The Lord's Supper has been identified as the Eucharist, the sacrament, holy communion, the memorial, the sacrifice, the offering and even more simply put , the breaking of bread.  These differing designations show the wide range of understanding  held by the Church both today and throughout history. By the naming we can see how the Church differs on what is emphasized in this ordinance.

       The Lord's Supper is what weds  hearts to Christ and to one another. Yet, it is this very simple practice that has been the source of disunity in the Church. It is interesting that  in a practice that all Christians participate in there can be such division between men and women of God. This was never Christ's intent when He told us to 'do this in remembrance of me.'.

       It must be understood that it is impossible to come up with a definition or a theory of practice of the Lord's Supper that will be accepted by all.  With this in mind, it is this writer's opinion that the emphasis of the Lord's Supper, no matter what it may be called, should be on remembrance. It is through the participation in the Lord's Supper that we remember Christ's giving and our receiving. It is here that we can experience a oneness  with other members of Christ's Body as well as with Christ Himself through our remembering  His life, ministry, death and resurrection. Through this participation and remembering we can experience a fresh sense of His presence in our lives.

       First, let's examine the way the Lord's Supper has historically been celebrated. Let's begin with the first Lord's Supper found in  Luke 22: 14-20. Here Jesus tells his disciples to do this, eat the bread and drink the wine, in  remembrance of me.  Jesus wanted them to remember what he had done and was about to do for them.
 In the early church, Christians gathered to worship in a way that was quite different from the Jewish tradition. When the early Christians met  for worship scholars believe that the main emphasis of the worship service was the sharing of the Lord's Supper. At first this was an entire meal that was brought by each believer who attended and placed on a common table. The meal would begin with prayer and each believer would eat a small piece of bread which came from a single loaf. This single loaf of bread represented Christ's broken body. The meal closed with prayer and the sharing of a common cup of wine which represented Christ's shed blood. The early believers ate these symbols , bread and wine, to commemorate and remember Jesus observance of the original Passover.

       The Passover was to remind the Jew of his heritage in God and of the deliverance from Egypt. The Passover for the Christian represents the deliverance of man from the bondage of sin through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. From the very inception of the Lord's Supper, remembrance was the focal point of the practice.

       In the middle ages this idea of remembrance had begun to develop into something more. The Lord's Supper had become the experience of Christ's presence actually becoming a physical reality through the communion elements. The saying of the mass was the vehicle for turning the bread  into the actual body of Christ and the wine into the physical blood of Christ.  This had become the 'opus operatum'  of the church and the term 'transubstantiation' became prominent. In this the idea of remembrance had changed into re-creating. The priest, by consecrating the elements of the Lord's Supper, would witness a metaphysical change take place. And in this change Christ would be sacrificed again, physically, for our sins. Therefor, remembering isn't necessary, we can relive the experience anew each time we celebrate the mass.

       This continues to be the position of the Catholic church today and  the Lord's Supper is  one of the sacraments of the church.  The Catholic church also believes that only properly ordained priest can give communion. Although it is my understanding that in some rural areas that lay people are distributing communion after it has been blessed by an ordained priest.

       The Reformation led by Luther had effected some change to the theology and administration of Holy Communion in the Lutheran church. Luther believed that the communion elements were not actually the body and blood of Christ. He believed that the elements contained both the bread and wine as well as the body and blood of Christ. They coexist together in the same elements. Luther called this consubstantiation2.

       Luther did reject the theology of the mass as a re-sacrifice of Jesus each time it was said and that the mass itself had nothing to do with the changing of the elements. Luther agrees with the Catholic church in that communion should be administered by an ordained minister. Luther also believed in manducation3 . This is where we actually take the elements and eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus, ingesting it into our bodies. Luther took John 6:53-56 and Matt. 26:26 quite literally.
Luther's position concerning the value of communion is unclear. One time he says that it is only a remembrance or a proclamation of the event. Yet if this is true, then why do the elements have to be a mixture of bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ? At other times, however, Luther seems to have believed that there was a benefit from eating the body and blood of Jesus and taking it into your body. The Lutheran's position  on the Lord's Supper has remained much the same today.
 In the Reformed view of the Lord's Supper, Christ is present but not physically. His presence in the sacrament is spiritual. The Reformers believe that idea of actually eating and ingesting the body and blood of Christ is absurd. They support this by Rom. 8:9-11 where it says that it is only the Spirit of God who dwells inside of man.

        The Reformed view sees the Lord's Supper not only as a remembrance but also as a seal. Christ seals the love of Christ to believers thereby giving them assurance that all the promises of the covenant are theirs by the partaking of the Lord's Supper.
Two other major views are espoused by Calvin and Zwingli. Calvin  sees the Lord's Supper as first a remembrance as its purpose is to take us to the cross. He sees the elements as figures or symbols of the body and blood of Christ. He sees the Eucharist, his term for the Lord's Supper,3 a covenant between God and man, much like the Reformed view. Calvin believes that Christ's presence at the Eucharist is spiritual in nature only.

