Why Must You Be Ordained in Order to Administer Communion/The Lord's Supper?

Hi Rob:

There are various ways to be ordained in the CRC. See https://www.crcna.org/candidacy/journey-toward-ordination

It does take some time since the church and local Classis will be involved.  Even if a minister takes courses at Calvin Seminary, the local Classis gets involved before the person is officially ordained.  Hopefully  that is one way to avoid really bad ministers to get ordained, although there is no guarantee.  However it does take some time so the process should start about 6 months or more before the lead pastor goes on vacation!

August Guillaume

Hi Rob,

You will, I trust, pardon me for laughing at the question. I want to emphasize, laughing at the question and not at you nor at you for asking it. It is a good question. Here is my answer.

We have deviated significantly from the way Communion/Breaking iof Bread/Eucharist/The Kord’s Supper was first “celebrated.” Let me explain.

If we see its roots in Passover, then it would only be celebrated once a year. It would be, most likely, in a home. It would be part of a full meal. The “officiant” would be the head of the household, not a priest or a rabbi, or a pastor, unless they were also the head of the household. I we see the roots in a more simply communal meal or agape, then , it too, would be part of a full meal and the individual offering the blessing would be the host . So to think we are doing what the first believers did . . or even what Jesus did, is pure deception.

If you follow the early history of the church, all manner of acts became gradually transferred from the community as a whole to those who would become priests. Everything became sacramentalized and formalized, losing much of its original context and meaning. Anointing, as an example, was simply the application of a healing balm. It was rudimentary medicine. Then then oil became holy. Then it had to be blessed by the priest. Then only the priest could anoint. I hope to see the drift of this.

The Reformation challenged and corrected some things; but not all. Much of the evolution (or devolution) of practice still remained and is with us today. But, of course, because we cling to it, we must defend it. It is difficult for us to ask hard questions of a sacrament that dates back 500 years. And then, of course, if we simply allowed everyone to baptize, serve communion, and preach, people like me would be out of a job! J

(Largely off the top of my heard; but not totally without merit)

Ron VanAuken

Pastor for 45 years and now and Elder within the CRC

If there is a genius in our Reformed tradition it is found i the unofficial motto, "ecclesia reformata semper reformanda" (the reformed church (must) always be reformed). Perhaps this present crisis will cause us to look back at scripture and tradition and bring us into accord with the teaching of the former. My own historical take, not wholly divergent with the thinking of those of the "radical reformation" is that Luther, Calvin, Knox and others did not go far enough. It may have been a sensibility at the time as people can accept only so much change. To have rejected too much of developed tradition may well have brought the reformation to a standstill. So clergy/priestly prerogatives were still maintained.  

Of course, we could also be "sneaky" about the whole affair. What if we simply blessed the bread, broke it and shared it, and then blessed the cup and shared it, saying no more. After all, Jesus said, "Where two or three are gathered together . . . " So just physically we would have communion with one another and with the Lord, and blessing each of the elements we would have Eucharist or the giving of thanks. What would be left out? 

Well, having been in ministry for  49 years now and served within the Reformed Church, the Presbyterian Church in Canada, the Anglican Diocese of Toronto, and now just having stepped down as Elder within Hebron CRC in Whitby, Ontario, I understand and empathize with the question.

There really is no scriptural reason. I expect the answer to the "why" is grounded in the Reformation. Over the course of centuries more and more power and prerogatives accrued to the clergy. A Reform movement can only address so many issues without losing people and this was one that seems to have escaped scrutiny or that the movers and shakers simply did not wish to touch.

Clearly, whether we trace the Lord's Supper (aka Communion aka the Eucharist) back to the Passover or another meal, the "celebrant" was not a clergy person (Rabbi or priest) but the (male) head of the household or gathered community. There were no special qualifications. 

Of course, if you want to truly be biblical, if it was the Passover, then we would naturally take the Lord's words "whenever " to refer to the Passover which would mean that the celebration or practice would be annual, not quarterly or monthly. Then, too, it would also be done not in church (synagogue, temple) but in homes . . . a family affair, if you will. If this is not enough, it would also be a meal! There is a reason that it is called the Lord's Supper. People ate and were satisfied. It was no small bite and a sip affair.

Bottom line is that we are not as Reformed as we would like to think we are and we are no as beholden to sola scriptura as we would like to think ourselves to be.

As a further comment, have you ever noticed that we speak of Jesus blessing the bread and the cup but we never actually bless them? I started doing this a number of years ago using the traditional Jewish blessing over each of the elements in turn. In the last congregation I served our Maundy Thursday service was an actual meal with as much to eat as you wished, including bread and wine/juice. We broken the bread at the beginning followed by a short liturgy, and drank the blessed cup at the end of the meal. Definitely a different experience.