JackHammer

Before I begin my article, let me take just a moment to commend Kirk Brandenburg for his article.  It was well-written and well thought out, and demonstrated his father’s diligent teaching at home.  Kirk, you are a credit to your dad’s ministry, and I trust that you will continue to be.

That being said, throughout this month’s topic, we have alluded several times to the fact that some consider the piano to be an effeminate instrument.  With apologies to Kirk and others, I am one of those who think that a large number of piano-playing males are effeminate.  In this post, I intend to flesh that thought out a bit, so I hope you will “endure to the end.”

First, I do not believe that there is any such thing as an effeminate instrument.  Piano included.  For crying out loud, the piano is way too heavy to be effeminate.  But I digress.  I would also include the flute, the pennywhistle, the clarinet, and the harp in my list of instruments that are not effeminate.  I will admit that I don’t have a verse on this… my opinion results from a simple observation that I have made.  Instruments are gender neutral.  They are neither male nor female.  Neither masculine nor feminine.

That being said, although I can in no way claim to be a musician (I can’t even play an i-pod), I do think that some instruments are more suitable to women than men, and vice-versa.  But since that is a topic for those more expert in musical instruments than myself (starting with Kermit the Frog), I’ll leave that one alone.  I believe that any instrument can be played by a man (and no, I don’t believe that ‘like a man’ means either poorly or boorishly), and in a manly fashion, and I believe that the sooner we get that idea in our head, the better off we will be. Read the rest of this entry →

As I write this, we are in the midst of a presidential primary and down to two democratic candidates, as history will show, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.  In this last week, the media has finally revealed the incidiary statements of Obama’s long time friend and pastor, Jeremiah Wright (decent articles about it here, here, and here).   This is the man that gave Obama the title of his bestselling book, The Audacity of Hope, married him, baptized his two daughters, and was the long-time pastor of the church of which Obama has been a member for twenty years.   Obama says he had no idea that his pastor was like this.  Obama doesn’t think that these comments need separate him from Wright, because they are only a few things that he said among, you know, mainly good.  Then again, Mussolini got the trains to run on time.  And imagine if another candidate said, “This man, David Duke, has influenced my life almost as much as anyone—I do separate myself from some of what he says—but he is a good man.”  How would that go down?

The media talks about this like it’s old news and yet I had heard nothing about it.  The mainstream media, that I know of, has said nothing about Obama’s regular usage of the terms hoodwinked and bamboozled on the campaign trail, especially in areas where his crowds were huge numbers of African Americans, terms utilized by Malcolm X in speeches that were borrowed by Spike Lee for films  They are code language for many African Americans.  Imagine if anyone Read the rest of this entry →

You see the question above.  What do you think?  I would think that most of you would answer:  No.  God will not accept something unscriptural.  If it is unscriptural, then it doesn’t please Him.  Lots comes to mind, but let’s start with Hebrews 11:6 that “without faith, it is impossible to please Him.”   We are sanctified by the truth, not our feelings or opinions (John 17:17).   God is Holy.  I think of Caan.  God didn’t accept his well-meant labor.  Nor did God accept Saul’s early sacrifices or Uzzah’s touching the Ark.  Salvation itself is exclusive—”no man cometh unto the Father but by” Him (John 14:6) and “neither is there salvation in any other” than Jesus Christ (Acts 4:12).  Many will say a whole bunch of things, but Christ will say He never knew them (Matthew 7:21-23).  Christ didn’t come to bring peace but a sword.  He’s a Divider.  He separates the sheep from the goats, the tares from the wheat.  We give God a lot of leniency where He doesn’t actually have it.

He’s longsuffering.  That’s for sure.  He’s merciful.  Definitely.  But He doesn’t accept the work that is done our way.  That’s wood, hay, and stubble (1 Corinthians 3).  Our labor is not in vain in Him (1 Corinthians 15:58).  Everything else is vain though.  He keeps giving us opportunities to get it right, but we have to get it right.  Everything we do should be regulated by Scripture and especially worship.  I mean, God will use His Word.  He will bless through His Word.  He even uses evil nations in His Divine Providence.  That doesn’t mean He accepts what they do.  You know all of that.  So…..

