The gift and grace of storytelling

If you were lucky enough to catch Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove this Sunday morning at DNSS then you know what I mean by the headline of this post. I am writing this DNSS entry and doing double duty over at shallowfrozenwater.blogspot.com (our friend Ian's blog). Ian has a pretty cool blog going, and if you haven't checked it out, well you should.

I have long believed in the power of story, I've always been a voracious reader, and eventually I became a writer. I think this happens a lot. What captures me in a book is the writer's voice - and I don't mean "tone" here, I mean the choice of words, the way the sentences flow, the cadence, all the things that allow me to disappear into the story. When I am reading a great book, I sort of forget that I am reading - rather, the events are just unfolding in front of me. It is like I am sitting on a porch and listening to a really good storyteller.

I've read some of Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove's work, and was captured by his gift of story. He could talk about Martin Luther King, the story of Mary and Martha or his mom's chocolate pies, and he had me... right there on the porch, engaged and leaning in. What a delight it was to actually hear him speak this Sunday. I love seeing someone using a gift with such joyful abandon. Some storytellers fall in love with their own stories, and it shows - they delight a little too much in the cleverness of the tale, or put a bit too much of themselves into the telling. It is difficult to articulate what I mean - but I think you have probably heard this sort of storyteller.

What I love about Jonathan's stories is that he might know he is a gifted storyteller, but he understands where that gift has come from. He speaks with a gentle ease, and you get the sense that he just came upon these stories, and said, wow, look at these... these are beautiful little morsels. i think I should share them. And that is the grace part. Jonathan's faith shines through his stories, and it's not a fairytale kind of pious faith where everything is beautiful and shiny. Listening to him at DNSS, and then later as he preached at St. Benedict's table, I knew that he struggled just like we do. He didn't have all the answers, and didn't pretend that he did. He was just a storyteller, going down the road, talking about the world, the things he's seen, the people he met, and the God he knows. He knew where he got his gift, and I am delighted that he shared some of those beautiful morsels.

Check out Jonathan's website at:

jonathanwilsonhartgrove.com

Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove

 

Come join us tomorrow morning, at 9:00, in our worship space to hear from New Monastic, Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove.

Read more about Jonathan and his new book God's Economy at his site:

jonathanwilsonhartgrove.com

Hope to see you there.

Communion Week Seven

This past Sunday, I presented some of the newer voices on Communion.

My notes include a rather lengthy background on the word "sacrament" - feel free to skim that part. (I don't always get to all of my notes in a DNSS morning).

Here are my notes:

Communion Week Seven

A collection of new voices on the topic.

Intro note - ask for comments either on these voices, or perhaps something that has occurred to you as we have spent time learning, and thinking about Communion.

We have been hearing about the roots of Communion (Eucharist), the changing nature through the centuries, through different faith traditions, different voices (I try to collect a variety of readers and distill/summarize).

Today I'd like to present some newer voices on Communion.

To begin with, and maybe the one that first really got me interested was "The End of Religion" by Bruxy Cavey, teaching pastor at the Meeting House in Ontario. The idea of subversive symbols.

Cavey writes: Jesus left his followers with two symbols of subversion, acts of irreligion, which have survived to this day… baptism and communion.

Cavey says that Jesus took symbols of the day (repeated ritual washing / under purity laws) and  reinterpreted it (one baptism - washing that cleanse forever). And he takes the Jewish Seder, the liturgical meal during Passover, and reinterprets it as the last supper. (More on this connection later.)

Jesus' infuses new meaning into this meal (already a meal steeped in symbolism).

"Through the newly invigorated symbolism of the Last Supper, Jesus shows his disciples what would replace the blood of the sacrificial system - Jesus' own blood. Jesus condemned the temple system, and now offers himself as the replacement…"

Cavey goes onto to say, Jesus replaced religion with himself (a theme of the book).

Now, it is interesting that going back and re-reading the section on Subversive symbols, it doesn't strike me as much as before. Initially, I was taken by it's pointing out the subversive and powerful message - and maybe because I don't need convincing anymore. I am not sure. But Cavey reminds me of the power of this ritual, and how we are changed by it, and how the idea that we meet God at the table is quite profound.

