Question for The Research Persona on communion

Welcome to De-Commissioned, a place for former members of the Great Commission movement (aka GCM, GCC, GCAC, GCI, the Blitz) to discuss problems they've experienced in the association's practices and theology.

You may read and post, but some features are restricted to registered members. Please consider registering to gain full access! Registration is free and only takes a few moments to complete.

[saved]

(although I'm happy to have input from anyone else...)

My dh is struggling with communion... what it means, what it should be like.  Once while playing devil's advocate I inadvertently converted him to consubstantiation.  He was all about sacraments being a "visible means of invisible grace."  I didn't really get it, but whatever.  He was happy with being Lutheran and we often serve communion.

Now he says there are no sacraments, the whole idea of real presence is baloney, and the whole "dunk and clunk" (his words, I think) has no sense of connection... he wants a love feast, which I keep trying to tell him is simply not happening in today's world.

We've managed to talk it through enough that he's figured out that the purpose is to remember the Lord in a physical way, but he's still got his undies in a bunch about it.  When he discussed it with a pastor the pastor quoted verses about "eat my flesh," which he looked up and got riled up again because that passage is not about communion.

Any thoughts?

Thanks!

[lone gone]

I'll chime in  as Lutheran who has undergone many changes in understanding Communion.... from a non-understanding unthinking child-like acceptance, to a thorough rejection, to a symbolic acceptance, to a full participation in and desire for the body and blood of Chrsit. I'll  say this, I have never felt more appreciation for the Lord's supper than I do now.

First , a little simplified history.

The Roman Church holds that the sacred( mysterious) elements of the Lord's Supper turn into the actual Body and Blood of Christ when the Words of Institution are spoken. They treat is as such and will not allow consecrated elements to be tested by Science to see if a change has taken place. This flies in the face of reason and is based solely on "faith".

Around 1500 the Humanist philosophers were on the upswing. Life was to be scientifically observed and understood. Human reason trumped everything and there was a escalating rejection of anything divine, mysterious, or faith-based ( such as the existence of a God.)

Luther and Co were products  of their environment and times. They  re-examined the Lord's Supper due to the Roman Churches errors (in light of Scripture and the Fathers)  and the abuses ( selling masses ).  They also rejected many of the humanist's conclusions.
Calvin and co. were more influenced by Humanist philosophy. They rejected much of the mysterious, but kept the faith-based parts ( such as the existence of God)

The reasons went like this:

Calvin and Luther agreed. Christ is among us( Scripture says so. ) and Christ is seated at the right hand of God the Father in Heaven. ( Scripture says so. )

Calvin and Co.  questioned     'How can Christ be present in the wine and bread and still be in Heaven?, He cannot be... so therefore Christ being with us must be symbolic and Christ being is Heaven is actual. We cannot accept that Christ can Physically exist in more than one physical place. Therefore Christ cannot be in the bread and wine, they must be symbolic and that is what Christ meant.'

Luther and Co. asked  "Isn't God omnipresent and everywhere always? Why can't Christ be physically exist in both Heaven and in the Bread and Wine. If Christ is "In, With and Under" the elements they are still bread and wine according to their physical attributes.  Christ said" this is my Body, this is my blood " and meant exactly  what he said  so Luther accepted that the Real Presence was there.
Science has since determined that there is plenty of space between each atom, that there are particles capable of zipping through the entire planet that never touch anything but still influence matter. If Christ could pass through walls before leaving for Heaven, why can't He still be doing so? If we live and move and have our being in Christ, wouldn't that explain how Christ can indeed be in the bread and wine?

Additionally, From a modern perspective of my own understanding:

 Jesus lived 33 years on this earth. During that time he breathed, exchanging oxygen and carbon dioxide atoms. These atoms passed into the general atmosphere for everyone to share. Guess what, he ate and visited the outhouse. That matter is still around as well. Add to that the fact that he shed skin cells, lost hair, trimmed his finger and toe nails, and bled copiously. Where is all that matter?  Still here. It is physically possible that atoms from Christ's physical body are everywhere.
Mysteriously, we can say indeed that  In Him we live and move and have our being.

Oh, the love feast thing?   That is more in the nature of emotional needs. Individuals can and do feel different needs at different times
in their lives. The desire to feel connected on a more intimate basis is understandable.

