I attended worship recently at an out-of-town congregation during a consultation trip. As it happened it was a communion Sunday. I’m always interested in observing how congregations perform the two Ordinances–Communion (Lord’s Supper) and baptism. Especially in congregations of the Free Church tradition there is the promise of cultural and contextual novelty in the practices surrounding those ordinances—which is not to say that is always a good thing. They tend to provide a contrast to the liturgical churches who tend to be guided more by Tradition than by interpretation or predilection.
Unfortunately, despite my best efforts to participate in the ritual that Sunday I found myself becoming more irked at what has become one of my ecclesiastical pet peeves: the tendency of pastors to offer additional homilies, devotional thoughts, “interpretations,” or just plain ramblings just before the presentation of the elements. What is it with today’s pastors that they feel they need to “interpret” the Lord’s Supper in “creative” ways? Why interpret it at all? It’s a communal rite and ritual whose meaning arises from its practice in the community—not in how well or how creative a preacher is in spinning “another way to look at it.” As a symbol the Lord’s Supper carries the weight of its meaning through Tradition and via its practice, which needs no “interpretation.”
What tends to happen, inevitably, is that the “explanation” or “interpretation” of the practice usually results in the pastor talking about anything BUT what the symbol or ordinance is about. One month the Lord’s Supper is about “forgiveness,” but the next time it’s about “love” or about “justice,” or about “hospitality” or whatever it is that the pastor feels the need to emphasize. Sometimes an attempt is made to tie the explanation into the topic of the sermon (anything from “being a family” to stewardship). But unless the sermon was about communion, then we’re back to interpreting the Lord’s Supper as something other than what it is.
In my worst moments I’m straining to send a telepathic message straight to the frontal lobe of the pastor yelling, “I know what this is about, please don’t explain it, it speaks for itself! If you HAVE to say something, then just say the words of institution!” In this I am in accord with my Episcopalian friends who are fond of saying, “There’s no need to “invent” new ways of praying or for the liturgy. The Church has already said it and we have the words.” Ironically, then, the best way to inculcate the meaning of the Lord’s Supper is to repeat the words of institution every time the ritual is observed rather than try to “explain” it a different way every time.
Some have responded to my plea for “just the facts” (just extend the invitation and recite the words of institution) when it comes to presenting the Lord’s Supper by saying that there’s a need to “explain” it because so many people today don’t know the ritual and what it means. That sounds like a reasonable argument but for two things: (1) most pastors’ attempts at “explaining” the Lord’s Supper degenerates into making it about something else (sometimes through unfortunate uses of metaphor or similes—“It’s like….”—and I think I’ve heard just about every one, from “It’s like being part of a family†to “It’s like a football team.†Hint: No, it’s not “like†those at all!) and fail to present exactly what it IS; and, more significantly, (2) the meaning inherent in rites, practices, and symbols, like the Lord’s Supper, are not acquired through “explanation.” They are acquired, even “learned,” through witness and participation in the rite itself directly. Symbols speak for themselves, they don’t need to be explained—to attempt to do so robs them of their power (and, as Jung said, reduces them to mere “signs.”). Rites carry their own meaning in the practice and participation, not in explication. I suspect that the urge to “explain” rites and rituals like the Lord’s Supper may be evidence of a lack of faith in what they are as much as a misunderstanding of their nature as transformative and mediative components of corporate faith.
So, pastors, please, next time you offer the Lord’s Supper, don’t feel you need to be “creative” or “imaginative” in presenting it. It’s a simple rite, and as such, elegant in its essential form. Don’t attempt to “explain” it to me—I know what it’s about. Don’t cover your nervousness, performance anxiety, lack of tolerance for sacred silence, or insecurity by using the noise of verbiage. If you need to say something, then just repeat the words of institution for they speak elegantly and directly about what this is about. The familiarity of the words, heard again, committed to memory through hearing and repetition over the years is a comfort and affirmation of something meaningful—your words are a distraction. This important thing we do together, that you are called to lead, is not about you or your performance. It does not belong to you; it is not yours to re-invent, dress up, or re-interpret—it belongs to the Church body. Stop messing with it. (I did say this was a rant, right?).
If you need a reminder, here’s a “Communion†poster with the words of institution from 1 Corinthians 11.
“I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.” Galileo Galilei
I agree that many experiences of communion are over-done, and like you, I prefer the act rather than the elaboration. It’s like the Minister of Music who moves to the pulpit and says, “Please turn now to hymn number 240†when the hymns are printed in the worship guide and the order of service has been the same for years. Or, the minister who says, “Shall we pray?†as if he/she would not do it if enough people object. My point: Just do it! Some things do not need elaboration or interpretation.
