“The Reformation of the Supper” by Kim Riddlebarger, an essay appearing in Always Reformed: Essays in Honor

of W. Robert Godfrey. Edited by R. Scott Clark and Joel E. Kim. Escondido: Westminster Seminary California,
2010, 284 pp.

The work under review is Rev. Kim Riddlebarger’s contribution to a book of dedicated essays, know as a festschrift,
honoring the life and work of Dr. W. Robert Godfrey, a minister in the URCNA and current president of
Westminster Seminary California. Rev. Riddlebarger is the pastor of Christ Reformed Church (URCNA) in
Anaheim, California.

While the other essays in this collection are worth reading—I found Dr. Cornelis Venema’s “Preliminary History”
of the URCNA especially interesting—Rev. Riddlebarger’s contribution is particularly helpful and timely. There is a
growing movement in the United Reformed churches toward more frequent, even weekly, celebration of the Lord’s
Supper. For the many URCNA churches that have traditionally practiced quarterly communion, such a move may
seem theologically suspect or simply impractical. Riddlebarger’s aim in this essay is to offer a rationale for weekly
celebration of the Lord’s Supper.

To make his case, Riddlebarger first presents the biblical support for the practice. He concisely and convincingly
shows from the relevant passages (e.g. Acts 2:42, 20:7, 1 Corinthians 11:17-22, 33-34) that “the breaking of bread”,
a phrase denoting celebration of the Lord’s Supper, was an essential element of New Testament worship practiced
whenever the church gathered. Based on the evidence presented, Riddlebarger concludes that weekly communion
was the “universal apostolic practice”. At the conclusion of this section of the essay, Riddlebarger poses these
questions worthy of reflection: “The critical questions then are whether or not contemporary Reformed/Presbyterian
practice matches the apostolic pattern, and if not, why?”

Riddlebarger next examines supporting evidence for weekly communion from early church writings and Reformed
theologians. Descriptions of Christian liturgy by fathers of the Ante-Nicene church, including Justin Martyr and
Tertullian, indicate the early church viewed the Lord’s Supper as central to Christian worship. Riddlebarger notes
that the decision of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 requiring the laity to take communion once a year marked a
move away from the early church’s practice of frequent communion, such that by the time of the Reformation many
believers celebrated the Supper only once a year, on Easter. This practice was detested by the Reformer John Calvin.
Riddlebarger quotes Calvin, who declared “it should have been done far differently: the Lord’s Table should have
been spread at least once a week for the assembly of Christians, and the promises declared in it should feed us
spiritually.” Calvin’s desire to see weekly communion instituted in Geneva is well known. Riddlebarger recounts
how, when the consistory of Geneva limited celebration of the Supper to four times a year, Calvin expressed his
disappointment. Calvin wrote “I have taken care to record publicly that our custom is defective, so that those who
come after me may be able to correct it more freely and easily.” Others cited by Riddlebarger as supporters of
frequent communion are Zacharius Ursinus, principal author of the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Puritans John
Owen and Thomas Goodwin.

Having presented his case from Scripture, with supporting evidence from the early church and Reformed
theologians, Riddlebarger addresses some of the theological and pastoral implications of frequent celebration of the
Supper. Here the author is concerned to show how the rich theology of the Supper in the Reformed Confessions
should point believers in the direction of more frequent celebration, to their comfort and joy. He cites the sections of
the Heidelberg Catechism dealing with the Supper, which describe it as a great benefit and comfort that seals God’s
gospel promises, encourages weak faith and spiritually nourishes the hungry soul. Riddlebarger suggests that
infrequent celebration may indicate a failure to duly consider or fully appreciate the significance of this confession.
Riddlebarger insists that “how one understands the nature of the Lord’s Supper will determine how frequently one
observes it.” He discourages an undue focus on the subjective state of the sinner in preparation for communion,
which can lead to infrequent participation. Instead, the focus should be on the grace of Christ to sinners and the
righteousness imputed to believers by faith in Christ. According to Riddlebarger, a theology of the Supper that is
properly grounded in the objective promises of God to those who partake will naturally lead to more frequent
celebration because the gospel promises are ever new and we are ever in need of confirmation in them. Additionally,
Riddlebarger sees the Supper as a fitting culmination of the preaching of the word as the promises preached become
visible and manifest among the congregation.
Finally, Riddlebarger offers compelling responses to common objections to frequent communion. To the objection
that weekly communion will turn the sacrament into mere routine or ritual, Riddlebarger astutely responds that a
similar objection could be made to weekly preaching, fellowship or prayer. And what about the objection that
weekly communion is too time-consuming or too much work? Riddlebarger grants that more time and work may be
necessary to match the biblical pattern, but insists that such objections are beside the point as they do not address the
strong biblical evidence supporting weekly celebration of the Supper as an essential element of worship.

Rev. Riddlebarger has written a concise and helpful summary of the biblical and historical evidence, as well as the
theological and pastoral reasons, for the practice of weekly celebration of the Lord’s Supper. Those interested in
understanding the rationale for this growing practice in the URCNA would do well to start with this work.