What to say when you're serving the wine: Assisting with the Lord's Supper Part 5

The Book of Common Prayer of 1662 is the foundational document of the Anglican Church - if you reject it, you aren't Anglican.  It says that as the wine is served, the person serving it shall say (not 'may say' or 'will say'- but 'shall say', which in the English of 1662 means that this is a command, not a suggestion): "The Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life:  Drink this in remembrance that Christ's Blood was shed for thee, and be thankful."

That's quite a lot to say to each person, and no doubt some servers struggle to remember it all.  In 1978 An Australian Prayer Book said that the person serving could use a more modern version of the same words:  "The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for you, preserve your body and soul to everlasting life; drink this in remembrance that Christ's blood was shed for you, and be thankful."  Or they could simplify it to "The blood of Christ keep you in eternal life."  Or they could say, "Drink this in remembrance that Christ's blood was shed for you, and be thankful."

In A Prayer Book for Australia, published in 1995, there is an extra option:  Those serving the wine can say, "The blood of Christ, the cup of salvation, keep you in eternal life."

So for a new server starting out, the first thing is to find out if your senior pastor has a preference for what you will say, and then memorise that thoroughly!

A couple of theological reflections: 

Saying 'The blood of Christ keep you in eternal life' allows for a bit of ambiguity.  

Am I handing you the blood of Christ?  Do I believe, and am I telling you, that the wine has actually been trans-substantiated - that is, it's substance has been changed into the actual blood of Jesus, by the words spoken by the priest?   That's what Roman Catholic teaching says, and that teaching was rejected by the Reformers who founded the Church of England, which became the Anglican Church.  

Or maybe this is an implied prayer - you fill in the word 'May' at the start, and really I am praying, saying, May God to keep his promise that the blood of Christ will keep you in eternal life?  It's an ambiguity that reflects the roots of the Anglican church - way back in Queen Elizabeth I's time, in order to stop the country from erupting into civil war, she insisted that the new Church of England prayer book included some compromises, so that Protestants and Catholics could take the Lord's Supper side by side, and each hear what they wanted to hear in the ceremony. 

[By the way, you'll notice I'm not including a lot of references to historical sources here - I'm relying on my memory of church history lectures, which is may be not so reliable.  If you can provide a reference, or happen to know that I've got something wrong, please feel free to scroll down and leave me a comment!]

My second reflection is that I don't see anything helpful about adding the words 'the cup of salvation' into the words of administration.  Let's apply the litmus test:  Does this help the person remember that Jesus died for them, or does it distract them from that?  I think it's very probable that it would distract them.  Let me explain:

Psalm 116 is the only place in the Bible where the expression occurs:  "What shall I return to the Lord for all his goodness to me?  I will lift up the cup of salvation and call on the name of the LORD." In context, the song-writer says that God has heard their prayer for help, and rescued them, so they will lift up the cup of salvation in response - the cup of salvation appears to be an offering made by the worshipper to God in thanks for the salvation He has given, and offering it fulfils the singer's vow that he or she would honour God if He did hear their prayer and rescue them.  

I think that's a distraction, a blurring of focus from what the cup of wine in the Lord's Supper is meant to represent.  It's true that we owe God a sacrifice of thanks for the salvation he has given us.  And it's true that we publicly honour him by taking the Lord's Supper together.  But in the moment when you are sipping, you are meant to be thinking of that cup of wine as symbolising Jesus' blood, which is the gift from God for you, not symbolising a gift to God from you.

So effectively this adds an extra compromise to Q.E.I's list:  if I want to, as I drink I can think about my gift to God, instead of His gift to me.  Or (and this is very likely) if I have no idea what Psalm 116 says, I can focus on the act of drinking the cup of salvation, that is, on my act of participating in communion, my act of helping myself by drinking right now, rather than remembering what Jesus was doing for me on the cross. 

I suspect that that compromise and blurring of focus is deliberate - because some people find it very unpalatable to think, firstly, that they are sinful, that God finds them less than admirable.  And secondly, that God would require a penalty from us, to pay for our sin.  And thirdly, that God would decide that Jesus, an innocent 'third party', could pay that penalty on our behalf.  

All this can be summed up in the term 'substitutionary atonement'.  It's a dirty term in many circles today, and sadly that includes a lot of people who claim the name Anglican.  And again I say that it is a tragedy to forget - no, to be disgusted by - the very heart of your faith.  Substitutionary atonement is the essence of Christian faith. And it's exactly what we celebrate in the Lord's Supper.