He ends the chapter saying: "…Jesus invites us to take the bread and wine inside ourselves. We have a role to play, Jesus offers us his life and his love, but this is not something done for us or to us while we passively observe. We must embrace it."

"Intimacy. That is what comes to mind when I think of these symbols… Through the Lord's Supper, we invite his love and life to enter and refresh us. We are plunged into divine love and we drink it in."

Question

Have you become passive? Do you drink it in? What is the intimacy that you experience? Or don't.

John Rempel (MCC Liason to the U.N.)

The Lord's Supper in Mennonite Tradition

So what about these symbols?

He says, "Anabaptists never got over their fear that the outward signs easily become a substitute for inward faith."

I've mentioned how the Comm. ritual changes during the Reformation, and then the further changes to it, including the idea of doing it as a "merely a rembrance" (rooted in Zwingli). Rempel writes: "This minimalist reading of the supper as a "mere symbol" or "only a human act of remembrance" comes much more from science's suspicion of the miraculous than from Reformation tradition.

Again, the Enlightment, the age of reason, the age of science and answers rooted in logic play a big part in the changing nature - in these post-modern times, as churches look back to the 1^St Century, you can see why some of these ideas are called into question. And it isn't the first time - last week I mentioned how John Wesley re-discovered the concept of the "Love Feast". There is a lot of rediscovering going on now to. Brian MClaren, the loudest voice in the emerging church, talks about appropriateness. I like that - not so much that all these years people were wrong. The way they understood and acted upon their beliefs were appropriate to their time, modernity. And we are wise to consider what is appropriate to our time.

Now, the cultural upheaval of the later part of the 20^th century, meant that churches traditional ways of doing things (again, quoting Remple) - these ritual were broken open. Diversity and inclusion became primary marks of the churches life and mission… the most poignant and contentious expression of these changes came in the Lord's Supper.

Before I leave Rempel - a lot of the people I have been reading, and I try to be diverse, have talked about Jesus' table practices. Remple says - "The Meal encounters of Jesus' ministry were wildly inclusive affairs: he ate and drank with sinners. They were also acts of justice: he fed the hungry. These insights suddenly established a direct link between Eucharist and mission. The church gathers to eat "the bread from heaven" and scatters to offer that bread to the world. Not only that, outsiders are invited in."

A reflection of this in the Mennonite world - Remple says that in the mid-nineties the Mennonite Brethren… officially decided that all believers are welcome to the bread and cup. The new Mennonite Church still links baptism and communion in its confession of faith and minister's manual, but… encourage a completely open table.

Is this true? What about Mennonite Churches in Manitoba?

Remple closes by saying - "In my view there is room at the table for unbaptized people who are drawn to the company of Jesus and his friends. But accepting the offer of grace implies a decision, not agreement on the contentious theological and sexual questions of the day but a decision for Christ. Will they enter the convenant?"

 Speaking of Sacrements:

In Search of Something More. A Sacramental Approach to Life and Worship

Arthur Paul Boers, Mennonite Pastor, Ontario

Boers also talks about the suspicion that grew out of the scientific view of the 19^th Century - the Lord's Supper became more and more seen as a "rational act of human memory, almost a 'real absence' of Christ." And more - the echo of pre-reformation understanding about exclusionary Holiness (parishioners deemed to be unworthy denied communion), and an overemphasis on the memorial of Jesus' suffering and death (as opposed to the Eastern church's focus on the resurrection) can make for funeral type communions. Boer says, little surprise that people are not eager to celebrate it more often.

He also says there is "an ambivalence towards baptism - youths are pressed to be baptized at a certain age ( in effect, postponing infant baptism by a few years), while others de-emphasize baptism and fail to encourage people to choose it."

I'd love to talk a lot more about this article, maybe I will photocopy it and provide it for those interested - I really like how it explores the notion of sacraments being: "something more" Sacrament has been used by the Church Fathers and Mothers as a substitute for the New Testament, mysterion, "mystery" - more meaning than we can comprehend. An affront to our modern desire (and way of thinking) towards: control.