That brings me to a major application.  Does God accept what people are doing through unscriptural organizations?  Christ started the church and gave it His authority (Matthew 16:18, 19).  I know this is controversial, but I would rather you think of it as loving.  I hope you can assume that is how I mean it.  We don’t have a Scriptural basis to think that we can do it our way and have God accept it.  We shouldn’t think that we can add something to what God said and that He, the Perfect, Infiinte, All-Wise, Immutable God, will see that as permissible.  That we survive doing it for many years is not evidence that God is fine with it.

Think about the Wilds, Bill Rice Ranch, Bob Jones, Maranatha, Ironwood, Baptist World Mission, and more.  These are places that in most cases say that they are supplementing the church, aiding the church, going alongside the church to encourage and strengthen.  Those phrases sound nice.  At least for the cause of syrupy sentimentalism, perhaps I should just go along for the ride.  However, think of how offensive it is.  God has a way, but wooooaaaa, look out, this man, this hunk of flesh, this finite thing of depravity has a better way than God.  I can aid His way, supplement it.  He needs my help, like Judah needed Egypt.  God doesn’t need man initiated, man concocted institutions.  They will get in the way even if I can’t give you twenty reasons how they do.  They are a problem even if you can list a dozen ways that they “help.”

Our church or I don’t use any of these organizations.  I don’t endorse them.  I don’t push anyone in their direction.  I don’t want to encourage their existence any more than I want to push for the public school system.  The best a university like BJU (from where my wife graduated) can be is a better version than Clemson, another South Carolina school.  I don’t give any credit to their faculty or staff for doing “Christian service” there.  That would undermine and devalue what the Bible says about Christian service.  They cannot truly “make disciples.”  They don’t aid in the cause of sanctification.  How can one sanctify in an unscriptural way?

I do believe that God uses these people.  That doesn’t justify what they do.  God uses everyone in some way.  I believe He uses some people more than others and sometimes based upon the degree of Scripturality that they live.  I am not casting out everything they do.  Whenever they obey God’s Word, that’s good.  Whatever they do through a church—great!  They do get in the way of imparting a Scriptural model.   They do damage.

You might feel sorry for these people right now.  You might think that they deserve more respect.  Let’s together respect God and think about what He deserves.   We should delight ourselves in the Lord, not in our ways and not in our own understanding.

Let’s get the discussion going.

A Review of Joel Tetreau’s THREE LINES IN THE SAND

The long-awaited toy, mail-ordered from the cereal box company, has finally arrived. On the box, it looked so enticing. I was sure it would be even better than advertised. I rip open the package, anxious to get my sweaty palms on the new playthingy. I dig down through the packing peanuts to the plastic baggy at the bottom of the box. With all my might, I rip open the baggy containing my new greatest toy. I pull it out. My mouth drops. I stare incredulously. “I waited all this time for THIS!” I say to myself before tossing it aside.

Yes folks, finally, the long-promised and eagerly anticipated “careful” analysis of Fundamentalism has arrived. We could hardly wait, but now it is here. Joel, you should have waited a bit longer. Really, you should have. Because if you had, we would still be thinking that you were serious.

In the serious debate of issues, it is important that we treat our counterpart’s arguments with the dignity that it deserves. And THREE LINES IN THE SAND by Joel Tetreau, begs to be treated lightly. It reminds me of the Emperor, wearing the outfit that only the smart people can see. The rest of us are giggling at those flesh-colored “clothes”. Joel talks about a dream he’s apparently had about running down the street buck-naked. I’m thinking that this isn’t a dream, it’s a reality. I’m trying to catch my breath, but I’m laughing too hard. I’m wheezing, choking, gasping for air, pointing my finger. Look… that guy out there… on the street… the one with the crown… parading down the street… and he ain’t wearin’ no clothes! Forgive me for pointing, but I think the emperor might be streakin’.

