Last night I was listening to Dr. Albert Mohler (“Ask Anything” Wednesday) and a caller questioned whether it was acceptable to use leavened bread in Communion.
Dr. Mohler indicated it was not necessary, but felt we should simulate the Last Supper as closely as possible, and since Jesus ate unleavened bread—we should too. He remembered eating leavened bread at communion only twice in his life.
We always had little squares of dry, unleavened bread at communion. If you want some, you can buy them here.
Yet if we are trying to simulate it as closely to Jesus’ supper as we can—shouldn’t we use wine as well? Instead of grape juice? Why is it felt to be necessary to be accurate in the bread-department, with an equally necessary slight modification in the wine-department? Is this consistent?
If we are trying to be as close to the Last Supper as possible, we should have unleavened bread, wine, and wash each other’s feet. Or at least have the leader of the congregation do so. (Wouldn’t that be a switch?) But, of course, Baptists don’t drink alcohol (nor do we wash each other’s feet), so we substitute grape juice.
Not orange juice. Not water. Not red juice. Not lime, lemon, pop, root beer, coffee, tea, or apple juice. Always grape juice. Clearly we are not emulating exactly what Jesus drank; is it so important we emulate what he ate?
Imagine offering Girl Scout cookies instead of the wafers--Sacrilege!
Isn’t it funny we have become so immersed in tradition we use unleavened bread to copy Jesus, but symbolic grape juice to not.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is very specific to certain Protestant denominations. I've attended Anglican/Episcopalian Maundy Thursday services where all three traditions are followed: unleavened bread, actual wine, and foot washing led by the priest.
ReplyDeleteI cannot speak for Dr. Mohler or the denomination he represents (the Southern Baptist Convention). What I could say ABOUT Dr. Mohler could be seen as uncharitable.
I can speak with some knowledge as to the traditions of my own church, the Presbyterian Church (USA). Our Book of Order (half of our church's constitution) allows a certain amount of leeway in the elements of the Lord's Supper. "Bread common to the culture of the community should be provided to be broken by the one who presides," and "the session [governing body of the local church] is to determine what form of the fruit of the vine is to be used. In making this decision the session should be informed by the biblical precedent, the history of the church, ecumenical usage, local custom, and concerns for health and the conscience of the members of the congregation. Whenever wine is used in the Lord's Supper, unfermented grape juice should always be clearly identified and served also as an alternative for those who prefer it."
PC(USA) churches I've attended over the years have used wafers, leavened bread (either cubed or torn from a loaf), and broken matzo. I've seen both wine and grape juice, either in tiny plastic cups or in a goblet for intinction (dipping), but never a common cup (I think this is mostly due to Americans' paranoia about germs). I've been served at the pew by the elders (only ordained officers should serve) and I've marched up the aisle to the front of the sanctuary.
In general, the Reformed (Presbyterian) view is that the elements themselves are not what is most important in the Lord's Supper; the sacrament itself is what's important: the words of institution, the prayer, and the partaking.
Basically, just remember that the way this sacrament is viewed and enacted by Christians is very diverse, and Dr. Mohler does not speak for a majority of us Christians (thank heaven).
Good eye for foolishness in the church, Dagoods. The bread, the wine, the washing were all symbolic. In each case we fret over these things we lose sight of Jesus Christ. If Jesus is not the focus, it's all nonsense.
ReplyDeleteEventually you could see a Foot Fetish (Bruno Magli Baptists?)denomination in which the clergy lick the parishioners' feet clean and wash it all down with a good Chianti. Now that's Communion....
:-)
I went to church this morning and ate leavened bread with real wine. Today the bread was white, but sometimes it's whole wheat. We are privileged in our part of the world to have the time, energy, and resources to waste arguing over this kind of pettiness, but the truth is, it doesn't matter how "right" we get our rituals - if I've never taken the broken body and poured out blood of the Lord Jesus Christ to fill the need that is much bigger than my stomach's need, then every symbol I take part in is empty and only serves to condemn me.
ReplyDeleteHi Sandwich, if you get a chance this Easter try to get to the Thursday evening service at a Catholic or Anglican(?) church for a mass with washing of the feet. Depending on the congregation it can be moving as can the Friday service.
ReplyDeleteJennypo "it doesn't matter how "right" we get our rituals - if I've never taken the broken body and poured out blood of the Lord Jesus Christ to fill the need that is much bigger than my stomach's need, then every symbol I take part in is empty and only serves to condemn me." WOW, but true!
The rituals are there only to remind us.
Sala kahle - peace
The Methodist church I grew up in used grape juice, basically giving the reason that they wanted church to be a safe place for those struggling with or recovering from alcohol abuse, which I always thought made sense.
