Isn't communion supposed to be communal?

So, as requested here are my thoughts on communion . . .

I imagine a church/gathering/assembly/congregation in the first centuries of Christianity rarely exceeded 100 people. It wouldn't have been wise, seeing as all it would take is one Roman centurion diagnosing the situation as an uprising which would probably result in the deaths of most who were present. I also think that early churches were patterened after synagogues which typically never grew much past 100-200. At least that's the impression I am under, correct me if I'm in error. When you're dealing with 100 people it's a lot easier to make baptism a big deal. A lot easier to celebrate it. A lot easier to devote a meeting to it or prolong a meeting to display baptism's importance. It's a whole lot easier for a church leader to justify keeping 100 people a few minutes late to witness a baptism, keeping 1500 such as the church that I attend, well . . . then the majority's voice about time constraints grows louder. This is the problem with baptism, it has never been a spectator-friendly activity. The intent was to allow the audience to experience Christ's death and exaltation all over again. This image that is self-definition to all who claim Christ as their own is one that is renewed and reexperienced by all believers. I think it is ultimately impossible to cater baptism, in all it's power and glory, to an audience of thousands. (That's a blanket statement, meaning mostly true with obvious occasional exceptions)

I think the Lord's Supper shares this attribute.

Seriously look at the way churches "do" the Lord's Supper right now, and this is definitely not limited to churches of Christ. Our churches are arranged in such a way that we stare forward. Typically central is the pulpit, often with a baptistry and a "Lord's Supper table" shadowed somewhere in the background. Sad. Because we value downloading others with information, doctrine, and stories to aid in application we seat everyone in such a way that preaching is central. (Many Catholic and mainline churches do have the pulpit off to the side with the table in the middle, to which I say Amen. Though I beginning to think I would most advocate having a baptistry in the middle, if we insist on traditional ampitheater style buildings) The consequences of this are obvious: the focus is on the preacher, or whosoever would temporarily depose him of his throne. So long as this is the case, the focus is off of . . . . that's right, each other. Isn't one of the greatest sins in church to not keep absolute silence during the Lord's Supper or the sermon? If one is fortunate enough to go to a church with "soul", then one can be expected to speak out in agreement, but only in agreement.

Suppose a family invited you over for dinner. You think you're going to get to know the family. Then the set a plate down at the end of the couch and proceed to turn the TV on. You turn to the father sitting next to you to ask him something and he frowns disapprovingly and refuses eye contact. The mother gives a crass look and a firm "SHHHHHH!!" You attempt to talk to the son of the family, but he knows better and quickly tries to hush you up. For a full hour you stare at the TV listening to whatever boring show happens to be on, arranged in a strait line on the couch. At one point they pass you your dinner, which you are expected to eat in reverent silence. Later, your friend who invited you tells you that their meals are always that way, and always have been. They may be plesent people outside of that hour, but the next time they invite you to dinner it is doubtful that you will eagerly accept.

Where have we gone wrong? And, how on earth do we dare call our Sunday quatershot of grape juice and flake of stale cracker "COMMUNION"?????

Community, Communal, Communicate: it's all the same root word. Yet what we call the Lord's Supper or Communion now has nothing of the idea that gave it life left in it. We stare forward in silent reverence that the coldest of Pharisees would be appalled at, and still manage to say we are "eating together".

Let me offer the two greatest things that are achieved by the Lord's Supper (idealized):
1) The Fellowship of the Community of Love. That is what communion is. I don't think God is impressed by a meal that holds silent reverence as the absolute norm. Meals are times of communicating and sharing together the wide range of life experience that are present around a table. Needs are met together, AT the table. It you are not touching the table, you are not AT it, so lets not pretend the guy on row 35 in our assembly is really gathered around the table with us, I find that is a gross "loophole tradition" of Scripture. (How can we follow this verse without really following it?) It's a funny thing that many preachers dog members for leaving early to go to lunch on Sunday, when I think Jesus might often rebuke the preacher from keeping the members from the closest thing to Communion they will have all week. (or month depending on one's denomination) I think the truest communion is typically at Wendy's or Chili's. Rarely church. Now, churches are made up of a wide variety of people. The demographics of the true Church are astounding, and in this, the Lord's Supper achieves something that is desperately needed in our churches . . . .
2) Equality and Unity. A middle class, white drug-dealer, a lower class African-American family, a blue-collar Hispanic family, and a rich white family sit down around a table with their Lord's body and blood in the middle, and realize that at the center of the table is the substance that sustains them all. Without it, all of them are nothing. Without it, they all die. This same Lord loves them equally, without favoritism. They may have stereotypes when they sit down, and pride. If they do not reject the Spirit's leading, when they get up their notions will be shattered and their pride will melt. Issues are worked out at the table. Needs are discussed, and met. Pain and sickness are healed at the table. Truth is discovered and rediscovered. Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, church of Christ, and "non-denominational" denominations all realize they share the Lord as their center, even in they share nothing else. That being true, they have no option but to listen, and no option but to love. To hate one's brother across the table is to hate one's self, and to hate the Lord who dies for both. We are one. We are equal.

I go to a church that's 95% white. They aren't proud of that, and that's not they way they want to keep it, Praise God! But, that's the way it is. I think of all the plans we have at that church to try to bridge the racial gap, God has already given us the primary means of doing this. I don't think by staring forward at a pulpit we will employ this gift.

Israel remembered God as a nation. The church should "do this in remembrance" as a family, not as isolated, reverent individuals beneath dimmed lights.

If Communion was done communally it would change the face of the Church. It would radically challenge every stronghold of pride and hate that dwells in us, because it would require us to face those who we have already labeled as inferior. Facing them we would have little choice but to be humbled to a level of equality and in being humbled also get a better grasp of the grace which dies for and redeems such racist, self-centered, and ethnocentric hearts as our own. Then as community, maybe we could finally share the stories of the amazing things which Jesus is doing every moment to bring his Kingdom, and love his People.