Tables and rails: Assisting with Lord's Supper- Part 4

At our church, each person comes out of their seat to the front of the church, and they kneel or stand on the congregation side of the rail, a little wooden or metal fence that marks the edge of the 'sanctuary'.  In the sanctuary is a table, which is called by some the altar, others call it the communion table - but to be consistent, I'm calling it the Lord's Supper table.

The rail and the division of our church into 'sanctuary' and the rest would deeply disappoint the first Protestants, who deliberately placed the Lord's Supper table in the middle of the church, so that people could come right up and stand around it;  they wanted us to remember that this table is NOT an altar where a priest makes a sacrifice to entice God to forgive our sinfulness;  it's a feasting table, where we gather to celebrate that the only sacrifice we need, Jesus Christ, has already been made, once and for all, and because of that, God's right and proper anger against our sin is already fully satisfied, for everyone who turns to Jesus with that trust.  Now that we belong to Christ we have no need of earthly priests, because we have one Great High Priest, Jesus himself.

The Lord's Supper table is an earthly party table, where we remember that because of Jesus' death for us, we now have a seat at God's banqueting table in his heavenly Kingdom.  Putting it in the centre of the assembly or gathering (that's what the Greek word that we translate 'church' really means) also reminds us that every follower of Jesus is equally allowed to approach that table.  

But of course, it's tricky to squeeze more than about twenty people around your average table, and sadly the vast majority of Anglican churches have long since reverted to the Roman Catholic practice of putting the table at one end of the church.  

Other practices have crept back too over the past 500 years since the Protestant Reformation - like fencing the ordinary people out of the "sacred space" of the sanctuary, and even in some churches talking about "offering" the bread and wine to God.  It is a tragedy to forget the very heart of your faith, and to replace the good news of Jesus Christ with useless and misleading ceremony.

Saying all that, we have a little rail, marking the edge of our middle-of-the-road not-too-fancy 'sanctuary', and it does serve a useful purpose - it's something for our wobblier members to hold onto when they come forward for the Lord's Supper! 

The Book of Common Prayer recommends that people receive the Lord's Supper 'all meekly kneeling'.  It's a good thing to humble ourselves before the Lord, remembering how great he is, and how much we owe him.  But not so good for those of the congregation with rickety knees and hips, or poor balance.  As long as your heart is meekly kneeling before Jesus, that is enough.

Thoughts about wine: Assisting with The Lord's Supper Part 3

In my church, we like to invite anyone to join in the celebration of the Lord's Supper, regardless of their age, denomination or background, provided that they love the Lord Jesus as their King and Saviour.

So we offer three ways to take wine:

1. sip alcoholic wine from the chalice, or 'common cup'
2. dip the bread into a cup of alcoholic wine reserved for that purpose;  this is sometimes called 'intincting' or 'intinction';  which comes from the Latin 'intingere' (according to Lexico.com) which means... you guessed it, to dip (something) into (something - most likely something coloured)
3. drink non-alcoholic grape juice from a tiny individual cup

A bit more information about those three options:
The shared cup is intended to remind us that Jesus served wine to his disciples from one cup, and perhaps also that we all share in the same blood.  The wine is usually fortified, ie.  more alcoholic than ordinary table wine, and that helps with killing any germs people might accidentally share.

Dipping the bread in the wine is preferred by some people, but for a few different reasons.  Some ministers insist on dipping the bread before they give it to the people.  Some dip because that's what they were taught to do.  Some choose to be tea-total - they don't drink any alcohol at all; if their church doesn't offer a non-alcoholic alternative, dipping the bread means that they can take part fully in the celebration of the Lord's Supper, but limit the amount of alcohol they take.

Some dip because they are concerned about either giving or receiving germs on the rim of the cup. That's probably the least valid reason, because unless people have scrubbed their fingers and nails just before they dip, they risk transferring many more germs into the wine than if they sipped.  In fact in several Australian dioceses, people are being encouraged not to dip for that reason.

This (slightly humorous) article talks about the more theological reasons for not dipping: First, that Jesus did not combine the bread and the wine when he served his disciples.  Second, that the purpose of celebrating the Lord's Supper is to remember Jesus' sacrifice of himself to atone for our sin - such a sacrifice is foreshadowed in the Old Testament, where the priests were instructed to pour out the blood separately from the body of the sacrifice.