Sorry folks, but we won’t be waiting for the promised fourth installment to give this thing the treatment it deserves. If your curiosity gets the better of you, and you have to look at the fourth part, go right ahead. But be warned ahead of time, because it’s bound to be as ridiculous as the first three.

I have to be honest here. When I first encountered the “Type A” stuff, I thought that Joel Tetreau had something serious to say, some Biblical objections to us. But then, I read his first three articles. Looks like our clay modeling is still in the play dough stage. Once in a while, he actually alludes to the Bible. But never fear, they are only allusions. You won’t find any Biblical objections to what Joel calls the “Type A’s”. Just Joel assuming what he should be proving.

THREE LINES IN THE SAND amounts to fundamentalist stereotyping. (There Joel. This “Type A” just used the word “Fundamentalist” as an adjective). The fourth article, slated to make its appearance on SHARPER IRON on Friday (the day this review should be posted), will deal with “Type C” fundamentalism. He’s saving the best for last, no doubt. The first three articles were designed to lambaste “Type A” fundamentalism, the “dictator-type” pastor-dominated churches that characterize what some have affectionately dubbed “IFBx-dom”. His major point is to urge a more moderate stance, and to argue the superiority of “elder-rule” that characterizes the “Type B” fundamentalists.

Tetreau makes great pains to stress his desire for “unity”, with statements like this in part 1:

Let me say before you read this that I am not your enemy if you find yourself something other than what I call a Type B fundamentalist. I have friends with a variety of approaches to ministry. You do not have to agree with all of this to be my friend. Furthermore, I would never accuse anyone with a different approach of not being spiritual.

And this in part 2:

At the end of the day, I really am not trying to divide A, B, and C.

And this classic in part 3:

First, here’s a word about my chart. It’s my chart. I am not attempting to come up with the “Tetreau Scale” that’s universally accepted by all or even most “out there.”

Along with this in part 3:

I also believe that the Spirit of God is wounded when we fight, cut, and separate from men and ministries, accusing them of being disobedient when, in reality and in the eyes of God, they are merely different than we are.

And this, also in part 3:

It seems to me that each type ought to be able to reach over and fellowship and have some cooperation with other fundamentalists who are different types.

But, then the shrieking starts. We might call it self-contradiction. Joel would never accuse anyone with a different approach of not being spiritual. Only “dictatorial,” “can’t work with anyone else (except hand-picked “yes men”),” men who “lead by pride and a sense that I’m always right because I’m the pastor,” men who have the “Messiah Syndrome,” “spiritually abusive,” “a dark-sided form of abusive leadership,” and an “odd ‘Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde’ syndrome.” Consider this quote from part 2:

There is something in the genetic DNA of some Type A’s that carry this heavy-handed and abusive tendency with leadership.

So now it’s a genetic deficiency. How about this humdinger from the discussion of part 2 (post #46):

…but friends this is one discussion about one hill that Tetreau is willing to die on. I’m “Anolish” on my view of the dangers of the dictatorial aspect that is too often embedded into the DNA of Type A ministries (no offense to Scott - just comparing my passion for this with his passion on the music deal).

I have too often had to dig some Type A’s or (even more frequently) Type A+ battle axe out of the scull of a dear believer who crawled all bloodied to the door of our church. I’ve too often had to apply first-aid to a believer who had been beaten instead of feeden (sorry - couldn’t resist) by a so-called shepherd. Because of that……I’ve put a stake in the ground. I’ve had it. I’m done being Mr. nice Joel on this point. In the future when I see God’s sheep being wounded by Type A’s who are abusing their authority (or for that matter even Type B’s or Type C’s) If the Lord let’s me - I will be on my horse with my lance aimed at the wolf in sheep’s clothing called “whoever.”

So no, Type A’s aren’t unspiritual. They’re just… unspiritual. But we find this kind of inconsistency throughout the three articles. We shouldn’t be surprised. Moses the man of God drew a line and said, “Who is on the Lord’s side?” Joel draws three lines in the sand, and asks, “which line are you on?” “Stand in your line straight, now, boys and girls.” “Now, lets play hopscotch.” He has a three-sided box, and he wants to put you in one.

