frequently if the Passover was only celebrated once a year?

There is no shortage of literature exploring the link between the Passover and the Lord’s Supper. A fairly thorough-going and helpful treatment is provided by I. Howard Marshall, Last Supper and Lord’s Supper. Perhaps the best way to state it is that “the Passover is a type of the heavenly banquet while the Lord’s Supper is the anticipation of the heavenly banquet” (p. 80). The Lord’s Supper is more a transformation than a continuation of the Passover (p. 107), for

Jesus took the Passover meal and proceeded to give a new significance to it as a meal whose repetition by his followers would enable them to remember him.p. 143

Interestingly, C. John Collins makes the case that frequent communion should be the norm for the church by making the connection, not only with the Passover, but also with the Old Testament peace offering. He argues that “the common problem of why we should celebrate the Eucharist more than once a year is settled if we see it as a peace offering — in fact, we can see why frequent communion should be the norm for the church.” ³

Recognizing that there are obvious connections between the Lord’s Supper and the Passover, Collins points out, is “not the same ... as saying that the Passover is the sole interpretive backcloth for the Eucharist, and it is striking that NT authors do not use the Passover in that way.”⁴ Remembering this might help move the discussion of frequency of communion forward.

While the Old Testament gives important background for the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, the necessity of its frequent celebration is established primarily from the New Testament.

Acts←⤒🔗

After the ascension of Christ and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit among the believers, the Lord’s Supper was routinely celebrated, at that time designated “the breaking of bread.” Luke provides this account: “They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread, and to prayer” (Acts 2:42). ⁵

This celebration was a usual component in the Lord’s Day worship of the believers. Luke writes later: “On the first day of the week we came together to break bread” (Acts 20:7).

1 Corinthians 11←⤒🔗

In what the Apostle Paul says here to the Corinthian believers about the Lord’s Supper, he assumes that it is a regular part of what they do “when they come together”⁶: “In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you...” (v. 18). A couple verses later he uses the same phrase: “When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat...” (v. 20). Later again he talks about “whenever⁷ you eat this bread and drink this cup...” (v. 26). ⁸

Church Historical Considerations←⤒🔗

As we will observe, the worship of the early church followed the form of “Word and Table” as it emerged out of the New Testament period. ⁹

a. The Early Church Fathers and Witnesses (First and Second Centuries AD)←↰⤒🔗

Ignatius←↰⤒🔗

Ignatius, believed to be a student of the Apostle John at Antioch and later bishop there in the early second century, is our first witness. He wrote seven letters of comfort to various congregations during a time of persecution in the church. Concerning the Lord’s Supper, this is what he wrote to the congregation in Ephesus: “Try to gather more frequently to celebrate God’s Eucharist and to praise him. For when you meet with frequency, Satan’s powers are overthrown and his destructiveness is undone by the unanimity of your faith.”¹⁰

We find here what seems to be the same assumption that Paul made concerning the congregation gathered at Corinth, namely that when they met for worship they would also celebrate the Lord’s Supper. To meet with frequency, for Ignatius, also meant to celebrate the Lord’s Supper with frequency.

Didache (Second Century AD)←↰⤒🔗

A portion of the Didache (Greek) or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles was a manual for church order in use during the second century AD and possibly as early as the first. This important document indicates that the Lord’s Supper was normally celebrated on every Lord’s Day. It is significant that both the Supper and the Day are designated “the Lord’s.”¹¹

The Didache stipulates this for the churches: “On every Lord’s Day – his special day – come together and break bread and give thanks ... for it was of this sacrifice that the Lord said, ‘Always and everywhere offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is marveled at by the nations.’ (Malachi 1:11, 14)”¹²

This document, too, gives evidence of the natural, unspoken connection that there appears to have been in the early church between the celebration of the Lord’s Day and the observance of the Lord’s Supper.

