Ronald VanAuken

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? 

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

This is a side note to Henry DeMoor's comment, which I appreciate.

For a short period of time I served with The Anglican Diocese of Canada. Their view of the Eucharist is somewhat "higher" or more formal thn is ours, so only the priest can consecrate the elements. Once consecrated, however, deacons, and in some instances others who are not ordained Anglican priests, can take what is referred to as the "reserve sacrament" to homes, shut-ins, etc. The point is, the bread and the wine have already be consecrated, so it really is not a separate celebration, but an extension to those members of the community not able to be present.

Ron VanAuken

I have bothered Kathy Smith more than once with questions about Church Order, and value her responses.

Let me add that as a (former?) pastor within the Presbyterian Church in Canada and now an Elder within a CRC congregation, that most PCC congregations would likely accept said letter without hesitation and welcome you. Most would simply want to know that you have been baptize and have made a profession of faith. From a pastoral perspective, unless you have changed residences mailing it difficult to worship in your CRC congregation, I would encourage you tpo share with the pastor or an elder the reason for you leaving the congregation. We can all learn and grow from one another,

Ron VanAuken

While a deviation from the question as presented, perhaps it is time that we revisit the matter of the Lord’s Supper. Specifically, whether we trace its roots to Passover or a common meal, it was not a priest who “administered” it but rather the head of the household or the host. Along with other practices, over time these became the prerogative of the priest; but it was not originally so. While the Reformation addressed a number of issues, this is one that it did not touch on, at least in terms of “reforming” it and bringing it back to the practice of the apostolic church.

As an extension of my previous comment, and I think I am in concert with brother DeMoor here, perhaps if the ordained minister administered it that Elders or even others could take some of the wine/grape juice and bread/wafers to shut-ins and others. This would simply be a distribution to those not present and not as a separate celebration distinct from that of the gathered congregation. Might this not be an “everybody wins” response?

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.

Obviously an older post to which I am responding some 6 years later. Never the less, my two cents. It is not an esy question to answer. I majored in Greek while in college/university. Despite this, I felt inadequate  when going up against scholars who had devoted their lives to the language, meaning, though not limited to, those who were sufficiently proficient to engaged in translation. Expanding this, the Greek and Hebrew that one learns in seminary will not make one proficient in the language and unless possessed by hubris s/he will still rely on the work of others to understand the text and its context. With that said, one at least hopefully has the basic tools to understand the nature of the language and to be able to communicate its complexity.  Three example. Shalom means much more than peace in the sense of the absence of war or conflict,  the common Hebrew word we translate as "prayer" does not mean prayer ar all, and there are four distinct words we translate as "love." The Hebrew language, lacking vowels, also leads to some very interesting interpretations of the text as the Rabbis would see connections between words that we westerners would miss. At age 74 with some 45 years of ministry behind me, I regret that I did not keep up and expand upon my knowledge of Greek and Hebrew; but perhaps that's just me.

I find discussions like these interesting as, for me, it brings our Church Order up against scripture.

What I mean by that is that scripture and even apostolic tradition, provides no real guidance for worship, even for the Eucharist/Communion/Lord's Supper in terms of its administration. What this means is that everything has essentially been made up, unless we wish to become somewhat Jewish in our thinking and appeal to oral law,

So while I obviously concur with brother DeMoor, I am also of the  "cclesia semper reformanda est" ("the church must always be reformed") school and would dearly love to see us engage in rethinking some of our assumptions and practices.

While our people came from more than 25 different nations, our worship services were all in English. This said, there were a few things we did.

On one wall of the sanctuary we placed flags representing the various nations that our people came from.

We extended an invitation to individuals to make a 3 minute PowerPoint presentation on their native land and the faith community they came from there.

We invited these same people to put up a display in the fellowship hall and to provide refreshments reflective of their culture for the coffee hour.

We encourage individuals, if they felt comfortable doing so, to dress for worship as they would in their home country.

We allowed our worship to gradually evolve to where the prayers of the people could be offered in a variety of different ways, with some being sung. Similarly, we opened ourselves up to accept individuals voicing an "Amen!" or a "Praise the Lord!" in response to what might be said in the message/sermon.

We included music representative of other nations, singing some both in English and the native language. Beyond this we had a Sunday where all the music was spirituals, another where the elements were reflective of indigenous culture.

Communion would also take a variety of different forms.

These are a few of the things that we did. At heart was listening and asking, "How can we be more inclusive?" or better, "How would the Lord like us to be changed rather than insisting always that others must change?"

While I would not argue the points made, one of the things I always seek to point out with respect to both Advent/Christmas and Lent/Easter is that everything we do is essentially made up. Most historians are in agreement that it was some 300 years before there was anything resembling Lent. That is likewise true of the church today. It bears little resemblance to the ecclesia of Jesus or of the apostles. It is a sobering but potentially liberating truth.

I think I am with Sean on this one. Jesus, of course, was face-to-face. Not sure what he would do with online conversations. So much is missed when you cannot see or hear the other and have only printed words to go by. More than a few times I have spoken to congregations about how we interpret words, using God's question to Adam as an example.  There are but 4 words: Adam, Where, Are, and You. You can vocalize them in at least 6 different ways and though the words remain the same, the meaning changes with the vocalization. Then add to this the body language.

I have also been part of too many online discussions that were less than respectful and courteous. I seems like the relative anonymity is taken as tacit permission to say whatever one wants. 

Then, again, I just happen to be a very opinionated guy and if I commented on everything I read, I would never leave my computer! :)

That said, I do thrive on a good discussion. I actually toyed with the idea of having a regular group entitled "Let's Talk" where nothing would be out-of-bounds and we would engaged in a respectful and hopefully intelligent discussion of whatever was on people's hearts and minds. Still may do it, but momentarily have set it aside for a group entitled "God Talk: Theology 101" that will introduce interested people to basic theology, theological terms and subjects.

But yes, lets converse,

ron vanauken