The Narrow Path Ministries

We had a very good and thought provoking discussion of baptism under Homer's "Everett" thread. By the way,I believe that that discussion was the epitome of how a bible forum discussion should proceed. disagreement w/o snideness, firmness w/o superiority.

I thought we might have a similar discussion regarding Communion, because I suspect there may be several differing views on this as well.

I am particularly interested in whether those who believe that baptism "does" something that is more than symbolic also believe that Communion is something more than a symbolic, memorial gesture. i.e. that something actually "happens".

Starting it off, I believe that Communion, while commanded, is simply a memorial. I do not believe anything "mystical" happens to us, or to the elements of the eucharist, when we participate.

TK

I also believe it is a memorial (do this is remembrance).

I've also been thinking a lot, lately, about HOW OFTEN to do communion. In the interest of honesty, I have to confess that, as a minister, frequent communion has caused the memorial to lose some significance with me. I felt pretty bad about this at first, but I think it had more to do with how it is done than a distaste for what Jesus had in mind. I think Jesus had in mind an annual celebration that was to replace passover. And I think Jesus had in mind more of something at the beginning or end of a fellowship meal than a ceremony with a little wine and a little bread or cracker.

For me, my goal is to do communion less frequently, but to eat together more often, and to keep Christ at the center of all things.

i agree with you 100% matt.

my denomination (Friends) does not stress the sacraments with the idea that familarity breeds loss of significance. we observe communion about once per quarter.

and i certainly agree with your sentiment regarding eating together vs. a tiny piece of cracker (that always seems to make me really hungry and causes me to choke) and a shot of grape juice (that isnt enough to wash down the cracker that i am choking on).

TK

TK wrote:We had a very good and thought provoking discussion of baptism under Homer's "Everett" thread. By the way,I believe that that discussion was the epitome of how a bible forum discussion should proceed. disagreement w/o snideness, firmness w/o superiority.

I thought we might have a similar discussion regarding Communion, because I suspect there may be several differing views on this as well.

I am particularly interested in whether those who believe that baptism "does" something that is more than symbolic also believe that Communion is something more than a symbolic, memorial gesture. i.e. that something actually "happens".

Starting it off, I believe that Communion, while commanded, is simply a memorial. I do not believe anything "mystical" happens to us, or to the elements of the eucharist, when we participate.

TK

I've always been among those who believe that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ and conveys the Grace of God (a sacrement) , as well as being a memorial.It never loses significance.

In this form the Eucharist becomes the central most important part of the service. As a Lutheran given every service , as RCC offered every day except Monday.

thomas, what do you think about what some people have said about frequency making it less significant in the participant's mind? Have you found that to be true in your case?

I think I have. I attend church pretty infrequently now, so I only seem to get communion about once a year. That's pretty sparse, I'm sure, but the last time I participated, a couple of months ago, was very moving and significant for me, although it did seem like others around me were in a hurry to get it over with.

I would love to have communion as part of a larger love-feast kind of gathering.

Michelle wrote:thomas, what do you think about what some people have said about frequency making it less significant in the participant's mind? Have you found that to be true in your case?

From what I have seen , when the Eucharist has a significance beyond that of being merely a rememberance , people demand it more often.

The Church has had to offer guidlines recomending that people not take communion more than once a day , such is the importance of the Eucharist as a sacrement.It is not hard to understand as they believe , rightly so in my opinion , that they recieve a direct benefit from doing so. They recieve the Grace of God.

Thomas

I think I've observed the opposite. In my experience, the more significance people place on communion doctrinally, the less meaningful it seems to be in practice, often resulting in a cold, dead ritual.

The best and most accurate (IMHO) description of communion I've ever heard is this:

"A shared meal among friends in the presence of the Lord."

I can't remember where I first heard that. When we were part of a house church, each meeting (church service) would begin with a potluck meal. Everyone brought something to the meal as an intentional symbol of how everyone brings different gifts, ministries, insights, experiences, etc., to the gathering of Christ's church, for the nourishment of all.

mattrose wrote:I think I've observed the opposite. In my experience, the more significance people place on communion doctrinally, the less meaningful it seems to be in practice, often resulting in a cold, dead ritual.