JMHO. You'd be hard pressed to find any group that can pass muster on having a "love feast" anymore. We are too jaded...too humanistic... too modern. Even the New Testament Churches experienced a changing attitude towards the love feast concept when selfish people felt entitled and spoiled things for everyone.

It's too bad, the small group meetings at the GC church came closest to that ideal.


 

[EverAStudent]

My dh is struggling with communion... what it means, what it should be like.  Once while playing devil's advocate I inadvertently converted him to consubstantiation.  He was all about sacraments being a "visible means of invisible grace."

Dear Saved, I am glad your husband is taking a serious look at the biblical nature of it.  In discussions with a very diverse set of Christians, we have hashed through the implications of this notion of "visible means of invisible grace."  Such a concept seems not to appear in Scripture.  The only means of grace is God.  The Holy Spirit convicts us and brings us to repetance (His call of Grace), He causes us to be regenerated (a act of Grace on His part), and He gives us a promise of final redemption (a promise of more Grace to come at the end of time).  Grace, that is, God's unearned favor toward us, is not more "earned" if we participate in baptism or communion--Grace is always unearned.  Nor are those who cannot participate less favored (recipients of less Grace).  Such a notion of more grace being bestowed via "sacraments" or other actions of man is simply not biblical.  Those who humble themselves unto God's salvation receive Grace, those who are arrogant and refuse salvation refuse His Grace, but that does not make Grace "earned," for even the faith to believe in God is a gift from Him.

Yet, communion is a remembrance that we have received Grace now, and will again later.  Baptism is a public proclamation that we have received Grace now and will again later.  In this they have great value!

Blessings.

[AgathaL'Orange]

Just an aside... those of us who believe in baptism and communion as a means of grace don't think of those things as a "work."  It's more like God saying, I'm handing out a little grace, love, blessing, etc *here* if you'd like to take it.  But then we have a different view of salvation with many other subtleties.  Anyway... we don't believe works save you!  Absolutely not!!!  Anyway... I do not really want to talk to much more myself on the subject because I am not versed in the arguments here or there.  I accept it as mystery and leave it at that.

Just wanted to (foolishly) chime in!!!

 

[EverAStudent]

those of us who believe in baptism and communion as a means of grace don't think of those things as a "work."

Hi Agatha!  Yes, I am very aware that the sacraments are never considered "good works."

It's more like God saying, I'm handing out a little grace, love, blessing, etc *here* if you'd like to take it.  But then we have a different view of salvation with many other subtleties. 

Yes, the difference lies almost entirely in the definition of "grace."  What is grace?  Is it physically dispensed during the taking of sacraments?  Jim McCotter and his band of poor theologians used to teach that "more grace" was obtained via our actions, by being more humble we got God to give us more grace.  ugggh.... 

But what is grace?  If grace is undeserved and unearned favor (the usual meaning), then nothing we "do" or take part in gets us "more" of this grace.  Not even taking part in the sacraments gets us "more" undeserved favor than we had 5 minutes before the church service started.  For grace was never based on our merit.

Grace, God's favor, is given by God solely at His perogative, when He decides, how He decides.  If gaining God's grace were as simple as the formula "grace = participant + sacrament" then it would no longer be undeserved favor given as God alone decides.  We could get grace on demand with each sacrament.  It is not that way with God's favor.

Anyway... we don't believe works save you!  Absolutely not!!! 

 

Of course!  We agree!

By grace we are saved through faith...

This kind of grace that saves, this kind of undeserved mercy and favor from God which saves us, is only given by Him to those He picks.  No amount of baptism or communion services will accrue for a person grace, much less in a quantity that it would yield salvation.  On this point, Agatha, I think we agree!

Blessings to all.