Margaret Loewen Reimer "Mysteries never yield to solutions or fixes - and when we pretend that they do, life not only becomes more banal but more hopeless, because the fixes never work."

Boers goes onto say that " To recover the early Anabaptist sense of universal sacredness,

Mennonites need to become more sacramental."

A sacrament. As described by Tertullian (theologian from the 2^nd and 3^rd Century) - a two way pledge.  The words derives from the Roman practice of swearing oaths, pledges of loyalty, commitment. (see: what is Sacrament)

From God's side - the sacraments are pledges of God, who wills salvation.

From our side - the complete response, confidant, and committed to God in Christ.

"A sacrament commits our allegiance to God's reign and God's means, not the world."

Pause for comments or questions -

Do you think of this pledge when you come to the table? Does this give you a different view on the term sacrament?

What is a Sacrament?

The Church began in the east among Greek-speaking Jews, and so the language of the ancient church was Greek. The rites of the Church, such as baptism and the Eucharist, were called mysteries of the church, and they still are in the Eastern Church. Mystery is a Greek word that was often used in philosophical and religious discussions to refer to knowledge that was once unclear, but is now revealed. The actual Greek word is μυστηριον (mysterion) in the singular, μυστηρια (mysteria) in the plural.

In worship, we still proclaim the mystery of our faith:

    Christ has died

    Christ has risen

    Christ will come again

The ancient church called this the mystery of our faith because they believed that the Old Testament had been teaching these doctrines all along, but they were only clear in Jesus Christ:

We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

    —2 Corinthians 3:13-18, NIV

As you can see in this passage, the ancient church believed that Christians are gradually being transformed into the likeness of our Lord. Part of this transformation is the way we live our lives as agents of God’s providence among the people of the world, and part of it takes place in the rites and ceremonies of the church. All of these rites and ceremonies reveal truth to us that was once obscure, so they were called μυστηρια or, as we would say, mysteries.

By the end of third century, Latin had overtaken Greek as the language of common people in the western half of the Roman Empire. Western clergy preached in Latin, western theologians wrote in Latin, and western scholars translated the Bible into Latin. Western Christians heard the sermons, read the writings, and studied the Bible in Latin. The word μυστηριον was a problem. There was no Latin word that corresponded to it. They could have transliterated the Greek word into Latin as mysterium, and they often did that, but that did not solve the problem so much as avoid it, because most Latin-speaking people still had no idea what it meant. So western Christian scholars used the word sacramentum to translate μυστηριον. These scholars included Tertullian, who was one of the earliest Latin theologians, and Jerome, who translated the Bible into Latin about a hundred years later.

But where did they get this word and why did they choose it? They borrowed it from the Roman Army. A recruit for the Roman army became a soldier by undergoing a sacramentum. The sacramentum had two parts: the soldier took an oath of office, and the Army branded him behind the ear with the number of his legion. The sacramentum resulted in new responsibilities and new advantages. The soldier acquired the responsibility for conforming to military discipline and obeying military commands. He also acquired social and legal benefits, because living conditions in the Roman Army were very good and veterans received special privileges and benefits. Ancient Latin theologians seized upon sacramentum as the best Latin equivalent of the Greek word mystery when it referred to a church rite, because the church rite is simultaneously spiritual and physical, and because the person who undergoes the sacrament simultaneously receives new responsibilities and a new spiritual status before God.

So that is how the word sacrament came into Christian theology in the west. For many centuries, the secular and the theological uses of the word existed side by side. By the time of the Reformation, it was solely a Christian theological term.

Now Boers explores the idea of sacrament, and ties it to remembrance -

This is a different take on "communion being a mere symbol of remembrance" - he says that:

"Remembering can be transformative. It re-presents events, we re-live them, remembering them does affect us."

This reminds me the C.S. Lewis quote: "the best teaching is reminding."

Even rote remembering has power - it can touch, transform and heal - many people are unable to pray in crisis, but are able to pray repeated and memorized prayer (psalsm 23, the Lord's prayer) and experience comfort and healing.

