I saw this on James White's site.  This message was recorded by Kirk Cameron and played for the SBC pastors:

"Can I speak to you from my heart for a moment? I realize that, theologically, I’m not worthy to wash your socks. But imagine this scenario with me, if you will: Imagine I’m a “seeker”- I’m a non-Christian, sitting in your church week after week after week listening to you. Am I ever going to hear the message that will save my soul from Hell? Will you ever tell me the truth clearly enough so that I realize that my sin has made me an enemy of God: that I am currently on the path that leads to destruction, with the wrath of God dwelling upon me, and that unless I repent and put my faith in the Savior, I will perish? Or have you decided that it’s better to simply entertain me, and on Sundays I can come to have my “felt needs” met with good music and good advice? Pastor, while I would appreciate that, it’s the ultimate betrayal of my trust in you if you don’t tell me the truth. Will I ever hear the words “repent,” “surrender,” “turn to the Savior,” “be born again”? If you don’t tell me those things, how will I ever know to do it? Please don’t leave it up to the Wednesday night small-group leader. They’re taking their cues from you. You’re leading the flock.
And now I speak to you as a Christian. If you and I fail to teach the whole counsel of God, and we don’t warn sinners to flee from the wrath to come, and run to the love of Christ on the Cross to save their soul, we make a terrible mistake. It doesn’t matter how happy a person is- how much a sinner is enjoying the pleasures of sin for a season- without the righteousness of Christ, he’ll perish on the Day of Judgment. The Bible says, “Riches profit not on the Day of Wrath, but righteousness delivers from death.” You see, that’s how Kirk Cameron realized he needed a Savior. I had riches, but I knew that it was the righteousness of God that I needed in order to be saved from my sin. "

I pray that it would please God that all Churches everwhere, SBC, Reformed, PCA, OPC, whatever, would heed this call.

Gage Browning

Post Tenebras Lux

Reducing the frequency does not make something special; it just makes it infrequent.

-Richard Bacon

^{Ok, ok, the way of negation as a primary form of argumentation is not as beneficial as a positive affirmation. In other words, ok, I know I've talked about why opponents to weekly communion may be wrong, I am now going to switch to a case for weekly communion. First let's start with the practice of the early church.}

^{Early Church}

^{Acts 20:7 "On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight."}

^{This looks to me like more than a normal meal. Number one it's on the first day of the week, Sunday, and it was followed by a lengthy speech, or (sermon). Word and Sacrament went together. “The ‘breaking of bread’ here denotes something more than the ordinary partaking of food together : the regular observance of the Lord’s Supper is no doubt indicated” - FF Bruce (Acts, p.79).}

^{"And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read; then, when the reader has ceased, the presiding officer verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine are brought, and the presiding officer in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by deacons." Justin Martyr 150 AD (First Apology, ch 67).}

^{According to the Didache, a very early text written for Christian instruction probably between 60 and 80 A.D.: "On the Lord's own day gather together and break bread and give thanks, having first confessed your sins" (ch 14)}

^{"In many places and by many Christians it was celebrated even daily, after apostolic precedent, and according to the very common mystical interpretation of the 4th petition of the Lord's prayer -- 'Give us this day our daily bread'" (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 2 -- Ante-Nicene Christianity, p. 236).}

^{"It should have been done far differently: the 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."
Calvin- [Inst. IV. XVII. 46]}

^{Toward the end of his life Calvin said...}

^{"I have taken care to record publicly that our custom  (of monthly communion), is defective so that those who come after me may be able to correct it the more freely and easily."  Parantheses mine
[Bretschneider, Corpus Reformatorum, XXXVIII, i, p. 213].}

^{During the time of the Reformation, many critics of frequent communion said to have frequent communion was too much of a break from the Roman Church.  During the time of the Reformation, the Roman Church offered, "only bread" once a year.  Now, it seems the Roman Church offers bread and wine as often as they meet.  Now, it seems that many in the Reformed Church are saying, "let's not have frequent communion" because it is too "Catholic".  One day soon, hopefully, the Reformed Church will not allow the Roman Church to influence what should or should not be done.} 

^{Recently I have had some email exchanges with a man who doesn't want to post on my blog because he is a pastor and doesn't want his church to know he visits "reformed" blogs.  But he brought up the point about emphasis.  Am I saying that the "supper" is over or more important than the "preached word".  Am I propogating "sacerdotalism", the idea that the sacraments saves?  It's a good question.  First- the answer is no.  The supper is not primary.  The pulpit should still be in the center of the chancel.  But my argument is Word and Sacrament go together.  Second, no good Reformed person, or pastor is claiming the sacrament saves. We are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. The Lord's Supper rather, "nourish[es] and sustain[s] those who are already born again and ingrafted into his family: his church" (Belgic Confession, Article 35).  "Consequently, the Reformed churches do not allow the Lord’s supper to be served apart from the preached word and words of explanation. Churches which place the administration of the sacraments above the preached word as though the sacraments are more special and convey some unique superior grace are ignorant of the teaching of Scripture."  - Michael Horton}