ReplyDeleteNow, communion in my Baptist church never fails to have the same effect on me, which is to remind me how much I enjoy grape juice, and that I should get some next time I'm at the store. I'm not sure that's what Jesus intended.
Contrary to what Jim hinted at, we in the Reformed tradition do not believe that the Lord's Supper (what others call Communion or Eucharist) is symbolic. Calvin took the middle ground between the Roman (the bread and wine are physically transformed into the body and blood of Christ, i.e., transubstantiation) and the Anabaptist (the bread and wine are completely symbolic and the sacrament is purely a memorial). He argued that while the bread and wine physically remain bread and wine, they metaphysically (my term, not Calvin's) are infused with the spirit of Christ. The upshot is that "it gives us such assurance to know that the visible sign is given as the seal of the invisible gift. I believe what the Church has always believed, that the sacred mystery of the Lord's Supper consists of two things--the physical signs and the spiritual truth," and that in this two-part ritual we receive and proclaim a two-part promise: the resurrection of Christ and the redemption of us by Him. (Institutes 4.17.11, Lane-Osborne translation) "Mystery" becomes a key further in Calvin's discussion.
ReplyDeleteIt is by similar logic that we in the Reformed tradition, somewhat controversially, baptize infants (outward sign of water, inward act of Holy Spirit) in a manner that I know gives Dr. Mohler stomach ulcers.
There are also subtle-yet-important differences amongst the Christian traditions regarding furniture and posture. In traditional Catholic (as well as Anglican and Lutheran) Eucharist services, the priest/pastor turns his back to the congregation and faces the altar while making the preparatory prayers and saying the words of institution. The symbolism is that of the sacrifice on the altar and the priest/pastor acting as intermediary between God and the congregation about to receive the body and blood of Christ. In the Reformed tradition (this includes Presbyterians), the pastor stands behind the communion table and faces the congregation for the prayers and words of institution, the symbolism being that of sitting down at a table as equals with the pastor (whose only real status of distinction is extra training in the meaning of the Sacrament) at a meal given by Christ.
Ironically, considering that this topic springs forth from a discussion of the Southern Baptist luminary Mohler, the Baptist position historically is that the sacrament is a "symbolic act of obedience [of] the members of the church" (from the SBC's "2000 Baptist Faith & Message"). The very few services including the Lord's Supper I have attended in Baptist churches tend to surprise me by how casual they seem, even for this member of a "liberal" Protestant denomination.
I know all this will be of academic interest to atheists, particularly those who do have a background in the Christian tradition. I just think you'd find it interesting to see some of the ways in which we are not monolithic even in a very central part of our faith.
Amy,
ReplyDeleteImagine what it would lead you to think to buy if they used Girl Scout Cookies instead of the bread! *wink* I think the idea of grape juice instead of wine is fine—it eliminates the problem you brought of alcoholics, as well as what to do with kids. The oddity is, if we are to substitute the grape juice for the wine, why would it be important to maintain unleavened bread? Wouldn’t soda crackers be an equal (and cheaper) substitute?
flycandler,
Thanks for the various descriptions of Communion/Eucharist. I didn’t know that about the priest facing away from the congregation, as compared to the pastor behind the communion table. (Incidentally, the Baptist Churches and non-Denominational Calvinistic Churches I attended had the deacon on either side of the table give the blessing. On the left for the bread, right for the grape juice.)
I would also note, since you brought up the SBC: its statement limits it to “members” whereas every church I attended made it a point to open communion to all who are saved. (And were very proud of their “openness” might I add.)
I suspect some of the casualness comes from the rote of the ceremony. The same songs played softly in the background (“Old Rugged Cross.” “Washed in the Blood.”) Same exact words said by the Pastor. 1 Cor. 11:23b – 29a. We knew who was going to pray, how they were going to, etc. Like slogging through the last hymn. (We always did Communion last.) Get it over with so we can sing the doxology. (Which, as a boy, we sang, “Praise all preachers, here we go!”)
Have you ever wondered why your God allowed such confusion on this ceremony, when a few simple, well-placed words would have eliminated it?
Hi flycandler, you said "There are also subtle-yet-important differences amongst the Christian traditions regarding furniture and posture. In traditional Catholic (as well as Anglican and Lutheran) Eucharist services, the priest/pastor turns his back to the congregation and faces the altar while making the preparatory prayers and saying the words of institution."
ReplyDeleteAs an update: At the Second Vatican Council 1968 the Roman Catholic changed the ritual of the mass to have the celebrant stand behind the alter and face the congregation. The symbology was that the whole congregation co-celebrated the mass rather than the priest on his own.
