This quote from Euangelion kind of hits close to home!
I tend to think that a church pot-luck dinner with a few prayers and hymns sung at the same time is far closer to what the early church did re: the Lord's Supper, as opposed to current practices involving a 5 minute guilt-trip sermonette, a crumb of bread, and a drop of sour grape juice.
Having said that, some comments at the post point out that it seems that 1 Cor 11 (not the head covering part!) seem to indicate that the Lord's Supper is not merely a potluck with friends. So where is the happy medium between an informal meal in someone's house and the overly formal passing of oyster crackers and Welch's grape juice? We should break bread together as the Body in meals but should we also not give the shed blood and broken body of Christ proper perspective in the church? This is my comment at Euangelion:
Is there not a place between the two extremes of rigid sacramentalism and informal meals? Can believers in a home experience the Lord’s Supper as a means of grace or must it be in a church building? Can a potluck among fellow believers exhibit the sobriety and gravity that the breaking of bread and drinking the cup demands? I have broken bread and had (non-alcoholic) wine in my home with believers and it was as meaningful and perhaps more so than a church ceremony. But I have also had meals in my home with fellow believers that were social but not at all in keeping with 1 Corinthians 11 nor would I consider those meals an adequate replacement for the Lord’s Supper. It has less to do with location and more to do with the spirit.
What do you think?
(HT: Alan Knox)