Three points from Boer's list of suggestions:

1. Celebrate with care and attention. (thousands of delgates through in minutes: MacCommunion)
2. Celebrate more often. More does not make it less meaningful. "Familiarity breeds contemp" idea is given this tongue-in-cheek analogy, "Don’t' make love to your spouse too often, or it won't be special anymore. Four times a year, tops.
3. A cautionary note around the ritual - Rituals are deepened by repetition. Beware of too much creativity. The congregation's attention is focused on the novelty… the new quickly gets old… the entertainment subsides… and the central point is missed."

Optional questions around engaging the ritual - how often, how deeply are you affected? Or not?

End with Hans Küng, "On Being a Christian" (1974)

If the meal of the community - the Lord's supper… the Eucharistic celebration - is to be rightly understood, three dimensions must be seen at the same time.

The past - The eucharist was always a commemorative and thanksgiving meal. It should not be a solemn mourning repast for the righteous, but may be celebrated as a joyous meal also for sinners.

The present - The eucharist was ans is both covenant and community meal. Not a solitary meal of one individual (private Mass), but a common love feast (agape) of the community with their Lord, present among them.

The future - the eucharist from the beginning was the sign and image of the meal at the consummation in the Kingdom of God. It should therefore not be celebrated as a meal to satisfy hunger, oriented to the past, but as a meal of messianic hope pointing forward and calling to action.

 

Communion Week Six

Sorry, on the eve of Week Seven, I realized that I never posted Week Six.

If you're up late, here it is. Tomorrow morning we visit some of the newer voices on communion.

See you then.

Communion Week Six

Anabaptists and gathering of thoughts.

Opening statement from Rowen Williams, Tokens of Trust

"When we receive the bread and wine at Communion, we are nearest the very heart of what it is to be a Christian and to be the Church. We stand in the power of his prayer; we stand there because we have been invited by the risen Jesus, just as he invited sinners to eat with him in his life on earth; we pray in the Holy Spirit and we receive gifts that the Holy Spirit has meant to be vehicles of this life. It is a moment when we declare who we are and when we are given the greatest opportunity to grow as believers because we are open as we can be to the act of God in Jesus and the Spirit."

Intro - been through a lot of history, it can be a lot to take in. I will say a bit about the Anabaptists today, but I also want to lead us into some other voices as this series is soon over.

One of the big thoughts, controversies, contentions (whatever you call them) is the connection between baptism and communion. And the streams of thought, as I might have mentioned between rules (like GoW's) of communion being offered for the baptized. And of the open table, where all, whether baptized or not are invited to the table.

Also, I was reminded this week that the discussion of Children in Communion really is a discussion about the open table - about an offering of communion to all non-baptized, not just the children.

Anabaptists

Rejected control and authority (were known as the first "free churches") - they formed their worship based on scripture (sola scriptura) and the forms of worship were "spirit led". Most of them rejected external ceremonies whether they were Catholic ceremonies, Lutheran or Reformed. They used very simple rituals, scripture, and simple language.

(Interesting that Luther also desired this "truly evangelical order" where you don't need outward form and structures).

Beliefs:           

• Community gathered around the table, sharing the bread and wine, genuinely knew Christ's presence.

• rather than reducing the Eucharistic to a act of remembrance (like the Reformers), Anabaptists believed in the synthesis, or joining together of faith, reconciliation, community and mission - all expressed in coming to the table.

• Because of Christ's ascension, he cannot be bodily present on earth, or in the bread and wine. Strongly influenced by the Gospel of John, they fused Christ's divinity with the Spirit. So the emphasis in on the action of the Spirit in Communion (because Christ could not be there).

Practices:           

• initially a desire to share communion whenever they are gathered. But they depart from this.

"The Lord's Supper shall be held, as often as the brothers and sisters are together, thereby proclaiming the death of the Lord, and thereby warning each one to commemorate, how Christ gave his life for us, and shed his blood for us, that we might also be willing to give our body and life for Christ's sake, which means for the sake of all the brothers and sisters."

