Ronald VanAuken

How do we wish to see the church? o we wish to see it primarily as a building and a highly organized structure, or do we wish to see is as an assembly of believers, which the biblical word we translate as "church" actually means? If we desire to be what the gathering of believers was, and which our Lord formed, then we must begin with the ecclesia, the assembly, and for that I would suggest that "best practices" begins with what has traditionally been called mutual censure. By this I mean that in my idea congregation, leaders would have a bond between them that is more than superficial. They would meet to "confess their sins and pray for one another," tio build one another up, to bear each others burdens, weeping with those who weep and rejoicing with those who rejoice. Having behind me nearly 50 years of ministry in 3 denominations as both pastor and in executive positions, and now with the CRC, it is my conviction that a truly spiritual or godly congregation cannot be effectively led if its leadership is not seeking to exemplify a life of faith. It is fundamentally not the talk; but the walk. And no, I am not a fundamentalist, just trying to get on board with what I her my Lord teaching.

I am not sure there is a simple scriptural/biblical response to this. I say this because the nature of the church changed during the apostolic era and continued to change after.

"Church" is a very poor translation of the word ecclesia which literally means "those called out" and came to refer to a community of individuals who were, in some manner, separate and distinct from others. Contrary to what we have been lead to believe, the ecclesia/church was not founded on the day of Pentecost. It was founded by Jesus when he called the first disciples and they essentially left everything to follow him, both literally and figuratively.  There was no particular requirement, simply that they tag along, learn from him, and seek to model themselves after him. This was what it meant to be a disciple.

That was when Jesus was out and about. Once he was (physically) no longer present, others essentially took on his teaching and when they passed, others took on their teaching. This meant that individual thoughts and responses came into play and the simple following of Jesus was lost to an increasingly complex and bureaucratic organization where the ministry of the many became the ministry of the few, namely the clergy. It also necessitated or at least invited a distinction between membership in the ecclesia/church universal and membership in a particular congregation or denomination with its distinctive beliefs and practices. 

Some congregations have addressed this by acknowledging everyone as members but requiring an understanding and commitment to their particular beliefs and governance before assuming a leadership position.

As one who thrives on discussions, I find this one rather intriguing, especially as it impacts on what we do every Lord’s Day. Allow me to make a few observations.

Typically, regulative does stand against normative as polar opposites. Can we accept that there is a spectrum, or at least that neither of these is wholly acceptable?

The phrase in the catechism is “has been commanded.” Much of what we read in the scriptures, however, is illustrative, not instructive. Said differently, what we actually have is a record of how the church did worship, not how they were commanded to worship.

Even commandments require considerable interpretation, which, of course, for the Jews eventually led to the Talmud. Oran music is not commanded, neither are guitars. There is no command, much less precedent, for only an ordained minister to administer the Lord’s Supper and baptism and the practice actually goes against any understanding of scriptural worship. How about the announcements that most congregations have during worship? We could go on; but I hope the point is made.

If we were to draw on what we are actually told in scripture (1st Corinthians 14:26) about worship in at least this one apostolic congregation, we are certainly far removed from it, unless we relegate it to a small group or house church gathering. It certainly is not a Sunday morning pattern.

I have done this; but only during Lent . . . and the congregation was Presbyterian. We did it on Shrove Tuesday (Pancakes!) and then on Maundy Thursday.

The meal wold be prepared; but served buffet style. We began with a welcome and short but relevant scripture, oft paraphrased or pout in a story form, then the bread ws blessed, using the Jewish blessing over bread, broke the bread and passed it. A thanks to God was followed by the meal itself. After everyone had eaten we had a short devotional/meditation followed by the blessing of the cup--Jewish blessing again, and then the benediction.

Shrove Tuesdays were always preceded by an explanation of the origin and meaning. This was done during Lord's Day worship preceding. We tried to stick to the meaning of the day. Maundy Thursday we tried--sometimes more successfully than others, to guide table conversation around themes of fellowship, love, caring, personal commitment and sacrifice, and the like.

I have personally come to believing that the Jews and the Salvation Army have a better understanding of what we refer to as communion or the Lord's Supper than we do. By this I mean that ever meal has a "sacramental" quality to it, though we may give a special recognition via liturgy to Passover or the drastically paired down meal that we refer to as Communion/Lord's Supper.

I might add that when we started the Maundy Thursday meal, it was a Chinese buffet! :) Then we moved to alternating Chinese with a variety of other foods.

I will not offer up reading material nor will I go into an exegesis or explanation. I will suggest, however, that both election and predestination are misunderstood more often than not and this does no service to either our ministry or mission and certainly does not enhance our relationship to the Lord. Beware of who is being addressed and who is not being addressed when each of the subjects is raised. Use good logic when seeking to understand them, being aware of arriving at false conclusions. And, of course, context and the whole counsel of God is critical.

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.

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? 

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.