One area of concern coming out of my earlier experiences was that if people didn't understand, was I right in communicating them? One of those with whom I correspond has offered this thought:
"If they do not understand what they are doing, they can not understand that it is wrong, so there is no condemnation,"
Now whilst this sorts out the communicant, where does this leave the person communicating?
Having looked at remembrance, I wonder how many people see the Tardis that I see when doing communion? How many will see in the bread and wine the 'real presence'? How many will see this as merely something that we do as a memorial to Jesus?
There are so many thinking and unthinking states present in an average communion service. A few days a go I was speaking with a member of a church in the area, they'd been singing in the choir and been confirmed and taking communion for ages. As we talked they suddenly stopped me and asked what they needed to do to become a 'Christian'. I went through the basics and they replied that they'd need to go and think about that because they hadn't realised that there were so many things to believe! No one would have refused this person communion because they had the choir robes and the confirmation certificate but they were, in terms of faith issues, totally ignorant and unknowing.
Now, if by our not knowing we, "Eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner (we) will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord." Not my words, but the words of Paul in 1 Cor 11: 27. According to Paul, participating in an 'unworthy manner' brings judgment, does not knowing fit this category?
I met a man whose churchwardens/greeters asked people whether they have been confirmed so they can be given a blessing or communicated! We can get silly over this topic, after all, my understanding might be different to yours and you might know more about what communion is and how it operates than the next person, who merely sees it as part of the service, and they might be better placed than the next who thinks its about being family and nothing else! But what if all the parts of the jigsaw make a picture that is right? Should we issue a test to check whether or not you can be communicated? Could you imaging the scene if you turned up next Sunday and you were given three questions:
1. What do you understand by the Atonement?
2. With regard to the communion, what does this signify?
3. What happens to the bread and wine upon consecration and how does this fit in with Acquinas' concept of transubstantiation.?
How many of us would be taking communion? John 6 (53-56) tells us:
"I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him"
Surely then the unworthy manner relates to the attitude in which it is taken not the knowledge or understanding although these do influence the manner in which it is taken. This surely means that all of us, in our varying stages of knowing, are welcomed at the table. That said, I do try to check in case, as was the case in one place I was asked to visit, some of those present (who could not communicate their intent or desire) were actually rampant atheists during their earlier days and it was fair to assume remained so. Mind you, what if they'd recanted and wanted it in their latter years? Still - better to try and be sure that you didn't impose communion upon people either!
Regarding this thread, some have told me that I should merely ensure that the people I was to communicate had been confirmed, this was all that was required. That said, the BCP tells me that baptism is a 'full and sufficient' sacrament by which all other sacraments are made available to us - so there's another area of difference and consideration in the pot!
Another consideration. If by giving communion we are giving another the means of grace, would we in any other setting withhold blessing from our children, from those who through impaired or limited understanding or old age could not fully understand? In everything outside of communion I'm sure most of us would gasp and say, "Of course not!" So why do we do this with communion, withholding blessing because of a piece of paper or our own sensibilities.
I think therefore we come to God and ask that through the communion we are bringing, that He would bless and pour out His grace and that we should perhaps think on the words of proverbs 3:
"Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding;"
Looking good so far . . .
"In all your ways acknowledge Him and He will make your paths straight."
Let us make this our prayer and reality and let us seek to bring blessing where it is needed.
9 comments:
An interesting dilemma. My question would be, How do we know whether they understand or not?
Even in those suffering from dementia, and unable to communicate, might have a tiny inner core, where they still are 'being', believe, want and need with unchanged intentions. I think that we can only act in good faith. If they accept Communion, is this a tiny, visible, outward sign of their remaining self.
The 'real presence' or transubstantiation is perhaps a Catholic belief, which I struggled with in my RC Days. I accept that God is present in the form of the Holy Spirit, during Communion, but the belief of the Host and Wine being the Actual body and blood of Jesus Christ is not one I can subscribe to. "Do this in Remembrance of me" is something I take literally. I accept that once the host and wine are consecrated, they are holy, representations of the body and blood of Jesus Christ - but to say they are the 'actual' is stretching things to far.
I note that Pope Benedict in his letter to Irish Catholics after the abuse controversy has specified 'Veneration of the Blessed Sacrament' as one of the measures to be taken to restore some peace and spirituality - this is taking transubstantiation to extreme limits, in my view.