Justin Martyr←↰⤒🔗

In the early church were men who became known as “the apologists,” Christian writers who arose to defend the Christian faith against the enemies of the gospel. One such apologist, Justin Martyr, is another witness whom we should consider. In his account of what commonly happened during the Sunday worship services, he includes a description of the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. “(B)read is brought, and wine and water, and the president similarly sends up prayers and thanksgivings ... the distribution, and reception of the consecrated (elements) by each one, takes place and they are sent to the absent by the deacons.”¹³         

That the frequency of Lord’s Supper is not even specified indicates that it was a normal part of Lord’s Day worship.

Irenaeus of Lyons←↰⤒🔗

This early church leader, too, speaks of the Lord’s Supper as something that should be undertaken “frequently and without intermission.”¹⁴

Ebionites←↰⤒🔗

A rare exception to this pattern of frequent communion in the early church was the practice of the early Jewish-Christian sect of the Ebionites, who believed that it should be celebrated only once a year, like the Passover. ¹⁵

b. The Later Christian Fathers (Third and Fourth Centuries AD)←↰⤒🔗

John Chrysostom←↰⤒🔗

As we pass into the later centuries of the early church, we discover that for Chrysostom – who clearly made a deep impression upon John Calvin considering how extensively this reformer cites him – the decline in the use of the Lord’s Supper in the church was a matter of great concern to him. This decline was a result of the “pious fear” of the participants¹⁶ and it became such an issue that Chrysostom needed to settle a controversy on the matter. ¹⁷ Calvin writes of how displeased Chrysostom was with this decline. ¹⁸

Basil of Caesarea←↰⤒🔗

Basil also addressed the matter of frequency in his letters. While we might have questions about some of his teachings and practices, his view of how often we should partake of the Lord’s Supper falls in line with the Scriptural custom of the apostolic church, which we have mentioned. He considered frequent communion “a good and helpful practice.”¹⁹ Citing the Saviour’s words, “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life” (John 6:54), he comments: “Who doubts that to partake of life continually is really to have life in abundance?”²⁰

c. Augustine (Fifth Century AD)←↰⤒🔗

In a letter of Augustine to Janarius we have a snapshot of what the custom was in Augustine’s day. “Some partake daily of the Lord’s body and blood; others receive them on certain days; in some places no day passes when it is not offered; elsewhere, only on Saturday and Sunday; still elsewhere, only on Sunday.”²¹

The minimum seems to have been weekly communion. Those who were becoming lax, writes Calvin, “Holy men sharply rebuked ... to avoid seeming to wink at such indifference.”²²

d. Middle Ages←↰⤒🔗

During the Middle Ages, then, as is widely recognized, the holy sacrament of the Lord’s Supper fell victim to deformation, innovation, and abuse. We should not gloss over this reality.

The opposite danger of abuse, however, is total neglect. From what we noted earlier concerning Chrysostom and Augustine, it appears that the two went hand in hand during the Middle Ages. If the church of the Reformation was largely successful in tackling the abuses of the Lord’s Supper, it was not quite as successful in addressing its neglect.

This is not to say that no attempt was made. John Calvin, to whom we will give our attention shortly, stands out as a reformer who exerted himself for this worthy cause in Christ’s church.

e. Reformation←↰⤒🔗

Martin Bucer and the Tetrapolitan Confession←↰⤒🔗

The Tetrapolitan Confession (1530), considered the oldest of the Reformed Church in Germany, prepared primarily by Martin Bucer “in the name of the four imperial cities (hence the name) of Strasbourg, Constance, Memmingen, and Lindau,” ²³ states this:

(T)o all those who sincerely have given their names among his disciples and receive this Supper according to his institution, (Christ) deigns to give his true body and true blood to be truly eaten and drunk for the food and drink of souls, for their nourishment unto life eternal ... Hence indeed it occurs that the divine sacraments, the Most Holy Supper of Christ, are administered and received among us very religiously and with singular reverence ... as it is generally done now among us more frequently and devoutly than heretofore.²⁴

