Eucharist? - Pt1
18 July 2007 - 4 אב 5767 by Huw
I’m expecting 2 parts maybe more… an exploration of Eucharist and Ordination.
I visited the Circle of Mercy on Sunday. I went for two reasons: (1) I’ve never been to a UCC parish before and having read good things about them, I wanted to visit; (2) their worship sounded a LOT lit my time at St Gregory’s:
Our worship is participatory and experimental, making use of drama, poetry, and the visual arts, as well as testimonies of faith and litanies of confession and praise, celebrating the expansiveness of God. We intersperse silence and music, drawing from an eclectic array of traditions including African-American spirituals, Taize chants, ancient church hymns, Appalachian folk melodies, and the harmonies of places as distant as El Salvador, South Africa, and Scotland’s Iona Community… After the benediction, the feast around the table is extended as the room is transformed into a space to share a potluck meal. It’s always a lavish banquet, punctuated with energetic conversation. Around the meal table and the communion table, our life together is forged in gratitude and grace
In experience it wasn’t like that - or rather it was like what was written but it wasn’t like Eucharist. After some lovely singing, some interesting praying and a good sermon… the pastor stood at the communion table, held up the bread and the wine and invited people to come forward and partake of this feast to their comfort. But there was no prayer, no words of institution, no mention of the body and blood, no mention even of communion and not even the sketch of a rite such as a simple blessing of bread and wine.
I made a conscious choice not to go forward because I didn’t understand.
Not because I didn’t think it was “real”, but because if “lex orandi lex credendi” then without the former lex I didn’t know what the latter lex was at all.
This gave me cause to wonder about Eucharist. Coming from 20+ years of sacramentalism in various religions (for even neo-paganism is sacramental) how do I think about the Sacraments or Mysteries in the context of “emergent”? I’ve not seen any discussion of such things in an Emergent context which is not to say it’s not out there. Just I’ve not seen it. This topic opens the door for others: what is ordination, what is presidency at the table? So many of the emergent congregations I’ve come in contact with are led by folks who refer to their ordination. They may never get around to doing Eucharist but they are ordained. Why? Is ordination needed? Is it needed for preaching? Is it needed for pastoral care? Is it needed to tax exempt status?
Generally speaking the idea behind ordination is one of vetting: this evolved into “Apostolic Succession” in a logical way. “Those people were okayed by people who were okayed by Jesus. This man was okayed by those same people so he must be ok.” This is only one logical step away from, “Those people got something passed to them from people who received that something from Jesus. This man here has received that same something from them.” Eventually the “magical” idea of the Apostolic Succession gets tied to the things we do - the exact prayers and the ritual. It no longer has anything to do with the elders’ approval of the juniors. Now if you didn’t X Y and Z you’re not really in the club. And, naturally, this get tied to ecclesial politics. Persons on our side are done right. Persons on other sides… well… no.
This creates a separate class of people, one beyond the “ordination vows” of our baptismal covenant or the community’s expression of faith.
Is it useful for communities who consider themselves to be moving beyond older models to continue this model or, if the goal is to move back to some older model how is that done?
You might find it interesting to look at two places. One is the lay presidency movement as it exists in Australian Anglicanism. They would argue that presidency at the Eucharist is simply a matter of vetting and nothing else. In fact, in the abscence of a presbyter (they will not say priest) any lay person of good character can be licensed to celebrate the Eucharist.
The other places to look is at the writings of some of the Reformation Lutherans and Anabaptists. There are strains of the priesthood of the believer that declare that because all are priests, all can lead at any time. You find this particularly expressed among some of the Quakers, Amish, Brethren, Plymouth Brethren, etc.
I do believe in apostolic succession, grace of ordination, etc. However, I thought I would pass on some sources for a different (and wrong, GRIN) viewpoint.
“in the absence if a presbyter”
Doesn’t that beg Huw Raphael’s question: a a presbyter is one who presides at the Eucharist, so how can you have one presiding at the Eucharist in the absence of one who presides at the Eucharist?
Either the one who presides is a de facto presbyter (if not de jure), or the de jure ones are unnecessary.
It reminds me of the South African Anglicans, who, after deciding that deacons were unnecessary, because a lay minister could do everything a deacon did, then decided to ordain women as deacons.
Steve - you foresee where I’m going. :-)
One thing that many ecumenical dialogues has brought out clearly is that the ministry of Episkope, oversight, is present in all ecclesial communities, even those who do not have “Bishops” by that title. This realisation was best phrased in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral as “The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples…”
Equally so there are presbyters and deacons as ministries within the body even when the titles don’t exist.
Although this breaks with traditional, sacramental views of ministry by seeing “ordination”, if you will, as a realisation of “function” rather than the reverse (where function is a manifestation of ordination). The latter is where “Apostolic Succession” becomes kind of “magical” in its application. The former is more localised, however.
Nowadays, Episkope is basically a function of the senior priest or rector in an area or city or even one specific parish. Presbyters are under that senior and, yes, are sometimes laity. Diaconal duties are basically performed by laity in almost all communities - even those that also have “ordained” deacons.