In our Sunday School class we are wrapping up a year long study in the gospel of John, so we began to discuss future study options this morning. The general topic of “issues” surfaced, and we began to probe the possibilities. What we discovered in our discussion was that whether the theme is women’s roles in the church or acceptable cultural interests for Christians, the hairball on which we choke is: What beliefs/behaviors are essential, and which are optional?
Later during the gathering for worship we observed the Lord’s Supper and as the meditation was being shared, and the elements were passed, I thought about the form of our ritual. I have never been crazy about the “shot glasses and chicklets” format (sorry if that sounds sacrilegious), primarily because it tends to individualize a corporate worship experience and “streamline” it at the loss of a mealtime, intimate feel.
“But,” I momentarily reasoned, “it is only a form, not an essential.” And then I caught myself reflecting on the other sacrament that Christian churches hold dear: baptism. Many in the Restoration heritage are not only insistent on baptism as a necessary element of Christian discipleship, but are also deeply committed to the proper form of baptism. This firm/form stance is rooted in the meaning of baptizo which means to “immerse.” Good enough.
When Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper (Matthew 26:26-29 / Mark 14:22-25 / Luke 22:14-20) the form is plainly reported. Bread is broken (no previously separated pieces) and one cup is shared (as opposed to a tray of gulp-sized cuplets). And yet, our modern observance bears little resemblance to the ancient original. Consider the time (Thursday night) and the setting (around a table in a dining room), and form is given more detail yet.
It’s just form. . . not the substance. One cup or many cups. . . a loaf or a tray of wafers. . . it doesn’t matter.
So, it’s okay to sprinkle or pour for baptism, right?
Well, which is it? Do we tighten up the form of communion, or relax on our definition of proper baptism?
And what of the other forms that give structure to our faith (leadership structures, worship formats, discipling procedures, etc.)? How much wiggle room does God give to the forms with which we “do” church?
It seems to me that somehow we need to figure out the role that form plays in the optional/essential debate of Christian practice and faith.
Now that I have stirred the pot, please share your thoughts. I’m all eyes.