[saved]

Greetings, "Saved" 's husband here.  Thanks for all the imput so far.  For now, I guess I'll accept that whatever is going on with the bread and the wine, there is more than what meets the eye...This is true because I can't always see the recipient's heart, or even what God is doing in their lives.  I guess my main concern now is that sometimes it seems as though a congregation particpates in this because it's been happening this way for 1500-2000 years and thus it becomes an attraction unto itself rather than a foreshadowing of One that has already been here, is ominpresent, and will return again.  Or more simply, there's so much about the second Person of the Trinity that the elements fail to convey.  It does offer a wonderful opportunity for an individual to refocus a straying life, and to be obedient in remembering His death.  And who knows, perhaps God, gracious that He is, does something, I know not what (oooo, I just had a Kant moment there) at the same time He orchestrates the human response to that grace.  It is a shame that the love feast concept does seem to be permanantly replaced by the streamlined "dunk and plunk" approach--so much of the horizontal aspect is lost in this, but I understand time constraints.

[EverAStudent]

Greetings, "Saved" 's husband here.  Thanks for all the imput so far.  For now, I guess I'll accept that whatever is going on with the bread and the wine, there is more than what meets the eye...This is true because I can't always see the recipient's heart, or even what God is doing in their lives.  I guess my main concern now is that sometimes it seems as though a congregation particpates in this because it's been happening this way for 1500-2000 years and thus it becomes an attraction unto itself rather than a foreshadowing of One that has already been here, is ominpresent, and will return again.  Or more simply, there's so much about the second Person of the Trinity that the elements fail to convey.  It does offer a wonderful opportunity for an individual to refocus a straying life, and to be obedient in remembering His death.  And who knows, perhaps God, gracious that He is, does something, I know not what (oooo, I just had a Kant moment there) at the same time He orchestrates the human response to that grace.  It is a shame that the love feast concept does seem to be permanantly replaced by the streamlined "dunk and plunk" approach--so much of the horizontal aspect is lost in this, but I understand time constraints.

I like so very much of what you wrote!!!!

One thing I would add, each time a heart is brought to God by way of conviction of the Holy Spirit, and then regenerated by Him, each and every time, it is a miracle.  That kind of change is a supernatural intervention that could not have happened naturally, or on its own.  It is unseen, however, and so is discounted by the world, but never by the individual to whom this faith has come.

I am not personally big on mysticism (i.e. the search for a feeling to validate the spiritual).  Communion is something I accept on the face value of it from Scriptures:  do this to remember Christ and what He has done for me.  I also like what was said about refocusing.  For those who have found their lives drifting, communion is a smack in the face, a jolt, to remember whose slave we are, and why!

Also, like "saved's husband," I lament that communion has become a virtually impersonal event.  When I was first saved and attended a Grace Brethren church, communion was an entire symbolic meal.  Before the meal, we washed one another's feet as a symbolic reminder of what we should be doing for each other all the time.  Then we ate dinner together.  Then, we reached across the table and literally broke a piece of flat bread with whoever was across from us, and we took the bread and the cup.  NOTHING I have ever participated in since, not GCI's "breaking of bread" or any other service, has even come close to the personal meaning taking away from the Grace Brethren communion services.  Nothing.  One time, during a youth conference, the symbolic meal was held on a hillside with fish sandwiches, remembering and reinforcing the stunning reality of both of Jesus' miracles of feeding the crowds.

If ever I finish seminary, and if ever I am a pastor of a church, I would like to try bringing back the Grace Brethren style of communion in whatever denomination I find myself.  Saved's Husband, I would love to invite you to that to hear your impression.

[saved]

If ever I finish seminary, and if ever I am a pastor of a church, I would like to try bringing back the Grace Brethren style of communion in whatever denomination I find myself.  Saved's Husband, I would love to invite you to that to hear your impression.

Count me in! Also, if by chance you're in Ohio, let us know. -Saved's husband

We have friends in both GBC and The Brethren Church... we're going to try attending a communion with them this year.  - Saved.

[theresearchpersona]

Hey there,

Not ignoring your post, just wanting to give you a reply worthy of your inquiry, and that may take me some time (and I have very little, currently: school + a "Bible Institute", i.e. seminary: my new pastor is intensely devoted to ensuring we're trained to handle the word correctly, especially making sure the men will be able to pastor and guard their families, though women are welcome to be in the classes too! We're using a bunch of seminary-texts, but I like the pastor who has the qualifications yet isn't so lazy as to say "go to seminary", rather "well...I'll teach you". Very obedient to the "devoted to your teaching" part!).