• they do use the language of commemoration, which echoes Zwingli, but is somewhat different. The declaration of what Christ has done (his suffering) means that all brothers and sisters must be willing to lay down there life for each other. More than a memory - living this out could cost you your life.

• they understand Jesus' words "this is my body" as Christ making a loaf of all the children of God (Didache language) - all called into the unity of faith, baptism and spirit. Christ is present amongst the reconciled community.

Another way of saying: the Anabaptist Eucharistic spirituality was communal.

"Whoever does not share the calling of the one God to one faith, to one baptism, to one spirit, to one body together with all the children of God, may not be made one loaf together with them, as must be true if one wishes truly to break bread according to the command of Christ." (from the Schleitheim confession, 1527)

Anabaptists called for a "pure" church made up of a community of voluntary believers living Holy lives in the way of Jesus.

• The Pledge of Love - said as part of the liturgy, Anabaptist would pledge their desire to love God, to love their neighbour, to make peace and unity with brother and sister (to reconcile) - a preparation before the taking of Communion. Focusing on the practical meaning of love in the life of both the individual and the community.

• The meaning of the supper: Love. The call was to be conformed (or I would say, transformed) to Christ's sacrificial love. To follow Christ in life. This was a good challenge at the conclusion of communion.

Question - How do you feel about Communion being a symbol of community? What does this mean for those not part of the community - visitors from other churches? What about those not baptized? Can they be a part of it… does it water down the unity of Grain of Wheat, of the whole church?

Enlightment

IN very broad strokes I want to paint a picture of what changes during modernity, science, the age of reason - and what is known in the west as the Enlightment (18^th century). Worship changes, and I have alluded to this before: The word, teaching, religious instruction becomes the focus. Sermons were a chance to talk about morality, charity, how to be good. Admonition against being bad. There was no room for mystery or miracle, for revelation or prophecy - inspiration and emotion were laughed at. Incidentally, by parish law, the church in England was required to practice the Eucharist three times a year. It was a memorial service, didactic (instructional), and the purpose was to enhance social harmony.

A sentence on the Methodists, John and Charles Wesley (and an encouragement to read more about them) - John the evangelist emphasizes the value of prayers and frequent communion - he actually rediscovered the brings back the 1^st Century Love Feast, sharing actual food with the poor - Charles writes hymns for the feast.

I am going to jump over the Presbyterians, Brethren, Anglo-Catholic (the Oxford movement in England) the Pentecostals - and just draw out a point of what has been happening in the 20^th Century.

Protestants have discovered liturgy (!) - they have, for quite some time, restored the balance of the two part worship service that I alluded to before - restoring the Eucharist along with the teaching of the word.

Catholics liturgical reform has insisted on renewed space and importance for the Word read and preached.

(Balance and Harmony are good things.)

Question: How do we balance our service between sharing the bread and wine and reading and teaching the word? Do you see Communion as a chance, as I quoted from Rowan Williams, "the greatest opportunity to grow as believers"?

Close this session - leading to the next - with Webbers points about The Convergence Movement.

Robert Webber talks about the draw of liturgical worship that evangelicals experience. This will lead us into next weeks further discussion and exploration of newer voices.

He explains 7 points, that detail these common elements of what is called the Convergence Movement. See where you find GoW fitting in this.

1. A restored commitment to the sacraments, especially the Lord's table
2. An increased motivation to know more about the early church
3. A love for the whole church and a desire to see the church as one
4. A blending of practice (evangelical, liturgical, charismatic) yet maintaining unique points of view.
5. An interest in integrating structure with spontaneity in worship
6. A greater involvement of sign and symbol in worship
7. A continuing commitment to personal salvation, biblical teaching and the work and ministry of the Holy Spirit.

Week Five Communion

And you thought the notes for week four were long!

Here are my notes for last week's session. Tomorrow we will talk a little about the Anabaptist tradition, as well as some newer voices on communion. See you then.

Communion Week Five

Brief overview of where we have been:

Table Practices, The Great Banquet (Kingdom language), Early Church history (Didache, 1^st Century), 15 centuries (How the Mass changes)

Intro - Embrace the whole long story of the church as our own. God is infinitely able to deal with humanity. Varieties of sinfulness are immense, but so are varieties of faithfulness across time and geography.

