note --I haven't heard of this concept from another source, but it is likely I just have not read enough.  I would call this the Communitarian View of Communion if asked.  

The Lord’s Supper as a Celebration of the Work of the Holy Spirit

Introduction. 1

I Corinthians. 2

Theological Considerations. 4

The Work of the Spirit 5

Conclusion. 7

Introduction

The celebration of the Lord’s Supper is one of the most ancient aspects of Christian worship still being celebrated.  Although disputes and differences have split the church in countless ways, the celebration of this key activity is found virtually throughout all of history.  The problem, however, arises in how exactly this meal is interpreted, how this activity is understood to “work” or understood to represent.  Indeed, there are few doctrines which have caused more divisions and enmity than  the interpretation of the Eucharist event.  This discussion prevented the coming together of the German speaking Reformation as Zwingli and Luther agreed on fourteen common points, but were permanently split and hostile to each other in their interpretation of this meal.  This is one of the primary issues, along with questions of government, which prevents a complete restoration of the actual, not simply “spiritual”, unity of the Church.  It is the goal of this present study to seek to analyze the nature and purpose of the Lord’s Supper, understanding that this meal is, possibly primarily, a Pneumatological event.  The Lord’s Supper is a celebration of the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the community, and designed to celebrate both the unity and the diversity of the Church. 

I will begin by looking at the pertinent passages in the New Testament, especially taking note of I Corinthians.  Because the celebration of the Lord’s Supper is established and commented on in our earliest texts it is vital that we see this discussion as our primary source, upon which all later doctrine must conform in at least those areas which are highlighted by Paul.  It can be said, with caution, that even early on the Church reinterpreted this celebration along different lines than Jesus intended or Paul understood, leading to a continuation of the problems which Paul was attempting to address in his firm comments to the Corinthians.  The lack of recognition of the Spirit’s work in the church led to both disorder and disunity within the church, solutions for which are quite needed in our present church life, and which make Paul’s discussion vital for any present analysis.  I will then briefly look at the development of this celebration, showing that the doctrine of this meal vitally affects the government and structure of the church as a whole, finding that our understanding and view of the Spirit in Christ and in the community, as Paul showed us, leads to a vastly different understanding of virtually every other aspect of church life.  Finally, I will seek to expound on how the Spirit is signified in the gathered feast of the anointed community, leading us to be reminded of and empowered in our understanding of the past, present, and future work of Christ in his earthly ministry, and in the present ministry of binding his followers together, while giving each a vital role in the fullness of his work.  In doing this I will not focus on specific practices which characterize the different traditions, my approach tending towards being a broad re-evaluation of the role of the Spirit, rather than looking specifically at the traditional points in which the Spirit is usually discussed or the specific traits which differentiate the celebration in different communities.

I Corinthians

In looking at the doctrine of the Eucharist in the New Testament we find a surprisingly limited amount of pertinent material.  The Gospel passages [1] and Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians provide all that we know about the very earliest traditions.  Paul’s comments are the most important as they are seeking to explain how the Lord’s Supper is in fact to be celebrated, and to correct the wrongs which the Corinthian Christians were perpetuating.  In I Corinthians 11:17-34 Paul focuses on how the Corinthians are celebrating the Christian meal of communion.  What is immediately apparent from his discussion is that Paul is worried about the divisions which seems to be arising in the life of the community.  There appears to be a disunity caused by social disparity, a tension developing between rich and poor.  It is clear from Paul’s response is that the disparity and disunity which is being exhibited will not be tolerated.  By acting in this manner, they are showing “contempt for the church of God” and are humiliating “those who have nothing”. [2]   Paul begins to elucidate the severity of their actions in no faint terms.  He writes to them that if any of them dare to eat and drink the elements in a manner which is unacceptable, they will be guilty not only of causing simple division but responsible for the guilt brought on those who persecuted and killed Christ.  For in their eating and drinking, their celebrating with their rich foods and much wine, they are forgetting the solemnity of the moment, the reason for which they are gathered together, which is Christ. [3]  