I don't mind giving "any thoughts", but I don't wish to present "just" my thoughts, rather "here's 'my' thoughts based on Scripture handled aright", (insofar as I'm able). It may also be constructive include points from the different views (i.e. Lutheran vs. Reformed vs. Reformed Baptist and etc...), and I want to do it in a reasonable length of space.

So this is somewhat preliminary, somewhat (perhaps) not:

When Jesus says to "take, eat, this is my body, which is broken for you; whenever you do this, do it in memory (or, remembrance) or me", followed by (after he takes the cup), "for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins" (I quoted the first from memory, so please check a translation), and I know you've probably heard this, but those who deny trans/con -substantiation positions do it on the ground that the "is" here, purely considering its use here, isn't "verbal", but that the statement "literally" is just as those statements like "I am the door" (i.e. I'm using "literal" for "true sense", rather than hyper-attention to individual words irregardless of context; I want to undo the poor use of the term "literal" because it's very useful). Also, Jesus's presence is promised to us wherever there are two or more gathered in His name ("name", I believe, it is important to note of that it's not just a bunch of people claiming to do this/that in Jesus, rather in scripture a "name" represents something, it's the meaning that's important), and indeed we're even told that each. individual. believer. abides in Him, and He in them.

Furthermore, we notice he is present in actual body when he says this, so it's eisegesis to take such passages and claim his presence is in the bread; his presence, period, is with the body (those truly His own gathered in His name), and also indeed with each of them as well (i.e. the lone believer in some isolated town in Asia is a sheep too, he or she isn't left neglected and alone). I know there's other passages taken into consideration on these questions (e.g. the one on "discern the lord's body", so looking to that context is highly vital in such charged areas of doctrinal disagreements), but as I said, this is a preliminary post.

The arguments often come down to something like this, Substance vs. Presence vs. Symbol. The only one I can figure neither eisegetes the text nor stretches it, is the last, because it is explicitly stated that when communion is taken we "declare the Lord's death"; simultaneously we're also remembering Him. Both the "substance" and "presence" communities obscure, neglect, even fight (when it often comes down to being pressed to give account by fellow believers, from scripture), both the symbolic/declarative aspects, and that one explicit statement of what it is, that is, being entirely done for remembrance of Christ.

Against both the substance and presence arguments, the only thing in Scripture, as far as I know, and it is emphasized, that receives promise of blessing for being effective, though not subject to men, but God (it's His Spirit that truly teaches us) and declared to be for washing, equipping, and feeding of the body is, not the eucharist, but the word. John 17 always comes to my mind, Jesus's prayer that the Father sanctify us "by your truth, thy word is truth"; or Jesus saying to Peter "feed my sheep"; what, then, did the apostles (including Peter) as teachers do? They refused to "serve tables"--communion(!)--and continued in teaching and prayer, appointing servants (deacons) to do the distributing; for equipping Paul cites the word, calls it powerful and for use in everything, and Paul, thankfully, makes it explicit, clear for us, what the word is for us, describing it as the food for the sheep, as milk and meat.

Extraneous: As far as the Lord's supper being a full meal: that we know is scriptural. I don't know that in scripture it's actually equated with the "love feast", (EAS?), but we do have the example that when Christ broke the bread, and passed the wine, it was at an actual meal. As far as using leavened/unleavened bread, I wouldn't dogmatize on that, since people may/not have either, or, though using unleavened to emphasize the sobriety (the occasion is remembering the Lord's death) is perhaps very fitting.

I would offer this personal thought: men who claim to "administer" God's grace by sacraments (Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, non-baptistic Reformed, etc.) are treading terribly dangerous ground: even the preacher should know that his preaching is not the source of grace, but it is God who imparts understanding and leads and teaches the sheep. He is totally dependent upon God working in the sheep, for anything good to come of it. The preaching of the word, of the gospel, and so forth, is promised blessing, and there are qualifications/etc. given for such duties. But as far as the Lord's supper, except in the context of a larger gathering (they needed people to serve there because of thousands of believers being taught), I see nothing in Scripture explicitly prohibiting any humble gathering from sitting together and in simplicity and thanksgiving, in remembrance, and with order and sobriety (we all should hold each other accountable for these things), breaking the bread and taking the cup. Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Lutheranism, the non-baptistic Reformed, Methodism, etc., all claim to themselves greater authority and that this is the exclusive domain of their "priests"/officers, and insofar as I can tell, there's no valid scriptural basis for this teaching, though I do see the importance of taking it very seriously, and that it should be done properly in the context of the whole congregation, rather than just a just-whenever-on-a-whim church-within-a-church kind of situation. But also, I recognize just as Scripture says that not just in theory, but practice, all believers are priests. This shouldn't mean we all scramble for leadership, or authority over one another, etc., but that we be mutually submitted, willing to conform to Scripture that we be truly unified in Christ, and so on and so forth.