But, I believe some do! There is some value in interpretation. One example that may suggest the need for some degree of interpretation beyond the words of institution and our need for sensitivity regarding this issue addresses the needs of persons in our worship services who are from other faith traditions or denominations. At some point, they need some initial interpretation of our Baptist practices. If not at communion, when will this be provided for them? How about the new adult believer who is not immersed in our faith tradition? Yes, time and practice will result in meaning. But why not help them in their understanding? Isn’t that what we are doing through the preaching event which is highly interpretive?
I know that the majority of our congregants know what the practice of communion is about. But, we are human and have a tendency to go through the routine motions of worship without giving much thought about what is happening. It’s like driving on the Interstate and all of a sudden realizing that you don’t remember the last ten miles!
Giving interpretation in creative ways may be a way to bring life to our “stuckness†(my word) in worship. Its good to see things differently—to be challenged to interpret an experience in a new way—because it keeps me aware and engaged. Sometimes communion for me is primarily confessional. I may need to evaluate myself. Sometimes it is primarily relational. I sense and feel the closeness of God, and that may be what I need in that moment. Sometimes it is simply a time of obedience. I understand that I am doing this because Jesus’s words “Do this in remembrance of me†call me to this practice for no other reason but to be obedient. Sometimes the act of communion for me is a time of remembrance—remembering the life of Christ. Sometimes it is a time of praise and thanksgiving. Can communion be all these things every time? Does it have to? Is not liturgy enhanced and enriched through intentional planning that seeks to help congregants engage God in new ways that deepen their understanding and practice?
The point I am trying to make is that communion for everyone is a matter of personal interpretation. There is no one prescribed way to do it, or one prescribed experience of it. Therefore, to challenge folks with a new way to look at it, may be a blessing because it encourages within them a fresh way to experience the act communion–which engages them–which leads to meaning.
I will never forget an experience that I had ten years ago. I was asked to participate with a Disciple of Christ minister in a Christmas Eve worship service. This was the first time I experienced communion through intinction. This minister friend stood beside me holding a load of bread. I stood next to him with the cup. As people made their way forward, took a piece of bread from the common loaf, dipped it into the cup, ate the bread, and looked into my eyes, I was moved beyond words. It was as if the entire world had stopped. And for that short moment in time, I sensed the love of God and a peace that is indescribable. Sometimes our words aren’t needed.
In summary, this conversation reveals an important need—to be intentional in our worship planning and choose our words wisely!
Thanks, Marty. I’ll say a hearty “Amen!” to the need for informed intentionality in worship planning. (And as one who once too often has strayed from a finely crafted manuscript, a double “Amen” to choosing our words wisely!).
I concur that there is some value in interpretation—it is a legitimate educational approach. But my concern and fear is that we often misapply “interpretation” or assume wrongly about its appropriateness in acquiring a certain kind of knowledge. I’m convinced that some “understandings,” especially related to faith, are not acquired through rational explanation. And I fear that our overly-cognitive, overly-rationalistic practices of faith are inimical to the very faith we’re trying to address. To the point: rites and rituals are for the affect, not the intellect. Participation in these practices are about devotion and, as you point out, obedience—not belief. I think too many of us are denied the kind of experience you describe because we “explain away” the mystery, awe, wonder, and transcendence of worship.
And I realize that this epistemological notion is a challenge for many. Again, I attribute it to a lack of understanding about the nature of how certain “religious knowledge” needs to be acquired (via the modality of the affect, not the rational); and, I suspect, a lack of faith in the power of the very things we say we believe.
(Point of clarification: when I say affect I don’t necessarily mean feelings. It’s closer to what we mean by emotions. I’m not an advocate of loosy goosy externally induced pseudo-feelings produced in praise worship experiences—but that]s a rant for another day).
But I agree—there is a place and value in interpretation. One approach I’ve liked is the “teaching service” practiced by some Episcopal churches. On one Sunday a year the service is conducted for teaching (explaining) the practices of worship of the community of faith–this for the benefit of novices, strangers, and those who tend to forget. They go through the entire service as usual but along the way “teach” the reasons of the “why do we do this?”, or, “What is this called?” “When did this practice originate?” “Why does this practice take place at this time in the service?” Etc. Intentional explication on ONE Sunday of the year—but the remaining Sundays are about the practice and participation of the experience of worship.