Philip Schaff believes that this confession’s formulation concerning the Lord’s Supper “contains the germ of the view afterwards more clearly and fully developed by Calvin.”²⁵

John Calvin←↰⤒🔗

Anyone who is familiar with Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion hardly needs to be reminded of his oft quoted words on the matter. Interestingly, Calvin associated the deformation of the Lord’s Supper and the “piling up” of abuses and innovations of which we have just spoken with the infrequency of its celebration: “Now to get rid of the great pile of ceremonies, the Supper could have been administered most becomingly if it were set before the church very often, and at least once a week.”²⁶ He also mentions how measures were taken to ensure that people regularly partook of the Lord’s Supper. ²⁷

Later, Calvin comments on how seriously the ancient church took retaining and protecting “the frequent practice of communion, received as it was, from the apostles themselves,” ²⁸  especially since it was falling into disuse.

Concerning the habit that arose of communicating only once a year, John Calvin had this to say:

Plainly this custom which enjoins us to take communion once a year is a veritable invention of the devil, whoever was instrumental in introducing it... (T)he Lord’s table should have been spread at least once a week for the assembly of Christians, and the promises declared in it should feed us spiritually. None is indeed to be forcibly compelled, but all are to be urged and aroused; also the inertia of indolent people is to be rebuked. All, like hungry men, should flock to such a bounteous repast. Not unjustly, then, did I complain at the outset that this custom was thrust in by the devil’s artifice, which, in prescribing one day a year, renders men slothful all the rest of the year.²⁹

We noted earlier that the church during the Reformation was not as successful in tackling the neglect of the Lord’s Supper, as it was in tackling its abuse. This is obviously not for lack of effort on John Calvin’s part. William D. Maxwell, for example, contends that “(f)or (Calvin) the complete act of Christian worship is that at which the Lord’s Supper is celebrated, and the complete Sunday morning office is that which includes the celebration of the Lord’s Supper.”³⁰ As Mark L. Dalbey observes: “He designed his order of worship to be Word and Table as a unity. Though his position was never adopted in Geneva, he ordered worship to end with prayer and praise that was setting the stage for the Lord’s Supper even when it was not celebrated.”³¹ This is to say that if John Calvin was not allowed to administer the Lord’s Supper weekly by those under whose authority he ministered, he never let the Lord’s Table slip out of the church’s sight in the weekly liturgy. ³² Calvin firmly believed, actually, that “it is certain that a Church cannot be said to be well ordered and regulated unless in it the Holy Supper of our Lord is always being celebrated and frequented...” ³³

Ulrich Zwingli←↰⤒🔗

The main opponent of frequent communion among the reformers was Ulrich Zwingli, who held to a quarterly celebration, namely at Christmas, Easter, Pentecost, and the September 11th Festival of St. Felix and St. Regula, the patron saints of Zurich. ³⁴ It is likely, in fact, that his opposition was the most significant obstacle to John Calvin’s striving for weekly communion. ³⁵ Zwingli’s weak understanding of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, merely as a memorial meal of thanksgiving, undoubtedly undergirds his opposition to frequent communion. ³⁶

There is no question, regrettably, that “his teaching has left a lasting mark on the worship and practice of all the Reformed churches.” ³⁷

While we cannot ignore him, therefore, we must recognize that Zwingli’s views contradict the scriptural doctrine formulated in the historic confessions in common use among Reformed and Presbyterian churches. His views, then, should not sustain the influence that they have had in the past in the churches that hold to these confessions. ³⁸

This leads us to a closer examination of the implications the confessions have for our present subject. ³⁹

After briefly taking note of the places the confessions touch on the Lord’s Supper, we will reflect on the spiritual benefits of a more frequent celebration, pulling together what is to be learned from the Word of God, and therefore also from church history and the confessions.

