Invitation to discussion: communion
karen pritchard
This past Good Friday a group from my church got together for an observance
of the meaning of the day. We were disappointed because our church was not
going to have a special service. I help organize the service. I suggested
that we hold a communion. The idea was vetoed because (according to one
person) communion must be given by an elder or the paster (who is also an
elder) I do not believe this is true but said nothing because I hadn't
researched the topic. Since then I have read through the NT but can't find
anything pertaining to just who should be "in charge" of communion. Are there
really rules & regs in the bible or is it just church tradition or is this
friend just plain wrong. Somebody please enlighten me. Thanks.
Karen Pritchard Kpri...@uga.cc.uga.edu
JON...@gacsrv.gactr.uga.edu
> The idea was vetoed because (according to one
> person) communion must be given by an elder or the paster (who is also an
> elder) I do not believe this is true but said nothing because I hadn't
> researched the topic. Since then I have read through the NT but can't find
> anything pertaining to just who should be "in charge" of communion. Are there
> really rules & regs in the bible or is it just church tradition or is this
> friend just plain wrong. Somebody please enlighten me. Thanks.
Karen,
I have wondered the same thing. This is a good and valid point.
I was always taught that the pastor and deacons (in the Baptist
churches) were to administer communion. Several years ago, my now-
wife, then girlfriend and I were involved with a group who had a
Christian"coffee house" on Friday nights at a local yogurt and
sandwich shop (The Old Yogurt's Last Stand, UGA gang). On New Year's
eve we had an all-night praise and worship/fellowship night and we had
communion. At first I was a bit shocked, and reluctant. I didn't
participate. But later, I began to research this point. I have
concluded that we can have a communion any time, any place, anywhere
and with whatever is available. Jesus said "Do this in rememberance of
me". Paul gave some guidelines about the observance, about not taking
it unworthily, and with sin in your heart. But as far as anyone
blessing it, or somehow validating it, I just cant see it. The
eucharist is validated in our hearts and by our attitude upon
receiving it.
We had communion in our Protestant wedding, in a charismatic church.
I felt it was a very special time of consecration to the Lord, and to
each other. At first I was hesitant to do it, but then I realized
that it was my heart-attitude that made it right, and consecrated the
act.
I hope Im not offending the RCC brethren. I do so admire your zeal
and your love of the Eucharist, and I share your reverence for it. I
do realize that your understanding is that the priest plays an active
role in blessing the elements, I suppose for transubstantiation?
Yesterday I posted my wish that we in Protestant circles could share
the same zeal and reverence for communion, if not the theology that
our more liturgical brothers and sisters have.
However, Karen: I do believe that you were right in submitting to the
authority of your pastor in this matter. If it would cause division,
then it should not go forward.
Just some thoughts.........Mark
J. Mark Jones, Accounting Manager
Georgia Center For Continuing Education
The University of Georgia
Athens, Georgia USA
John 16:33
Don Roberts
>This past Good Friday a group from my church got together for an observance
>of the meaning of the day. We were disappointed because our church was not
>going to have a special service. I help organize the service. I suggested
>person) communion must be given by an elder or the paster (who is also an
>elder) I do not believe this is true but said nothing because I hadn't
>researched the topic.
Biblically, I have to agree, I see nothing saying you can't do it anytime
anywhere with anyone, just follow Paul's guidelines. But then what do I know,
after all I don't see the transubstantiation biblically either :-) (RCC's: this
is NOT intended as RCC bashing, ok?).
The Lutheran church (in general), allows non-pastors to administer communion
but requires a pastor oversee it. This is the practice at my own church.
Personally I think if someones heart is right, there is no problem. Having a
pastor oversee ensures the occasion be given the proper reverence, since it is
VERY special in the life of a believer.
Regarding liturgical (we should probably have a topic on this). The Lutherans
are HISTORICALLY very liturgical, but in recent years more and more churches
are inserting "contemporary non-liturgical" services into their worship. This,
in my view, is negative, as I am quite fond of the liturgy (and its big
brother, the RCC mass). I would agree that liturgical and non-liturgical both
have their positive aspects and can gain from each other.
Don Roberts Internet: dsro...@beckman.com
Beckman Instruments, Inc. Phone: 714/961-3029
2500 Harbor Bl. Mailstop X-12 FAX: 714/961-3351
Fullerton, CA 92634 Disclaimer: Blame me, not Beckman.
"Mr. President, you'd better put more security agents on Mrs. Clinton.
if something happened to her you might have to run the country"
Sen. Strom Thurmond
G.J. McCaughan
> I would like to hear from Protestant list-members what you believe
> to be the purpose of communion, and what happens (to you, to
> the church, whatever) during it.
Well, the most obvious thing is that it's a "perpetual memorial of his
saving passion", as one Anglican communion service puts it. That is, we
are reminded of Jesus's death, and of what it brought about.
