Why I Insist On Preaching It

Why I Insist On Preaching Constant Communion

In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and because he is coming to rule as King, I solemnly urge you to preach the message, to insist upon proclaiming it (whether the time is right or not), to convince, reproach, and encourage, as you teach with all patience. The time will come when people will not listen to sound doctrine, but will follow their own desires and will collect for themselves more and more teachers who will tell them what they are itching to hear. (2 Timothy 4:1—13. Good News Bible)

Insisting on proclaiming the message, even if it is not right timing—this is the basic role a preacher does. A true preacher of the Word of God will insist on preaching what the Holy Scriptures say, even if it is unpopular, even if it is “not the right time”. If preachers waited for the “right time” to preach “unpopular” doctrines, the right time will never come, because every time now has become the wrong time. For the time has NOW indeed come when people no longer listen to sound doctrine, and are now following their own desires and will collect for themselves more and more teachers—popular speakers who will tell them what they are itching to hear.

In this day and age, preaching against divorce and homosexuality has become “legalistic.” Preaching on the necessity of church discipline and tithing are “works salvation”. Insisting on using a liturgy for worship is seen as “dead ritualism”.  As Leonard Ravenhill observed, “When there's something in the Bible that churches don't like, they call it 'legalism.'”

That is why the accusation of “legalism” against those who preach the spiritual necessity of constant communion manifests the latent antinomianism of (as the late Rev. John Stott called them) “those who have no biblical convictions or theology to govern and direct their actions”. Yet these same antinomians appear oh-so-very “biblical” and “scriptural” as they oppose those who desire to preach the “whole counsel of God.”

One particular antinomian, in fact, said that what should be preached should be the centrality of the Holy Scriptures in worship. I agree, of course, but even though I should always preach on the centrality of God's Word in worship as a means of grace, I should also continue to insistently preach about the spiritual necessity of constant communion. In fact, the mere principle of the centrality of the Holy Scriptures demands the practice of constant communion.

The Divine Inspiration of Holy Scripture

All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching the truth, rebuking error, correcting faults, and giving instruction for right living, so that the person who serves God may be fully qualified and equipped to do every kind of good deed. (2 Timothy 3:16-17, GNB)

The reason we should always preach on the centrality of God's Word in worship as a means of grace is because this is the primary means b y which we receive the grace of saving faith.

So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. (Romans 10:17)[1]

People tend to think that faith is primarily an activity of the human will. In fact, many self-proclaimed “Arminians” defend the concept of free will because they believe that unless the will is free, no one could choose to believe—to decide to have faith. Unfortunately, it is NOT an Arminian doctrine that faith is a result of the free will choosing to believe, or “deciding to receive Christ”.

… in his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, of and by himself, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really good; but it is necessary for him to be regenerated and renewed in his intellect, affections or will, and in all his powers, by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, that he may be qualified rightly to understand, esteem, consider, will, and perform whatever is truly good. …

In reference to Divine Grace, I believe, … It is an infusion (both into the human understanding and into the will and affections,) of all those gifts of the Holy Spirit which appertain to the regeneration and renewing of man — such as faith, hope, charity, etc.; for, without these gracious gifts, man is not sufficient to think, will, or do any thing that is good. (A Declaration of the Sentiments of Arminius, by James Arminius, of course[!])

James Arminius, like all the early Protestants, believed that faith was an infused gift from God, and not a “decision” made by the will. In fact, it is faith that frees the will: without the infused faith, there is NO free will. This is why John Wesley, the Anglican Arminian, would say after his Aldersgate experience,

… whatever faith is, … , we are justified by faith alone. But how it can be called a good work, I see not: It [faith] is the gift of God; and a gift that presupposes nothing in us, but sin and misery.

… by justifying faith I mean, a conviction wrought in man by the Holy Ghost, that Christ hath loved him, and given himself for him; and that, through Christ, his sins are forgiven.[2]

Faith, then, in classical Arminian theology IS NOT a decision, but a gift from God. And this gift of “Faith, indeed, ordinarily cometh by hearing; even by hearing the word of God”[3], the word of Christ. This is why we should always preach on the centrality of God's Word in worship as a means of grace, for faith itself is a form of grace, prevenient grace. And since it is only through faith that we receive other forms of grace (Ephesians 2:8), it is imperative that people continually hear the word of God in the Holy Scriptures, and especially the Word of Christ (himself the Word made flesh) in the Gospels.