In this context, the “unworthy manner” refers certainly to the way in which the Corinthian believers are treating one another in their gatherings together, as well as in other areas of life.  It is at this point that Paul asserts the true seriousness of the disunity which he has been discussing throughout the entire book.  This is not simply a nice wish that “everyone would just get along”, rather this is a command by Paul which relates to their very salvation.  If they do not get along, if they do not abandon their pride and disunity they will be found guilty for the very death which they are proclaiming.  For they are not gathering together for themselves, to promote their own success or abilities, they are not gathering for a social club or typical cultic gathering, but rather they are gathering together to proclaim the death of Christ, and the fact that he will come again.  It is at their own peril that they forget or ignore this.

Thus in verse 28 Paul tells them each to examine oneself, not just once, but continually every time they gather.  Although typically understood as an introspective inspection of one’s moral and spiritual level, the word Dokimavzw signifies something more in the New Testament context.  It is an examination of worthiness, a testing of one’s fitness for salvation, and the developing of a lifestyle which is consistent with the salvation we are given by and through Christ. [4]   With this comes a need to understand the meaning of salvation in Christ, and an understanding of what makes us worthy.  The context is not discussing the moral strictures of the Christian life, but instead gives us two guidelines as to what constitutes unworthy participation. 

The first is found in 10:14ff. in which Paul warns against the worship of idols.  He states in verse 21, “You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons.  You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.”  By participating in idolatry in any form we are forgetting the primacy of Christ in our meal, and our profaning the table.  In 11:17ff. Paul discusses the divisiveness of the church, and warns that they are showing contempt for the church of God.  By treating others in a contemptible manner they are likewise profaning the Lord’s Supper.  This profanation is liable to the judgment of God, and thus Paul exhorts them to look at their attitudes toward Christ and the church prior to participating in such a solemn moment.  They are neither loving God nor loving their neighbor and are thus imperiling their own health.  This is not so much a warning to spend time in quiet reflection as much as it is a reminder that they must be mindful of their behavior at all times, so as to not cause offense. [5]

            Verse 29 tells us that indeed those who are not mindful, those who eat and drink without examining themselves are bringing judgment upon themselves.  The central phrase here is “without judging correctly the body” for it is this which will bring judgment.  What then does it mean to judge the body correctly?  A traditional way of understanding is to see this as a warning to have a proper comprehension of the elements, and to take them understanding the grace and/or symbolism which they possess. [6]   This implies that verses 23-26 are the central part of the section, rather than part of the total argument. [7]   It is not the words themselves, or the symbolic attachments which Paul puts on the bread and wine which are the issue here.  As Fee says, “Paul’s concern lies elsewhere.” [8]   In the context we are discussing, Paul’s emphasis is not on the cultic meaning and definitions, but on the way in which the Corinthians are treating each other.  The body, for Paul, must be understood in the context of his wider usage, and cannot simply be limited to the use of the term in verse 24, as referring singly to the physical body of the Lord.  Paul’s very use of the word body is interesting and unique, and he intentionally plays around with the several meanings for which he uses it. 

            The first meaning is the prevalent understanding of the body being spoken of here as indeed representing the body of Jesus.  In 10:16ff., though, we read of a less quoted interpretation of the body and blood which certainly bears upon our meaning.  Calling the cup the “cup of blessing” and the bread the “body of Christ”, Paul proceeds to explain further his understanding of the “body”.  He states that “because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we partake of the one bread.”  With this, Paul not only relates the bread to the physical body of Christ, but extends the meaning to include the body of Christ which is the church.  The body metaphor is then later discussed in chapter 12 in a more thorough way, as being descriptive and analogical to the life and activity of the church as a whole.  Between 10:17 and chapter 12 we find our passage, and thus must conclude that the imagery of the body as being the church must be what is being referred to in 11:29.  Paul is in the midst of a unique metaphor, and is developing it throughout these chapters. [9]