The communion thing is also an act of obedience ("Do this ... in memory
of me"), although a good case could be made for the proposition that he
didn't mean "Have a funny ritual every week" but something like "Remember
the Crucifixion every time you eat or drink".
I think there is more to it than that: that Communion is a "sacrament". I
think it really does involve some sort of "communion" between the partaker
and God -- there are passages in Paul's letters which at least suggest
this, and the fact that Jesus said "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my
blood has eternal life". (Perhaps Jesus wasn't just talking about
communion, but I do not believe it is just coincidence.)
Er, does that make any sense, or does it tell you no more than you knew
already?
Oh, one other thing, which I suppose is a sort of fringe benefit. In view
of the "communion" function of Communion, it is good to think that as I am
receiving Communion there are hundreds of Christians across the country
doing the same, and that we are all one in Christ.
--
Gareth McCaughan Dept. of Pure Mathematics & Mathematical Statistics,
gj...@cus.cam.ac.uk Cambridge University, England. [Research student]
Charles Hedrick
Protestants. They are known as Lutheran, Reformed, and Zwinglian.
I've seen a couple of representatives of Lutheran and Zwinglian so
far. I'm a Reformed Christian (Presbyterian Church (USA) -- PCUSA).
Like Lutherans and Catholics, the Reformed position is that Christ is
really present in communion, and that the participants commune with
Christ's body and blood. However we believe that this is a spiritual
matter, that occurs through the Holy Spirit, rather than a matter
involving any sort of change in the elements themselves. Thus the
elements are only symbols of Christ's body and blood, but Christ's
body and blood are really present to the participants. In contrast,
the classic Lutheran position is that the elements are somehow
involved in Christ's presence, although they retain their existence as
bread and wine; the classic Zwinglian position is that the sacrament
is symbolic only, and that Christ is not present any differently than
in any meeting of his followers. (The technical term for the Reformed
position is "spiritual presence". The Lutheran position is often
called "consubstantiation", though Lutheran theologians are not
entirely happy with that term. It appears that spiritual presence is
becoming more widespread. I know of one Catholic seminary that
teaches it -- in defiance of the traditional Catholic position of
course, and one of our Lutheran participants appears to hold it.)
Getting away from formal theology, I see communion as a foretaste of
the messianic banquet. There's a modernistic painting that expresses
my vision. It shows a table that sort of appears out of the sky, with
only one end of it being in our physical world. That's the way I see
it -- the invisible end of the communion table stretches into
eternity, involving the angels, archangels, and the Church throughout
all ages.
I am interested by one person's comment that their church celebrates
it only quarterly, for fear that it will become routine. This is a
common fear. Until the last few decades, Protestant churches commonly
had communion quarterly. As part of the liturgical renewal in the 60s
and 70s, many denominations tried to get their churches to regard
communion as a normal part of the service. In the PCUSA (and I think
others as well), it is now commonly done once a month. In grad school
I was part of a Presbyterian group that celebrated it weekly. I can
report that familiarity did *not* breed contempt. In my view,
communion is intended to be the heart of Christian worship. It is
able to stand frequent use, and at least for me, it becomes if
anything even more meaningful.
The PCUSA regards the table as Christ's, not our own. Gathering
around the table is a symbol of the unity of the Church in Christ.
Thus it is open to all baptized Christians. (The very concept of
people restricting access to Christ's table -- except for reasons of
church discipline -- makes me so angry I can't think straight. Thus I
will not say any more.)
Charles Hedrick
often allow only ordained people, or at least church leaders, to
administer communion. Both Methodist and Presbyterian churches
have this restriction, and I think others do as well.
At least for Presbyterians, this is a matter of "church order", not
principle. That is, we elect officers to take certain
responsibilities. Just as the audit committee has the responsibility
for integrity of the books, a Minister of Word and Sacraments has the
responsibility for supervising communion. Communion is a sacred
thing, and those responsible for it should be properly prepared.
Also, many churches have at least some level of control over access to
communion, as a matter of church discipline. People can be excluded
for cause, and in some churches people are asked to undertake some
kind of preparation. The person officiating in the service has a role
in knowing and enforcing these policies.
I do not believe that communion somehow fails to happen if an
unauthorized person does it. Nor is authorization so important that I
would object to someone else doing it in unusual circumstances. I
have no problem with a group of people who are not related to a church
or belong to multiple churches holding their own service with one of
their own number officiating. However I would say that that person
takes on at least temporarily the function of elder for that group,
and that the person and the group should be aware of the
responsibilities he or she is assuming. (Incidentally, Presbyterian
ruling elders can be authorized to conduct communion in situations
where a Minister of Word and Sacraments is not available. In
Presbyterian polity both ruling elders and Minsters are viewed as
being variants of the same basic New Testament office: elder, or
presbyter. I have reason to believe that ruling elders on occasion do
so even without specific authorization. No lightning bolts from on
high have been reported.)