THREE LINES IN THE SAND is really all about the moderates. The “Type B’s” are Joel’s version of the moderates, and the “Type A’s” are the “radical right” as we’re referred to in political circles. Joel is a moderate, and he can’t stand the extremists. That is the bottom line. He has an aversion to the “cowboys” on the right. He doesn’t like the “John Wayne-ishness” of the Type A’s. We are militant like George Patton. That is bad. Joel wants us to fight like George Washington. He wants us to be “gentlemen soldiers.” George Washington was a nice guy. Joel says so. George Patton wasn’t. And we’re all supposed to be nice guys. John Wayne wasn’t a nice guy. We want Roy Rogers. Or was that Mr. Rogers…

Consider this quote from part 3:

Most Type A’s view legitimate Fundamentalism as a single circle of fellowship. Many Type A’s believe and preach that only the guys who view doctrine (especially separation) as they do in their regional or national group are “all that’s left of real Fundamentalism.” Type A’s view Fundamentalism as a patriot views his country.

And this is bad. This is really, really bad. Too extremist. Almost backwards. Tetreau wants a new kind of militancy. For instance, Tetreau makes the following statements about the difference between “Type B’s” and the “Pseudo- Fundamentalists:”

The overwhelming majority of independent Baptists supporting “PF” did so for stereotypical and national/political reasons.

But, of course, those embracing “moderate Fundamentalism” or “neo-Fundamentalism” are not doing so for “stereotypical and national/political reasons.” That’s just an illusion of the clear-thinking right. You better get that out of your head, you Type A’s! How dare you compare Tetreau and his entourage with neo’s? Consider this statement:

Indiscriminately joining hands with the evangelical movement as a whole would be treason.

Joel’s doing it discriminately. Come on! Can’t you see the difference, you zombies, you lemmings, you… you… sheep? Next thing, you’ll be accusing him of fellowshipping with non-fundamentalists. He doesn’t do that. Listen to his explanation:

However, when a ministry demonstrates a consistent attempt to actively obey Scripture and consistently contend for the Biblical faith once delivered, Type B and Type C fundamentalists grant a type of “fundamentalist standing” to such a ministry, even if that ministry is not officially functioning within a fundamentalist association.

See! If they aren’t fundamentalists, we’ll just call them fundamentalists. That way at least we can feel good about it. Which is similar to the way Joel treats this whole stereotyping system anyway. Abraham Lincoln once asked, “If I called the dog’s tail a leg, how many legs would the dog have?” And when his friends answered “five,” Lincoln smiled (notice, you Type A’s, he smiled) and said, “calling the tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.” But this is exactly what Joel is doing. He stands on the left shoulder and insists that this is the middle of the road. “At least, it ought to be. And I’m going to act like it is.”

The best example of self-defeating rhetoric comes in his section denying that his brand of moderate fundamentalism is neo-evangelical. Consider these statements:

It is my belief that Type C fundamentalists (in one sense) are perhaps the truest heirs to the fundamentalists from the 20’s and 30’s who were attempting to “purge” liberalism and unbelief from their ranks.

(But that statement actually explains a big part of why I don’t like to think of myself as a Fundamentalist to begin with. Joel might be relieved.)

But how about these. You might think that this is me talking about Joel. Sorry folks, this is Joel talking about the neo’s. Now, pick your jaw up off the ground and take him seriously…

New-evangelicals were to infiltrate, not with militant confrontation, but with smooth dialogue and politics.

New-Evangelicalism said, “Wow them with your intellect, superior apologetics, and sensitive attitude toward social issues.”

There is this sissy, let’s-get-along-with-everyone attitude that frankly is not consistent with the Pauline metaphor of “contending for the faith.”

That’s what I was thinking about the new militancy being promoted by “Pryde and Prejudice.”

And what is Tetreau’s problem with the “Type A’s?” Consider…

First, the social concept of leadership in those generations tended to be more “John Wayne-ish.”