Matt, I would being willing to place a small bet on my belief that you have never participated in, or even observed, a Sunday morning meeting of Plymouth Brethren "to remember the Lord". Such a meeting takes place each and every Sunday morning. Exactly what will take place in such a meeting is unpredictable, as I have observed over the many years I fellowshipped with the brethren. But here is an account which could describe one of the meetings:

You enter the Gospel Chapel or Gospel Hall, and two elders greet you warmly at the door. If you are unknown an enquiry is made concerning your relationship with Christ. If you simply affirm that you know Him, you will be received (if it's an assembly of "open" brethren), and will be invited to participate fully, both in the bread and wine, and in suggesting a hymn, offering prayer of thankgiving for Christ's sacrifice on our behalf, or in giving a short talk (provided you are male). Every hymn, every prayer, every talk is centered around Christ; He is exalted and praised throughout the meeting. I have heard thanksgiving offered by some eloquent Scotch elders which were about 30% poetry. There was no one sitting at the front or "leading" any part of the meeting. The elders sat in the pews like everyone else. There was nothing "cold" or "ritualistic" in any of the "remembrance" meetings I attended.

If you are a stranger and the elders who meet you at the door, and from your words, they deem you to be a non-Christian, you will be invited to sit in a pew at the back and observe.
The bread and wine (not grape juice) will not be passed to you, but then neither will the collection bag.

A single loaf, and a single chalice of wine is used to represent the one body of Christ. The chalice is refilled if necessary.

After everyone has given extensive thanks and praise to the Father and the Son, then someone (not necessarily an elder or deacon) rises to his feet and gives thanks for the bread. The deacons pass it around. Then someone else rises and gives thanks for the wine, and it is passed around. Then the collection bag (not plate) is passed around to the brethren. This is the only meeting at which a collection is taken. There was a couple of pianos in the building I attended, but they were not used in the rembrance meeting. They were used in the evening at the gospel meeting when non-Christians were invited to attend. There was never a collection at the gospel meeting. The brethren are very careful not to take money from non-Christians.

Usually an elder gives announcements of upcoming events at this point, and the meeting is ended by singing another song.

I looked forward to the remembrance meeting every week.

Here's another interesting fact about the money. People usually put cash in an envelope to contribute. Everyone received a number which no one knew except the person receiving it. Let's say your number is 123. At the end of the year, the treasure adds all all amounts given by 123, and issues a charitable receipt with that number on the outside of an envelope and places it at the back of the chapel, along with everone else's . The treasurer does not know how much any particular person gave! You go back and find the envelope with 123 on it, take home your receipt and fill out your name.

In my opinion the importance attached to Communion has more to do with the requirements needed to participate , rather than the doctrine involved. Like anything in life , you tend to value that which you pay for. That has to do with how the Church defines worthyness as in the following:

1Co 11:27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

I grew up in a church that practiced Open Communion. Anyone who professed belief and was baptised was welcome at the table.Years ago the Pastor would urge self-examination before serving , but that's no longer done. The required study used to be 2 years but has dropped to 6 months , and is really more about membership than communion. Communion , as a result , is just something that is done , with little thought put into it.

For the past few years I've been in a church that practices Closed Communion. There is a requirement for classes , although that has dropped to 6 months. You must also be a member of the denomination. Some limit it to members in good standing in the congregation.The members know the doctrine and know to self-examine. The result is that Communion is more highly valued.

The RCC in addition to Closed Communion and 2 years of study , also requires a yearly confession. They are also able to deny communion to a person who is unrepenatant (excommunication). You must both become worthy and stay worthy , and as a result it is held in high regard. (caveat : this is in regard to Panama where the Church is much , much more conservative than the States )

In all three cases the doctrine involed is the same , but the standards of worthyness differ.

Thomas

Paidion wrote:Here's another interesting fact about the money. People usually put cash in an envelope to contribute. Everyone received a number which no one knew except the person receiving it. Let's say your number is 123. At the end of the year, the treasure adds all all amounts given by 123, and issues a charitable receipt with that number on the outside of an envelope and places it at the back of the chapel, along with everone else's . The treasurer does not know how much any particular person gave! You go back and find the envelope with 123 on it, take home your receipt and fill out your name.

An excelent way of doing things. When I lived in the States I would always give without indentifying myself , rather pay taxes than surrender my privacy.