Presbyterian
understanding of communion like that of Christians in general has both developed
over time and yet been strongly conservative about the core understanding of
what is going on. Despite the many changes in the
church through the centuries, in different ways responding to Jesus' request at
the last supper that his followers "Do this to remember me" has been an almost constant
and universal feature of Christian worship. The sharing of bread and wine, the recalling
of Jesus' words and actions, have brought people in all ages and cultures to the
centre of Christian belief and spiritual renewal - that God was in Christ reconciling
the world to himself.
However, how precisely the "Last Supper," "Eucharist"
or "Holy Communion" should be celebrated, how often, who by, and what is thought
to be going on when it is, have been fiercely fought over. The issues are not unimportant,
but the way in which they have been wrestled with has not always been to the credit
of those involved. Looking back it seems that some of these debates have been as
much about other issues as about the Eucharist itself. The boundaries between laity
and clergy, the ways in which God's grace is mediated, degrees of dignity and intimacy
in the language of public worship, and other ways in
which concern for relevance and truth are contested are not as firm and fixed as
one might imagine.
It is no longer necessary to be familiar with
the subtlety or passion of some of these debates in order to be involved
responsibly in the leadership of a congregation in Holy Communion. Although differences between
some major parts of the Church still focus on the eucharist,
that is far less the
case than it was, and the degree of flexibility many now enjoy is hopefully more
a product of a wider consensus as it what it is all about, not just a sign of spiritual
and intellectual laziness.
Although each tradition must speak for itself,
Presbyterians need to know something of where different people are coming from and
why they do what they do today.
You might like to note down what questions
you (or others you know) have about what Holy Communion means, why our church celebrates
it in the way it does, and what you think is different compared with other traditions.
Most churches underline their sense of the importance of
communion b
Ecumenically complications remain. Authorising elders is consistent with the Congregational and Churches of Christ parts of our heritage but in cooperating ventures Anglican Bishops have difficulty with this level of ordination and authorisation, and usually require (as in Local Ministry Teams for instance) that Presbyterian elders be ordained by laying on of hands for presiding at Communion. It should not be difficult to respect this understanding and most of us are glad of people's prayers even if we might feel in our own tradition they could be considered "surplus to requirements!"
Some of these concerns are behind the careful introductory wording to Celebrating Communion. See also Training elders authorised to preside at communion.
What Holy Communion means
The meaning is determined by the teaching surrounding the actions of communion, and also by the context in which communion is received, and the needs and views of people receiving communion. The church does not control how people may choose to interpret what is going on, but it is able to say how this has been commonly understood by Christians in different times and circumstances. The meaning is neither totally a given fixed thing, nor is it purely subjective and arbitrary. A community of faith repeats and renews the story of which these symbols and words are part.
Whatever else it may be, communion is a reminder
that Jesus shared a meal with his disciples the night before he died. If we share
in a re-enactment of that meal we are identifying with those disciples and in a
sense with Jesus himself. We are owning what happened then.
This is important for the church because it
brings the church back to what the Christian community is all about which is the
core of the church's distinctive identity. It also serves individually and as a
group to place ourselves in solidarity with a community across time and space which
stretches around the world and back through history to the central events of Christian
faith.
What this awareness and remembrance does to
a person is obviously something very personal, and frequently quite properly private.
It is neither wise, nor necessary to tell God or man what ought to happen here.
Yet there are things which can happen, which can be encouraged. They are matters
of grace and faith, not of mechanical or mathematical certainty.
Communion is called a sacrament because it is a ritual which in a special way this interaction with God is expected to take place. It is partly a matter of language whether we say that sacraments are two (baptism and eucharist - those specifically authorised by Jesus); seven (as set by the Roman Catholic Church and including other rituals at important "rites of passage" or other times of need when assurance of God's presence is needed); or some larger number which recognises that there are many times and occasions when such assurance is needed.
Some of the debate arises out a proper desire
to understand how God's grace is mediated and how we can get more of it; some of
it looks rather like an attempt to organize God into human categories. In calling
baptism and the eucharist "sacraments" we are recognising the special nature of
what these are, but it does not mean that other prayers, moments, and experiences
are not also sacramental in nature. Telling God what he cannot do is likely to have
an element of futility about it in any case. Trying to understand what God does
do is of help to everybody. It will also help reduce misunderstanding if it is noted
that baptism, eucharist and so on must define sacrament - not the idea of sacrament
define what the other way around. The notion of sacrament is a broad summary classification,
it is not a definition.
