is this the lord's supper?

As you can gather from the title, there is a question I feel I need to pose. When we sit or stand in our neat little rows in the church house every few Sundays, is it the Lord's Supper that we are taking part in? Or is it more of a ritual we feel we do justice to, but don't have the wherewithal to change for the sake of practicality? I have taken a few days to process thru this question, and have come to a semi-concrete response. Yes and No. Typical seminary answer to hard questions. Before I respond I want to confirm that I believe the Lord's Supper to be a valuable and blessed sacrament in within the Church body, but I think we can do better than "chiclet gum" sized bread and just enough Welch's to bother your taste buds.

1 Corinthians 11 is what prompted the question. In this text Paul speaks not only about women(mainly) head coverings, which is a rather weak argument compared to his other statements throughout the letter, and also speaks about the Lord's Supper to close out this series of thoughts. We know from the construction of Paul's arguments throughout the letter that he is responding to both oral and written reports or letters from the congregation (1.11, 5.1, etc). He begins chapter 5, 7, 8, 12, and 16 with this phrase "now concerning" which leads us to attribute these topics to a question or topic within a letter that the Corinthians wrote to Paul earlier. So there is history between the congregation and Paul, as he defines himself as their founder and even their father (4.15). Why then does he rail them for mistreating the Lord's Supper? I mean he is pretty angry about their botching this "ceremony".

We can tell from the text that there are divisions in the community, most likely along socio-economic lines. Chapter 3 and 6 attest to the divisions, and Chapter 8 shows us the disparities in both maturity and economics. Economics because it is the rich who would be faced more often with this dilemma of choosing to eat meat that was sacrificed to idols. The poor are most likely from a pagan background and would have most likely had a strong opposition to the eating of meat sold in the markets, because it is closely associated with idols and cultic traditions. The rich are used to it and perhaps find no fault in eating it, as the see rightly that it (meat) is neutral in regards to their salvation.

From this background Paul chastises, most likely the wealthy or "strong"(8.1-12), because of their eating before other "late comers" arrive so that they cannot share what they have brought with each other. This leaves some hungry (v.21, 34) and others full, and drunk (v.24). The whole of Paul's argument in the entire letter is unity and submission to one another. Every nook and cranny is filled with Paul's cry for these two attributes to be displayed in community. Many think that everybody brought what they had to the gathering every Sunday, which met in a more wealthy person's house (perhaps Chloe), so the Lord's Supper looked more like a Pot Luck than a mini waffer or chiclet. The meal would have been opened with a common gathering, that might not have allowed everyone to sit together. This might mean that the late comers or poorer Corinthians would have been pushed to the outside of the gathering. This doesn't line up at all with Paul's hope for unity in the community. The Supper would start with the "breaking of bread" (literally) and then would be followed by possibly a Pot Luck style dinner and then followed by "drinking of the cup" and then prayer, drinking, and worship may end the gathering. Paul's vision in for the Lord's Supper is in verse 33, "So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another!" Paul doesn't shy from disclosing his thoughts about some dying because of their neglect of this practice that has through church history become a sacrament.

My question is regarding not whether we should practice the Lord's Supper, but how? When we gather on Sundays, communion seems to be done corporately, but experienced individually. We make sure the silver platters are shined, and the cups are filled, but where is the meal? Most object, well it's not practical to feed congregations of our size. Then, shouldn't we do some thinking about that. Some voice that we don't have the same issues that Paul addresses in chapter 11. I agree, but perhaps we SHOULD. I think that statement is a sad state of the church, not merely a different one. Why isn't there more poor folk in the church? We are dressed to the heels, and can easily remove the poor from our thoughts, because we take care of them with another ministry. Perhaps our "examining of ourselves"(v.28) before the Lord's Supper ought to provoke thoughts of provision for others in our community more so than it should be about "getting right" and then identifying with the cross of Christ.

I remember verse 30 being preached to me once, and I was afraid because I was so sinful and I was about to eat some bread and drink some grape juice. I really was nervous. I didn't want God to kill me because of some unconfessed sin! Can I contend that the examining of ourselves regards our neighbor's welfare and not our personal sin. Can I contend that our taking of the Lord's Supper might serve us in function more, if it took place downstairs in the mess hall or in lifegroups at someone's home. Can I contend that the Lord's Supper doesn't have to be a waffer and mini cup. Could it be that the grape juice may even be a bit of sticky legalism. Most of all, Paul's hope for the Lord's Supper is a gathering of believers to "proclaim the Lord's death until he comes"(v.26) and he doesn't think the Corinthians or the church today can do that too well if our friends next to us are hungry. It's not about the meal, it's about sharing in Christ as brothers and sisters. And if this is the case, then how do we do that together with a chiclet of bread and some grape juice? Is this the Lord's Supper? It can be I suppose, but can't we remember Him with a bit more than that?