Speaking of past “fundamentalists”. But with the current “Type A’s:”

One of the central characteristics of Type A is a consistent practice of secondary (ecclesiastical) separation. (emphasis his)

Yep. That’s a problem, alright. A big one too. And Joel is careful to extend that out into the utterly ridiculous:

Certainly all Bible-believers should desire a consistency in any application of Scripture. In an attempt to be consistent, some in Type A have moved from the secondary level of separation to third, fourth, fifth levels and beyond.

But don’t worry. Joel still wants to demonstrate his “sissy, let’s-get-along-with-everyone attitude that frankly is not consistent with the Pauline metaphor of “contending for the faith.” Of the “Type A’s,” he says:

The motives of these men should not be called into question, even if one does not agree with the degrees of their separation.

And one more problem.

Type A Fundamentalism typically leans toward an isolationistic approach to society. Because of their understanding of separation passages, they have developed their own forms of music, literature, even Bible versions.

And here, all this time, I thought we were singing the great old hymns of our fathers, and using the Bible version of our Puritan forebears. Silly me!

Oh, and one more problem.

“Fundamentalism” to Type A’s is a noun.

We could go on and on. I’ve wasted too much of your time already. This is the world according to Joel. We should remember that. It is his chart. He says that…

First, here’s a word about my chart. It’s my chart.

Classic. Extraordinary. Brilliant. This is his view, his chart, his stereotypes. He wants “Fundamentalism” to be an adjective. He doesn’t want to be like those nasty ole’ “Type A’s” who make “Fundamentalism” a noun. He doesn’t see “Fundamentalism” as a noun. It’s an adjective. Never mind the fact that he uses it almost exclusively as a noun. That’s beside the point. Because, see, he’s seeing it as an adjective even as he uses it as a noun. He uses it as a noun because, well, ya have to. But if he could think of how to use it as an adjective, he would.

But that only serves to illustrate the absurdity of the entire series. And to think, Sharper Iron filled over twenty pages of “serious” discussion of each of these articles in a few short hours. Glad to see that the guys over at SI take these things seriously. It ranks right up there with the very serious debate about Rap music’s place in worship.

It’s three chalk-marks, pastel chalk-marks mind you, on the sidewalk. Please, don’t anyone step on them. Especially not the pink one.

Once upon a time in a village near you, there lived a townsperson with a knife. Well, he didn’t have just a knife. He had several, actually. But his knives were dull. So, one day, he set out to seek a sharpener.

On his way through town, he happened upon another townsperson, who also happened to have a knife. Well, actually, he had other knives too, but none of them were sharp either. After a few minutes conversation, they decided to go together to see if they could find a sharpener.

As they traveled through town, the two townspersons came across another townsperson, and then another, who were also plagued by dull knives. Finally, the First Townsperson spoke up. “This has got to end. Dull knives have now reached epidemic proportions. The body of townspersons is suffering from an overwhelming lack of sharpiness. We need a Sharper Shop.”

The response from the townspersons was overwhelming. Some of them created cute little slogans for themselves. Others waved their dull knives over their heads. Still others clamored for change and tolerance. Finally, the second townsperson spoke up. “First Townsperson, you have really struck on an idea,” he said. A hush settled over the raucous crowd. Dull knives glinted in the sunlight. “I move that we elect First Townsperson to chair a new Committee for the Promotion of Sharper Knives.” A murmur of approval greeted the statement. “First Townsperson, we hereby anoint you head of the Knife Sharpeners.” And the other townspeople roared their approval.

The next day, First Townsperson put out a sign on main street. “Sharper Shop” it read. That day, a stream of townspersons made their way over to the Sharper Shop, dull knives in hand. There at Sharper Shop, fuzzy new towels were handed around, and townspersons diligently polished their dull knives to a very high gloss. Some townspersons even stayed past midnight, so diligent were they to polish those knives.

The next day and the next, the crowds grew larger, and the polishing more feverish. Then one day, a stranger rode through town. Seeing the sign for Sharper Shop, he took his sword and went in. He pulled out his sword, and looked around for the grinder where he could sharpen his sword. He looked and looked. Finally, he asked one of the bystanders to point him in the right direction. The bystander looked at him in confusion. “You must be a stranger around here,” he said. And then he handed him a towel.

