Ronald VanAuken

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.

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?"

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 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

Said somewhat differently, we need to go back to square one. The essence of the first ecclesia/church was intimacy with Jesus (and later his teaching) and with one another. With the disciples this was experienced in boats, fields, homes, courtyards . . . just about any place if we are to believe the gospels. With the early church it was in homes. As I understand it, God does no reside in buildings made with human hands. Not only so, but all of our liturgies/orders of service, are made up. Jesus never dictated how his followers were to worship when they gathered. (Of course the first followers, being Jews, continued with temple worship. There was no thoughtof establishing a new religion.)

The question caught my attention and I both laughed and was captivated by it. Why? Well, in Jesus discourse on prayer he taught that we pray for daily bread, not weekly, or monthly, or yearly.  Of course this was a personal prayer, not an institutional one.

I once worshipped in small church that knew just how much they neded to make it from one Sunday to the next. In retrospect this was probably the equivalent of "daily bread." Anyway, they took the offering, the deacons counted it, and if it was not sufficient for the next 7 days, they would take the offering again. If my memory serves me, they passed it 3 times that Sunday.

Then there is the story of Channaka (Hanukkah). Oil for one day, it lasted 8. The challenge we have in walking in the footsteps of Jesus is balancing faith with common sense and prudent thinking and acting.

There is an interesting take on the 12 spies. As we know, two Joshua and Caleb, were ready to forge ahead while the other 10 spun the story of giants and recommended not crossing over. IKt is found in the Talmud. As the story goes the spies looked over and saw that the land was, indeed, one of milk and honey. They envisioned the people settling, building homes, planting crops, raising cattle, becoming prosperous and losing their dependence on the Lord. They envisioned them trusting their own strength, their own knowledge, their on wisdom. Fearing this, they instilled fear into the people with their narration. Interesting isn't it, they they were correct in their concern, though wrong in their action. Wealth can easily lead to self-reliance. Not surprisingly when Jesus gave his brief teaching on prayer, it was for daily bread, not for cupboards and refrigerators and freezers full. Some of us are so uncomfortable with this petition that we refuse to see it as it is and want "bread" to mean the "Word of God." But remember that Jesus himself was essentially jobless and homeless. Sobering thought.

One can be first through the wall and then, turn around and find they are the only one through the wall.

We are mistaken if we believe that all change is desirable and/or good. We are mistaken if we believe that everyone is equally open to change. Some come on board quickly and eagerly, other much more slowly and cautiously. We are mistaken if we believe we can leave the past behind. The future is nothing more than the past realized, the present is that infinitely fine line between what has been and what will be. We are mistaken if we believe we can initiate change and not be changed ourselves. We are mistaken if we place change ahead of healthy relationships, which translates into mutual respect for where each one of us are in our journey and a willingness to listen and understand. Every would be leader, when considering change, needs to ask, "Is this change for my good or for the good of the Body?" If the former, drop it. If the latter, then work with the Body, not against it.  

Great piece, Corey. Frankly I wish there were more people who had the courage to openly ask questions like this! I will not give you the answer; but I will give you my answer, the one that works for me.

To pray means to ask, so it is hardly surprising that for many, perhaps even most, this is precisely what it comes down to.

The most common word in the Hebrew that we translate "prayer" is teffilah which may be taken to mean, "connect." That is, what we call "prayer" is first and foremost a deliberate and conscious connecting with God, or engaging the Lord is a conversation, a dialogue. Fundamentally it has nothing to do with the actual content or nature of that conversation.

One form of the word actually means "to judge." In shirt, when we pray our very words judge our hearts. As do Jews, I always pray aloud and have many an instance where mid sentence I will stop because I realize that my words are outside of the petition, "Your will be done." or that my words reveal something that I personally need to deal with before I come to my Father to talk.

So it has come to pass that in my own spiritual life my conversations are much less about asking for things, than praising, thanking and trying to get my won life in order. When I do "pray" for others, whatever the situation may be, I see it primarily as a way of acknowledging that we are called to bear one another's burdens and to seek from the Lord to know what I am personally called to do. Said differently, I am asking, "Is this concern a call for me to act and, i so, what would you have me do?"

This is a sort answer that is personal and well would serve for a much longer dialogue.

I will end saying that for me the questions, and the struggles are much more rewarding than the answers as I always come away amazed at what a great God we serve.

ed