The Lord’s Supper in context of Liturgy 

When the CPCE indicated the starting point of a study on the Lord’s Supper on the sources of the liturgy of the Churches, I became very interested immediately.

No subject has been focussed on more critical and detailed in the history of the Protestant Churches than the theology on the Lord’s Supper. It has divided us, and it has brought us together. In addition to the many ecumenical dialogues, the Lord’s supper is still the main stumbling block in several important ecumenical relations.

I think that the dialogues on the perspectives on the doctrinal theology on the Lord’s Supper has ended up in a dead end because doctrinal theology, and especially in the protestant traditions, have ended up in doctrinal fundamentalism, where the theologians imagined that they could formulate the theology on the mystery of the sacrament, but it is now clear that they couldn’t. The perspective of dialogues became even more problematic when different traditions brought their fundamentalistic theology of the Lord’s Supper to the same table of dialogue, as though it should be possible to put the mystery of the sacrament into a common and rational formulation.

On this background of ecumenic history, it is renewing and ground braking to begin a process where the liturgy, the contemporary praxis of the church, are the main sources of analysis, discussion and conclusions. The modern New Testament exegesis has shown again and again that the New Testament texts are not primary in the way that they are first in time or in direct connection with Christ and his historical life. The New Testament scriptures are all of them depending on the praxis of the congregational, worshipping life, action of baptism and communion of the Lord’s Supper. We have several examples that quotations and arguments are taken from the Liturgy and Praxis in Worship and put into the New Testament text. If there was no worship including the Lord’s Supper, we wouldn’t have any of the New Testament texts.

And Liturgy is not static and conservating, but a living tradition in continuing development, very different from our historical confessional articles, that always needs to be understood in the historical context. How amazing to have a study on the Lord’s Supper where the main source are the Liturgy and the Praxis of the contemporary Church.

Now the study is presented. And the question is: Is it good?

It is clear that this study is an experiment. Qualities? And weaknesses? And if we should do it again, it is clear that several doings should have been different. The statistics of the study is so weak that the conclusions are not reliable. And even though the main source is the liturgy and the Praxis of the Church, the doctrinal issues should have had a higher priority.

The writings could have been more developing and better if the material collected had been more extensive, and the texts of the liturgies in function had plaid a larger role, not to forget that a lot of modern protestant theology on the Lord’s Supper we find in the lyrics of the hymns on the Lord’s Supper.  

However, this study is showing new ways in the ecumenical theology. I am quite sure that new studies on the Lord’s supper will be inspired of the qualities in the method of the study and the fundamental perspective that Liturgy is a higher authority in theological formation than the historical and confessional texts. In the churches’ liturgy we can see and observe the mystery of the Sacrament and the transforming action of Christ in our receiving of bread and wine. And when we see the mystery of the sacrament in other Churches Liturgy and praxis, communion with those churches will grow among us. The doctrinal confessional texts are historical, fundamentalistic formulations who only are poor echoes of what is going on in the life of contemporary Churches today.