Interesting point about the Calvinist mid-way position on transubstantiation - I did not know that - thanks
Sala kahle - peace
Contrary to what - my obvious joke - Flycandler? Your knowledge of Christian ritual is always impressive. But I have to point out a flaw.
ReplyDeleteHe (Calvin) argued that while the bread and wine physically remain bread and wine, they metaphysically (my term, not Calvin's) are infused with the spirit of Christ.
So instead of it being symbolic I guess you could say it was REALLY symbolic. Just because some great clergyman says something is supposed to happen doesn't mean that it happens.
My first real communion with Christ was when I drank the grape juice and closed my eyes. I found myself on a hill in twilight before the cross. My eyelashes feeled with tears. For what its worth, that's communion.
Dagoods' conclusion stands: Isn’t it funny we have become so immersed in tradition we use unleavened bread to copy Jesus, but symbolic grape juice to not.
akakiwibear, thanks for the clarification. My grandmother is a VERY devout Missouri Synod Lutheran (what Garrison Keillor calls "Misery Synod"), and we joke that she would have been less outraged if my dad had brought a Jewish girl home than a Catholic. Fortunately for all involved, he married a Presbyterian (though she was Southern, which opened up a whole nother can of worms). I haven't been to a Catholic mass in quite some time, though at my grandmother's Missouri Synod (i.e., conservative) Lutheran church, the pastor stands with his back to the congregation. There is also always an acolyte who bows before the cross and the pastor always makes the sign of the cross at the end of prayers and during the benediction. Grandma would be horrified to hear it, but Luther wasn't trying to leave the Catholic Church; he was trying to reform it, and a lot of tiny Roman touches remain.
ReplyDeleteDagoods, I can speak most clearly to the Reformed tradition in which I grew up (Presbylutheran, with a dash of Episcopalian now and again). The Lord's Supper (a.k.a. Communion or Eucharist) is still treated very seriously and reverently in these churches, and I think a lot of it has to do with some of the doctrinal background. If your theological backing for something in worship is "this is merely symbolic!" then it will end up being treated as casually as the pastor reading the announcements.
I had an interesting conversation with a minister in the hyper-conservative Orthodox Presbyterian Church (whose leader gave us the term "fundamentalist"), where they actually put Dr. Mohler's words into practice. They use the Regulative Principle of Worship (an IMO overreaction to the perceived excesses of the Roman church in Luther & Calvin's day), which says that nothing can be included in worship that is not explicitly mentioned in the Bible. Hence no hymns, just psalms. They also have "closed communion", whereby someone who is not a member of the OPC and approved by the local church cannot participate in the Lord's Supper. The mainline church (now the PC(USA)) moved away from that position, in large part due to the neo-orthodoxy of Karl Barth and his reexamination of the Reformers, and now allow anyone who is a Christian to participate, as "this is the Lord's table, not a Presbyterian one" (part of the invitation liturgy).
Incidentally, the PC(USA) requires that the sacrament be administered (i.e., the invitation, the Great Prayer of Thanksgiving, the words of institution, and the prayer after the meal) be done by an ordained Minister of the Word & Sacrament (or in rare circumstances, by an ordained Elder specifically trained and authorized by the Presbytery). After the institution, the elements may be served only by ordained Elders or Deacons (in the Presbyterian church, there are three classes of ordained officer: Minister of the Word & Sacrament, Elder and Deacon. Elders form the Session, the local governing body, which has jurisdiction over the Board of Deacons).
Have you ever wondered why your God allowed such confusion on this ceremony, when a few simple, well-placed words would have eliminated it?
Yes, but I don't dwell on it. To quote Calvin again (and I concur fully with these words), "if anyone asks me about the process, I do not mind admitting that it is too high a mystery for my mind to grasp or my words to express. I feel rather than understand it." (4.17.32)
Our newly-ordained associate pastor made a comment in his sermon yesterday, which I paraphrase from memory, "the Church is ultimately not here to provide all the answers, but to help better understand the questions."
Again, speaking for myself alone, the turning point in my reconversion (as it were) was the realization that I didn't need the church to provide me with all the answers; that sometimes just pondering the mystery together is enough.
Well, Jim, it was a bad joke about something very sacred in our church, and I had just wanted to let it go. It points to the reason about why we Presbyterians, even the "liberal" PC(USA), limit the administering and serving of the Sacrament to ordained officers who have been trained in what "some great clergyman said is supposed to happen" (and that we as a Church have decided to agree upon for 500 years).
