Word and sacrament

Last week fellow blogger and Hobe Sound alum Jason Miller posted a sermon by John Wesley on "The Duty of Constant Communion." In it Wesley convincingly shows "that it is the duty of every Christian to receive the Lord's Supper as often as he can" and successfully answers some common objections to this view. I printed it out and read it over the weekend. It's excellent! This was the first significant chunk of Wesley I'd read and I found his style similar to the Puritans of the generation immediately before (especially John Owen) and to his contemporary Jonathan Edwards. These men tended to examine a problem from all possible angles, stating and restating things in every conceivable way. There's something to be said for brevity, but one is in awe of the ability to write long treatises on a single, short phrase of Scripture. What a striking contrast to the shallow fare that fills the shelves of Christian bookstores! “If you rake, you get leaves; but if you dig, you get gold." (John Piper)

Wesley believed that the ministry of Word and sacrament were both essential to the church's health and mission. There are a lot of churches who do a good job of emphasizing and practicing one, but not the other. This is like trying to run a marathon with only one shoe. Recently I gave a short exhortation at our church and told how I'd been a beneficiary of many different church traditions (i.e. Wesleyan, Methodist, Baptist and non-denominational), but that I didn't understand and appreciate the importance of the sacraments until coming to the Presbyterian church several years ago. Although far from perfect (as every church is) I think we do a pretty good job of keeping a balance between the two primary means of grace that Christ has given to his church.

The Westminster Confession of Faith (27.1) defines the sacraments (baptism and the Lord's Supper) this way:

Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ, and his benefits; and to confirm our interest in him: as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the church, and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to his Word.

Most Protestants would agree with that, but what exactly is meant by "signs and seals" and how the benefits are communicated have been matters of dispute and probably will be until the Lord returns. If Calvin and Luther couldn't agree then I doubt we will. No doubt there's an element of mystery here (as there is in other Christian doctrines), but I like this elaboration from The Reformation Study Bible:

The sacraments are means of grace, for God uses them to strengthen faith's confidence in His promises and to call forth acts of faith for receiving the good gifts signified. The efficacy of the sacraments is not from the faith or virtue of the minister, but from the faithfulness of God, who, having given the signs, is now pleased to use them. Christ and the apostles speak of the sign as if it were the thing signified, and as if receiving the former is the same as receiving the latter (Matt. 26:26-28; 1 Cor. 10:15-21; 1 Pet. 3:21, 22). As the preaching of the Word makes the gospel audible, so the sacraments make it visible.

"The sacrament of baptism is but once to be administered unto any person" (WCF 28.7), but how often should the church receive communion? I believe it should be a weekly occurrence. I doubt if anyone would disagree that the preaching of the gospel through the Word should happen every week. Then why shouldn't the preaching of the gospel through the sacraments happen every Sunday? In any case, it should be often, which means more frequently than it happens in most churches. I have to wonder if the reluctance of some churches to observe the Lord's Supper more often is because of logistical or pragmatic considerations. I mean, how do you efficiently serve communion to several thousand people without taking valuable time away from the praise and worship? Wesley gets the last word. I admire his bluntness.

It has been shown, First, that if we consider the Lord's Supper as a command of Christ, no man can have any pretence to Christian piety, who does not receive it (not once a month, but) as often as he can. Secondly, that if we consider the institution of it, as a mercy to ourselves, no man who does not receive it as often as he can has any pretence to Christian prudence. Thirdly, that none of the objections usually made, can be any excuse for that man who does not, at every opportunity obey this command and accept this mercy.