… the Holy Scriptures, which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (2 Tim. 3:15b, GNB)

This is one of the reasons why the lectionary is so very important. The readings from the Old Testament, the Psalms, the Epistles, and the Gospels ensure a balanced diet of God’s Word that properly infuses faith into those who hear the word being read and preached. That is why Peter Bohler told John Wesley before his Aldersgate experience, “Preach faith till you have it; and then, because you have it, you will preach faith.” Faith is something gained through listening to the Word of God preached, IT IS NOT THE DECISION TO FOLLOW CHRIST. It is faith that gives us the ability to decide to follow Christ.

“In England, however, there is nothing of this kind; no layman permitted to speak in public.” No! Can you be ignorant, that in an hundred churches they do it continually? In how many (particularly in the west of England) does the parish clerk read one of the Lessons? (In some he reads the whole Service of the Church, perhaps every Lord’s day.) And do not other laymen constantly do the same thing, yea, in our very cathedrals? which, being under the more immediate inspection of the Bishops, should be patterns to all other churches.

Perhaps it will be said, “But this is not preaching.” Yes, but it is essentially such. For what is it to preach, but praedicare verbum Dei; “to publish the word of God?” And this laymen do all over England; particularly under the eye of every Bishop in the nation.[4]

Based on what John Wesley wrote, even reading the Scripture lessons can be considered “preaching” the Word of God. Therefore, the public reading of the Lectionary is in the above sense preaching already. A person then need not make and deliver a sermon in order to preach. One time, John Wesley wanted Edward Perronet (the composer of “All Hail the Power of Jesus’ Name”) to preach, and Mr. Perronet (who at that time was so afraid of preaching in front of Rev. Wesley) finally got up and said, “I will now deliver the greatest sermon ever preached on earth,” read the Sermon on the Mount, then sat down.

If we come to later times: Was Mr. Calvin ordained? Was he either Priest or Deacon? And were not most of those whom it pleased God to employ in promoting the Reformation abroad, laymen also? Could that great work have been promoted at all in many places, if laymen had not preached? And yet how seldom do the very Papists urge this as an objection against the Reformation!

So, for the Rev. Wesley, even if one just read the Sermon on the Mount, that would be still preaching, and this becomes the means whereby faith is given to the hearers. This is why he eventually allowed lay preachers, because FAITH IS NOT A DECISION MADE BY THE FREE WILL BUT THE GIFT OF GOD GIVEN THROUGH PREACHING THAT FREES THE HUMAN WILL.

Because ALL Scripture is inspired by God, anyone who hears Scripture can similarly be inspired by God’s Spirit and have faith infused into the hearer.

Correct Doctrine is Not Determined by Majority Vote!

So what does this have to do with preaching the necessity of constant communion? EVERYTHING! For it is God’s Word, Christ himself, who says that constant communion is a necessity. Yet despite this very fact, many would ignore it and carry on with their own works and accuse believers in constant communion as “legalists.”

I myself was told several times[5] that by insisting on the necessity of constant communion I was “forcing” my own way against the desires of the majority. Let the annual conference, or even a district conference decide to implement constant communion, but I must not “make decisions against the majority”.

But since when has the majority been the main and primary arbiter of correct doctrine? The entire point of preaching the centrality of God's Word in worship as a means of grace, means public opinion—the majority vote—does NOT make a doctrine either right or wrong.

Take for instance Christ’s teaching on divorce: it is abundantly clear from the Gospels that CHRIST WAS AGAINST DIVORCE. And yet people in church think that the Philippines ought to finally allow divorce. SO WHAT IF THE MAJORITY OF LAWMAKERS THINK DIVORCE IS NECESSARY, JESUS CHRIST WAS AGAINST IT! Even when Christ allowed divorce in cases of marital infidelity, Christ did not allow the divorced parties to marry other people. Take a look at what Christ said:

Matthew 5:31-32 “It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

Mark 10:11-12 And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

In most cases, the real reason why UMCers in the Philippines want a Divorce Law, is not really because their spouse is abusive or unfaithful, but because they themselves are and want to marry their lovers. And in cases of actual spousal abuse, sure, go ahead and divorce, but do not marry anyone else. Christ was clear on this! And yet how many would ignore his exact words for their own convenience. The point is, young people ought to be taught NOT to choose potentially abusive spouses rather than allowing divorce. An ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure.