[End preliminary thoughts.]

Please prove all things, mind you. As time passes I'm getting more and more uncomfortable with "just sharing thoughts" type approaches to such questions. I think we Christians, even as commentators (unless, perhaps, when we're just asking questions), might be treading the ground of being teachers in a sense, so that we should be afraid. Not that it's totally invalid for Christians to do that: we're even to teach one another in pslams, hymns, and spiritual songs.

With Love. And I apologize, as this is a little longer than I hoped it to be.

[EverAStudent]

To Researchguy,

I think your write-up would be a fair take on my own understandings as well.

[saved]

Thanks, TRP, for taking the time.

Dh is sleeping now, but he'll read it tomorrow...

--saved.

[G_Prince]

I would offer this personal thought: men who claim to "administer" God's grace by sacraments (Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, non-baptistic Reformed, etc.) are treading terribly dangerous ground:

They understand this. That is why Catholic and Orthodox services are so long. Most of the liturgy is the priest preparing himself and the liturgical instruments for the distribution of God's grace in its coporeal form. If you really believe that Christ is present in the bread and wine, as Catholics and Orthodox believe, than distributing the Eucharist is the most serious and dangerous job on the planet. There are thousands of rules written to protect the gifts so they will not be defiled physically or spiritually. For instance, the reason the Catholic church originally forbade priests to marry in the tenth century, was because marriage and sex were considered base. If the priest was going to handle and distribute the real presence of Christ he had to be be living an "undefiled" life.

We could argue about communion theology till we are blue, but no church takes the Eucharist more seriously than the Catholic church. The priest is aware of the tremendous responsibility he has. He is not a communion vending machine; rather he gives freely and with "faith, reverence, and the fear of God."

Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Lutheranism, the non-baptistic Reformed, Methodism, etc., all claim to themselves greater authority and that this is the exclusive domain of their "priests"/officers.

I think this is a typically misinformed perception of the Catholic/Orthodox churches. The priest is assumed to be on some kind of an ego trip because he is the one giving out salvation. While I'm sure there are some priests out there who might feel this way, this attitude is completely aberrant to the Catholic/Orthodox churches. Yes, priest has spiritual authority over the congregation just like any pastor or church leader. But this authority is from God not the act of giving communion. In my church the priest asks forgiveness from the congregation for any sins or offenses he has committed against them and even bows before them several times. Likewise, He also prostrates himself before the alter and asks Christ to forgive his offenses. 

My priest is a very humble man. I have never detected any kind of arrogance or power trip coming from him; rather he realizes the seriousness of his office and is humble before his dangerous and monumental task.

I don't mean to argue theology or how one's church should practice communion. If you believe in more informal practice that's great, there is certainly a strong theological argument on your side. But the perception that liturgical churches are somehow lording the Eucharist over our heads is pure fallacy.

I don't mean to jump all over your well reasoned arguments. You clearly know theology much better than myself. I do however get tired of the simple assumptions, and misunderstandings made by both Catholics and Protestants about each other. There is plenty of valid theological debate, but also lots misinformation, and demonetization that clouds the real talking points. The reformation was 500 years ago; lets move on.   

[lone gone]

Furthermore, we notice he is present in actual body when he says this, so it's eisegesis to take such passages and claim his presence is in the bread; his presence, period, is with the body (those truly His own gathered in His name), and also indeed with each of them as well (i.e. the lone believer in some isolated town in Asia is a sheep too, he or she isn't left neglected and alone). I know there's other passages taken into consideration on these questions (e.g. the one on "discern the lord's body", so looking to that context is highly vital in such charged areas of doctrinal disagreements), but as I said, this is a preliminary post.