Confessional Formulations←⤒🔗

The Heidelberg Catechism (1563) formulates clearly the importance of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. Of the fifty-two Lord’s Days, four are devoted to the sacraments generally (Lord’s Day 25) and the Lord’s Supper particularly (Lord’s Days 28-30).

The Belgic Confession (1561) accomplishes this, too, in its treatment of the sacraments in general (Article 33) and especially in its extensive exposition of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper (Article 35).

The extensive attention our fathers devoted to the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper illustrates that the churches of the Reformation recovered recognition of the great importance and spiritual significance of the scriptural, God-ordained use of the Holy Supper, as opposed to the corrupted, man-invented one that had developed over the preceding centuries.

The Spiritual Benefits←⤒🔗

The scriptural, church historical, and confessional aspects of the Lord’s Supper lend considerable weight to the plea for a more frequent celebration of the Lord’s Supper. Continuing to draw from these, we will now consider the benefits of a more frequent celebration of the Lord’s Supper.

It Aids our Memory of Christ’s Atoning Death←↰⤒🔗

When the Lord Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper He said: “Do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 11:19). Among the primary reasons for his contention that the Lord’s Supper should be “used frequently among all Christians,” therefore, John Calvin mentions this essential element: “In order that they might frequently return in memory to Christ’s Passion...” (Institutes 4.17.44). This remembering should not be sporadic, but continual. Furthermore, this remembrance should be elicited not merely by the Word, but also by the sacraments. ⁴⁰ Surely a more frequent celebration of the sacrament is a great help to curb “our insensitivity and weakness,” (BC, Art 33) not least of all our forgetfulness.

It Strengthens our Communion with God←↰⤒🔗

Jesus Christ is our only source of true and eternal life. Apart from Him, we can do nothing (John 15:5). He also says: “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him” (John 6:55). Whenever we celebrate the Lord’s Supper by faith, then, our communion with God is strengthened.

Elsewhere in Holy Scripture, the Apostle Paul teaches the same when he writes: “Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Corinthians 10:16). In this sacrament we enjoy intimate fellowship with Christ our Saviour.

In the words of the Heidelberg Catechism, through the Holy Supper we are “united more and more to (Christ’s) sacred body through the Holy Spirit, who lives in both Christ and in us ... (so that) we are flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones” (LD 28, Q/A 76; 1 Corinthians 6:15, 17; Ephesians 5:29, 30; 1 John 4:13). Or, to put it the way the Belgic Confession does, in the Supper “Christ makes us partakers of himself with all his benefits…” (Art 35; Romans 8:32; 1 Corinthians 10:3, 4). By frequent use of this sacrament Christ solidifies our union with Himself and likewise moves us to a deeper and more “fervent love of God.”

It Strengthens our Faith and Imparts Spiritual Vitality←↰⤒🔗

Related to this is the element of the edification of our faith. By faith we are united to Christ. The more we feed on Christ, then, the more our faith grows and becomes stronger. Reformed confessors are familiar with the Heidelberg Catechism’s declaration that the Holy Spirit “strengthens (our faith) by the use of the sacraments” (LD 25, Q/A 65), as well as that of the Belgic Confession that God has graciously ordained the sacraments, “mindful of our insensitivity and weakness” (Art 35).

This is Christ’s admonition to all who seek real life: “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:53, 54). ⁴¹To partake of the Lord’s Supper more frequently, then, is to participate in the life of Christ more fully.

