Introduction: The Practical Questions
The previous lesson examined the theology of the Lord's Supper—what happens at the table, how Christ is present, and what the meal signifies. This lesson turns to the practical questions that confront every church that takes the Supper seriously. How often should we celebrate? Who may partake? Should the table be open or closed? Should we use wine or grape juice, a common cup or individual cups? What about children—may they receive the bread and wine?
These questions may seem like administrative details, but they are deeply theological. How a church answers them reveals what it believes about the nature of the Supper, the boundaries of the church, and the relationship between grace and responsibility. Practice always reflects theology—even when we are not conscious of the connection.
How Often? The Question of Frequency
Contemporary evangelical churches typically celebrate the Lord's Supper once a month or once a quarter. Some celebrate it only a few times a year. Many treat it as an appendage to the "real" worship service—something tacked on at the end, rushed through to stay within the time allotted. This practice would have astonished the early church and horrified the Reformers.
The New Testament evidence points toward weekly celebration. Acts 2:42 describes the apostolic church as devoted to "the breaking of bread"— listed alongside the apostles' teaching, fellowship, and prayer as a defining practice of the community. Acts 20:7 records that the church at Troas gathered "on the first day of the week to break bread"—suggesting a regular weekly pattern tied to the Lord's Day.
Calvin desired weekly communion in Geneva but was overruled by the city council, which permitted only monthly celebration. He considered this a defect and wrote: "The Lord's Table should have been spread at least once a week for the assembly of Christians, and the promises declared in it should feed us spiritually." The Westminster Directory for Public Worship similarly urged "frequent" celebration.
The most common objection to frequent communion is that it will "become routine" and lose its specialness. But we do not apply this logic to preaching—no one argues that we should preach less often to keep the sermon special. If the Supper is a genuine means of grace through which Christ nourishes His people, then withholding it is not preserving its dignity but starving the flock. A meal that is rarely served is not more precious; it is more neglected.
The Reformed ideal is Word and sacrament together every Lord's Day— the full diet of grace that Christ has appointed for His people. Where this is not yet the practice, churches should move toward greater frequency rather than less.
Open or Closed Table?
One of the most pastorally sensitive questions is who may come to the Lord's Table. Three basic positions exist.
Close communion (sometimes called "closed communion") restricts the table to members of the local congregation—or, in some traditions, to members of the same denomination. This is the practice of many confessional Lutheran churches, some Reformed churches, and most Primitive Baptist churches. The logic is that the Supper is a covenant meal for the covenant community, and the elders can only vouch for those under their pastoral care.
Close(d) communion with denominational recognition opens the table to members of churches in the same denominational or confessional fellowship. A PCA church, for instance, might welcome members of other PCA or Reformed churches but not necessarily members of any church whatsoever.
Open communion invites all professing Christians who are in good standing with their local church—regardless of denomination—to partake. This is the most common practice among Reformed, Presbyterian, and evangelical churches today. The reasoning is that the table belongs to Christ, not to any single congregation or denomination, and all who belong to Christ are welcome at His table.
The Reformed tradition has generally practiced a form of regulated open communion—the table is open to all professing believers, but it is fenced by pastoral warnings. Before the elements are distributed, the minister warns that the table is for those who have repented of their sins, trust in Christ alone for salvation, and are living in peace with their neighbors. Those who are living in unrepentant sin, who do not believe the gospel, or who harbor unresolved hatred are urged to refrain—not because they are unwelcome, but because they would eat and drink judgment on themselves (1 Corinthians 11:27–29).
"Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself."
— 1 Corinthians 11:28–29Fencing the Table
Fencing the table is the practice of issuing pastoral warnings before communion to help communicants examine themselves. It is not a gate-keeping exercise designed to exclude; it is a shepherding act designed to protect. Paul's instruction is clear: "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat" (1 Corinthians 11:28). The word "so" is critical— it means "in this manner," "having examined." Self-examination is not optional; it is the prerequisite for worthy participation.
The traditional Reformed fencing addresses three categories. First, unbelievers—those who have not placed their faith in Christ are warned that the Supper is for believers and are invited instead to come to Christ Himself. Second, the unrepentant—those living in known, unrepentant sin are urged to repent before partaking, lest they bring judgment on themselves. Third, those who are not at peace— Jesus taught that reconciliation should precede worship (Matthew 5:23–24); those harboring unresolved conflict should seek reconciliation before coming to the table.
The goal of fencing is not to drive people away from the table but to draw them rightly to it. The table is for sinners—but repentant sinners. It is for the weak—but those who know their weakness and come to Christ for strength. A proper fencing both warns the careless and comforts the trembling: "If you are a poor, trembling sinner who longs for Christ but doubts your worthiness—this table is for you. Christ did not die for the worthy; He died for the unworthy who come to Him in faith."
Communion of Children
May children participate in the Lord's Supper? This question has gained renewed attention in Reformed circles, with advocates of paedocommunion arguing that baptized covenant children should be admitted to the table from infancy—just as Israelite children participated in the Passover.
The paedocommunion argument draws on several lines of reasoning: the Passover included the whole family (Exodus 12:3–4); Jesus welcomed children and said the kingdom belongs to "such as these" (Mark 10:14); baptized children are members of the covenant community and should not be excluded from the covenant meal; and the requirement of self-examination (1 Corinthians 11:28) need not mean mature cognitive reflection but simply a basic awareness of what the meal represents.
The traditional Reformed position, however, has required a credible profession of faith before admission to the table. The Westminster Standards assume this: the Larger Catechism speaks of communicants as those who are "of years and ability to examine themselves" (WLC Q. 177). The reasoning is that Paul's command to "examine yourself" and to "discern the body" implies a level of understanding and spiritual self-awareness that infants and very young children do not possess.