Another example that shows that public opinion does not make a doctrine either right or wrong is the issue of homosexuality. Proponents of it was that Christ said nothing directly against homosexuality, right? Even if you told them that the apostle Paul wrote that:

Have you not known that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not led astray: neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9)

                                          

—they tell us that because Christ did not “specifically” say anything against homosexuality then it is “legalistic” to say that homosexuals who reject the grace of repentance and actively justify their sin will not enter the kingdom of God.[6] “Only Paul said it, not Jesus Christ! So, it does not have to be believed” and “Thousands of homosexual and lesbian Christians could not be wrong!”

SO WHAT IF THE MAJORITY VOTES THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A SIN, IF THE HOLY SPIRIT INSPIRED BOTH MOSES AND ST. PAUL TO WRITE THAT IT IS A SIN, IT IS A SIN! Make homosexual marriage legal, it is still a sin in the eyes of God! Ah, but insist on that, and you are “legalistic”!

Some time before I became a pastor, someone told me that the “real” reason I am against homosexuality is because I had a bad experience with them. That may be, BUT THE REAL REASON I AM AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY IS BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAYS IT IS A SIN. I tried to explain to this person, but he just kept on insisting that is was just a personal distaste, and that if I get to know “good gays”, I will change my mind about homosexuality being a sin.

That is why I was not surprised when THIS SAME PERSON said that my advocacy of constant communion was just similarly “a personal thing”. No, telling him that the UMC General Conference says that constant communion is a necessary part of discipleship, or that the Scriptures show the early Christians having holy communion every day, he still says I am insisting on my own way.[7]

So what, then, if the majority do not like having weekly Eucharist? Does their not wanting it make them right? No it does not! It just shows how far they are from the will of God. IF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES SHOW THAT DAILY COMMUNION WAS THE NORM AMONG EARLY CHRISTIANS, THEN SURELY WEEKLY COMMUNION IS NOT EXCESSIVE NOR “LEGALISTIC”.

The Necessity of Preaching an Unpopular Truth

The most important reason we should also continue to insistently preach about the spiritual necessity of constant communion is because pastors must not refrain from preaching an unpopular doctrine but rather insist upon preaching it.

Probably one our Lord Jesus Christ’s most unpopular sermon was his “I Am the Bread of Life” homily in S. John 6. Even when the people in that Synagogue in Capernaum were already indicating that his words were unwelcome, CHRIST INSISTED ON PREACHING HIS BEING THE BREAD OF LIFE.

The people started grumbling about him, because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven." So they said, "This man is Jesus son of Joseph, isn't he? We know his father and mother. How, then, does he now say he came down from heaven?"

Jesus answered, “Stop grumbling among yourselves. People cannot come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them to me; and I will raise them to life on the last day. The prophets wrote, 'Everyone will be taught by God.' Anyone who hears the Father and learns from him comes to me. This does not mean that anyone has seen the Father; he who is from God is the only one who has seen the Father.”

“I am telling you the truth: he who believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate manna in the desert, but they died.  But the bread that comes down from heaven is of such a kind that whoever eats it will not die.

“I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If you eat this bread, you will live forever. The bread that I will give you is my flesh, which I give so that the world may live.”

This started an angry argument among them. "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" they asked. (S. John 6:41—52, GNB)

Take note: even when Jesus saw that his words were beginning to offend his hearers, CHRIST DID NOT STOP INSISTING HE WAS THE BREAD OF LIFE. He tells them that which the Reformers—Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, Arminian—already knew, no one can come and accept Christ unless God gives them the ability to do so. Then Christ becomes more offensively graphic, prompting a disgusted aunbelief. Christ then says the now famous words (verses 53 to 58, GNB) which is the basis for the necessity of constant communion.

