The Lord's Table is Not a Funeral

Many, many years ago I wrote a masters thesis on the Lord's Supper, titled The Table of the Lord. In preparation for writing that thesis, I wrote several articles on various aspects of the Lord's Supper that led to certain "unconventional" conclusions--but unconventional only in terms of how most churches view the Lord's Supper, not how the early church viewed it. Over the next few days, I'll be posting the gist of these conclusions, and answering questions such as:

1. What is the setting of the Supper? (Or, Where did we ever get the notion that "elements" constitute a "Supper"?)

2. Who gets to partake of the Supper? (Or, Where did we ever get the notion that the Supper needs to be "protected"?)

3. What is the mood and focus of the Supper? (Or, Where did we ever get the notion that the Supper is a funeral procession that merely "looks back" on the death of Christ?)

4. What is the expected frequency of the Supper? (Or, Where did we ever get the notion that the Supper could become "too common" simply by celebrating it weekly?)

5. What is the point of "self-examination" in 1 Corinthians 11 (Or, Where did we ever get the notion that we have an obligation--or, indeed, a right--to abstain from the Lord's Table due to personal unworthiness?)

. . . and much, much more. I have no doubt that my series will raise a few eyebrows and generate a few responses in the coming days. If it stimulates some into rethinking the Supper, it will have been well worth it.