Notice that this goes back to my original reply to the initial post. People would ask the question....  "How can Christ be in two places at once? He cannot be, so we must understand this passage in a figurative sense."

I posit from my perspective that Christ was not only holding and breaking the bread, but was in it. My God is able to do that.... with Him all things are possible. Jesus said: "I and the Father are one".... and if God is Omnipresent then the impossible is possible. Pretty simple really.

I'l also comment about this:

what, then, did the apostles (including Peter) as teachers do? They refused to "serve tables"--communion(!)--and continued in teaching and prayer,

This is TOTALLY a theological stretch.. Dictating that serving tables was "communion" flies in the face of the communal nature of the earliest church and it's having all things in common.

Lastly:


Please prove all things, mind you. As time passes I'm getting more and more uncomfortable with "just sharing thoughts" type approaches to such questions. I think we Christians, even as commentators (unless, perhaps, when we're just asking questions), might be treading the ground of being teachers in a sense, so that we should be afraid. Not that it's totally invalid for Christians to do that: we're even to teach one another in pslams, hymns, and spiritual songs.


I see this as a positive sign....   We all are neophytes..... even the most learned of us here and in all the church. We should be wary of speaking "against" anyone quickly so as to  "defend the truth".   ANY personal holding will be subject to God's eventual revelation to us at the end of times. I am positive that All of us will be humbled that we misunderstood so much.

[MidnightRider]

The Roman Church holds that the sacred( mysterious) elements of the Lord's Supper turn into the actual Body and Blood of Christ when the Words of Institution are spoken. They treat is as such and will not allow consecrated elements to be tested by Science to see if a change has taken place. This flies in the face of reason and is based solely on "faith".
[...]
Science has since determined that there is plenty of space between each atom, that there are particles capable of zipping through the entire planet that never touch anything but still influence matter. If Christ could pass through walls before leaving for Heaven, why can't He still be doing so? If we live and move and have our being in Christ, wouldn't that explain how Christ can indeed be in the bread and wine?
[...]

lone,

There is nothing a scientist could observe that would either prove or disprove the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. Transubstantiation is the belief that the _substance_ (a technical term from Aristotle) of the bread and wine changes into the substance of the body and blood of Christ. Substance is invisible, says Aristotle. All the properties we observe are _accidental_ qualities. Anything that a scientist observes when examining the bread and wine would be _accident_, not substance. So putting a communion wafer under a microscope to look for Jesus molecules would be a waste of time.

IMHO, though, this is a serious problem with transubstantiation (and consubstantiation, too). The doctrine imports the concepts of substance and accident from Aristotle's philosophy and tries to fit them into Christian theolgy. There are serious problems with Aristotle's philosophy, not the least of which is that no one has ever really come up with a useful definition of _substance_. (My philosophy prof in college said it is the gray Play-Dough of which all of reality is made.    )  And even if you overcome that obstacle, there are several more. But it is far-fetched to think that Jesus was teaching a concept based on a worldview completely foreign to his audience.

Christianity has suffered greatly from non-Christian ideas being brought into the church, baptized yet unconverted. Just one more example.

[lone gone]

While I respect your opinions I have to disagree with some of your assertions.

There is nothing a scientist could observe that would either prove or disprove the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. Transubstantiation is the belief that the _substance_ (a technical term from Aristotle) of the bread and wine changes into the substance of the body and blood of Christ. Substance is invisible, says Aristotle. All the properties we observe are _accidental_ qualities. Anything that a scientist observes when examining the bread and wine would be _accident_, not substance. So putting a communion wafer under a microscope to look for Jesus molecules would be a waste of time.

The trouble is that the Aristotolean influence and interpretation arrived with Aquinas in the middle ages. For centuries before that the Catholic church used "Substance" and did not reference it to Aristotle's "substance" or forms or accidents. It seems you have a problem with Aristotle and seem to see him where he is not. 

If anyone else is interested in this discussion I'll refer you to the Wikipedia article on Transubstantiation for a balanced and thorough explanation of Roman, Lutheran, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, and even Latter Day Saints views on this topic.

I had to laugh when I read about the Eastern Orthodox Church's words about the Lutheran view back in 1682.