People will sometimes say that their weak faith prevents them from coming to the Lord’s Table. Such reasoning is faulty. Our weakness in faith is precisely what makes it so urgent for us to come feed on Christ. When you’re hungry and weak, it’s time to eat! Christ told his disciples, and still tells us when we celebrate the Lord’s Supper: take and eat; this is my body, which is for you (Matthew 26:26; 1 Corinthians 11:24). ⁴² In the Lord’s Supper Christ gives us food for our needy souls. For those who trust in Christ for the forgiveness of their sins, “their remaining weakness is covered by the suffering and death of Christ” (LD 30, Q/A 81). If abuse of the Lord’s Supper makes people weak and sick, and even leads to death (1 Corinthians 11:30), so does neglect and infrequency. Like John Calvin asserts in his Short Treatise on the Holy Supper:

If we duly consider the end which our Lord has in view, we shall perceive that the use should be more frequent than many make it: for the more infirmity presses, the more necessary is it frequently to have recourse to what may and will serve to confirm our faith...⁴³

Indeed, Christ has become to our hungry and thirsty souls the true food and drink of life eternal. He “nourishes, strengthens, and comforts our poor, desolate souls by the eating of his flesh, and refreshes and renews them by the drinking of his blood” (BC, Art 35).⁴⁴ The more we feed on Him, the better.

It Imparts Assurance and Equips us for Battle←↰⤒🔗

Related to this is the matter of assurance. When we face doubts and struggles in our faith, through the bread He offers us Christ helps us fight and overcome these. In the Lord’s Supper, Christ holds out his hands, embraces, and feeds bruised reeds.⁴⁵ Martin Luther states it powerfully:

For as long as we live on earth our lot is such that the evil spirit and all the world assail us with joy and sorrow, to extinguish our love for Christ, to blot out our faith, and to weaken our hope. Wherefore we sorely need this sacrament, in which we may gain new strength when we have grown weak, and may daily exercise ourselves unto the strengthening and uplifting of the spirit...Treatise on the New Testament

This aspect was recognized and expressed already by Ignatius, as we noted earlier. He encouraged the church at Ephesus to gather more frequently for worship, including Lord’s Supper, “For when you meet with frequency, Satan’s powers are overthrown and his destructiveness is undone by the unanimity of your faith. There is nothing better than peace, by which all strife in heaven and earth is done away” (Letter to the Ephesians).

It Strengthens our Fellowship with One Another←↰⤒🔗

Our communion with God is discernible in our fellowship with one another. The Belgic Confession states, in the section we mentioned earlier, that “we are moved by the use of this holy sacrament to a fervent love of God and our neighbours.” Not only is our communion with God strengthened at this holy meal, but also our love for one another, as sharers in Christ’s body.

When the Apostle Paul speaks of the drinking of the cup and the eating of the bread as communion with the body of Christ, as we previously noted, he adds something about our fellowship with one another. “Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf” (1 Corinthians 10:17). Calvin recognizes this as one of the purposes of celebrating the Lord’s Supper. By it, he writes, believers are “to nourish mutual love, and among themselves give witness to this love, and discern its bonds in the unity of Christ’s body” (Institutes 4.17.44).

The Form for the Celebration of the Lord’s Supper expresses it beautifully and familiarly: “As one bread is baked out of many grains and one wine is pressed out of many grapes, so we all, incorporated into Christ by faith, are together one body. For the sake of Christ, who so exceedingly loved us first, we shall now love one another, and shall show this to one another not just in words, but also in deed.”

It is Good for the Spiritual Health of the Church←↰⤒🔗

If the Lord’s Supper is essential for the unity of the congregation, then surely a more frequent celebration is healthy.

For Calvin, in fact, it was a matter of proper order in the church that it should be so. In the Articles for the Organization of the Church and Worship of Geneva, which Calvin was instrumental in drawing up, it was stated that “(i)t is certain that a Church cannot be said to be well ordered and regulated unless in it the Holy Supper of our Lord is always being celebrated and frequented...” (Horton, p. 147).

This makes sense. Remember what Paul writes to the Corinthians:

Therefore, 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. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.
1 Corinthians 11:27-29

We cannot rightly celebrate the Lord’s Supper without dealing with sin in our own lives and in the life of the congregation. There has to be self-examination, let us call it personal discipline, and mutual admonition, church discipline.