Jesus said to them, “I am telling you the truth: if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you will not have life in yourselves. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them to life on the last day. For my flesh is the real food; my blood is the real drink. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood live in me, and I live in them.

“The living Father sent me, and because of him I live also. In the same way whoever eats me will live because of me. This, then, is the bread that came down from heaven; it is not like the bread that your ancestors ate, but then later died. Those who eat this bread will live forever.”

That our Lord Jesus Christ did not refrain from preaching his “Bread of Life” doctrine shows that pastors must not refrain from preaching this as well, even though this is truly an unpopular doctrine. Just as Christ insisted on preaching this in Capernaum, in the same way pastors ought not desist but rather insist upon preaching the doctrine of constant communion.

But does the passage quoted above really refer to Holy Communion? And even if it does, where is it said that one should receive Holy Communion as often as possible? To answer these questions, it is necessary to remember that because the Holy Spirit inspires ALL Scriptures, one cannot narrow the context of a particular passage that excludes similar phraseology. In other words, I do not believe that it was a coincidence that Jesus talks about the necessity of eating his flesh and drinking his blood at least a year before he breaks bread and calls it his flesh, and blesses a cup he calls his blood.

Furthermore, take note of the context of the sermon itself: Christ delivered it just before Passover (S. John 6:4). Then take note of the context of the Last Supper: it was a Passover meal. Contextually, when Jesus asked his disciples to break bread and drink wine in remembrance of him, he was not asking them to remember his death which has not yet occurred. Is it not possible that he was asking them to remember his words that he spoke about a year ago in the Synagogue of Capernaum?

What if the Capernaum homily on the “Bread of Life” was Christ predicting the spiritual necessity of the Lord’s Supper he was to institute about a year later? It is highly possible, since he also spoke of the necessity of his sacrificial death three years before he actually died on the cross (S. John 2:13—3:21), first at the Temple and then to Nicodemus. Again, the similarity of the phraseology of the Capernaum discourse and the Last Supper is uncanny. FOR IN BOTH CHRIST TALKS ABOUT EATING HIS FLESH AND DRINKING HIS BLOOD.

Where then does the necessity of receiving Holy Communion as often as one can come from in this passage. Common sense: How often does one have to eat normal food to stay alive? Apparently, every day. And that is HOW Christ’s own apostles—S. Peter and the rest—understood the command to eat the bread of life. For we read in Acts 2:42 and 46,

And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. … And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their food with gladness and singleness of heart, …

If we take into account the greater context of the Scriptures, a consistency that exists because it is God who inspires ALL Scriptures, we know from 1 Corinthians 10:16 that THE BREAKING OF BREAD IS NOT A PHRASE DESCRIBING A “NORMAL” MEAL, BUT AN ACT OF WORSHIP. The phrase “breaking bread” was never used to describe a common meal in the New Testament, but was always a phrase that described the Lord’s Supper.

As I already noted elsewhere, Acts 2:42 is the proof that the liturgy used by liturgical churches is actually Scriptural! We find the Liturgy of the Word—the devotions to the apostles’ teaching (preaching) and the fellowship. Then afterwards was the Liturgy of the Eucharist—where bread is broken and prayers said—in fact, the precursor to the Eucharistic prayer known as “The Great Thanksgiving”, which would be immediately followed by the Lord’s Prayer and other prayers of thanksgiving after all had partaken of the consecrated bread and wine. The Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist—every day.

Again: THE EARLY NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTIANS CELEBRATED HOLY COMMUNION EVERY DAY. Once a week, by New Testaments standards, is infrequent! The actual apostles of Jesus Christ himself interpreted the command Christ gave to break bread and bless the cup in memory of him as a daily obedience. Why else would the Apostle Peter and the rest of the Twelve have the newly converted Jews at Pentecost celebrate Holy Communion every day, unless this was sanctioned by the Holy Spirit himself? Maybe the phrase “Give us this day our DAILY BREAD” gave them a hint as to how frequent they were to eat the “Bread of Life”, I don’t know, but what is clear, THE APOSTLES BROKE BREAD EVERY DAY.

