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

Rob,

Thanks for the post and I appreciate your concern. I "hear" in your post that you feel disrespected by not being allowed to administer the sacraments, even though you have been ordained in another denomination.

I'd like to bring to your attention a couple things to think about. First, I think the issue you are identifying is not unique to the CRC or even the Reformed expression of faith. I would guess that you would not be allowed to administer the sacraments in most Presbyterian, Lutheran, or even Roman Catholic churches, for that matter. I am guessing the same would be for most churches from the Baptist or Methodist traditions. Only those ordained and authorized by those denominational bodies would permit someone to administer the sacraments. 

Secondly, and closely related, is the expectation and requirement that the person who administers the sacrament has an understanding of those sacraments that are consistent with the biblical understanding and theological teaching of the church and denomination. The CRC understanding of the covenantal promises of God in baptism and the true presence of the Holy Spirit in the Lord's Supper is significantly different than a Baptist, Lutheran, or Roman Catholic understanding of the same sacraments.  Therefore, according to our church order, the proper administration of the sacraments is done by one who is ordained, under the supervision of the council. The assumption is that this person understands and agrees with what the CRC believes that Scripture teaches about baptism and the Lord's Supper. 

Using this as a background, the Church Order of the CRC requires that the sacraments "shall be administered upon the authority of the the consistory in the public worship by a minister of the Word (CRC), a commissioned pastor, "or in case of need, an ordained person who has received the approval of classis..." In certain circumstances, a member of the council, ordinarily an elder, could administer the sacraments when an ordained minister is not available. (Reference Art. 53 & 55  and their supplements of the C.O.)

I provide this to you as information. Hopefully, you have a better understanding why the council asked that you not administer the Lord's Supper. You might not agree with these reasons, but the council acted consistently within the CRC's understanding of whom may offer the sacraments. 

Regards, Todd

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

 

 

Rob, I'm sorry, I wrote all of the following paragraphs before I realized you had already received answers from my friend Todd Zuidema (who signed my certificate of ordination) and someone else.  I also thank you for your willingness to help your congregation.  You may have figured out from the other answers that you would need to become ordained under article 7 or 8 or be ordained as a "Ministry Associate" under Article 23-24 and in all of these you need to deal with Ministerial Candidacy Committee, which in my opinion has become far too complex and restrictive.  If you do not want or need my more detailed answer, you may want to stop reading here. 

I'll try, Rob.  In the "Manual of Christian Reformed Church Government" 2008 Revision by Peter Borgdorff, after Articles 6, 7, & 8 detail the three ways to become an ordained "Minister of the Word" in the CRC, Article 11 emphasizes that is the correct title to be used.  On page 64 it is explained "Synod 1965 did not accede to an overture requesting that the title be made "minister of the Word and sacraments," because the term "minister of the Word" is commonly accepted as including the administration of the sacraments (Acts of Synod 1965, p.58)."  That paragraph also informs us other Reformed churches, including RCA, use...'and sacraments.'

The next paragraph admits 'the title "pastor" is common... but is not a title but a function of the office of minister of the Word.

In Article 12, p. 67 explains "The Bible couples the preaching of the WOrd and the administration of the sacraments (Matt. 28:19-20 and the history in Acts).  The oral proclamation of the WOrd should be accompanied by the visible signs and seals of God's grace contained in the sacraments."  The paragraph goes on in quoting the Acts of Synod 1973, pp. 62-64.

I was 'Licensed to Exhort' in various Classes for about 28 years before becoming ordained under Article 7 (before they changed the rules - long story) but always knew I could not administer sacraments or perform marriages, etc. until I was ordained.

 

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

Greetings to all,

Rob, I hear you and understand your concern. Let me answer you with respect and as a brother in Christ.

I, too, transferred denominations for a few reasons (none of which I desire to hide, but are not germane to this discussion). I was ordained an Elder in the United Methodist Church. "Elder" means different things in various denominations.

In the broader Methodist/Wesleyan tradition the Elder is ordained to Word, Sacrament, and Order. He or she is authorized to preach the Word, administer the Sacraments of baptism and communion, and administer the Order/Discipline of the Church/denomination. Elders Orders are normally lived as a local church pastor; but not always (e.g., chaplains). They are under the bishop's appointment and supervision; but do not need permission to exercise their ordination in the world.

I TRANSFERRED my Elders Orders to the Free Methodist Church. That was not a big theological leap for me. There is a similar view of ordination between the UMC and FMC. I will add that persons who are not ordained but appointed as pastors in the UMC and FMC are authorized by the appointment to administer the Sacraments within their appointment.

Others have addressed the theological and historical reasons for denominations to require persons to be ordained in order to administer the Sacraments. Allow me, again, to approach your dilemma from a different angle - still with a spirit that is in Christ.

First, in reading your question I am assuming that you left a previous denomination for whatever reason(s). In leaving that denomination it seems that you de facto surrendered your Orders (ordination) without transferring those Orders to your current denomination.

Second, you united with a specific denomination with a specific discipline (set of rules). I uniting with and transferring my orders to the Free Methodist Church I accepted the discipline of my new denomination and committed to that discipline.

I hope this helps you in your journey with Christ.

I Am Yours in Christ,

John

I think we have to adjust our thinking on this one during this epidemic where according to our 'rules' Lord's supper can only be celebrated by the pastor's family!  Any suggestions?

Rob, I'm sorry to hear you experienced this. I do not know of any scripture that indicates a person administering communion (or any other sacrament) has to be a church leader, much less ordained. I don't see biblical support for why any Christian can't do these things. "Ability to administer sacrements" is not a spiritual gift, not a "gift" required to be a presbuteros / episkopos / poimḗn, nor listed as one of their duties.  I could understand if you were new to your congregation and leadership wanted to know you better first, e.g. that time has demonstrated you to be a sincere believer showing fruits of the Spirit or perhaps meeting biblical standards for being an elder.  However, each denomination has created rules and procedures, some helpful, some not.  Unfortunately, it seems the issue here is the denominations' decisions, rules, and traditions, and whether or not you want to work within them, or try to effect change (perhaps a shorter route to ordination for those in your situation), or consider a denomination that is a better fit for you.  Thank you for volunteering to pitch in when your congregation was in need. That is true Christian behavior.

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? 

Perhaps during this pandemic situation where churches can't all be in one place, rules for communion can be adjusted to stay biblical and stay to be a blessing.  What are the Catholic churches doing now?

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.

Because there are quite a few groups of denominations that see the sacraments in slightly different ways, the churches started to be sure that those ministering the sacraments followed their particular view. In Biblical times there was only one 'denomination' so these issues did not come up although there is quite a discussion about the Lord's Supper in the new testament.