This will help us grasp how this "old, old story of Jesus and his love" transforms the broken world around us.

Eastern Church           

In those first centuries after Jesus' death there was no separation (East and West) - the church was catholic (universal). One common body.

Though, one important distiction was the use of Greek in the East and Latin in the West. These differences affect the formation of faith and worship in different parts of the world - but there are also psychological differences.

West - Precise use of language - very concerned (in a literal way) of the material elements of the bread and wine.

East - Delighted in symbolism, visual and allegorical approaches to theology and prayer.

Religious disputes turn into political disputes and the grow distinct during the 10^th and 11^th Century and the two churches split.

There are a lot of what seem like minor difference (what kind of bread to be used) and some major ones (does the Nicene Creed say "The Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father through the Son,", Greek, or "The Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son," Western, Latin interpretation).

The Orthodox Church while having lots in common with the Roman Catholic Church, actually have a lot more contact with Protestants these days. They see the split during the 16^th Century ( The Reformation) as a "domestic problem within the Western Church". And if the Western church could get itself together, then East and West might actually join again and unity might become a real option.

Pope John Paul II shows that the Catholics were interested too - "if the eastern and Western Churches remain divided by the year 2000, he would see his papacy as a failure".

Three things to note about the Orthodox Liturgy (that we might learn from)

1. Kingdom of God - Thee liturgy, unchanged fro 15 centuries, begins with Blessed is the Kingdom. The liturgy presents the journey of the church into the Kingdom Of God. Declaring this Kingdom to be the goal "of all our desires and interests of or whole life."

2. A repetition of the Beatitudes in every service (heard before the Gospel reading) - again, these distill Jesus' life and teachings. A vision of the Kingdom that is hear, and we are invited into what is not yet.

3. An emphasis on the Resurrection - some Protestant churches focus on the crucifixion and death of Christ - would do well to be aware of this imbalance, and have more joyful attention to the resurrection and the coming of the Kingdom. (Eleanor Kreider).

Reformation

• Created both positive and negative results for Communion.

• Concerns: more wider participation (not just the priest), services modeled on scripture, more preaching, more FREQUENT communion.

Still, a penitential tone persisted, as did Clerical power.

The worship service

Both the East and West followed the pattern of a two part worship.

One: Readings, Sermon Prayer (from Jewish background)

Two: Thanksgiving prayer, the story of the Last Supper, breaking the bread, sharing the cup. (Distinctively Christian).

By the middle ages the emphasis in on the second part - all the readings were said or sung in Latin (there might be some preaching in some churches, but pretty inconsequential) - a language almost no one understood. So basically the people heard the word, but couldn't understand it.

As said before you had to take Communion once a year (after confessing you just got the bread) - the Priest took the cup on behalf of everybody.

The theology of Sacrifice was huge - unscruplour priests said the only antidote for Hell was the Mass. And more mass. And pictures, statues, vestments, religious relics etc.

Is it any wonder that things blew up?

What did the Reformers Want?

To return the worship and mass to the people. Points:

1. Go back to scripture - discard some of the abusive church traditions
2. Frequent Communion Services
3. People could take the bread AND the Wine.
4. Fuller participation in hymns, responses, psalms (in their language)
5. Fuller Bible readings and more extensive sermons.

Contentious Issues           

They still argued amongst themselves, notably about Christ's presence in the elements.

Swiss and German leaned toward the symbolic view. Christ's presence was in the hearts of those taking the eucharist. 

Huldrich Zwingli (Swiss): "the true body of Chirst is present by contemplation of faith"

Some Anabaptists: "Christ's presence through the Spirit of the Community gathered around the table."

Martin Luther - Christ was present in the bread and the wine. Likened it to a union of fire and iron, when the iron gets fire-hot. Every part is in both the iron and the fire.

Calvin - Since the acension, Christ's humanity is in heaven, but in the Eucharist the Spirit "transfuses life into us form the flesh of Christ."

