More Communion Talk

Dave Williams has done some posting about communion here and I've added a comment in (brotherly) disagreement. Might be worth having a read if you're interested in this or if you're thinking through what the Lord's supper is all about for yourself.

Communion and all that

Alan Stibbs (see here) suggests some ways that the administration of the Lord's Supper can be made more biblical and thus convey more clearly its function and meaning. I'm not sure what I think about every point he makes, but it ought to spark discussion at the least (italics and bold bits are my emphases).

Firstly he says 'Blessing God the Giver is the proper way to consecrate material things for men's use. So new extended thanksgivings are desirable, first, for the bread, and later for the wine, similar to those regularly offered in some Free Church forms of service...these thanksgivings should be regarded as the consecration of the bread and wine for their use; without any introduction at this point of the decisive words which indicate their sacramental significance.'

Secondly, 'our Lord's declaratory words, "This is my body given for you", "This is my blood shed for many", should be removed from the introductory consecration, and, in accordance with the pattern of the Lord's institution, made an essential and simultaneous part of the actual administration.' This, he argues, is because the 'words and actions together of the movement of administration' make the bread and wine sacramental. Hence to disjoin the words from the action is to half do the job, or imply that the sacrament exists apart from the administration.

The third recommended change is that 'the bread and wine ought deliberately to be kept apart and administered separately, first the bread to all, and later the cup to all.' The reason is to 'fully follow the pattern of our Lord's institution, and to preserve the vivid winess to His death which we thus dramatically remember' and also 'make fellowship with others' easier (i.e. evangelical Free Church bros and sisters who already administer the bread and wine separately).

Having suggested these three changes to the CofE order of service, Stibbs goes on to suggest other areas where there is 'room and urgent need for a fuller obedience to the teaching and the principles of God's written Word' regarding the Supper. These include -

a. Administration of the supper 'by any member whom the body of believers may entrust with this ministry'. Having noted that things need to be orderly, and that giving this ministry to entrusted elders fits in with this sense of order, he also asks 'why, for the lack of a bishop or presbyter, should congregations be deprived of the Lord's Supper, when they have in theri midst mature and godly members, who could, if given the opportunity, worthily fulfil the necessary ministry?'

b. Not having 'a so-called sanctuary at the East end' of a church building that suggests the sacrament is the 'exclusive preserve of a special ministry'. Stibbs then advocates bringing the table into the middle of the congregation and that before communion begins the church should be 'conveniently placed for the reception of the sacrament, without further movement on their part'. This would restore the supper to what he sees it was intended to be in the rubrics - 'a corporate act in which a number share' with every believer 'directly at or around the Lord's table throughout the whole service'.

[All quotes from p84-88 of 'Sacrament, Sacrifice and Eucharist' by Alan Stibbs (London: Tyndale, 1961).]

Chris Green's Predecessor

Have just finished reading a short book by the man who had Chris Green's job a long time ago.

Alan Stibbs was Vice Principal of Oak HIll Theological College back in the 50s and 60s. In 1961 he published 'Sacrament, Sarifice and Eucharist: The meaning and function of the Lord's Supper' (London: Tyndale Press, 1961). He says the book is written in the context of 'impending prayer book revision' (page v) and in many ways is shaped by the need to persuade evangelicals in the CofE in his day to value and reform their understanding and practice of the Lord's Supper.

Anyway, here's a couple of really great quotes in it from the chapter on Christ being present in the Supper.

'Such truth is in essence adequately stated by saying that, as first instituteed, the lord's Supper was an administration manwards by the Lord Himself. This means that the sole and whole movement with the elements is manwards not Godwards; and the Lord is to be acknowledged as present by the Spirit, not in the elements, but in the ation done with them, as its originating Author; and in the words spoken about them, as Himself the explicit announcer of their sacramental significance.'

And if that was a little bit dry for you, then tuck into this paragraph where Mr Stibbs gets all excited (emphasis in bold is mine);

'...when I attend an administration of the Lord's Supper, and see and hear the sacramental movement begun, and realize that it is personally and imperatively addressed to me, and to all there present with me, and that it demands corresponding reception and response; then, it is right to believe that in this movement Christ Himself is present and active and offering afresh to give to me, His indwelling presence by the Spirit, and the outworked experience of all the benefits of his passion. In such a moment of privilege and opportunity, if I am to enjoy Him and experience his blessing, I must answer His approach, first by reception, and then by responsive self-oblation. To speak of answering a telephone call is indeed an illustration utterly inadequate and unworthy. For this movement is like the approach of the bridegroom to his bride. Its proper consummation is like the giving and the receiving of the ring in marriage. Indeed, it is like the crowning intercourse of love itself. So first, I give Him answer by receiving Him; and then, I give Him myself, because I have first received Him. So do I go on my way, knowing afresh that He is mine, and conscious that He abides in me, and I in Him.'