To not judge the body correctly implies that one is not correctly understanding, or discerning, the nature and make-up of the body of Christ which is the church.  It is to cause division within the body, because one is not aware of the nature of such a body.  The word diakrivnwn  is related to the concept of judgment, and implies a discerning, a recognizing as distinct, and attaining to a correct understanding of the object being scrutinized. [10]   If those in the community do not attain to a correct understanding of the nature of the body, as Paul delineates in chapters 12 and following, then they will be bringing judgment upon themselves.  Paul is essentially saying here “judge correctly, for you will be judged.”  And to treat each other poorly, to act in such a way which devaluates fellow believers, to raise oneself up and push others down, and to act in any way which causes division and hardship within the body is to show that one is not properly understanding the nature of the Church, nor of Christ who is the head of the Church.  The judgment here can be thought of as a judicial verdict in an unfavorable sense, coming as the result of transgression, and which will lead to punishment. [11]   Paul warns the Corinthians that unity is not an option in the church, that it is of utmost importance that they view themselves as under Christ and equals with each other, and to act accordingly during their gatherings together.  To fail to act and think in such a way will result in God’s judgment and discipline. [12]

Theological Considerations

            It is not simply a coincidence that Paul’s letter to the Corinthians is also one of the most pneumatologically interesting epistles.  Rather, the case is that within and throughout this doctrine of the Lord’s Supper is the work and activity of the Holy Spirit in the life of the community.  Paul not only was expounding on the specifics of the celebration of the Supper, he in his broader argument was emphasizing an understanding of the church as being uniquely endowed with the Spirit.  Thus to understand the Lord’s Supper in a proper way, it is vital to understand the Holy Spirit.  It is the nature of the Holy Spirit to always point to Christ, to always lead the community and the individual into an ever closer approximation and understanding of who Jesus was, is, and will be.  This work is carried on throughout the broader ministries of the Church, but no where more pointedly focused than in the celebration of the Lord’s supper.  It is for this reason that the Supper can be called a pneumatological event.  Here the work of the Holy Spirit in all its manifold ways are celebrated, honored, remembered, and emphasized.  The tendency towards a binarian understanding of theology, however, has led to a weakening of this emphasis, and thus a deterioration of the fuller understanding of the work of the Spirit in the life of the Church as a whole. 

In seeking to understand the Lord’s Supper various theological developments have been put forth which attempt to deal with what is commonly called the “words of institution”.  What did Jesus mean when he said, “This is my body”?  Taking this literally has led to a development of the idea of “real presence”, in which the elements themselves, in an actual physical or spiritual way, become the actual body and blood of Christ.   In overemphasizing the Christological presence in the elements, these theological developments have in fact distanced themselves from the essential pneumatological quality and meaning that the Supper in fact likely entails.  In seeking to find the real presence of Christ the emphasis is increasingly placed on the elements themselves and then along with this on the person of the priest or officiant whose task it is to consecrate this meal.  In John 16, however, we find Jesus himself speaking of the continued presence of the Divine not being represented by his personal presence, but rather mediated by the presence of the Spirit of God who always points to Christ in all things.  Jesus states, “It is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.” [13]  

The Spirit constitutes the meal and the community, though never emphasizing his own role, but rather follows what Jesus said in verse 14:  “He will glorify me, because he will take what is mine and declare it to you.”  “The Spirit’s specific work in the church always relates to Jesus and to the eschatological future of God’s kingdom that has dawned already in him,” Pannenberg writes. [14]   Yet, the Spirit is not always obvious in his work.  “The Holy Spirit, as Person,” states Vladimir Lossky, “remains unmanifested, hidden, concealing Himself in His very appearing.” [15]  