Some people are rather scornful of serving the wine or grape juice in individual cups;  they see it as a new invention, perhaps a utilitarian approach to serving the Lord's Supper, which degrades the ceremony in their eyes.  I have a rather different view.

For one thing, I have known people who struggle against alcohol, so that even the smell of alcohol on my breath as I serve them makes celebrating the Lord's Supper an ordeal.  For their sake, I would offer non-alcoholic grape juice every time.  There are also many children who grasp what Jesus has done for them as fully as any adult, and I want to include them in our family celebration.  There are others who have a compromised immune system, and simply can't risk exposure to other people's germs.

What about the theology of individual cups, rather than the pragmatics?

In other traditions, people are encouraged to eat and drink when they feel ready, and not on some schedule imposed by the service leader.  The bread and wine are available at their seat throughout the service. This is unusual to me, but I can see that it might help people to 'do business with the Lord' in prayer more than trooping forward and queuing up at the rail in a more traditional ritual.

From my reading of the accounts of the Last Supper, it seems likely to me that Jesus gave thanks for the wine, and then served it from a jug into each person's separate cup.  I'm in the middle of a little bit of research to find out if my hunch is right, and am ready to eat humble pie if I'm wrong!

Whether that's right or not, I don't think drinking from separate cups devalues the act of celebrating the Lord's Supper.  If you eat and drink in remembrance of Jesus' sacrificial death for you, quite frankly, I don't think it matters if you drink wine from a shared cup or orange juice from a cardboard carton, kneeling in a church at a specially made rail or sitting at a picnic table in the park.

I do think that it's preferable, but not essential, to celebrate with other Christians rather than alone.  In the early church, the disciples 'devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer' (Acts 2:42).  Breaking bread would be what you'd do when you ate with people, like on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:20 "When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them.").  And the apostle Paul emphasises the shared, unifying nature of Jesus' sacrifice for us - his death gathers people from the ends of the earth into one body, one family, one nation.

Different Strokes... Assisting with the Lord's Supper Part 2

So you've been invited to assist with serving the Lord's Supper (or Eucharist, or Communion, or whatever name your church prefers).

Some churches are more strict about how things are done, and about training or not training people in their roles.  In some, you have to undergo a course, and then be authorised by the local Bishop, to serve the Lord's Supper.  In others, anyone can be roped in at the last minute.

I think the Lord's Supper is such an important part of our Christian life that anyone who helps to serve should first, be known to be a believer.  They should be someone who is known to be responsible, and respectful.  But happily, they don't have to be perfect ...  I do think it's very wise to spend a bit of time on training before they begin, and then to follow up with encouragement and advice over time. 

First let me say that there are a great many different ways to organise a celebration of the Lord's Supper, and every church will do it slightly differently, if not vastly differently.  That is in part a function of the number of people in the congregation.  But it's also a reflection of your theology - your understanding of God. 

For example, if your church emphasises that every believer is a priest, as Peter suggests in 1 Peter 2:9, then you might each serve the bread and the wine to the person next to you: once each person has been given and eaten a piece of the bread, they take the loaf, turn to the next person, and pull a chunk off to give them.  Your pastor might suggest some words to say as you serve each element, or it might be a silent celebration.

Or your church might emphasise that some people within the congregation have been especially set apart to perform a priestly role, and so only a specially authorised person is permitted to lead the Lord's Supper service, and only people who are specially authorised are permitted to serve the bread and wine. The prayers may be laid out in an authorised prayer book, and the celebration may include colourful robes, stately processions, bowing and graceful hand movements, and so on.

There's a lot of diversity between Anglican churches, and between Anglican ministers, so some will look more like the first, and some more like the second.  I confess that personally I prefer the first, and I believe it is a better reflection of our Lord's intention;  but in my current church, we're more 'middle of the road' - we have authorised people leading and serving, but the ceremony is relatively casual.

Can you serve the wine today? Assisting with the Lord's Supper, Part 1

The first time I assisted with the Lord's Supper, I was twenty-something, a member of my church's evening congregation, who occasionally led services or singing or youth group.  We were at a conference where almost everyone had a dog collar, and quite a few of them were wearing one.  I wasn't sure why my minister had invited me - we seemed be the only church who had brought some lay people along.  My bishop was 'presiding' - for the non-Anglicans, that means he was the one leading the service of Communion / Lord's Supper / Holy Eucharist.  And fifteen minutes before it began he asked if I would serve the wine.  Yikes!!

