Hypothetical Situation
Let's suppose for a moment that there existed a hypothetical Christian Community in an urban area. And let's add to this community the desire among community members to take communion together. And let's add to this desire a number of United Methodists, among others (Let's throw in some UCC, pentacostals, etc.). Mix all this up and this question comes out: is it appropriate for a "mixed" community to invite their United Methodist minister to come and serve the community communion? Why or why not?
posted by Tom Arthur at 9:36 PM
7 Comments:
Your lower-case 'c' causes me to have no issue with this situation. If it is a community and not a church, the presiding act is not consecration but supervision.
The problem with hypotheticals, though, and especially ones like this, is that the interesting question is not should, but why do they desire to be a part of this "community" and commune and yet not call themselves members together in the same body. But that cannot be pressed in a hypothetical.
Tom, I think I have some experience of this dilemma from my 'ole Wheaton days. I was the chaplain (!) of the rowing team and it was an annual practice, until my year of chaplaincy, to have communion together the night before our last regatta (I know, I know... no, no one ever got crucified the next day). I actually didn't do it, but it wasn't because I was theologically opposed to it at the time, it was because my coxswain was vehemently opposed to it, good little Reformed girl that she was, and I was afraid of her!
But the point of all that is this: sometimes we live in communities of one form or another that seem to us more like "church" than our church.
But the problem remains.
I have to say that I find Wilson's comments mostly helpful. If the "communit" in question wants to have communion together, that, in my mind, is the same as saying that the community wants to become a church. And if they want to become a church, I say you do it! In fact, if you want to, you could call the Anglican Mission in America HQ, and they would talk to you all about sending a priest to help build up a church. But if you do something like that, he's going to want to discipline that table.
I'm a little confused by both of these responses. First, Phil, this hypothetical is nothing like the rowing situation. It would be more equivilant if one of the rowing crew asked their pastor to come and serve them communion. Should the pastor do it?
Second, Wilson, I don't understand the distinction between "consecration" and "supervision." I also don't understand the interesting question: what if they do want to call themselves members of the same body and that is why they want to commune together? But because they go to different churches (some of those churches requiring certain standards at the table like an ordained pastor) they ask a pastor at one of those chruches to preside.
The distinction between consecration and supervision was explained today in Methodism, Tom. Consecration views the Holy Spirit as acting through the pastor, supervision holds the Spirits action as not governed by the pastor, she is just supervising the situation, making sure the sacraments are duly administered.
And for your second question, that is exactly what I was pressing, why, if they want to commune together, do they want to maintain membership in different churches? What holds together as Church is the table. I am trying to press why they want to meet together and commune together and yet keep institutional distinctions.
They may desire to join together institutionally but their institutions see problems with that.
So what I think the end result is of what you are saying is that communion is only for worship settings within one church/ecclessial authority?
Sure, but my question continues to be why they wish to maintain ties to other bodies if they want this to be a communing body.
I mean, if it is just bread and wine, then have a love feast or something to that effect. If you don't think anything happens or anythings happens of significance, why do you need a minister? If you do, why do you want to maintain separate ecclesial ties?
Communion is worship, is participation. The way you spin the statement is to put a limit to communion and I don't want to do that. Communion is limited to those who are baptized, believing Christians who wish to partake together of the body and blood of Christ. If taking it together matters then no institutional garb or authority should get in the way. If it is really about a group of people letting go of themselves and coming to the table to participate in the new creation, then there should be nothing holding them back, nothing from being a visible body together.
So are you suggesting that you would never take communion with someone who was not in the visible church with you? That there was no appropriate place for such? Do churches in "communion" with one another (even if they are different denominations) count?
Post a Comment
<< Home