In the emphasis of the real presence, the fullness of the pneumatological work gets ignored in the attempt to discover how Christ mediates his grace himself in the meal.  Moltmann notes, “The special stress on ordination and a sacred ministry – to the point of raising it to the rank of sacrament – apparently always crops up when the church goes over to the practice of infant baptism.” [16]   I would argue, however, the case is more true with a view of the Lord’s Supper, in which the office holder gains authority as the mediator in contrast to the fuller work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the whole church.  In the epiclesis the Spirit is specifically invited to sanctify the elements, in doing so also sanctifying those who partake in the elements. In the section on the Eucharist in Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry (BEM) we read that “the church prays to the Father for the gift of the Holy Spirit in order that the eucharistic event may be a reality:  the real presence of the crucified and risen Christ giving his life for all humanity.”  It continues by stating, “the Church… confidently invokes the Spirit, in order that it may be sanctified and renewed, led into all justice, truth and unity, and empowered to fulfil its mission in the world.” [17]  

Though the epiclesis emphasizes the essential work of the Spirit, the focus is still often more on the officiant’s role in calling for the Spirit to work in the community, thus making this role vital, and in many cases making the concepts of unity and equality more rhetorical than actual realities in the life of the church. [18]   Understood pneumatologically, however, the celebration of the Lord’s supper focuses on much more than mediation to the community through the specific elements. [19]   Paul’s comments seem to indicate a broader understanding which is more recognition of the Spirit who is already working rather than a mediation and prayer for the Spirit to work.  Communion celebrates in fact the fullness of the work of the Spirit in three different ways, ways which not only lead to a fuller understanding of the meal itself, but which aid the constant transformation of the community in its mission in this world.  The Lord’s Supper points to the fullness of the work of the Spirit in the person of Christ, in bringing unity to the church, and in bringing diversity to the body.

The Work of the Spirit

The Eucharistic meal emphasizes first the role the Spirit plays in the person of Christ. The words which are used in the celebration emphasize the sacrifice of Christ for our salvation.  The Church is gathered to celebrate and remember the sacrifice of Christ for our salvation, this salvation which is now mediated to us by the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives.  “Salvation,” Miroslav Volf writes, “is  communion with God and human beings.” [20]   The role of the Spirit in the life and work of Jesus is absolutely vital in his communion with the Father, and now with our communion with the Triune God. “It was by the Spirit,” Clark Pinnock suggests, “that Jesus was conceived, anointed, empowered, commissioned, directed, and raised up.” [21] The Holy Spirit is the one present now with us bringing us into this communion, communion which was enabled by Christ on the cross, but which is effected by the Spirit who both calls and fills us with the reality of this communion,  a communion which likewise anoints, empowers, commissions, directs and raises up. [22]   The proclamation of the work of Christ in this world and in our own lives is accomplished by the Spirit who in all things is represented through Christ’s own name. [23] Moltmann stresses the fact that “the risen Christ lives from, and in, the eternal Spirit, and that the divine Spirit of life acts in and through him.” [24]  

This interpenetration of the divine persons suggests that the eating of the elements in the Eucharistic fellowship is the partaking of not simply a representation of Christ’s body, but is also the celebration of the work that the Spirit is doing in us through the work of Christ.  The celebration of the Eucharist reminds us in a profound way the manner in which the Spirit has already and is still working in our lives as a community and as individuals, allowing us to partake in communion with the divine. [25]   Lossky writes, “That which is common to the Father and the Son is the divinity which the Holy Spirit communicates to men within the Church, in making them ‘partakers of the divine nature’, in conferring the fire of deity, uncreated grace, upon those who become members of the Body of Christ.” [26]   Without understanding this pneumatological dimension, the Eucharist becomes binarian, wrongly understanding how Christ works in the life of the community.  This leads then to a governmental representation which in effect emphasizes the role of one over the many, rather than, as Paul seeks to highlight, emphasizing all equally. 

