A Christian Liberal is NOT an oxymoron.

Posted by XT on December 11th, 2008 in Progressive Faith

Should non-priests officiate at Holy Communion? Does it somehow make it less holy or less a cornerstone of the church?

Count my vote as one that includes the laity. Perhaps it is my upbringing in the stripped-down, bare-bones Church of Christ, but I find the idea that a priest is required for Holy Communion to be misplaced. At best. Truth be told, I find it a little insulting.

It says, in effect, that the priesthood is not just a separate part of the body of believers set out for formal leadership of the church, but that they are somehow inherently better and closer to God than the rest of us. This is baffling to me. The Episcopal Church does not teach that I must go to my priest to seek confession – it is enough for me to pray directly and be absolved. Are we to believe that God is somehow more present in Holy Communion than He is when granting forgiveness? That seems an odd stance to take.

I agree with Leblanc that doing something because “that what is supposed to happen” is not faithfulness, but blind religiocity. As such, it is the antithesis of the spiritual awakening to which Christianity calls us. But does this not also apply to the role of the priesthood?

And what is the heart of Communion – that it is a symbol of a Father who loves us so much that he would allow his Son to suffer and die, regardless of whether or not anyone was willing to accept the gifts that he bore. So it is proper, I believe to open the Communion table to everyone – because the gifts of God are for everyone who wants to partake of them.

The only reason to forcibly place a priest in charge of Communion is to enforce Church discipline. A lay person has no standing to turn someone away, but a priest can claim the power and weight of the church is behind him or her. If someone seeks Communion without the “proper” attitude, is it incumbent on the priest to stop them? If so, we will need to set aside and extra hour for our pastor to quiz everyone as they come up.

Or maybe, just maybe, a priest is meant to be a signpost of God, and not a gatekeeper. Maybe the priest brings someone into the community of God first, and then lets the spirit of God work upon them until they are changed. Imagine the Chutzpah of a priest looking down at a congregant and saying, “I’m sorry, this isn’t meant for you at all. You’ll have to go have a seat.” How would we manage to welcome visitors if we must first grill them on their theology? “Yes, please fill out this short 58-question form so we may determine if you are fit to receive Communion…”

Yeah, that will kill a church post-haste.

LeBlanc closes with:

I am confident the Anglican Communion will make it through these conflicts about the Lord’s Supper. Meanwhile, I hope my fellow Episcopalians will meditate on two things: the meaning of our priests’ prayers that the Holy Spirit will infuse bread and wine with the presence of Christ; and the key moment in our salvation, when Jesus “stretched out his arms upon the cross and offered himself, in obedience to [God's] will, a perfect sacrifice for the whole world.”

I’m not aware of any official Episcopal teaching that priests render trans-substantiation. If it is, then I simply cannot participate. As for the moment of salvation – I’ve always believed that the moment of salvation is not when Jesus died, but when he was born. From that moment, his death was certain, and it was just timing that was left to be determined. The moment he died – that was supreme follow-through and supreme obedience. But, if I recall, his call for obedience was for obedience directly to God. Not to those who take Holy Orders.

Sphere: Related Content