In the PCUSA Polity section of Presbynet there has been a lot of discussion about communion. The discusion was sparked by questions about who is allowed to serve communion. Specifically, can the session authorize baptized but unconfirmed members to serve communion during worship?

After much discussion about the meaning of membership, the different types of membership (active, inactive, baptized, affiliate) and the serious consideration which needs to be given to the exact wording in the Book of Order (BOO) concerning who can serve communion, the final concensus seems to be that it is within the rules to authorize baptized youth to serve communion, though not all agreed that this was a wise practice or policy.

I came away from the discussion wondering what the fuss was all about. There was much concern over the loss of understanding of the meaning and importance of communion. Maybe I've already lost some of that understanding because I'm not sure I see what the goal of being so careful with the rituals, elements, and details of serving communion accomplishes.

I am coming more and more to an understanding of God as being an essential, integrated part of each of us. As such, a goal of the church, it seems to me, should be to help each of us get in better contact with God and to keep God as a central focus of our lives. How does keeping regimented control over the sacred elements of communion help to accomplish this?

Speaking purely from memory, I remember the words of invitation to the table to include Jesus' words that "whenever we eat this bread and drink this cup we show forth God's presence until God comes again" or something like that. If we want to be remembering God constantly, and we remember God whenever we share a communion meal, then shouldn't we be encouraging our church members to make every meal a communion meal? Wouldn't this help people to remember the nearness and importance of God every day in everything we do, such as whenever we eat something? If we can see the presence of God in each meal we make, in each thing we do, then doesn't that help us to better keep our focus on who we are as Christians and what we should be doing as God's people?

What does it say about sharing communion within the church when we put strict limits on when it can be served, who can authorize it being served, and who can participate in serving it? Is this an attempt to bring God to the people in their lives or is this an attempt to keep God locked away unless the church leaders let God out and share God's presence with the other, less priviledged members of the congregation? In other words, getting back to the title I've given to this note, is the control of communion because of the sanctity of the service or is it because of a desire or percieved need to force scarcity of communion so that people will better appreciate it when it is available?

I have certainly experienced some moving and meaningful communion services. The intimate communions held during session retreats with other devoted church leaders have been very special. The tremendous experience of communion with hundreds of peacemakers or worship leaders at Montreat conferences is a different but also very meaningful experience.

But what about the service of celebration of the ressurection when a church member died and communion was served but our pastor forgot to get session approval (despite having an opportunity to do so)? Was the meaning and inspiration of that service false somehow because it was not properly authorized?

Does proper approval guarantee that participants will properly appreciate the meaning and importance of the service? I suspect that more than a few of those who have received communion over the centuries have been distracted by the concerns of the world so that their participation was merely a matter of routine instead of a heartfelt communion of shared worship. I would hazard a guess that even some of those who have led communion services are sometimes just going through the motions while thinking about activities to come later or some other concerns. But even so, this lack of dedicated involvement by some participants does not necessarily mean that other participants are not being uplifted by the worship which they are sharing. It really comes down to the individual's focus and beliefs about what they are doing in a particular worship service, doesn't it?

Would lack of eclesiastical approval make a powerful prayer of dedication given by a devout believer before a family dinner less meaningful? Couldn't the shared meal and time together provide an opportunity for genuine reflection on the importance of God in our lives together and to us individually? How would this be inappropriate if some of the words of institution were incorporated into a mealtime prayer? Would disciplinary action be taken against an elder, pastor, or even a church member who dared to say these special words before their family dinner together? Is God more present or less when devoted Christians pray together based on an approval or lack of same by a court of the church?

I recognize that worship and communion services present an opportunity for us as Christians to come together and help each other to better experience and understand God and what it means in our lives to have a relationship with God. However, I'm afraid that I have a hard time understanding how placing restrictions on when and how people can decide to worship God helps further the purposes of the church as the body of Christ in the world. What is being controlled here? Is God's presence with individuals being denied based on their not being officially sanctioned to share a communion meal, and if so by what authority? Are we as church leaders so audacious that we would claim to be able to control by vote in session whether God's presence will or will not be authorized in any given setting?

I don't know what I hope to accomplish by expressing these thoughts. I can hardly imagine that I would get any encouragement from any PC(USA) leaders for pursing these thoughts to any action or overtures. However, I am finding that my beliefs about God and my relationship with God seems to be less dependent upon my relationship with a formal church than I would have thought in the past. Certainly I have received a lot of inspiration and education from my participation in the PC(USA), but I am coming to see the denomination as more of a convenient gathering point for learning about and worshiping God rather than as the actual source of access to and interaction with God. My membership in the PC(USA) has afforded me many opportunities for personal and spiritual growth, but I think that if I was forced to a parting of the ways due to doctrinal differences then it would be more of an inconvenience than a personal disaster. Of course, I do not have a dramatic financial investment in the church as would an ordained pastor who depends on their participation in the church for their health insurance and retirement. On the other hand, since my wife is an employee of the church we are somewhat dependant upon the continued existence of the denomination for our financial security, but her position is not dependant upon my membership within a congregation of the denomination.

I would be interested in any thoughts any readers have about what I've written here. Please leave me an email message or a comment if you can help me to see where my understanding is lacking concerning the sanctity of communion.