Tenth Friday after Pentecost
Thanks to Jennifer for her comment. I'm in agreement. I would love to hear from more of you, both on yesterday's blogs and on what I am about to say today. Yesterday I threw out the idea of in home communion with the pastor consecrating all U-tube viewers in-home elements through cyberspace.
Today's is a bit more radical proposal. So here's your question: in the United Methodist Church, what are the only two things that can be done by no one other an ordained minister or conference approved and in process to be ordained minister? Yes, it's saying the words of consecration of the elements in the communion liturgy and performing the sacrament of baptism. Lay people can do anything else, Why is this?
Here's some background. The words of consecration, "This is my body..." go back to earliest Christianity. Paul write them in 1 Corinthians 11:24-25. He is writing them as a tradition handed down to him. Paul writes 1 Cor. in the winter of 51-52 AD. 1 Cor. is the second book of the NT to be written. Matthew, Mark, and Luke also contain these words with slight variations in their gospels, written a couple of decades after Mark. In 1 Cor. 11 Paul discusses some abuses of the Lord's Supper that are going on in the Corinthian church. Nowhere does he (or any other NT writer) say that only apostles or elders or deacons can administer the sacraments. In Didache (80-100 AD), the earliest Christian book of instructions for worship, we have liturgies for baptism and the eucharist, but nowhere does it mention who can or cannot do these liturgies.
I haven't done any research on exactly when the sacraments became the sole property of the clergy, but it appears to have been quite early, by fourth century. It has been that way ever since. In the Roman Catholic Church, communion, or the mass, as they call it, became increasingly important, the central vehicle of God's grace to humans. To go without communion was to go without God's grace, and to go without God's grace was a way to get yourself into hell in the afterlife.
By the 11th and 12th centuries the Catholic Church had developed the doctrine of transubstantiation. I have explained this in Sunday School classes before and I think maybe even in this blog. I won't go over again in detail. In short, when the ordained priest says the words of consecration, the substance of the bread becomes the substance of the body of Christ and the substance of the wine becomes the substance of the blood of Christ. The accidents--what the bread and wine look, feel, smell, and taste like remain the same. When the Christian partakes of the consecrated bread and wine, he or she is partaking of the body and blood of Christ.
The limitation of who could perform the sacrament only to ordained clergy gave the clergy great power over the laity. The clergy could grant the means of God's grace to a person or withhold the means of God's grace. While giving the clergy power, it also gave the church great power.
When Martin Luther and the other Reformers of the sixteenth century rebelled against (almost) all things Catholic, they retained the power of the clergy only to administer the sacraments. That has remained the case in virtually all branches of Protestantism. For the Catholic Church in the 21st century that has become a big problem. The Catholic Church ordains (with very few exceptions) only celibate men to the clergy. The number of clergy has dwindled dramatically over the last several decades. Churches in rural areas, and especially those in third world countries, may have a priest only once every few months. Protestant churches do not have that problem, at least not yet.
Over this week we have noted many instances in which the early Christian Church displayed a degree of human equality that the Roman Empire had never seen. In our present day United Methodist Church we have equality in matters of race, gender, and in another year or so, sexual orientation. No one seems to notice that in regard to the sacraments, there is inequality. Only the clergy can administer them. In this time of Coronavirus, we need more. Maybe in general we need more. Is it time to start thinking about this?
Faithfully,
Christian
5 comments:
I agree, Christian, we should figure out a way to have communion together while at home. This is a part of our church experience that we are missing since March.
Vicki Wike
Christian, it seems that you have found a way that we can use to make communion a part of our spiritual lives again. Who would/could have thought a year, or less, ago that we there would come a time that we would go five months, with no end in sight, without the spiritual renewal that communion brings. There are times when we must use the intellect God has blessed us with to overcome and adapt to situations that we cannot control. I believe this is one of those times. You said that in an in-house worship service, all of the bread and cups are not touched by the clergy but the elements are consecrated by clergy. You also spoke to the fact that radio and tv used in an online communion service are sometimes used in in-house services. You seem to have justified using some unconventional methods we could use in order to replenish what has been lacking in our spiritual lives during these months. I find your analysis compelling, and am in favor of moving forward with it.
I agree we need to find a way to have communion remotely. A quick search revealed that Evangelical Lutherans may have temporarily authorized a way:
"...authorizing and endorsing the celebration of Holy Communion at the kitchen table by the head of the household if local conditions warrant the celebration, only during our response to this pandemic. As Luther writes:
Let everyone, therefore, who knows himself to be a Christian, be assured of this, that we are all equally priests, that is to say, we have the same power in respect to the Word and the sacraments. However, no one may make use of this power except by the consent of the community or by the call of a superior...."
And a recent bulletin from the Church of England reviews their concept of "spiritual communion": the means of grace by which a person, prevented for some serious reason from sharing in a celebration of the Eucharist, nonetheless shares in the communion of Jesus Christ.
I need help to parce out whether these kinds of accommodation might work for United Methodists.
The COE bulletin: https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2020-03/Guidance%20on%20Spiritual%20Communion%20and%20Coronavirus.pdf
As a supplement to my previous message, here is a United Methodist response:
https://www.wnccumc.org/newsdetail/bishop-leelands-guideline-for-online-communion-during-the-covid-19-crisis-13620461
For me a major part of Communion is sensing the Holy Spirit through witnessing the absolute joy that I see in people's faces as they join in line and approach the servers. The sense of a community in spiritual harmony is overwhelming and leaves me with a feeling of being powerfully connected to others; part of a truly uplifting church. I can understand the rational aspects of the suggestions for a more private Communion forced by COVID, however, I worry about losing these moments when the Holy Spirit seems to bond us together as one body.
Post a Comment