“It is,” Moltmann states, “from the Spirit that we expect the gift of eternal life, the raising of the dead, the rebirth of everything living, and the new creation of all things.” [27]   This expectation is giving its strongest emphasis in the Eucharist feast which looks both to the past and to the future in the present community, tying together, as does all pneumatology, Christology and Eschatology. [28]   The “Holy Spirit comes at the cost of Christ’s departure; the price of his coming is the cross, and he comes in the power of the Easter mystery”, [29] events all commemorated in the fellowship of the Lord’s Supper.  This suggests the Eucharist is a profound pneumatological event which celebrates the past, present and future perspectives that constitute this meal as a whole. [30]   The work of Christ in us is the work of the Spirit in our midst, highlighting, giving new and insightful perspectives into the reality of who Christ was and what he did. [31]   The Lord’s Supper reminds and restores this understanding and hopefully renews the emphasis in our community life, elevating our hearts and minds to an increased awareness of, and thankfulness for, the Divine. [32]

The Spirit, is not, however limited to the salvific work of Christ.  Neither, then, is the Eucharist simply a commemoration or renewal of the salvific grace which Christ provides.  This understanding of the Eucharist as being only a time of remembering or of imparting grace leads away from the fuller picture of the work of both Christ and the Spirit in the life of the Church.  The church is more than simply a gathered collection of those saved from sin, it is also a gathered community who in the present are being renewed in fullness of life, tasting increasingly of the eschatological reality which the coming of Christ began.  This reality includes the diversity and unity which is first seen in the Triune nature of God and then is also represented in those who are his people.  This emphasis is the primary focus of the problems in Corinth, problems which are seen throughout history for whatever reason.   The lack of unity in the Church is an affront to the very purpose of the Eucharist gathering.  Kärkkäinen writes “If the people of God gather around the Table to recollect the one undivided body of Christ and have at the same time internal strife, they oppose the work of the Spirit, the Spirit of unity.” [33]

In the epiclesis the Holy Spirit is called to come down and bring this unity.  However, from a Baptist or Pentecostal perspective, the understanding is that the Spirit is already present, there already is the fullness of the gifts in the gathered community which does not need renewal, but rather needs recognition.  This recognition is the key to the full unity which the Spirit prompts. When it is lacking, when there is not a recognition that the Spirit is and has been working in each of the individuals present, a warped understanding of roles and importance develops, as it did in Corinth, leading to some being exalted, and most becoming passive.  As the Spirit works in this world, gathering and leading multitudes into a restored relationship with the Divine persons, the Spirit assembles believers into a community.  This is “a fellowship which overcomes separation and enmity through the self-giving of Christ for all men, and which creates solidarity among people who are in themselves different.” [34]  

The unity of the Church is derived from the work of the One Spirit in the lives of all who are part.  Just as the Spirit cannot be divided, neither is the church divided.  The problem is in the awareness of this One Spirit which works in diverse ways.  Thus, Jesus directed the church to continually participate in a symbol of this unity, a meal fellowship, in which those who are in the community celebrate and acknowledge this fact by sharing the bread and sharing the cup.  “It is the Spirit,” writes Volf, “ who constitutes the church.  People, however, must accept the gifts of God in faith (even if this faith is itself a gift of God); they must come together, and they must remain together.” [35]   To commune with the One God necessitates the coming together with others who are also called into relationship with God by the Spirit.  This is not simply, however, an entering into a hierarchical community.  Rather, the leadership of any community is equally responsible to acknowledge the work of the Spirit in the life of even the “lowliest” believer.