Is it then therefore wrong to insist on something be done so regularly because Christ’s own Apostles, UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, interpreted Christ’s command to break bread and drink from the cup of blessing as a daily duty? THIS ESPECIALLY SINCE OUR ETERNAL LIFE IS DEPENDENT ON IT?

In our day and age, where most people (influenced by the pantheistic philosophy that comes from thinkers like Hegel) think that God’s grace can be automatically absorbed, IT IS EXTREMELY NECESSARY TO PREACH THIS UNFORTUNATELY UNPOPULAR DOCTRINE, that unless we eat what Christ calls his flesh and drink what he calls his blood, we have NO life in ourselves.

Conclusion: Why I Insist On Preaching the Necessity of Constant Communion

So you can see that if we believe that we should preach on the centrality of God's Word in worship as a means of grace, then we should also continue to insistently preach about the spiritual necessity of constant communion. For it is not enough that we receive faith through hearing the Word preach, but that faith was intended as the channel of more grace. We have to do what the Word tells us to do, and that frequently.

S. Luke 6:46 (ESV) “Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord,' and not do what I tell you?”

S. James 1:22 (ESV) But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.

Romans 2:13 (ESV) For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

One of the most immediate thing we can do during worship wherein we not only hear the word but also do it as soon as we hear it is when we eat bread and drink the cup to recall our Lord Jesus Christ.

Pastors, and laypeople as well, have to preach this neglected but very important doctrine. Firstly, it has been shown that public opinion does not make a doctrine either right or wrong. The majority is not always right, and the voice of the people is NOT and NEVER will be the voice of God. The voice of God is found ONLY in the Holy Scriptures, the same Bible that tells us that Christians celebrate Holy Communion every day.

But most importantly, pastors must not refrain from preaching the unpopular doctrine of the necessity of constant communion but rather insist upon preaching it even as our Lord Jesus Christ insisted that it was necessary for receiving eternal life to eat his flesh and drink his blood.

… preach the message, to INSIST upon proclaiming it (whether the time is right or not)…

Why should the message of constant communion be proclaimed insistently, even when it seems like bad timing? Because once saved is NOT always saved.

As our bodies are strengthened by bread and wine, so are our souls by these tokens of the body and the blood of Christ. This is the food of our souls: This gives strength to perform our duty, and leads us on to perfection. If, therefore, we have any regard for the plain command of Christ, if we desire the pardon of our sins, if we wish for strength to believe, to love and obey God, then we should neglect no opportunity of receiving the Lord’s Supper; then we must never turn our backs on the feast which our Lord has prepared for us. We must neglect no occasion, which the good providence of God affords us, for this purpose. This is the true rule: So often are we to receive as God gives us opportunity.[8]

… a Christian can lose the Christ-life which has been put into him, and he has to make efforts to keep it. But even the best Christian that ever lived is not acting on his own steam—he is only nourishing or protecting a life he could never have acquired by his own efforts. And that has practical consequences. …

… this new life is spread not only by purely mental acts like belief, but by bodily acts like baptism and Holy Communion. It is not merely the spreading of an idea; it is more like evolution—a biological or super-biological fact. There is no good trying to be more spiritual than God. God never meant man to be a purely spiritual creature. That is why He uses material things like bread and wine to put the new life into us. We may think this rather crude and unspiritual. God does not: He invented eating. He likes matter. He invented it.[9]

The primary way to maintain the eternal life Christians receive from Jesus Christ through Baptism is through the Proclamation of the “pure Word of God” and Holy Communion. There is no getting around this. THOSE WHO DO NOT RECEIVE HOLY COMMUNION AS OFTEN AS THEY CAN ARE IN DANGER OF LOSING THE ETERNAL LIFE THEY HAD ONCE RECEIVED.

---

[1] Yep! This is getting to be my most favorite catchphrase.

[2] John Wesley, in his conversation with the Bishop of Bristol in 1739, in defense of his outdoor preaching.

[3] Wesley, Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament, Romans 10:17n.

[4] Wesley, A Farther Appeal Men of Reason and Religion, Paragraph 13.