^{I maintain that to hold to infrequent communion as something "special" is to be sacerdotal.  That thinking is to actually elevate the elements to something higher than the Word.  I know there are many churches who practice in-frequent communion who will have a rise in numbers on "Communion Sunday".  Some are especially attracted to Church that day.  What is it that attracts them?  Is it the special grace that they will receive?  If it is, then that is sacerdotalism.  That kind of mentality pleads the case for weekly communion.} 

Gage Browning

Post Tenebras Lux

I have been one of Doug Wilson's critics regarding his stance on the Federal Vision debate.  However, I thought his insight into Weekly Communion was helpful.  I leave it for all to ponder.

by Douglas Wilson

"Of course we know that word and sacraments go together. But how do they go together?   In the minds of many believers, the two go together like ham and eggs, two disparate but complementary elements combining in a pleasing way. But perhaps they go together in another way entirely—one suggestion is that they go together more like cooking and eating. Before beginning this discussion, let’s pretend for a moment that we have no traditions on frequency of communion to maintain (a big pretend!), and that advocates of every position share the same biblical burden of proof. We know that we are to observe the Lord’s Supper, but how often?—daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, or annually? When we come to this question, we should note initially that virtually no biblical case can be made for our most common practices—monthly and quarterly. While this is par for the course, it should at least excite some comment.

Annual communion could be defended on the basis of the Lord’s Supper being established in the context of Passover which was an annual festival. Jesus said of “this cup,” speaking of the cup of blessing in the Passover meal, “As oft as ye drink it . . .” (1 Cor. 11:25). It could be argued that He simply intended this symbolic meaning of the new covenant to be added to the annual celebration of the Passover meal. While it is possible that His meaning included this application, subsequent apostolic practice shows that they drank from that cup of blessing far more frequently than this.

Another option is daily communion. In the heady days following Pentecost, the believers broke bread daily, and from house to house (Acts 2:46). As Luke uses this phrase it almost certainly refers to the Lord’s Supper. From this we learn that if daily communion is not normative, it is at least lawful. The Lord’s Supper should not be restricted to the Lord’s Day.

But after the situation stabilized, we come to see the practice of the early church, settling in for the long haul. “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight” (Acts 20:7). They gathered together on the Lord’s Day, and they did so for the purpose of breaking bread.

Paul assumes the same kind of thing at Corinth. “When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken” (1 Cor. 11:20-21). The assumption here is that when the Corinthian church came together, it was not to eat the Lord’s Supper, even though that is what they thought they were doing. In other words, the Lord’s Supper was being abused at Corinth on a weekly basis. (And, as detailed word studies have shown, the abuses had gone so far that Corinthian believers were starting to act silly from drinking too much grape juice.) In other words, they came together weekly on the Lord’s Day (1 Cor. 16:1-2), and they should have been doing so in order to eat the Lord’s Supper, and instead, they were doing more harm than good through their behavior.

It is therefore fair to say that weekly communion, while not mandatory in any absolute sense, is biblically normative. We have as much evidence for weekly communion on the Lord’s Day, for example, as we have for meeting on the Lord’s Day to do anything else. We have more evidence for weekly communion than we have for weekly sermons or weekly singing. But why choose? Why not do it all?

And this brings us to consider the theology of the thing, and the initial question of how the word accompanies the sacrament. We know that a sacrament is both a sign and seal of the covenant promises (Rom. 4:11). When we think of those things which we seal, we should note something about the natural order of things. We write the letter, then seal the envelope. We negotiate the contract, and then seal it with signatures. The marriage is conducted first, and sealed sexually that evening. In short, that which seals follows that which is sealed. A seal is, by its very nature, a culmination.  In the prayers, psalms, and sermons of a worship service, the terms of the covenant are praised, noted, explained, and acknowledged. In the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, the covenant is sealed, and because this sacrament (unlike baptism) is repetitive, each sealing is a covenant renewal. Given this, why would we want anything other than a weekly communion service, as the culmination of the worship service? We have already seen that this was the general pattern in the time of the apostles, and the theological logic points in the same direction.  We gather in the name of Christ, assembled as His people. We present our praises and petitions to Him, we sing and chant to God the Father in His name, we hear His Word proclaimed, and then, in the most natural way, we sit down with Him at table. The covenant is explained when we talk. But it is not renewed when we talk. That occurs when we take and eat. "

Gage Browning

Post Tenebras Lux

I married my darling wife Stephanie in 1997.  I asked my Dad to marry us and he agreed upon the condition that we would go through marriage counseling with the Senior Pastor of the PCA Church where we both were members.  We obviously agreed and were happy to go through the counseling.  The counseling went as you could imagine.  We discussed backgrounds, goals, our relationship to each other, each others families, we did a budget and had a great time.  But then my Pastor told me to buckle up.  He said the next session we were going to have was about how I am suppose to be the Priest of my home and how I was going to be responsible for the spiritual well-being of my family.  "Come back next week ready", he said.  (Gulp)

So I sheepishly came back and he preached and proclaimed to me the importance of being a husband and father.  He preached about how I was suppose to use all the means at my disposal to train, nourish and facilitate spiritual growth for my new wife and future children.  It was sobering to say the least.  Then it suddenly hit me. 