The newcomer looked at his sword, looked at the towel, and then quietly walked back outside and rode down the street. A few days later, he was back. “Hey, one of you guys help me for a second,” he said. In a few moments, he and some others lugged in a heavy stone, and placed it on a table. For a few moments, the townspeople watched as the stranger set up the grinding stone. Then, he took out his sword and began to grind. Sparks were flying. Some townspeople let out a low whistle. Others shielded their eyes. Still others put down their towels, and lined up behind the stranger. When he was done, they stepped up with their dull knives, and when they stepped away, the knives were sharper. In the days that followed, more and more people lined up to sharpen their dull knives. Sparks flew, voices raised, and dull knives lost some of their dullness. Things were as they should have been at Sharper Shop.

But then one day, some began to complain about the sparks. Others began to complain about the noise. Still others griped about the smell. In response, some started to grind harder. “You don’t like the way the grinding sounds,” they said? “Well, how about this!” Then, they started grinding knives for the sake of grinding. They made bigger sparks, they made more noise, and they successfully annoyed the townspersons. They would grind and grind and grind for the fun of grinding. And all the while, their blades wore thinner and thinner and thinner. Finally, one ground his blade down to almost nothing.

And that was when First Townsperson stepped in. “Enough already!” he said, and kicked out the primary offender. A murmur rippled through the Sharper Shop, but soon the townspersons were back to their grinding. While they were grinding, a few of the townspersons clustered in a corner and started muttering something about the stranger, the grinder, the sparks, and the smoke. They took their complaint to the Committee for the Promotion of Sharper Knives. Some of the men with dull knives noticed what they were doing, and, embarrassed, stopped their grinding. But the stranger kept right on grinding.

Finally, First Townsperson cleared his throat, stepped up to the stranger, and whispered something in his ear. The stranger stopped, and without another glance, picked up his sword and disappeared.

Things were quiet at Sharper Shop for a while after that. Some of the men commented about the sudden disappearance of the stranger. Others stood around the grinding wheel. “I never liked the smell anyway,” said one of the men. “Me neither,” said another. “Good riddance,” said a third. They picked up their fuzzy towels again. “Besides,” they said, “they made too many sparks.” WE are a Christian Sharper Shop.

Seldom again were the sounds of grinding heard at the Sharper Shop. But, dull as they were, those knives sure were shiny!

The Moral: If iron would sharpen iron, both must be iron.

I love preaching. Baptists love preaching. It is an art form that has been around for thousands of years. John the Baptist preached, repent ye. Christ preached, the kingdom of Heaven. There are thousands of examples of preachers to read and study. Hundreds of books about preaching have been published, and thousands of sermons themselves have been published. Now, you can read, listen, and even view many of them on your computer right over the Internet – apostolic sermons, Holy Ghost sermons, Pentecostal sermons, good sermons, bad sermons, Calvinist sermons, Pelagian sermons, Arminian sermons, corn-shucking sermons – they’re all out there and they have been preached for hundreds of years. You can subscribe to periodicals and websites to be able to find resources to help you prepare your sermons. OR, you can just copy great sermons. Copy Spurgeon (the prince of preachers), copy Maclaren, copy Lloyd-Jones, copy Warren, copy anybody! Just don’t waste your precious time working at something that has already been superbly done by someone else!

What should I preach? In my quick scan through the Bible I found four instances where the Bible addresses this question directly. There are many examples of preaching, but only these four tell us particularly what to preach.

Jonah 3:2 Arise, go unto Nineveh, that great city, and preach unto it the preaching that I bid thee.

Matthew 10:27 What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

2 Timothy 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

Now, to me, it has become obvious that we are to preach just one thing. I believe all these texts are summed up in the last one: Preach the Word. The verb is preach. The object of the verb is the Word. What are we to preach? The Word.

