I know that Christians differ on the method and meaning of this ceremony, act of remembrance, sacrament, ordinance, tradition. I mean no offense to anyone and I’m not trying to stir the pot simply to see what floats. I’ve written about this before (where I can’t remember) but I’ve been giving it more thought and now have some fairly firmed up beliefs and some important (to me) questions. Here’s what I’ve been thinking on the subject:
What I believe about Communion
I believe that it is not merely symbolic. However, I also believe it is not physical – I’m pretty sure I would have been aware of it had I been eating human flesh and drinking human blood in a physical sense. I believe it is literal and spiritual.
Because this is the true body and blood of Jesus, I believe a person should not partake unworthily because it is the literal spiritual presence of Jesus. A person who partakes unworthily may suffer because of it. Seriously, read 1 Cor. 11:17-34 and see what I mean. There is power here and not some empty ritual. There are serious repercussions for not taking this seriously. It says that someone that partakes unworthily, is not “discerning the Lord’s body.” (v.29)
That said, I still believe that Communion should be open to all. I may be wrong here, but I see no Scriptural evidence that it is the job of a church to keep out those who might partake unworthily. Rather, it is up to the individual to “examine himself” (verse twenty-eight) and God’s job to deal with the people when they don’t. The church should instruct, should warn, should admonish - and then open the doors. (I have some reservations here. What if a professing non-Christian wants to partake? Y’know? Someone who makes no pretensions at Christianity? I’m not sure.)
Questions I have about Communion
If I attend a church which believes that the Lord’s Supper is only a symbolic gesture, is the body and blood of Jesus still present? On the one hand, if God is God, then why should it depend on my belief? He exists independently of my belief. He doesn’t need my permission for anything. Then again, we are talking about a kind of miracle and Jesus was unable to perform many miracles where there was unbelief. (Matthew chapter thirteen, verse fifty-eight)
Is there a correct form for the bread and wine? Compressed wafer? Manischewitz? Matzoh? Wonderbread? Does grape juice work? Does it have to be a shared cup or are little “shot” glasses OK?
When/how does the miracle happen? Does a special blessing need to be said by a special person?
Can anyone serve the bread and wine? Does it have to be an ordained clergyman? Could my believing husband ask a blessing, say the words, break the bread and pass the wine? In our own home and at any time? Can a woman serve? If not, why not? Can she serve to other women? In the absence of qualified men?
What does partaking of the Lord’s supper do to/for the partaker. Paul says that when we eat the Lord’s supper, we “show the Lord’s death till he come.”
June 26, 2008 at 1:15 pm |
The people at my dad’s church always “complained” that the unleavened bread my mom made for communion tasted too much like apple pie crust and distracted them during the Lord’s Supper:-).
Speaking for the reformed presbyterian position, only those who make a profession of faith and are in good standing at any church can take communion (meaning that they can’t be under church discipline), but they don’t go around asking people. It is given out as an admonition along with other instructions. I always appreciate that our church gives out a guide the week before communion (we have it about twice a month) so that members can be preparing through out the week.
We also believe that the Lord’s Table is a means of grace. This is not a substitution for salvation, but that it brings to mind all the benefits that of salvation through the work of Christ and it is renewing your faith again–sort of say “yes, this is what I am believe”. We believe that Christ is present spiritually in the elements.
We also believe that only an ordained minister can administer the elements, though all the reasons slip my mind right now. Part of the reason, is that it is considered part of congregational worship (“when you come together”) so it is not something that individuals do as part of their private and family worship. Another part is that the elements are prayed over and blessed and in a congregational setting this can be done only by an ordained minister (like I said this is reformed presbyterian point of view and they are very big on ordination).
One big question in reformed circles right now is when can children participate in the Lord’s Table. Some want infants to be able to participate. Others want the child to be able to give a credible profession of faith before they participate. It all centers around what does discerning the Lord’s body mean.
I’m glad that you think about all these things and ask questions. Gives me things to think about.
June 26, 2008 at 1:16 pm |
Okay, I don’t know where the winking dude came from.
June 26, 2008 at 7:16 pm |
hmmm. Reformed, huh? Thanks, Leigh Ann.
