main entry: sac`ra`ment
function: noun
1 a : a Christian rite (as baptism or the eucharist)
that is believed to have been ordained by Christ
and that is held to be a means of divine grace
or to be a sign or symbol of a spiritual reality
i don't know if this falls in the category of ecclesiology or theology, but i've been thinking about communion a lot lately. here are some more (relevant) big words: consubstantiation, transubstantiation, and memorialism. weren't those fun?
---------------
a story:
rochelle and zach were sitting across the aisle from me yesterday when the servers began to pass out the communion elements. she's 8ish, he's 6ish. their mom was chasing after buzz, who is 4ish. i sat with them and realized i didn't know what to do. would it be ok with their mom if they took communion? i know both of the kiddies and they seem to engage sunday school lessons with a heart for understanding God. but it's still not my call, right? since they already had the wafers, i elected to explain the elements and let them decide. i later talked to their mom about it and it all turned out ok. but i was struck: when you're not a kid anymore, when your mom isn't there to make the call, who does?
---------------
while my opinion on the nature of communion itself is definitely under construction, i am beginning to lean toward a more-than-just-a-symbol view of the sacrament. even if that weren't the case, though - even if i firmly held that communion was merely symbolic - i'd still be faced with this question: "what is our role in preserving the significance and power of this sacrament?" the apostle paul teaches that i have a responsibility to treat communion seriously by never partaking unworthily.
but when it comes to what my church's role is, i'm realizing that it all comes down to stewardship: as a faith community, the higher your view of communion, the more you'll want to be careful about what you do with it. so, maybe it's ok - even important - for a church to be discerning about who partakes. (if you disagree, you'll probably supply "discriminating" where i wrote "discerning.")
i don't know where the line is, but there's an important distinction to be maintained between being open to newcomers (on the one hand) and being so seeker friendly that we bend over backward to avoid the appearance of exclusivity (on the other).
---------------
case study #1
sometimes when the tithe is taken up, someone will clarify that visitors shouldn't feel any pressure to give. i hope it's not just a matter of not wanting to offend: this is an appropriate clarification about commitment to a faith community. there are forms of worship which are expected of church members and regular attenders but were never meant to be extended to everyone in the building. tithing is one of them.
case study #2
before i was baptised, i went to several classes on the theology and history of the practice. i wrestled in prayer. and, as i stood in that tank before the congregation, david horsey asked me if i believed and trusted in the saving work of Christ on my behalf. all of that is entirely appropriate if baptism is to be taken seriously.
---------------
however, at a baptism, you don't often have people feeling left out if they don't get dunked. on the other hand, offense is a very real possibility when communion is a part of the service. but if partaking in communion isn't the same as singing or tithing or listening to a sermon or going to a bible study - if it's something more, as i'm beginning to believe - maybe we need to be more wary of offending God by how we treat it.
i'm not claiming that i know of a sensitive way of dealing with this, and i'm certainly nervous about requiring church membership or profession of faith before communion is permitted. but we absolutely need to decide, as individual churches, how we will deal with this issue. and, no matter what we decide, we need to be better teachers.
communion isn't for everyone. not because having an exclusive club is fun, but because we are de facto stewards of the sacraments. and all stewards are held to account.
"i sent an exclusive to every paper in town."
~lina lamont in "singin' in the rain"
5 comments:
Hey Mara, love your thougths on communion. Its something I think we at least all need to be thinking about. Had a great discussion about this one on my blog some months back. Here is the link:
http://www.lublink.ca/?p=64
Be sure to read the comments. Hopefully it can play a role in your construction process.
Peter
Mara,
The answer to this is simple.
If you say that the bread and wine in someway *is* Jesus or His presence, then you either raise earthly things to the level of deity (and make the bread and wine idols) or you lower God to level of wheat and fermented grapes (which is blasphemy).
Therefore, it must purely be symbolic.
However, to avoid the possibility of one falling into either of these heresies, it is best to stick with you Salvation Army roots and not take communion at all.
Mara,
One of Nav's friends here. I am not salvation Army but I am Christian and I believe that there is more to taking communion then there is singin and worshiping as you were saying. Its a very personal decission to make but turn to the Bible. Jesus made that his last meal with his diciples and I really truly think that means something! Keep praying about it and make the decission based on The Truth, The Bible!
Krysta
Hi Mara,
You seem to be finding some very strong and opposing opinions about communion. I can rarely pass up a good debate, so I'll throw in my two cents. I've only ever taken communion once, and it was a wonderful experience. I don't see any reason that God would inact consubstantiation or transubstantiation as memorialism seems to accomplish the same end without physical transformation.
Communion is a wonderful practice that reminds people of God and brings them in closer 'communion' with Him. Still, perhaps because of my limited experience with communion, I don't see why communion would be better or higher than worshipping through singing, kneeling, or washing dishes.
Like nearly every other Christian practice, communion has been used in a way that has been detrimental at certain times in history. I see The Salvation Army's standpoint on communion to be an effective reminder that communion should be kept holy, but I feel that it would be a shame if every denomination decided to stop practicing it.
"It must often be so, Sam, when things are in danger: someone has to give them up, lose them, so that others may keep them."
- Frodo (Lord of the Rings)
I think we should take communion more seriously. Regardless of what view you hold of it (symbolic or trans or cons, etc) I think that the meaning behind it and the weight of what we are acknowledging and participating in needs to be felt. It bothers me how in so many churches it comes across as cheesy or not really a big deal. Personally, I think we should spend some significant time preparing for communion even if we see it as symbolic.
In terms of who can take it, I tend to see it as an open table where any believer can take it and I am not going to ask questions about who does. But I know that I am only able to view it that way because I more or less have a symbolic view. I think that a church with a different theology has the right to withhold it from people with different beliefs. That seems self-consistant. Anyways, those are some quick-disjointed thoughts.
Peace
Post a Comment