How did they reform?           

Sola scriptura - all doctrine and faith are based on scripture, not church tradition - a good idea, except the NT does not give models or instructions.

So… they either accommodated or reacted.

Example - Luther told people they cold take communion more frequently, they resisted the change, so he told them to take the initiative. If you want communion, tell the pastor. And if no one asks, then the service will only contain the service of the word (the first part). And will be shorter.

This shorter service became the norm - not because of scripture - but accommodating what people would bear.

What does Luther Keep?

If scriptures didn't forbid something, he kept it. Like the elevation of the host.

What did he radically remove?

He purged the Canon of short prayers within the Roman Mass. He called "the abominable concoction drawn form everyone's sewer and cesspool." - no mention of sacrifice remains. He also takes out the Nicene Creed - and the Word, notably in the sermon becomes the focal point of the service.

Hymns are now in the people's language - participation that creates a folk mass to educate the unlearned. This refocusing on the sermon makes the Lord Supper a marginal postscript at the end of  a service. (What a change?!!!)

Question:

Where does the communion service fit for you in Grain of Wheat? Is it central? Is it an afterthought? Do things lead up to it? Or is the teaching (homily) the center?

Zwingli and Calvin

Zwingli - Reminding

(Same era as Luther)

Based on scripture, Baptism and the Lord's Supper must be observed. But they are signs of God's redemption, visual aids, reminders to God's grace and forgiveness. He was strongly against the idea that Christ was in the bread and wine - accused of "emptying the sacraments". Demoting the Eucharistic to a reminder.

Some thing Zwingli gets judged to harshly around this and that he said that Communion wasn't just a "looking back and remembering", but an encounter with Christ in the present, with other participants (the community) around the table.

Interesting the idea of community though.

There were no congregational response or music - participation was listening. Spare buildings (nothing visual - very Swiss) where people were taught, exhorted (cautioned) and edified (instructed and improved).

This does, incidentally, lead to a whole style of worship still around today.

Calvin           

(2^nd generation reformer)

Held a high sacramental view of Communion. Christ fully in the Supper by means of the Holy Spirit. Something to be experienced, not explained.

He hoped that Communion would become a weekly part of Sunday worship but the people resisted and ended up with a monthly service.

Question

How do you understand this remembrance? Is that what communion is for you? How is Christ present?

Clerical Order           

Though the reformers gave the Mass back to the people - they hung onto the order, the separation between clery and laity. The ministers preached the word, gave out the sacraments, and governed the church.

So, while they reformed a lot, they didn't touch the most sensitive nerve at all: the power of the Clergy.

What was accomplished?

• they didn't fully break out of the medival mindset into pure scriptural worship. There was still a lot of stress on the sin of individuals and the need for confession before coming to the table.

• things were still focused (in the West) on the cross, on sacrifice and a penitential tone to communion services

• BUT  - they simplified worship into ordinary language, they increased participation of the congregation, congregational singing, a new emphasis on teaching.

• ordinary people still resisted frequent communion (recall the 1^st Century weekly love feasts - mentioned in acts and Corinthians) - it was too much to ask

• unfortunately the Communion service gets pushed to the margins, at the end, reduced in importance when compared to the teaching

Major Irony Point

People took the question of communion so seriously that they tortured, drownded and exiled each other over what was said in the liturgy. Literally a burning issue (not my pun). All the reformers agreed on the importance of Communion.

Yet - after all the terror and tradgedy - the Catholic Church in spite of daily mass, ordinary people took Communion once a year.

And it was the same in the Reformed Churches. Communion was held to be so important, that you could only do it a few times a year. And the ceremonies of preparation were rigourous and exhausting. The Eucharist was no longer at the center of a conregation's worship life.

Questions leading into next time:

Was the excitement of hearing the Bible read and taught so great that the table paled in comparison?

Was the food of the table so inwardly obsessive that it seemed "impossible to eat"?

Why had the table of the Lord become so unapproachable, so inaccessible?

Next time:           

How would 16^th century Anabaptists respond to a communion service in Amsterdam, in Winnipeg, at Grain of Wheat?