This, too, was something that was recognized very early on in church history. In the Didache, cited earlier, the church was instructed:

On every Lord’s Day – his special day – come together and break bread and give thanks, first confessing your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure. Anyone at variance with his neighbour must not join you, until they are reconciled, lest your sacrifice be defiled...paragraph 14

Surely a frequent celebration of the Lord’s Supper, rightly used, would spur us on to a more diligent exercise of church discipline and self-examination. We can certainly agree that “Martin Bucer was correct to wonder at how our conduct toward each other would be improved if we were an eucharistically-oriented people.”⁴⁶

It is reasonable to expect that, rightly used, a more frequent celebration of the Lord’s Supper would be quite beneficial for the life and health of the church and all her members.

Not everyone agrees, though. So next time we will respond to the more common objections that have been raised.

Common Objections←⤒🔗

The Lord’s Supper will No Longer be Special←↰⤒🔗

One of the most common objections to celebrating the Lord’s Supper frequently is that it will no longer be special. If we use this sacrament too often, it is argued, it will become commonplace and dull. In itself, this objection is quite weak. Donald M. Poundstone, tongue in cheek, sketches the following scenario. Someone approaches the minister and says:

You know pastor, your preaching is such a blessing to me – so helpful to my spiritual growth – that I really think we should have a sermon only, say, once every several months. That way, we’ll appreciate your message so much more, and they’ll never become commonplace or just an empty routine.New Horizons, April 1992

We would hardly expect someone to speak this way about the preaching. Why do we then think this way about Lord’s Supper, as if it is somehow thought to provide increased benefits from decreased use? ⁴⁷

Participation in the Lord’s Supper is like a nourishing meal: you need it constantly and frequently for the sake of your spiritual well being. Calvin puts it this way:

The spiritual bread is not given to us to eat our fill of it all at once, but rather, that having had some taste of its sweetness, we may long for it the more, and use it when it is offered to us ... So long as we remain in this mortal life, Jesus Christ is never communicated in such a way as to satiate our souls, but wills to be our constant nourishment.Short Treatise on the Holy Supper

The Principle of Sola Scriptura is Threatened←↰⤒🔗

There are also those who raise the concern that the Scriptures and the preaching thereof will suffer with the rise of frequent communion.⁴⁸ This concern should not be brushed off, but neither should we let it cloud the issue. Devaluing the reading and preaching of the Scriptures is a constant threat to the church, against which we must always guard ourselves. But there is also the constant danger that we create false dilemmas.

The late Rev. G. VanDooren warned against this danger of viewing the sacraments as less important. “This sentiment is not completely absent among us. ‘We can do without the sacraments, but not without the preaching.’ Thus one is wiser than God.”⁴⁹ In the words of the Heidelberg Catechism, we believe that “both the Word and the sacraments (are) intended to focus our faith on the one sacrifice of Christ on the cross as the only ground of our salvation” (Q/A 67). Furthermore, let us not forget what we affirm in the Belgic Confession: “It is beyond any doubt that Jesus Christ did not commend his sacraments to us in vain.” For through them “He works in us all that He represents to us by these holy signs” (Art 35).

We must also beware of the opposite danger, namely that because of its infrequency the supper is treated “as a very extraordinary event for which one (has) to prepare in a very special way” (VanDooren, p. 40). For in this way the Lord’s Supper is in effect elevated above the weekly preaching of the Word.

The preaching of Christ’s Word, as the primary means by which God works faith in our hearts (Romans 10:14-17), must always remain central in worship that aims to be scriptural. The celebration of the Lord’s Supper must never displace or crowd out the preached Word, but it is a fitting confirmation of the Word that Christ both instituted and commanded us to use. The late Rev. Dr. Karel Deddens stated it well:

If the Lord’s Supper were celebrated more often, we should not view such a change as an accommodation to “sacramentalists” who wish to place less emphasis on the service of the Word; rather, we should view it as an execution of Christ’s command (“Do this in remembrance of Me”) in which the relationship between the Word and sacrament can still be accorded full recognition.⁵⁰