(All the means at my disposal...hmmm). 

So I asked him what does he mean by that?  He told me "the means of grace".  In other words, make sure my family is involved in worship, Bible study etc.  So, I said, "if I understand you right Pastor, I am responsible for the spiritual nourishment, maturity and growth of my family?"  He said "yes."  I said "ok, then I may have to think about joining another church".  He asked why?  I simply said, "You said I am to use all the means at my disposal to foster the spiritual growth of my family, right?"  He said "Right."  I said, "then why do we not practice communion weekly?"  He got pretty mad at first and shouted at me in front of my future bride, "If I thought we needed weekly communion, then we'd have it!"  We were doing communion on a monthly basis.  But it got me to thinking, if Communion is actually a means of grace, then why withold it?  So I asked him that very thing.  "Why withold it?"  He said again, "if I thought it was that important, we would do it."  I got mad and said in a snide manner, "That's not very Presbyterian of you Reverend." 

Anyway, about a year later, the SESSION of the Church decided that weekly observance was important and it was so instituted.  I had nothing to do with it being observed weekly, I assure you, if anything my snide remarks delayed it. 

But thinking of my story this week got me to thinking:  if we men are truly the Priests of our home and responsible for the spiritual nourishment of our families, shouldn't we be able to provide all the means that God has ordained to grow our families into maturity?  Why would we leave communion out of that picture?  I'm sorry rather why would we seldom utilize God's own means of grace?  We make sure they hear the preached word, we make sure they sing the hymns of the the faith, catechize them, teach the gospel ourselves, home worship, home Bible study, why not go all the way and also provide communion weekly?  Is that too much to ask?

Gage Browning

Post Tenebras Lux

It seems that many responses that are against the practice of weekly communion are for practical reasons. 

Being Practical?

Todd Bordow an OPC Pastor in Fort Worth Texas said this in his paper on re-thinking weekly communion:

"First let us consider the effect of weekly communion on the unity of the broader church. Proponents of weekly communion find themselves in a difficult position. On the one hand, as Presbyterians they serve in bodies where the majority of churches do not practice weekly communion. They do not want to disparage their brothers who practice quarterly or monthly communion, or suggest that the worship in these churches is not Biblical. But at the same time, they teach their people that the reason they are making the change to weekly communion is because their position is biblical, and Christians are better fed by both the preached Word and Supper together on a weekly basis. As much as proponents of weekly communion try to avoid disparaging their brothers, the reality is that their people will come to believe that non-weekly churches do not feed their people in a fully Biblical manner. Simply put, such a substantial shift from past communion practice will inevitably lead their people to make unhealthy comparisons to other churches, churches even in their own denomination. This author personally has received a number of phone calls inquiring about our church, and the first question asked concerns the frequency of communion. When they find out we do not practice weekly communion, they resume their search for a church that will, in their minds, more fully feed them. This is unfortunate."

This logic seems to imply that those who practice weekly communion make it hard on others who don't.  Weekly Communion Churches will be compared to Non-Weekly Communion Churches...and may disrupt unity with other bodies...They (Pastors) may have to field phone calls from visitors etc.. Interesting...(hmmm)

Pastor Bordow goes on to say... "We must maintain certain positions and practices because we cannot compromise the preaching of sovereign grace, infant baptism or Christian liberty. Because of how strange we appear, we often lose visitors who visit and then look elsewhere for a church. Knowing this, why would we want unnecessarily to introduce a new practice that makes us even stranger to average people?  (Emphasis Mine) If our goal is to reach people in the community, as well as attract Christians who are looking for sound teaching, why make matters more difficult by compelling them to change from a well-established practice to one they likely have only seen practiced in Roman Catholic churches? " (You can read Pastor Bordow's paper if you click the link above)

In this instance Pastor Bordow seems to admit that people may think weekly communion is strange and basically admits that he doesn't do it weekly because people may look elsewhere to attend church.  Now, I don't know Pastor Bordow nor have I met him.  I only brought his argument up, because I think it is very typical in Reformed circles today.  The point is, even Reformed leaders think about practical issues or pastoral issues or attendance issues.   The question is: are they worthwhile excuses for not having weekly communion? 

When did the covenant renewal meal become so insignificant?  When did it become something that can be diminished so that people may visit our churches more often, be less offended, or weirded out?  When did the Reformed Church start caring what the outside world thought, so much so, that we base our theology of the sacraments on the opinions of the lost?  The early Church was accused of being cannibalistic, and that was because those outside the Church didn't understand Communion.  But that didn't deter the Church from the Sacrament. 

We don't mind that many are offended in Preaching Sovereign Grace!  (Good).  We don't mind if they are offended by giving the sign of the covenant (baptism) to the children of believing parents! (Good).  We may even preach and teach good and sound biblical doctrine!  (Good).  Why do we not consider communion as something as important as infant baptism or Sovereign Grace?  We will get to that.  More to come. 

Gage Browning

Post Tenebras Lux