Regarding the winking dude (I rewrote that three times because it kept coming out dirty sounding – is it just me?): in my post I had to write out the verse numbers because wordpress kept thinking I wanted to insert a smiley with sunglasses.
June 27, 2008 at 4:06 pm |
Luther once famously said that the devil himself could distribute the Sacrament and it would remain the Sacrament.
I guess there was some concern from the people who were receiving communion from corrupt priests and they were worried that they weren’t really receiving the Sacrament. The Eucharist is the Eucharist not because of who is distributing it, but because Christ himself instituted it and promises to be present in it. (“This do as oft as you drink of it in remembrance of me”)
On the other hand, I agree with Leigh Ann that only called and ordained servants should administer the Sacrament, because it is to them that this task has been given (first given to his apostles and now to his servants who are called by him through the Church). We shouldn’t usurp for ourselves that which God has not called us to do.
I don’t think the manner in which the Sacrament is distributed (ie. wine vs. grape juice, etc.) is as important as the understanding of what the sacrament actually IS (ie. symbolic or True Presence). I also don’t think that the bread and wine “turn into” body and blood – isn’t that transubstantiation? We (Lutherans) say that the body and blood is truly present in, with and under the bread and wine. How and when that is accomplished Scripture doesn’t say. Sorry, that’s not terribly helpful, is it?
Close (also known as closed) Communion was the practise of the early church – those who were not yet baptized were not admitted to the table. (Isn’t there a description of this somewhere in Acts?) I, personally, am convicted that I should not take communion where I do not share the same understanding of the Lord’s Supper. Communion denotes (I think) not just communion with our Saviour, but also with each other. I’m not trying to be standoffish, but I personally could not take communion in a place that didn’t recognize the True Presence – that to me would be like publicly saying that I agreed that it was just symbolic, you know? And I couldn’t do that because the body and blood of the Lord is too precious to me to just blow it off like that. I don’t know if that makes sense or not.
Also, how do I make a smiley guy with sunglasses??
June 27, 2008 at 5:42 pm |
Anita, Could you show me where the bible describes that only ordained ministers can do this? Thanks!
and thanks to both of you for such thoughtful answers!
June 27, 2008 at 8:17 pm |
The gospel accounts of the Last Supper establish that it was to the disciples that Jesus gave his command to celebrate his Supper. I would recommend reading through each of the accounts of the Last Supper in the Matthew, Mark and Luke. There’s details in each that complete the picture – Mark’s gospel establishes that it was the Twelve (that is, the apostles) that were present; Matthew, Mark and Luke’s accounts speak of the meal as a covenant; Luke’s account record Jesus’ command to “do this in remembrance of me”.
It is to Jesus’ called servants that he gives the keys of the church. The office of the keys is the authority that Christ has given to the church to forgive and retain sins. This is described in John 20:22 when Jesus breathes on the disciples to give them the Holy Spirit. Jesus himself establishes that the sacrament confers forgiveness of sins (This is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins), which is the provenance of the church, through her called and ordained servants.
I have a post just about finished about how Jesus calls his servants. I should have it up later this weekend – it may explain a little more about the whole “call” process.
June 27, 2008 at 8:29 pm |
OK, that’ll be a good study for the weekend. Thank you!
June 27, 2008 at 8:29 pm |
Stop the presses! I just checked with my husband (he is a lay minister) and he says that the pastor told him that although it is the “job” of the church, through her called servants, to administer the sacraments, a lay person may, in case of emergency, administer them also. The reason that it is preferred that not just anybody do it, is that it might hurt the consciences of those receiving it (they may worry that it was not done “properly”). Kind of like what Luther was getting at with his devil analogy.
June 27, 2008 at 9:04 pm |
aaahhhh. I see. Still gonna be a good study.
June 27, 2008 at 9:58 pm |
I haven’t done the reading yet. I will and I’ll be back with my thoughts but there’s something bugging me.
Anita, you know I love you and your words are always honest and kind. Please understand that I am not picking on you but expressing some very emotionally charged muddled thoughts for which I have very little outlet.