ReplyDeleteWithout intending to, you underlined my (and John Calvin's) point: the act of swallowing grape juice was not the only thing that occurred with you. A spiritual experience also occurred (albeit in graphic terms) simultaneously. We as a Church believe it's a two part experience. The form of the bread and of the cup aren't that important, but the ritual (i.e. all the prayers and Scripture readings) is. Incredibly. Important.
As far as "Dagoods' conclusion stand[ing]", only that his conclusion was regarding words spoken by a Southern Baptist theologian in the context of a faith tradition that, unlike ours, sees the Lord's Supper as a purely symbolic gesture and not one that holds a deeper meaning that goes beyond simple bread and grape juice.
Yes, I disagree with Dr. Mohler on this issue, but mainly because I believe that he is missing the larger point. The problem in the context of this discussion is that by no means does Mohler or the Southern Baptist convention reflect the views relating to the Sacraments of the vast majority of Christians worldwide throughout history.
Fly, you love your traditions don't you? 500 years, the majority of Christians worldwide.... Isn't that irrelevant?
ReplyDeleteunlike ours, sees the Lord's Supper as a purely symbolic gesture and not one that holds a deeper meaning that goes beyond simple bread and grape juice.
I think this is offensive to any Baptist by the way. It IS grape juice and bread - can you prove otherwise?. The communion is between the partaker and the Lord and that's it. Who cares what the "Book of Ancient Ordained Ordinary People Serving Communion" says?
It seems to me that you like to obsess about rules and doctrines while doing whatever you please. Face it, you only oppose Dr. Mohler because he's a conservative Christian.
Enough with the personal attacks, Jim. You do plenty of that on your own blog.
ReplyDeleteYes, these doctrines and traditions have meaning. They are developed over time and involve a lot of study and prayerful discernment. The fact of the matter is that you did not invent Christianity one day out of the blue. Everything you profess to believe grows from a system of doctrine. Jesus as the Son of God? That's a doctrine. A triune God--Father, Son and Holy Spirit? That's a doctrine and a very controversial one I might add. Even the use of the Bible, whether as the unique witness to Christ or some divine instruction manual, that's based in doctrine. We have a very rich legacy, and it is foolish to dismiss it so casually. One of the distinctives of the Presbyterian tradition that I am most proud of is the very high status we give to scholarship. We take the command to love the Lord our God with all our mind very seriously.
As far as dear Dr. Mohler is concerned, yes, I dislike him, mainly because of the reprehensible things he has said about me and other gay people, not to mention my church. Putting aside my personal feelings about him, I disagree with him theologically on a variety of issues, but this one (the sacraments) in particular for very specific reasons. A question that comes up reading Dagoods' original post speaks to this. If there is such a weirdly different standard to the elements of the sacrament (leavened bread heresy, unfermented grape juice just dandy), a sacrament that is purely symbolic, then why bother at all? I'm honestly not that concerned about offending Baptists by explaining what the rest of Christendom thinks. It's entirely relevant to a discussion about the sacraments on an atheist blog.
Communion is by definition not solitary--it is not "between the partaker and the Lord and that's it". It is the coming together of all believers to receive the gift, physically and spiritually, of the Lord's Supper from Christ. Paul speaks to this (1 Cor 11.17-34), coincidentally the same passage where we get the words of institution.
I found this fascinating:
It IS grape juice and bread - can you prove otherwise?
It's a question I would have expected from one of the resident atheists.
The answer, as always, is faith. No, I can't prove that Christ is spiritually present during the Lord's Supper, but I believe he is. From what I can gather from what you've said, you apparently agree, though you're looking for a fight where there is none. Yes, you seem to base your opinion from an experiential rather than exegetical basis, and experiential religion-building has its serious drawbacks (see dagoods' latest post). We (your pastor and myself on one hand, you on the other) sort of come to a similar conclusion in the end, ironically.
The way we receive the bread and the juice is experiential. What the traditions do is lead people to communion. My point is that "this is the body of Christ" is symbolic no matter how you dress it up. The goal is that we invite in the presence of God and nourish that love affair with Him. The tradition in the ritual helps, but it's only a guide.
ReplyDeleteAt least you see there is no real disagreement.
It's a question I would have expected from one of the resident atheists.
ReplyDeleteIt's just common sense. If that's "fascinating" coming from a Christian, then it must be fascinating that a Christian shows common sense. Doesn't bode well for our side, eh? Regards.
A Christian allowing "common sense" to trump faith when it comes to the spiritual is always a cause for concern.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I note that your pastor and I agree that as a two-part phenomena the Lord's Supper includes a spiritual component in addition to the physical component; however we disagree with dismissing the physical component as "symbolic". This is where the Reformed view cleaves from the Anabaptist view, just as transubstantiation is where it cleaves from the Roman view (or consubstantiation from the Lutheran).