In the eucharist the church provides an opportunity
for its people to say things to God they need to say, and for them to hear again
what God has said and done for us in Jesus.
Sometimes people do opposite things in response to the same motivation. Presbyterians have long said that they have communion less often because it is so important. Most other traditions have agreed it is important and for that reason prefer to have it every week, some every day. In the 18th century one English minister rejoiced at the effects of revival in his parish because the numbers taking communion increased. Around the same time a Scottish minister rejoiced at the work of the Holy Spirit in the congregation because he had got the number taking communion down to six - the others at last being convinced that they were sinners. We should beware of what conclusions to draw from religious behaviour.
At a personal level, it is obviously a matter
of choice, though more Presbyterians need to be told it is OK to take communion
more frequently. There are those who attend Anglican services as well as Presbyterian
for this reason. The problem in the congregation, is how often should the church
have such a service.
Many factors come into play. The Reformed tradition
going back to Calvin emphasized the importance of not taking communion lightly or
unworthily. A special part of the service "fencing the tables" was long part of
the Scottish service in which people were warned of the dangers as Paul did to the
church at Corinth - even though most Presbyterian congregations have some way to
go before they are in much danger of the sort of riotous behaviour Paul was trying
to sort out.
In the old Scottish churches the "fencing"
was literal - stakes driven into the earth floor around the communion table which
was a trestle table at which people could sit down (white cloths on the pews are
remnants of table cloths) in batches. There were gates at each end. A person was
only admitted if they had a metal communion token (the ancestor of "communion cards")
which would have been given by the elder during a visit to check whether or not
the communicant member was living free of gross sin.
This system had its value and we should not
think that its severity was not a means of grace and genuine discipline. It is important
also to see that it was not unconnected with rural life and long summer evenings
in Northern latitudes when the annual communion season in each village was stretched
out from Thursday through the following Monday. Burns Holy Fair captures one side
of the atmosphere at least.
But the legacy has been mixed. In the North
of Scotland it is still an effort to get the message across that you can take communion
and the God wants us to whoever we are. The infrequency of communion reflects fear
and tradition which are not consistent with the whole of the Gospel. Calvin had
wanted weekly communion; not surprisingly the elders in Geneva baulked at weekly
visitation just as elders in New Zealand have objected to monthly communion if it
meant monthly visitation to deliver communion cards - though the tradition and comments
about communion being more meaningful for being less frequent are the reasons which
are more confessed than the impracticalities of frequent visiting.
Is Jesus really present
Blood as well as ink has been spilt trying
to sort out the way in which Jesus is present. Partly it is a matter of doing justice
to Jesus' words "This is my body" "This is my blood." The medieval doctrine of transubstantiation
which used Aristotle's distinction between substance, essence and external accidents,
may now look like a verbal trick to remove the debate about whether the words are
literal or figurative from the reality of sense experience (if you say that it has
changed, but nothing physical which would tell us it has changed has altered, disbelief
may be possible, but disproof is difficult). If we allow others to decide and to
answer for themselves how they wish to formulate the way in which Jesus is present
in communion, there is a lot to be said for saying that we believe Jesus to be present
without saying how or what in.
What language should be used?
Presbyterian churches generally allow considerable
freedom. It is wise to take note of what a congregation is used to. Familiarity
with the now widely accepted structure of the communion service and the significance
of the different prayers is important for someone leading communion, even if they
choose to depart from it and use different prayers or something informal. The liturgy
of the eucharist has value as a further expression of the universality and historicity
of our faith. Its familiarity and the depth of the spirituality it reflects is pastorally
sensitive and provides a framework and stimulus for our own spiritual growth.
It should not be necessary to note that whether
prayers are read or not is no commentary at all on the spirituality of the person
leading the prayers. Those perfectly capable of pouring out their hearts to God
for themselves and for others, are usually secure enough in their relationship with
God to see the benefit of allowing the tested aspirations and confessions of others
to also express what needs to be said.