Lord's Supper. No, it's not.

adrian reynolds
3 Comments »

The Reformers were clear. A church is a place where the word is preached and there is the proper operation of the sacraments. Which puts some churches in a dilemma. I heard about an evangelical Anglican church today which is only offering the bread to people, not the wine - in a response to swine flu worries. A Guardian report here says this is fairly widespread - though in this particular church the pastor says he has been told to do it.

Poppycock. That's not the Lord's Supper. Contrast this with another Anglican church which has gone out and bought individual cups (against canon law) in order to preserve the commemoration. Some things are more important than elf & safety leg.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thought I'd better defend the elf. Health and safety legislation is sensibly risk-based and proportionate. That is, it asks for a response that is in line with the degree of risk or potential harm to the person. This is in line with the general biblical principle of proportionate behaviours - punishment in relation to sin, response to differing doctrine between churches proportionate to importance of doctrine, etc. It is also in line with the biblical principle of care for each other - we shouldn't harm others through our own activities/wants/desires, etc. Consequently, a congregation who believed signficant harm might occur to others through passing round the cup would be justified in changing the routine to remove or reduce the risk of harm. Health and safety legislation, which only applies to the workplace, not churches, sets in legisalation the principles of care we should as Christians exercise as routine. Changing the physical routine - single cup to individual glasses, or even no cup at all, is not a problem with this sacrament, since the physical process is simply symbolic. If the desire and intent is there to drink remembering the shed blood of the Lord, the temporary absence of a drink, nor even permanent absence if circumstances so dictate, is no obstacle to the blessing that is to be derived from this celebration.

10:39 PM
adrian reynolds said...

Dear anon...

All that you say could be well and good as an argument if there were not an easy alternative (individual cups) which does not detract from the significance of the meal as much as removing the wine.

I'm afraid I totally disagree with your point about the sacrament being purely symbolic and, therefore, the absence of the wine being non-problematic. But maybe that's another post...

10:28 AM
Anonymous said...

Adrian,

I may have misled in the previous comment. I think individual cups is the obvious, best alternative. Not choosing this way has nothing to do with H&S as far as I can see. If, however, for reasons I don't understand this was unacceptable then no drink at all is acceptable if the motives are right. I wasn't making the point that the sacrament as as a whole was symbolic, only the physical process of eating and drinking. Hope this clarifies. PJF

11:13 AM

Post a Comment