The paedocommunion debate creates a genuine tension for paedobaptists. If we baptize children on the basis of the covenant—arguing that God includes the children of believers—then why do we exclude them from the covenant meal? The traditional answer is that baptism is a one-time sign of entrance, while the Supper is a repeated sign that requires ongoing self-examination. But paedocommunionists argue that this introduces an artificial distinction between two sacraments of the same covenant. This is an honest internal tension that the Reformed tradition continues to work through.
Most Reformed churches practice a middle way: children are welcomed to the table when they are able to articulate a basic understanding of the gospel and the meaning of the Supper—typically through a process of instruction and examination by the elders. The age varies, but the principle is consistent: participation in the Supper requires some degree of conscious faith, even if that faith is young and simple.
The Elements: Wine, Juice, Bread, and Method
Wine or grape juice? Jesus used wine at the Last Supper—the fruit of the vine that was a staple of Passover meals. The church used wine exclusively for eighteen centuries. The substitution of grape juice began in the nineteenth century, largely through the temperance movement and the invention of pasteurization by Thomas Welch (a Methodist who specifically created grape juice to replace wine in communion).
The Reformed tradition has generally maintained that wine is the proper element, since it is what Christ used and what the church has always used. Wine also carries richer symbolism: it signifies joy (Psalm 104:15), the eschatological feast (Isaiah 25:6), and the blood of the covenant. However, many Reformed churches offer both wine and grape juice out of pastoral concern for those recovering from alcohol addiction—a compassionate accommodation that most Reformed theologians consider legitimate.
Common cup or individual cups? The common cup was universal practice until the late nineteenth century, when concerns about hygiene led to the introduction of individual communion cups. The common cup carries powerful symbolism—"the cup that we bless" (1 Corinthians 10:16, singular) emphasizes the unity of the body sharing in one cup. Individual cups, while less symbolically rich, are a practical accommodation that most traditions accept.
Leavened or unleavened bread? The Passover used unleavened bread, and the Western church has traditionally used unleavened bread in communion. The Eastern church uses leavened bread, arguing that the risen Christ is the "bread of life" and that leaven represents the new life of the resurrection. The Reformed tradition has generally not insisted on either, though many churches use ordinary bread to emphasize that the Supper is a real meal, not a ritual wafer.
Intinction. Intinction—dipping the bread into the cup rather than eating and drinking separately—has become popular in some churches for practical reasons. Critics argue that it conflates the two distinct acts that Jesus performed (He broke the bread and took the cup) and that it reduces the drink to a mere moisture on the bread rather than a true drinking. Defenders note its efficiency and hygiene. The Reformed tradition has generally preferred separate eating and drinking as more faithful to Christ's institution.
Eating and Drinking Worthily
Paul's warning about eating and drinking "in an unworthy manner" (1 Corinthians 11:27) has been a source of both healthy reverence and unhealthy fear. Some Christians avoid the Supper entirely out of fear that they are "not worthy enough"—that their sin, their doubts, or their spiritual weakness disqualifies them.
This misunderstands Paul's point. The issue at Corinth was not individual unworthiness but corporate irreverence. The wealthy were gorging themselves while the poor went hungry (1 Corinthians 11:21). Some were getting drunk at the table (11:21). They were treating the Lord's Supper as a private dinner party rather than a communal meal of the body of Christ. The "unworthy manner" was the failure to "discern the body"—to recognize the Supper as a communion of the whole church, not an individual indulgence.
No one is "worthy" to come to the Lord's Table—that is precisely the point. The Supper is a meal of grace for people who need grace. The question is not "Am I good enough?" but "Do I know that I need Christ?" The trembling sinner who comes in repentance and faith—knowing their unworthiness but trusting in Christ's worthiness—eats and drinks in a worthy manner. The self-satisfied person who comes without examination, without repentance, and without regard for the body of Christ eats and drinks in an unworthy manner. Paradoxically, the people most afraid of coming unworthily are often the most worthy communicants.
Conclusion: Recovering the Table
The practical questions surrounding the Lord's Supper are not trivial—they shape the church's experience of this sacred meal and reflect its theology of grace, community, and worship. The Reformed tradition calls the church to celebrate the Supper frequently, fence the table pastorally, welcome all repentant believers, and approach the elements with reverence and joy.
Many churches need to recover the Supper. They need to move from quarterly obligation to weekly feast, from rushed afterthought to central act of worship, from individual introspection to communal celebration. The table is Christ's gift to His church—a feast of grace, a proclamation of the gospel, and a foretaste of the eternal banquet. Let us not neglect it.
"And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers."
— Acts 2:42Discussion Questions
- Calvin desired weekly communion but was overruled by the Geneva city council. The lesson argues that infrequent communion 'starves the flock.' Do you agree? What practical concerns might a church face in moving from monthly or quarterly communion to weekly celebration, and how might those concerns be addressed?
- The paedocommunion debate creates a genuine tension for paedobaptists: if children are included in the covenant through baptism, why are they excluded from the covenant meal? How do you evaluate this tension? Is the traditional Reformed distinction between baptism as a one-time sign and the Supper as requiring ongoing self-examination satisfying?
- Paul's warning about eating 'in an unworthy manner' (1 Corinthians 11:27) has caused some Christians to avoid the Supper out of fear. The lesson argues that the 'unworthy manner' was corporate irreverence, not individual spiritual inadequacy. How does this reading change the way we approach the table? What pastoral guidance would you give to someone who fears they are 'not worthy enough' to partake?