Re: Standing in church

[Benjamin Burch]

Bless you Ben, I respect your view of the sacraments even though my view is more Reformed, and thus the "elements" symbolise for me the presence of Christ. However, in your next post where you wrote:



You do actually raise a valid point which should challenge those of us who view the Sacrament as more Memorial and as a sign and seal of the presence of God with us. Our focus can be too much in the past to the Crucifixion where Christ made his meritorious sacrifice for us, and less on his presence in the present and the "healing" and "salvation" which he wants to give us today.

So yes, an excellent point and one which should emphasise to us who view the sacraments as symbolic, to focus on the present reality of Christ with us NOW through the symbols (as a sign and seal of God's presence as we take them by faith) and not just as being representative of the past action of Christ even though that is essential.

I still like the idea though of the sacred table being set up in the midst of the people and not apart from them..... for God dwells with his people.

See my post to Larry, I think I would offer the same response to you. Yes, Christ is present with his people, per my (2b). However, I would still respond with this:

My problem, ultimately, with this is that you're trying to equate two things which are not equal and, by doing so, justifying the negelct of one of those two things. Your question presumes that "Christ's presence", specifically in the People of God, is the same as Christ's presence in the Eucharist and, therefore, one can skip the Eucharist with no ill-effect because the same presence is afforded through fellowship.

I couldn't disagree more and I believe that Scripture and Tradition, both the Early theologians and the historical liturgical texts, including the dominant Christian Tradition, all agree with me on this.

[Susan Unger]

No, I wouldn't say that. However, I also wouldn't make it as personal as John and David suggest.

I've said many times on NN that if you read the Scripture, Earliest theologians, and Liturgical texts together, the Christian faith can be summed up in one idea:

God has given Godself to humanity in the form of flesh and blood, for us and for our salvation.

God does this through

(1) The flesh and blood in the Incarnation
(2) The Flesh and blood of the Body of Christ in his absence, present in 2 forms:
---- (a) Uniquely in the Elements of the Eucharist
---- (b) In the bodies of the people who have been united to Christ through the Sacraments
(3) When God comes again in flesh and blood in the 2nd coming of Christ

So, no, I would not say Christ is not present in services where the Eucharist is not celebrated. I would say that the people and the pastor are missing out on a unique presence of Christ afforded to us only in the elements.

I would also say, per Jesus' words in John 6, that services without the Eucharist are unfortunate, as they are an act of self-inflicted deprivation and starvation. God graciously offers us manna from heaven and we only partake of it once a month?

My problem, ultimately, with this is that you're trying to equate two things which are not equal and, by doing so, justifying the negelct of one of those two things. Your question presumes that "Christ's presence", specifically in the People of God, is the same as Christ's presence in the Eucharist and, therefore, one can skip the Eucharist with no ill-effect because the same presence is afforded through fellowship.

I couldn't disagree more and I believe that Scripture and Tradition, both the Early theologians and the historical liturgical texts, including the dominant Christian Tradition, all agree with me on this.

This is a nice summation of my changing thoughts the last decade.

[Benjamin Burch]

At the risk of adding fuel to my fire....

My problem, ultimately, with this is that you're trying to equate two things which are not equal and, by doing so, justifying the negelct of one of those two things. Your question presumes that "Christ's presence", specifically in the People of God, is the same as Christ's presence in the Eucharist and, therefore, one can skip the Eucharist with no ill-effect because the same presence is afforded through fellowship.

I have found a good illustration of this reality, specifically in-line with my point that it is "self-deprivation and starvation." Literally...

This can be seen best in the contrast of Sunday Morning practices among the Orthodox and most Evangelical traditions. Growing up I found that most Evangelical churches I knew, visited, and heard of would have a "fellowship hall" of sorts before Sunday morning worship. Often times doughnuts, other snacks, as well as juices and coffee were served as a part of this fellowship, while in the service Eucharist was not served.

In the Orthodox tradition, Priests and Laity alike are expected to fast on Sunday before the liturgy (whether this begins at sun-down Sat or midnight seems to be of some discussion among the OCA I know), so that nothing passes their lips before the Body and Blood of Christ.

These conflicting traditions literally illustrate the idea that fellowship and Christ's presence "with God's people" is equal to and therefore can replace the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I also think it illustrates my idea that such a practice is self-deprivation and starvation as it substitutes Coffee and doughnuts for the Spiritual food in the Bread from Heaven.