But what a privilege to move from person to person, offering them the cup of wine, and reminding each person that Jesus' blood was spilled for them, yes, for each of them, personally.

If you are offered the opportunity to assist with the celebration of the Lord's Supper, please take it as a huge compliment.  And please treat it as a rich and profound responsibility.

In this post, I'll share a couple of thoughts about the Lord's Supper.  I am aware that there are other points of view.

The word 'Communion' (according to the Oxford Dictionary Online) means 'the sharing or exchanging of intimate thoughts and feelings, especially on a mental or spiritual level.'  Which makes me wonder how it also came to mean (according to the Oxford Dictionary Online): 'the service of Christian worship at which bread and wine are consecrated and shared'.  

Happily the Online Etymology Dictionary helps here;  the use of the word Communion to describe Christians breaking bread together and drinking wine together comes from the idea of unity in something which is shared among all, or participating together in something.  That's OK, the Apostle Paul says "Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ?  And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Corinthians 10:16 NIV). In other words,  this ceremony celebrates the fact that people who belong to Jesus share his death;  we died with him (have a look at Romans 6:1-14).  But I'm not sure that the word "Communion" means that to the average Christian today, much less anyone else.

The word Eucharist is from the Greek - ancient Greek actually - for saying 'thank you'.  That's also OK, I hope we are very thankful for Jesus' sacrifice on our behalf, but saying thank you, or even being reminded to be thankful, is not the primary purpose of the reenactment.  Even if it was, I think it's helpful to use terms that are more easily understood.

I prefer to call it the Lord's Supper, because it is a tiny symbolic reenactment of the Last Supper - the one Jesus had with his disciples the night before he was tried and crucified.  Jesus said that as often as his disciples - those who follow his teaching, that is - broke bread together, and shared wine together, as they did that night, they should do it to remember him.  Remembering Jesus, and specifically remembering that he died for us, is the primary purpose of reenacting the Last Supper together.

So that's what should govern how we conduct the celebration of the Lord's Supper.  We should ask ourselves, do the things we do and say help people to remember that Jesus died for them?  Or do they distract people from that fact?

Next time you take part in the Lord's Supper in your church, take notice of everything that happens.  Does it help you remember that Jesus died for you, or does it distract you from remembering?  Look at everything that happens - is this the best time in the service to remember that Jesus died for us?  What should come before and after, to help with the aim of remembering?  Does the place you are in help or hinder?  Does the song before help people to remember, or not?  What about the bread and the wine that you use - do they help, or hinder?  What about the words that are said?  Are there prayers, perhaps before or after the Lord's Supper, or part of it, and how do they help or distract?  Do the items used in the ceremony help them to focus on what Jesus has done for them?

Here's One I Didn't Write!

Here's a link to an article about leading better church services - I think it's full of good advice!  Click HERE.

4. Prayer Part 1

copyright yelo34 www.123rf.com

Now here, I need to point out what doesn't seem to be apparent:  If you attend an Anglican church, and the services follow the ones set in the prayer book, there are prayers throughout the service.  It's a 'prayer book', right?  The old BCP is the Book of Common Prayer, ie, the prayers we pray in common, when we are gathered together.  Then there's An Australian Prayer Book, and A Prayer Book for Australia, and so on. 

Some of the prayers are prescribed - that is, if you are following that order of service, that's the prayer you use, word for word.  They are written out in full in the prayer book and they are read out, some by the service leader, some by the congregation together.  Others are 'intercessions' - prayers prayed on behalf of someone or something else - and these are not prescribed, the prayer leader decides what to say.  

In Anglican churches, I've several times heard people complain that their church isn't prayerful enough - maybe they mean that their church doesn't spend a lot of time praying other than the set prayers, or maybe that when people pray non-set prayers, they don't seem very enthusiastic.  And that is quite possibly true.  Sometimes I think what they really mean is that they don't feel as if they are praying when they say a set prayer, and not a lot of non-set prayers are said in their church.

The danger of using prescribed prayers is that you can be thinking about something completely different when your lips are going through the motions.  So, as you are observing, take note of whether you get the sense that the service leader is truly praying, or whether they are just saying what they've been told to say.  Then when you are leading a set prayer, work hard at 'being in the moment' (love the jargon) - think about what you are saying, and say it from the heart.