I’ve heard many sermons. I’ve read many sermons. And the ones that are the most edifying and most convicting are those that come from the Word. Much of today’s preaching is not biblical. It’s spiritual. It’s motivating. It’s captivating. It uses Bible verses, but it’s not biblical. Many preachers think that they should find something to preach to their people (or they already have something they want to preach) and then they prepare a message to deliver. I propose we call these spiritually motivating speeches. I’m jealous of the terms preaching and sermon. Please, don’t tell me you’re preaching if it isn’t coming from God’s Word (and don’t try to skate by, by telling me, “well, it’s in the Bible somewhere!”). Fundamentalism is infused with many dynamic speakers who can turn a phrase eloquently. They’ll even claim that they despise the wisdom of this world and espouse the foolishness of preaching. But it’s been a long time since they preached any sermons. They have motivated people on spiritual topics, but they haven’t really preached a sermon in years.

Biblical preaching is preaching of the Word! Preachers, start with the Word. Don’t start with your ideas, start with the Word. Study the Word. Explain the Word. Elaborate on the Word. Illustrate the Word. Apply the Word. ~~ Preach the Word.

Let’s hear more preaching and fewer spiritually motivating speeches.

Traditionally, Baptists reject traditions.  In fact, we Baptists are traditionally anti-traditional.  One tradition we stick to is our tradition of anti-traditionalism.  And one of the longest standing and most time-honored of our traditions is Infrequent Communion.  For various reasons, we Baptists don’t (or won’t) celebrate the Lord’s Supper very often.  Some don’t want it to become routine, some don’t want rituals, and besides, it doesn’t really do anything for us anyway, does it?  And so, rather than allow the observance of Communion to become routine, we have allowed the non-observance of Communion to become routine.
 
Not that being anti-traditional keeps us from routines.  We have plenty of those.  Just check out the weekly service schedule for a good example.  Or maybe the songs we traditionally sing… the choir’s weekly dose of Ron or Mac, for instance.  You get the picture.  We can’t escape routine.  Not that we should…
 
Anti-traditional as we are, we have a tradition of keeping Communion infrequently.  We have made a routine of that too.  We routinely neglect the Lord’s Table.  Infrequent Communion has become our tradition.

This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come (1 Corinthians 11:25).

Clearly, Christ was not saying here “don’t do it often.”  But, we don’t keep it often.  We routinely neglect the Lord’s Table.  If the Lord’s Supper is in fact one of our most sacred and important ordinances, and if Christ left it to us to observe as often as we choose, shouldn’t we choose to observe it more frequently?
 
This post will attempt to examine that question, hammer in hand.  We’ll begin with the notion that communion should be frequent, continue with why it should be frequent, and conclude with the blessings of frequent communion.

As Oft As

Communion should be often.  The Bible doesn’t specify how often.  The text simply says as oft as… By the way, Paul adds this to what Christ originally said at the supper.  Christ gave no indication of how often.  Paul simply says as oft as (whenever/as many times as).  God does not require us to observe the Lord’s Table weekly, monthly, annually, or even once in a lifetime.  But shouldn’t we celebrate more often than not? It certainly seems that both Paul and Christ wanted it more than a little regularly.
 
For one thing, the Lord’s Supper is to be a remembrance… it is to bring to mind.

This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

If we forget to observe the Lord’s Supper, then it isn’t bringing to mind.  If we rarely observe Communion, then it isn’t bringing to mind.  Do we really want to be unfaithful in our remembering, “just to keep it special”?  And how does that help the remembrance?
 
Of course, in this day, we especially value spontaneity.  “Spontaneous is better,” or so we think.  But first, I doubt that this is what Paul had in mind when he said as often as.  And secondly, in a church it can’t work that way.  We can’t be spontaneous with the Lord’s Supper.  We must plan it somewhere along the line.  Imagine the Pastor walking in fifteen minutes before the service and saying, “I feel like the Lord’s Supper tonight.”  Thirdly, even if it is to be spontaneous, it still needs to be frequent.  In other words, frequent spontaneity would absolutely be better than our current tradition of frequent neglect.
 
Wives, who typically like the “romance” of “the spontaneous,” don’t value it at all if that means once every three months.  It would be better to be ritualistic in regular, frequent communion than it is to be ritualistic in our neglect of communion.  The regenerate soul craves communion with its Lord.  We want that communion to be often.  I would think we would want it to be as often as possible.