[Hans Deventer]

These conflicting traditions literally illustrate the idea that fellowship and Christ's presence "with God's people" is equal to and therefore can replace the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I also think it illustrates my idea that such a practice is self-deprivation and starvation as it substitutes Coffee and doughnuts for the Spiritual food in the Bread from Heaven.

Ben, I thought that initially, the eucharist was part of the so called agape meal, were the people simply ate together in a pot luck style. Hence Paul's exhorations in 1 Cor 11 because some actually didn't share.

[Benjamin Burch]

Ben, I thought that initially, the eucharist was part of the so called agape meal, were the people simply ate together in a pot luck style. Hence Paul's exhorations in 1 Cor 11 because some actually didn't share.

What we can really now of that is slim. We know much better what the practices of the Church have been since about the third century.

Even still, the key word is "part of". In the scenario I described it is not a part, but left out completely.

[David Graham]

God has given Godself to humanity in the form of flesh and blood, for us and for our salvation.

God does this through

(1) The flesh and blood in the Incarnation
(2) The Flesh and blood of the Body of Christ in his absence, present in 2 forms:
---- (a) Uniquely in the Elements of the Eucharist
---- (b) In the bodies of the people who have been united to Christ through the Sacraments
(3) When God comes again in flesh and blood in the 2nd coming of Christ

There is but an "Hairs breadth" between us on this Ben, and to your quote which I have highlighted here in this post, I would say a "qualified" AMEN!

And where I would want to qualify it is at the very same point of contention that is a matter of "discussion" in our inter church dialogue meetings between the UCA (My church) and the Anglicans in my country. And that is with regard to 2a in your quote: "the flesh and blood of Christ as being present in the elements of the eucharist".
While we have no problem with the terms "Unique presence" we do have a problem with these becoming the "real presence" which we see as being closer to "Transubstantiation" that "Consubstantiation" which some of our folk are very close to accepting. For me, I see that Christ is in a mysterious reality is present in the symbols of bread and wine, without these elements ever changing their essential physical structure. i.e. They remain as bread and wine but become vehicles of the presence of Christ when they are taken by faith within the sacramental service of Holy Communion. This is important for us because we view the whole universe as sacred space while recognising that there are times when such space can be used specifically in the service of God. Thus the "Lord's Table" is the table upon which the sacramental elements are placed at the time that Holy Communion is celebrated; but at other times it may be used for other purposes, such as holding the open Bible, a candle, a cross and any thing else which we wish to emphasise within a regular service as representative of people and ministries for whom we will pray. (e.g an item of clothing from a people group from Africa etc....) This is significant for us in that when bread and wine is placed upon the table they are but bread and wine until the prayer of consecration is offered, when they become the elements of Holy Communion. This prayer of consecration is contained within a liturgy which includes the "sharing of the Peace", "the words of institution", "the great prayer of thanksgiving", "the words of invitation" culminating with the distribution of the elements. All of the liturgy is designed to prepare our hearts to receive these elements with a "heightened faith".

Some of our churches do partake of the sacrament every week while a very few churches take of it once a quarter. Most of us partake of the sacrament once a month apart from Holy Week in which it is taken of at least on Good Friday if not at the other services as well. Every congregation is free to decide how to do this. For me personally, as the ordained minister who is to officiate at the sacrament, I take it at least once each week because there are 4 churches in my parish which partake of it each month. Thus it is possible for a parishoner to follow me around from church to church and thus partake of the sacrament every week.

I'm not sure that I have "equated" the presence of God in fellowship with the presence of God in the sacrament....... I agree that these are not quite the same..... and yet, so much of this depends upon a person's faith. If they are particularly blessed by e.g. a worship service in which Holy Communion is not offered but their faith is such that a particular "song" or "testimony" or "message" or "scripture verse" or "visual symbol" or "encounter" with a godly person has fed them spiritually, while at another Holy Communion Service their faith at that time has not enabled them to be fed to the same degree; which of the two has benefited them the most? As one who takes of the sacrament every week, and find in the taking various degrees of inspiration and edification while at the time I find spiritual nourishment through other "means of grace", could it not also be true that both the sacrament and other means should be taken of in order to feed our souls?

I don't believe that we should view our spiritual sustainance as coming from one source but from many. Taking Holy Communion is essential to our spiritual growth, but so also is preaching and praise and bible study and fellowship and so on.......

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

The conversation about standing in church came to mind as I read this blog:

http://sbcvoices.com/why-cant-i-sit-in-church/