Marty wrote: “The point I am trying to make is that communion for everyone is a matter of personal interpretation.”
This phrase has been haunting me for a while. I’m thinking that this is the very reason why “just saying the words of institution” is important–it helps mitigate against the propensity toward individualism vs. corporate nature of our faith experience.
Here’s what I’m thinking, tell me what YOU think. I’d argue that communion, or other Traditional rites of the Church, are NOT a matter of “personal interpretation.” The interpretation of those rites, symbols, practices, etc. rightly belong to the CORPORATE body of the Church, not to individual member’s predilections.
I agree that there’s room for variations in “forms” and “ways” of practices—context and culture and epoch may dictate those. But the thing itself is not a matter of individual interpretation—it means ONE thing, not “whatever”.
And I agree that there is an existential dimension to the worship experience—that’s a matter for each individual to experience and own. But that’s a bit different from allowing for individual interpretations for what belongs to the Church—-to all of us in common. Case in point, many of our churches observe World Communion Sunday, where the emphasis is in that regardless of where we are on the globe, at this time, we celebrate the ONE thing that is shared by ALL churches everywhere over the centuries—and it’s about the ONE thing that we all confess it means (regardless of how we happen to practice it in our particular culture or context).
What do you think?
A fine rant, professor . . . and to illustrate your point, this past Sunday was my turn to lead the Sunday communion service at Riverbend Max. Security Prison. Emphasis on the word “communion”. What we provide is precisely not a generic worship service designed to lead the lost to salvation in 30 minutes or less. Because of the setting, we have 30 minutes to “do worship” among those men—these are guys in prison for decades for everything from murder to rape to drug crime. (interestingly, I find my role before them a privilege of the highest order). So I am very thankful I have the Communion ritual in my UM Book of Worship to guide ALL of us in worship. And as I watch the 30 men file forward to receive the elements, I am struck by the sight of ALL of them holding out their hands to receive EXACTLY what they came there for. And it was nothing I said. Only what I placed in their hand. And they needed no one to tell them what to do with it. And my hunch is that of ALL people who gather on any given Sunday, these desperate men, in particular, know what The Lord’s Supper means to them: everything—forgiveness, hospitality, grace, hope, redemption, you name it.
My homily was on the OT lectionary reading: the story of Elijah and the widow of Zarephath in 1 Kings 17. It was brief, the message straightforward: sometimes even out of our meager resources, we have an abundance to offer others. Nuf said. And we eat a morsel together, sip a bit of juice, and lo and behold Christ in all his abundance is made known to us, there in that prison chapel, not 100 yards form Death Row.
That’ll raise a lump in your throat. Trust me.
Amen.
Mark Price
Tell me, then, what this ONE thing is that the corporate church owns regarding communion and then tell me who decided that.
Spoken like a true Baptist!
I think the answer lies in the very “words of institution” we’ve been referring to. Read the biblical references to the Church’s practice of the Lord’s Supper and there’s the answer. See for example, 1 Cor. 11:23-26. Honestly, I think that says it all—no need to add to it or invent other meanings for it. In fact, some pretty loopy theological and ecclesiastical errors tend to happen when one does.
I’m not saying I’m right (although I think I am, obviously) and I’m not saying it’s an easy concept to subscribe to. In fact, evidence enough of that is the perpetual and never-ending denominational, religious, and splinter group splits over the course of church history on the questions of the ordinances—-what they mean, how to interpret them, how to practice them, even how many there are, etc.
I think one’s faith tradition may be a helpful clue to an understanding of this discussion. Earlier you said “that’s a bit different from allowing for individual interpretations for what belongs to the Church—-to all of us in common.” Your use of a capital “C” leads me to think that your are referring to the Church universal. However, thinking more congregationally and denominationally, each little “c” church has its unique polity and theology. The priesthood of the believer is an example. And, yes, my thinking is Baptist because I’ve been shaped in that tradition. As I said earlier, I feel that the words of institution provide me adequate meaning. But I’m not ready to suggest that communion means only one thing or that personal interpretation or individualism is not one aspect of our corporate experience. Good discussion. Perhaps this will lead others to think through their thoughts and share their opinions.
Perhaps the same argument can be made in relation to individual subjectivity related to SOME things of the Church (yes, capital “C”) and its practices:
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles7/ReardonSubjectivity.php
Pingback: I want to be unfriendly and irrelevant | G.R.A.C.E. Writes
Pingback: Things that would cause me to walk out on worship | G.R.A.C.E. Writes
Pingback: We could do with some rules around here | G.R.A.C.E. Writes