[5] Since apparently, mine own brothers do not read my blog, and since my youngest brother has already decided to leave the UMC (my twin brother already having left), I state here that my own brothers accuse me of legalism and on insisting “my own way” in worship, of “making the congregation hate coming to church more.” When I tell them that the principle of constant communion was not mine own, but a principle shared by Luther, Calvin, Arminius, and John Wesley, one told me “I disagree with some of what our Christian giants say as well.” So, ok, who then decides what you believe, huh? Yourself? When I tell them that constant communion is the rooted in the Holy Scriptures, and is in fact commanded there, and that ALL of the above mentioned Protestant Reformers interpreted the Scriptures as requiring constant communion, they accuse me of fanaticism. They side with those who disagree with me publicly, thereby giving those who would bully me another weapon to use against me, “Not even his brothers believed in him!” Indeed, with brothers like them, who needs enemies? (>_<) To paraphrase Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, my words may well be bitter, for bitter is my lot, and bitter my thoughts as I feel the bitter feelings of my thrice unhappy wife when VIPs use the fact that mine own brothers are against me as an excuse for the bad treatment I and my family get: no cost of living allowance, no child support, no transportation allowance (and yet I am required to visit people in far flung places!), and no respect as people do not refer to me as “pastor” at all but as “Jordan”. But then again, mine own brothers think they know better than me, one who spells “Arminian” as “Armenian” and another who disagrees with what “our Christian giants say” when it does not fit an individualistically tailored theology that borders on Antinomian Semi-Pelagianism!

[6] In the same way, critics of constant communion say that Christ said nothing “specifically” about the frequency of Holy Communion. So even if the Acts of the Apostles report that the apostles interpreted Christ’s command to break bread in remembrance of him as a daily occurrence, as long as Jesus said nothing, then its nothing. 

[7] This person wrote to me, “ideally, you pastors and i should be working TOGETHER. but you choose NOT to. my vision for the church has been formed with the help of my former pastors -- pastors who did NOT shy from engaging themselves in the life of their flock.” Take note, he accuses me of not working with him on his vision for the church. So I tell him that constant communion is not my vision for the church, but the UMC’s vision, a vision that Luther, Calvin and Wesley shared.

“It was NEVER about your or my "vision for the church has been formed with the help of my former pastors", but about the basic meaning of loyalty to the UMC and to her official expressions. You mistakenly thought that constant communion was merely MY idea. As the meme which started this all so aptly said "John Wesley Is NOT Impressed". We might as well add Luther and Calvin, for they say the same thing. Yes, there are many who ride the "high horse" of constant communion, and not just me.”

And just what exactly is this Very Important Person’s vision for the church. If his track record is any indication, it means having choral concerts in place of preaching. Like, hey! We already had an “Easter” celebration where there was no preaching, just one long musical concert. Yeah, that’s probably the vision he is talking about. If I choose not to work with his vision, it is because his “vision” is not the vision of the UMC, norof the Christian Church, where “a song in itself” is not what God requires. Of course, this VIP would probably get really furious I just quoted him, but hey, NO ONE READS MY BLOG ANYWAY! I record this for posterity, so future generations will know that not everyone during the early 21^st century was a believer in consumerist and individualistic worship, that there were still some who values God’s Word and obeying it. Not everyone idolized this self-important prig who thinks that he is better than everyone else!

[8] John Wesley, Sermon 101: The Duty of Constant Communion. 

[9] C.S. Lewis, “The Practical Conclusion,” Mere Christianity. This is one of those areas where my brothers think that “Christian giants” can be wrong, “If the modern spiritual giants can be wrong, so can Lewis and Wesley... but don't get me wrong. Not all the time, just in some contexts.” So, for my brothers, not only John Wesley and C.S. Lewis were wrong about the necessity of constant communion, but so were Martin Luther and John Calvin. Yep, in THAT context, these “Christian giants” were sure legalistic[?]. And because I believe the same way as Luther, Calvin, Wesley, and Lewis, my brothers accuse ME of idolizing these Christian giants! Riiiiiiiight, suuuuuuuuuure… fact is, (and they won’t admit it), is that both of them have become so antinomian, that ANYTHING they do not like in the Bible “smacks of legalism”!