Receiving Holy Communion when as Catholics say "Not being in a State of Grace" is something which you highlight very well - for an individual, being in full understanding of this, in vitally important! But I question whether it is our place to judge individuals on this. Only they, in their own conscience will know whether or not they are unworthy. To withhold communion is both impracticable and judgmental on our part.
Thank you for this series, it is making me think carefully about things, which are central to our understanding of things.
I think I might be about to address part of this in one of the things I'm going to add.
That said, I value your thoughtful and provocative (in a nice sense) posts - exactly what I am looking to do with this blog, stimulate and extend thinking (mine and hopefully others too!).
As for the Benedict bit - not too sure about that, akin to one of the Uni' RC Chaplains who gave us all a rosary and crucifix for 'good luck' - aaaargh!
Like the Tardis, the sacraments are larger on the inside than on the outside.
Examination questions at the door? You are correct, most of us would not pass the test. I am thankful that we can still come to the table despite our unworthiness.
Most of us in the pews have to rely on our spiritual leaders to prod us out of our laziness regarding the study of even the most basic beliefs. This post made me think back to those "confirmation classes" I took years ago, and how, unlike most organizations where continued education and re-examination have become a common requirement, the church has a difficult task in that continuing ed. is not required, the liturgy and worship services are frequently seen as sufficient, and thus we get into the issue of each individual's motivation to engage in further study (the prodding of the shepherds crook?). Unfortunately, our church (TEC) has not done a good job, and has prodded me only through their negative examples. In a way, I am grateful they have done so, but I do not think this is the right way to motivate people.
If you see confirmation as 'only a piece of paper' then it doesn;t matter. If you see it as representing a positive commitment to the specific denomination i.e. your membership of the Church of England, and that means that you are in agreement with the core tenets of doctrine as expressed by the church... we come back to understanding again, but at least we can make some assesment of intent.
Btw, what do you do in a church where a large number of the congregation see confirmation as optional and unnecessary, but would be horrified if communion were refused (and also see communion as ('just a memorial')?
I find it interesting that some should make confirmations such a rite of passage to the point of legalism. I see it as more than merely a piece of paper yet don't see the possession of it as the general panacea for all ills either
Some I have met have this but don't have a clue about what being a Christian is and yet this is taken as the level the bar is set at.
I have never been in a church where communion has been seen as optional or unnecessary, but if I was, I'd have to embark upon some teaching about communion and the place of confirmation in baptism, then and now, I would imaging.
My point is that some see communion and access to it in a 'go/no go' setting, something that the 'all those who are of good standing in their own church fellowship' invitation assists us with.
Thanks H!
As others have have alluded to the issue of disabled people, I think it is pertinent to remember that some people,like my severely autistic son, probably will never be able to fully comprehend the Gospel.
But the Triune God who has created him wants him to be saved therefore I believe God will exempt him from requiring full knowledge. Of course we don't get examined by the great examiner in the sky - we are saved by grace through faith.
The case of abled bodied Christians is a more complex issue. Clergy through homilies and bible studies can convey knowledge but to do this effectively this often requires time that a priest is never allowed by the demands of his/her vocation. Perhaps the issue is this : why do theology colleges have their heads in the clouds? Why aren't there more online courses for the laity etc ....?
Ironically the blogosphere for all its cant, bluster & gossip is one of the few places spirituality is discussed.
My reposne to your debate became too long, so it is here http://helegantone.blogspot.com/2010/03/communication.html
My reasons for considering this topic are twofold. I feel that a revisit and consideration/rethink is always a good thing and secondly, to assist someone who is doing a reflective piece on communion.
I have purposely kept away from mental disability as this is, for me, a very different situation again. It was somewhere I was thinking I'd end up but I didn't want to rush there. I will write more fully as we progress (on the blog) but have to come clean and say that I go on an age of cognisance approach and also see in some their understanding, albeit limited by situation and circumstance, is actually simpler, different and I have never (unlike some with whom I have argued into the early hours on many occasions) seen it as being right to exclude from the table.
Helen, love the blog - may I plonk it here along with some other bits - I was hoping that this would be a dialogue rather than me (having little in my hands) pontificating. It will prove most useful.
Bless you all and thank you for challenging and stimulating *as well as blessing),.
Pax
Of course.
Post a Comment