       Zwingli ,many scholars believe, may have changed his position on the Lord's Supper during his lifetime, therefor, it is difficult to come up with a precise statement for his opinion. It seems that he believed that the Lord's Supper was mainly focused on remembrance or commemoration.  Zwingli spoke of a spiritual presence of Christ not a physical or metaphysical one. Since Jesus is everywhere anyway, it is no more present at the Lord's Supper. Zwingli saw no special benefit from receiving the Lord's Supper. It's intent is to remind us of the cross and to build our faith in the power of God.

        The last issue I would like to discuss concerns the frequency of the Lord's Supper. Should we celebrate the Lord's Supper every Sunday, once a month, quarterly or only on special occasions? Traditionally the Catholic, Episcopal and Lutheran churches have insisted on weekly distribution of the Lord's Supper. Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist and most other Protestant denominations in the U.S. have followed a monthly or quarterly schedule for the Lord's Supper.

         The observance of the Lord's Supper from the early church to the time of Calvin was done weekly. Calvin believed strongly in not allowing it, the Lord's Supper, to become routine so he implemented quarterly observances of the Lord's Supper. The Bible does not make a definitive statement either way. It does seem to infer that it was done frequently (Acts 2:42). It is my personal belief that monthly is sufficient for the church but that there needs to be freedom to celebrate it also at special services and at special times of the year.

         It seems me that in all the traditions examined, all believe that the attitude of  remembrance is  a necessary part in  the observation of the Lord's Supper.  In Matthew 14:17-25 we see Jesus celebrating the Passover with His disciples and instituting the Lord's Supper. It was a remembrance of God's great delivery of Israel from the bondage of Egypt. Although not mentioned here directly, the application to the church is evident.

         In Luke 22:14-20 we see another account of the same event. Here Jesus make the remark 'do this in remembrance of Me.' Jesus makes a more direct connection between the original Passover and His death and resurrection as deliverance of man from the bondage of sin.

         In 1 Corinthian 11:23-26 Paul repeats the words of Jesus and remembrance is mentioned. Although there is much more to the Lord's Supper than just remembrance, remembrance is central to the very heart of the observance. Since we  were not there when Jesus died and rose again , it is by faith that we believe what the Bible says. The Lord's Supper is a reminder that the event actually did happen; that by faith we can share in that moment; that we can  commune with Christ Himself as well as with other believers who partake of the Lord's Supper together. As earth bound people, limited in our understanding of spiritual realities, we may buttress our faith by remembering Christ and what His death  and resurrection means to us today. The observation of the Lord's Supper is a vehicle to that end.

         With this in mind, It seems that the position of the Lord's Supper in the church is to be one of  both reverence and joy. We are to first solemnly  examine our lives ( 1 Cor. 11:27-32) to be certain that we come to Christ, at His table, in a humble attitude and for the correct motives. The correct motives are to demonstrate in a physical way, that we remember the death of Jesus on the cross for our sins. We must remember His sacrifice for us that made us  free of the bondage of sin.

         Yet this time is also a time of celebration.  Jesus told us to 'do this in remembrance of me until I come again.' Jesus is coming back for us...His church! That is reason to celebrate. Not only do we remember what happened in the past but we expectantly look forward to what He is planning to do for His bride, the Church.

         Therefor, the observation of the Lord's Supper is not to be added on to the end of a service as just something we have to do from time to time. It must be a part of the worship service that is totally fixed on Christ and His works both past and future. This is truly worship when we can fix all our attention on Christ and not on ourselves. Like baptism, the Lord's Supper is a holy time where we physically demonstrate our love and commitment to Christ to others and to God.
Let us do all things...In Remembrance of Him!

Endnotes

1 Upper Room Communion Hymn Frederick B. Morley cited in  The Lord's Table Charles L. Wallis (New York: Harper
  & Brothers 1958) p. 184

2 Millard J. Erickson,   Christian Theology, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House) p. 1117

3 I.B.I.D. p. 1118

Bibliography

Ronald Allen & Gordon Borror. Worship: Rediscovering the Missing Jewel.Portland: Multnomah.  1982

J.G. Davies. The New Westminster Dictionary of Liturgy and Worship. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press. 1986

Millard J. Erickson. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House 1993

Killian McDonnell, OSB. John Calvin, the Church, and the Eucharist. Princeton: Princeton University Press 1967.

James Orr, M.A., D.D., The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Vol. III. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. 1994

Charles L. Wallis. The Table of the Lord. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers. 1958

Robert E. Webber. Worship: Old and New. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House. 1982