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.