For As Often As… Ye Do Shew the Lord’s Death

We commune with God individually in prayer and meditation on the Word. Imagine if your son decided to stop having his devotions so regularly… after all, it is a routine, isn’t it?  And routines are bad, aren’t they? “Dad, my devotions have become too routine, so I’ve decided to have them infrequently, just to keep it special.”  I’m imagining your response.  “Well, son, some routines are, well, okay, I guess…” or maybe you’d be stronger.  We need fellowship with God every day.  Just as we need to talk to our family every day, if possible.  Do husbands stop talking to their wife because “it has become too routine”?  And if we understand Communion in the context that Pastor Brandenburg gave, as a mutual intimacy between husband and wife, the idea of infrequency becomes even more repugnant.  “Honey, let’s keep the intimacy to every other month, just to keep it special!”  Yikes!  Do parents stop talking to their children because they want it to be special?  The point is, we want communion.  We commune with God corporately in public worship.  We commune corporately in the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 10:16-17).  The first reason that The Lord’s Supper should be frequent is because that’s what believers desire.  True believers want communion.  Frequently.
 
The second reason for frequent observances of the Lord’s Supper is because we want to commune with the body of Christ, to partake of his blood.  As one body, we partake of that one bread.  We commune with Christ and his people.  We want our fellowship to be frequent.  We want our cleansing to be frequent.  It is that blood that cleanses us from all sin. 
 
A third reason is because Communion is a remembrance.  It is a reminder.  It is a commemoration.  As an act, it re-presents Christ to our mind.  We see the bread, and remember his broken body… broken substitutionarily. [1]

He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities.

We eat the bread, and are reminded that we are partakers of that one bread… Christ in us.  We see the cup, and remember the blood of Christ: sacrificially shed blood.  The cup of the wrath of God, which Christ drank.  The cup of blessing, which we drink.  The New Testament in his blood, which he shed for us. 
 
A fourth reason for frequency is that in Communion, we do shew the Lord’s Death.  We proclaim it.  We preach it.  We announce it publicly… as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.  Every time we partake of the Supper, every time, we show the Lord’s death.  So, Communion is a part of letting your light shine before men.  Which is why I oppose celebrating the Lord’s Supper in secret on a Tuesday night.  Nothing like installing a street light in your living room closet.  When we partake of the Supper, we preach the gospel. As one commentary says,

The Greek does not mean to dramatically represent, but “ye publicly profess each of you, the Lord has died FOR ME” [WAHL]. [2]

Shouldn’t this public profession be frequent?  (Romans 9:33; 10:11)
 
Finally, Communion should be frequent because we shew His death till he come.  Perpetually—we preach it until the end of the age, when the work of the gospel is fully preached.

In Remembrance of Me

There are many blessings in frequent communion.  It certainly gives us regular communion with Christ and his people.  It pleases God.  We can certainly believe that we are doing God’s will in regularly remembering his substitutionary death and sacrificially shed blood. 
 
In celebrating Communion, we are blessed to proclaim the Lord’s death.  We are blessed to partake, for Communion is a grace—it is a gift to us.  Every time we partake, we receive of that grace.
 
And we are blessed with real, meaningful communion with Christ (1 Corinthians 10:16-17).  So, it is more than a ritual.  It is a ritual full of meaning and benefit to the believer.  It is a worthwhile tradition.
 
Shouldn’t we then make it a custom to frequently celebrate the Lord’s Supper?  Some might wonder, “How often?”  I doubt that God will be saying, “You are doing this too often.  We are having too much Communion here.”  Maybe our question should be, “How often can we do it?”  I’m thinking that God wants it often, and so should we.
 
 
 

Footnotes

[1.] Invented Word, of uncertain origins, probably traceable to bad grammar habits and late-night bloggings.

[2.] Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., Fausset, A. R., Brown, D., & Brown, D. 1997. A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments. On spine: Critical and explanatory commentary. Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA