John Leland
1754-1841
Many years ago I read where John Leland had found little joy in observing the Lord's Supper. I had forgotten where I had read that and looked to find it but with no success, until today. The following gives the information on this unusual belief and attitude of Leland. I remember how I felt sympathy for his view for I have often had similar feelings about it. Some Baptists partake of Communion once per month, some once every two months, some every three months, some every quarter, some twice per year, some once per year. The "Church of Christ" folks and others do it every Sunday. Most Baptists take the view that there is no scripture that tells how often it should be observed and argue that the words of Paul "as often as you do it" (I Cor. 11: 25) show that it would be left up to each church (or I might add, to each person).
In an Internet article titled "Theology Thursday: Profound Lessons From an Itinerant Baptist Minister" by Dr. Jacob Hicks (See here) we have these words and citations (emphasis mine):
"In this instance, Leland is an example of what not to believe and to do. In his church in Cheshire, Massachusetts, he stopped administering the Lord’s supper and did not serve it for years because he never saw anyone saved from practicing it.2 This was in clear disobedience to Jesus’ and Paul’s commands for churches to observe the Lord’s Supper (Lk. 22:14-20; 1 Cor. 11:17-34.) A few concerned members of his church and even sister churches in his association tried to convince him to submit to scripture and the common practice of all Baptist churches, but he would not budge. His association even kicked him and his church out of it."
2 - 2 Smith, E. C. (2022). John Leland: A Jeffersonian Baptist in Early America. New York: Oxford University Press.
I see that the churches were wrong to so treat Leland and the church he pastored over the issue and that they behaved contrary to Baptist church belief and practice. Would not submit to the "common practice of all Baptist churches"? I guess we could say that Leland was a "non conformist" as many of our ancient Baptist forefathers! These same accusers professed to believe in the supremacy of the local church! Further, where did Leland violate the command of Christ and Paul regarding the Lord's Supper? If there is no text that says how often to eat it, then if Leland and his church wanted to do it every five years, or ten years, etc., why could they not do that?
Hicks writes further:
"Leland could be a cowboy sometimes when he felt like something rubbed his conscience the wrong way. God does not leave it to us to be spiritual cowboys and cowgirls. We are to submit to the authority of scripture and our churches. Like all of us in some areas of our lives, Leland’s ecclesiology fell woefully short, but praise the Lord, God used Leland despite his ecclesiological views, and he can use us for his glory as well."
Submit to the authority of "our churches"? Sounds like popery and Episcopalianism to me. Sadly, many Baptist groups, including the Hardshells, have let associations lord it over the churches. This is what Landmarkers do also. The church that Leland pastored had the right to partake of the Supper as often as it wanted.
Further, what does it say about the evangelistic views of Leland when he says that the Lord's Supper was never instrumental in saving a soul? It shows that evangelism is what was highly important to Leland. Let us imitate him in this regard as Calvinists.
4 comments:
P.S. There is no reason why individual members can't meet together and observe the Supper. Also, many who take the Lord's Supper every Sunday do not feast on Christ every day. I am sure that the reality to which the symbol pointed (eating by faith the gospel and word of God each day in meditation) is what is most important and is what Leland practiced. He took the real Lord's Supper every day!
P.S.S. I personally will not take the Supper with Leavened bread or grape juice but use exactly what our Lord used. So, if I were in a church that used such, I would not take it either with the church. The Lord's Supper is not a means of grace but the word of God which it illustrates is a means of grace.
This is very interesting. I too, have often wondered what should be practiced. I too have had "unusual" views about the Lord's Supper, but probably from the other end of Leland. I believe we Baptists have at times, made it into a boring ritual. I believe Christ is (or can be) "really present" when we observe the meal. This is not to be confused with the "real presence" taught by sacramentalists. By this I mean, when done rightly, the presence of Christ is there in a different way than in normal worship. Generally it isn't an "evangelistic" event for the lost, but for the saved. It is evangelism for the saved! So a few years ago, I started the practice in my own church of having people come forward to receive the elements, instead of the normal practice of passing it around. In other words "come to the table, and sup with me" instead of it coming to you. Both ways are valid and each has symbolism, so I have no quarrel with other traditions. Anyways, when they came forward to receive, those who served would look the person in the eyes and say, " (NAME),this bread and cup represent the Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus. Take this and remember that He died for you". Once they had partaken, they were instructed to go to at least one person and either pray for them, or ask them to pray for you.There is something about saying a persons name and looking them in the eye that brings home the reality of what Christ did for them. Before I knew it, tears began to flow, broken relationships healed, singing began, and the "altar" was full of people praying. Of course there's much more, I could write a book, but you get the idea. I think Leland's issue was stagnancy. There is no right or wrong way of observing, no formula required. I think the early church may have practiced it every service, just because people had to come a long way and each probably brought a lunch, and services were in homes. I am sure the service lasted much longer than the typical hour or two that we do now. I can see an apostle or elder, right before everyone was about to eat, stand up and say, "Let us remember who bought us, by starting this meal by taking our bread, Let us break it, and remember how costly a salvation we do have, and let us drink from the cup remembering the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus, and without the shedding of His blood, there is no remission of sins." In other words, the "Lord's Supper" was actually the "blessing" said over the meal. Of course I have no proof of that, just conjecture. In any event, "let us keep the feast" everyday!
It makes me think of what I recall Baptist legend A.H. Strong said in his systematic theology about the Communion Supper. He referred to a writer who wrote about "Christ in the daily meal." Yes, yes! That is what is most important. The reality is more important than the symbol, and that is true in regard to both the Lord's Supper and Baptism.
Post a Comment