Practical Considerations←⤒🔗

Pastoral Sensitivity is Essential←↰⤒🔗

John Calvin never had his wish fulfilled to have Lord’s Supper at least weekly in Geneva (Dalbey, p. 27). This reformer demonstrated great pastoral sensitivity and humility in this matter. He believed that the churches were to strive to celebrate the Supper frequently, “so far as the capacity of the people will admit.”⁵¹ It has been claimed, in fact, that “(a)t one time Calvin admitted that the congregations were not spiritually ready to celebrate the Eucharist weekly.”⁵² Calvin did not want this matter to cause division. Michael Horton reminds us of this, too:

It is essential that this issue of frequency never become a matter of division among us, when the sacrament was given in part to preserve unity.Mid-America Journal of Theology, Vol. 11, 2000

The churches would be wise, then, not to rush headlong towards more frequent communion. Robert C. Rayburn rightly laments: “It is regrettable indeed that this ... central exercise of Christian devotion should also be the point at which Christians divide and contend, sometimes bitterly, with one another” (O Come Let us Worship, p. 255-6). The movement towards greater frequency should take place with due deliberation, patience and wisdom, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and in submission to Christ’s Word. ⁵³

Circumstances Need to be Considered←↰⤒🔗

If Calvin had to deal with a particular set of circumstances which impeded its implementation, so did John Knox, whose desire for frequent communion “was often thwarted by the lack of sufficiently trained Protestant ministers” (Horton, p. 165). If there are particular circumstances that prevent our churches from implementing a more frequent celebration of the Lord’s Supper, we should not panic, but work patiently and diligently at addressing those circumstances.

The Church Order Accommodates Increased Frequency←↰⤒🔗

The Church Order of the Canadian Reformed Churches prescribes only a minimum requirement concerning the frequency of celebration. It states in Article 60: “The Lord’s Supper shall be celebrated at least once every three months.” In practice, most Canadian Reformed Churches presently do so every two months. This is an indication of the direction the churches wish to go, that is, in the direction of more frequent communion. ⁵⁴

Greater use of Abbreviated Form←↰⤒🔗

One of the circumstances that presently impedes Canadian Reformed Churches from celebrating the Lord’s Supper more frequently is the length of the adopted Form for the Celebration of the Lord’s Supper. According to Article 56 of our Church Order, this form must be used. We have an abbreviated form, but it is designated “For the Second Service.” Perhaps this form could be used alternately with the longer form, at least for the time being.

Although the abbreviated form is designated “For the Second Service,” this does not reflect its original purpose, which was so that churches could use it to celebrate the Lord’s Supper more frequently.⁵⁵ Perhaps this is the source of Dr. Deddens’ suggestion: “As first step in (the direction of more frequent communion) would be allowing the use of a shorter form. It would be possible to alternate a simpler communion liturgy with the current longer form.”⁵⁶ This would have the further benefit of helping to “avoid the danger of laying too much emphasis on the ceremonies surrounding the sacrament, which could lead to a devaluation of the service of the Word.”

Concluding Remarks←⤒🔗

The purpose of this study has been both to move forward the discussion about the increased frequency of communion and to consider the best way of implementing it. The growing desire for it among the churches is well grounded in the Scriptures, Reformed confessions, and church history.

If the movement in this direction is to receive God’s blessing, however, its implementation ought to be carefully considered and wisely executed, so that the accusation of heedless innovation does not stick and so that the unity and health of Christ’s church is preserved and strengthened.

This is not to suggest that the churches should drag their feet in this matter. I do not know of more than one church within our federation that celebrates the Lord’s Supper weekly. I do not know of any that celebrate it monthly. Already ten years have passed since one of our ministers wrote on this subject in this magazine and many more years since other ministers and professors among us have in their writings made similar appeals, not to mention John Calvin’s centuries-old plea. What are we waiting for? Is there something we know that they did not? Let the reader judge.