It is the Spirit which demands and constitutes the unity of the Church not those who are officeholders in the Church.  By not recognizing the validity of some believers to enter into a shared meal fellowship, these leaders are guilty of not recognizing “the body”, of choosing to ignore or resist how the Spirit is moving, and thus denying the fullness of the deity to their own detriment.  As a meal constituted by the Spirit it is not within the confines of theological dispute to decide who and who does not participate.  Those who are drawn to the meal, must share in the meal. [36]   As a symbol and acting out of the Spirit’s drawing many into one, the Church participates in a celebration of this unity but, outside of clearly egregious sins, does not have control over who gets to share in this unity.  That is rather the supremely important role of the Spirit in this world, which is lost when there is a lack of pneumatological awareness.

The Spirit not only calls people into unity, however.  In the recognition and celebration of the calling of many into one Church on account of the work of Christ it is also vital that the diversity which the Spirit brings also be celebrated.  Moltmann writes, “The Trinitarian concept of community envisages diversity in unity from the very outset”, opening up “individual potentialities in the greatest given diversity.” [37]   The table fellowship not only does not demand conformity, it fights against it, for the Spirit who constitutes it relates in a different, though equally vital, way in each individual present.  It is the diversity which brings a heightened unity, for the unity is not based on sameness, but rather it is based on the divine intermingling of varied individuals whose being compliments and enriches every other individual so that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.  This is not a conglomeration of pieces, being much more complex due to the work of the Spirit in the community. Because we share the same Spirit, our uniqueness is shared with others, as we receive their uniqueness into ourselves.  Volf writes that it is “the indwelling of the Spirit common to everyone that makes the church into a communion corresponding to the Trinity, a communion in which personhood and sociality are equiprimal.” [38]

This awareness of the diversity within the unity is not limited to an awareness of different individuals for their own sake. A full awareness of this diversity which is highlighted in the communion fellowship includes an understanding of the diversity of gifts and passions which are also a work of the continual presence of the Spirit in and through all believers.  These gifts and passions are essential for the full carrying out of the mission of the church.  The Spirit prompts, provides, and provokes those within the church to be involved in the work of the Spirit throughout the world, granting those specific gifts which are needed in order to facilitate this participation.  In doing this the Spirit enables the entire congregation to be an active part of the ministry of the Church. 

In the Lord’s Supper there is the recognition of the equality of all members, prompting all to “recognize the body”, leading to an ever greater awareness of how the Spirit is leading the community as a whole. Each person provides an essential nuance, without which the community will be less than fully engaged in the work of the Spirit.  “Every believer,” writes Hans Kung, “can and must, having been taught by God, teach others; can and must, having received the word of God, be its herald in some form or another.” [39] The Lord’s Supper celebrates the equality of the believers, taking as reality the understanding of the “priesthood of all believers”, re-emphasizing the polycentric community in which all people are able and required to be ministers in their own unique regard. [40]   To not recognize this polycentric aspect is to lose sight of the One who calls and leads all believers into the One body of Christ, giving each an essential function which is united, yet diverse. 

Conclusion

The celebration of the Lord’s supper then is the celebration of this unique relationship, it is the awareness of how the Spirit of God has worked in the lives of each person, all who have a different relationship with God, and thus have a unique perspective which the Spirit has brought into the Church. [41]   For this reason the celebration of communion is in many ways like the Year of Jubilee, in which inequalities are rectified, and the community is, if even for a moment, stricken of any structures which would indicate some being valued over others.  All have been called by the Spirit in diverse, though fully equal, ways, bringing a unity which transcends simple agreement and which is united in the past, present and future work of Christ as mediated in our midst by the Spirit of God.  Any structure or form which would cause disunity or devaluing of any individual strikes against the Spirit who establishes the community as it is.  Rather than being a time to discuss who cannot participate, this fellowship is the chance to open our eyes to see who is participating, celebrating with joy and thanksgiving the wonderful ways in which the Spirit is moving in our midst, joining in instead of limiting the work of the Spirit in this world.  As a feast to celebrate the work of Christ, as a unified and diverse community, the Lord’s supper is a profoundly pneumatological event which reminds us as often as we celebrate it the full work of the Triune God in bringing restoration and transformation to this entire world.