Without saying whether it is correct or not (because I don’t know), I must say that I HATE the fact that Christians don’t/can’t all receive Communion together. Yes, I’ve read the LCMS literature about being confessional and it doesn’t help me. It hurts me that anyone would turn to a brother in Christ and say, “Yes, you are my brother. I know you are a Christian. We are of the same Body. You may not receive the Lord’s supper with me.” It doesn’t make sense to me to claim that all Christians are part of Christ’s body and then say they can’t partake of that body. Who has the right to withhold Jesus?
I guess I’m also sad because there is no church with which I fully agree. No church whose “confession” I can completely embrace.
June 27, 2008 at 10:34 pm |
Hey, I just noticed that in all the gospel accounts but John, Judas seems to be present during the breaking of the bread and passing the wine. Jesus indicates the betrayer, but only in the gospel of John does Judas leave and even there it is unclear at what point that is during the meal.
Regarding John 20:22, when Jesus gives the Holy Ghost and gives the power to forgive sins, it seems to me to be saying that his disciples were present, but not necessarily only the twelve alone. It does indicate that Thomas, one of the twelve, was absent (and then present the next time), but I think that is to indicate who Thomas is.
I guess I should clarify. References like the following indicate many disciples – at least 120, but IMO, probably more. John 6:66; Luke 6:13; Acts 1:15.
June 27, 2008 at 10:48 pm |
I think the smiley guy with sunglasses has something to do with the number eight. Let’s see…
June 28, 2008 at 10:16 am |
Ah, Sara. I understand, I do. Having to keep a brother from the sacrament saddens me too. It hurts me terribly that their are whole groups of Christians who reject the body and blood of Christ and all the blessings that the sacrament confers to the believer. But I still have a responsibility to those Christians to say “Brother, I love you and I do not want you to unknowingly bring condemnation on yourself by receiving the sacrament unworthily. Please refrain from receiving it until you can be properly instructed as to what you are receiving in the meal.” Those Christians who do not believe Christ’s own words that in the meal his body and blood are “given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins” – who in fact reject this notion – ARE receiving the meal unworthily and bringing judgement on themselves. To allow a brother to put his soul, even unknowingly, in danger is not a loving thing to do.
Unfortunately the pastor can’t tell just by looking at a person who does and who doesn’t receive the meal worthily and in faith – that’s just not possible. So we rely on the common confession of faith as the standard. It’s not a perfect system. I’m absolutely sure that there are folks within my own congregation who have been instructed and have publicly confirmed that they believe in the True Presence…but in their heart of hearts they don’t. Why they would even want to receive the sacrament under those circumstances I don’t know, but they do, and they do so to the judgment of their souls. On the other hand, if you were to show up at my church you would not be permitted to take the sacrament without first speaking to the pastor or an elder. You would be kept from the sacrament (until your “position” so to speak was known) even though your confession (stated here) regarding the meal is fully orthodox. So, yeah, it doesn’t always work the way it should, but it’s done with the best of intentions and, I might add, done out of a scriptural belief that pastors are stewards of the mysteries of God and carry a responsibility as to who should be admitted to the Sacrament.
I hope this doesn’t sound like I think I know all the answers. I don’t – far from it! I have all sorts of questions myself about the sacrament.
Did I tell you that about two months ago Brent stopped receiving Communion? He is going through a real period of testing and is experiencing serious doubts about what he has been taught and what he believes. He said until he is able to resolve his doubts he feels that he shouldn’t take communion. As you can imagine, this is absolutely devastating news for Ken and I. And yet, I take heart in the fact that, out of concern for his soul, he refrains from receiving the sacrament lest he bring judgment on himself. That to me is an indication that he does not out and out reject what the Lord offers…but clearly his faith has been weakened. The irony, of course is, that Christ instituted the Sacrament for the very purpose of strengthening and increasing our faith. Sigh. It’s been hard for us as you can imagine…
June 28, 2008 at 8:08 pm |
Thanks, Anita. and I am so sorry to hear of Brent’s struggles.
I have a lot more questions about this than I thought I did but maybe I’ll sit on them a while.