I’d like to share a thought or two with you about worship this morning. Specifically I’d like to share a couple of thoughts with you about a special time of the worship that Christians refer to in various ways—communion, the Lord’s Supper, Eucharist. It is a most special time during the worship and one that I have participated in regularly since sometime in 1983.
In the tradition I used to belong to, the Christian Church/Church of Christ, communion is a weekly part of the worship. Sometimes it is offered near the end of the worship and sometimes it is offered in the middle of the worship just before the sermon—it depends upon the local church’s tradition. When my wife and I were looking for a new church to belong to and worship with it was essential to us that, regardless of where in the worship it was offered, communion be offered on a weekly basis. It is important to us and it is one of those essential aspects of worship we were unwilling to part with.
The church we now belong to, an Anglican Church, offers communion on a weekly basis and we are glad for it. That’s where today’s post was created (but not in six, literal 24-hour days). It was a moment not written in the scheduled liturgy. Thus I am certain it was a Holy Spirit moment—an unwritten moment of pure joy.
You see the denomination I used to belong to is very serious about the Lord’s Supper and maybe rightly, absurdly, so. One is not allowed to have communion until one has been properly baptized and gone through all sorts of other hoops (made the right confessions, given the secret handshake, and participated in three or four years of mandatory pot-luck dinners). This is probably generally true of most denominations; whatever.
Towards the end of my ministry, I was, admittedly, lax about enforcing this rule. I used, at the beginning of my ministry when I was smart, to think, “Why would someone who isn’t a Christian want to take communion?” And I would dutifully inform people in various ways that if they were not a christian they should not take communion. Towards the end (and even now), it (my attitude) was (and is) more along the lines of “I’m so glad this table is open to all whom Jesus invites.” After all, Jesus is the Host; that’s enough. If Jesus invites someone to the table, who am I to shoo them away? (There are undoubtedly purists who will find my perspective offensive and sacrilegious.)
We Christians are particular and guarded about our traditions—we don’t share communion with outsiders (ironically we have no such stipulations about the money they may want to put into the plate that is passed; strange that). I have a friend who went to visit a Lutheran church one day and the pastor told her he was glad she was there but she was not in any way invited to participate in the Eucharist even though she has been a baptized believer nearly her entire life. Even at our church the pastor is very careful to explain the rules of communion. That’s fine. Paul does make some rather startling remarks in 1 Corinthians about ‘eating in an unworthy manner’ and all sorts of stuff like that. I still haven’t seen anywhere in Scripture where it says ‘thou shall be baptized and confirmed before you can participate in the Lord’s supper,’ but I won’t press the issue.
I don’t know why someone who is not a disciple would want to participate, but neither do I know that Jesus has prohibited those who aren’t from doing so either.
Communion is a very special time and I’m glad for it. In the Christian Church the folks are very, very serious about communion. I remember getting in trouble one Sunday from some nasty folks because we played music during the communion silence that, gasp, had vocals. I always enjoyed leading a rousing song service full of life and vigor and the Holy Spirit and leading into communion where our high full of the Spirit worship would be doused by the resounding doldrums of a funeral dirge banged out on a 35 year old organ. But hey, everyone has their thing. I also remember getting not a few dirty looks from certain organists when we would, louder gasp, talk during communion. I mean, in the Church of Christ communion is that time, apparently the only time, when it is right and true in the Lord to confess sins and get right with him. (Again it’s that whole eating in an unworthy manner thing.)
So there we were today in our new church following the rather loosely ordered liturgy where the Lord’s Supper comes at the end of the worship after the sermon and singing and passing of the peace. Then it happened. That pastor was reading through the communion liturgy, standing behind the altar; the bread had been broken; he was reading and we were responding…and we laughed. That’s right: we laughed. The preacher read the wrong line from the liturgy and we, the congregation, had no idea how to respond—he had read our line. Some of us just mumbled the same line, others mumbled his line, others looked on in quiet disbelief…the preacher, not missing a beat, took off his glasses and held them at a short distance and made some silly remark about his vision; and we laughed—out loud, boisterously. We laughed. And we were not embarrassed to do so.
Nor did the Lord strike us dead for doing so.
I have never, in nearly 30 years of participating in the Lord’s Supper, laughed, heard laughter, or thought it was appropriate to laugh during the Lord’s Supper. It’s like Tommy Lee Jones says in Men In Black, “We at the (Church of Christ) do not have a sense of humor that we are aware of.” But today we laughed. I didn’t know we could laugh in worship let alone during the Lord’s Supper.
Is there space in the midst of something so sacred, so holy, so wonderful for the Lord to invite us to laugh? Laughter in the midst of holy space? Are you kidding me? We don’t typically find death so amusing. What I learned is that our solemnity doesn’t make us more worthy to receive communion and our holiness is not merely defined by our contrition; a sad face accompanied by sad music does not make us more worthy to receive what the Lord is inviting us to. Then again, if we approach that time as if communion is something we merely take, well, then of course, we must contort ourselves into all sorts of serious faced postures in order to participate. It is different when communion is something we receive.
Do you know how exhilarating it was to laugh? It brought peace to my heart and I felt a freedom I haven’t felt for a long, long time. There wasn’t even anything uncomfortable about the laughter. It wasn’t forced or coerced and even the pastor laughed. I do not think his job will be in jeopardy because we laughed during the communion time.
Eugene Peterson wrote, “Laughter is a result of living in the midst of God’s great works…The joy comes because God knows how to wipe away tears, and, in his resurrection work, create the smile of new life. Joy is what God gives, not what we work up. Laughter is the delight that things are working together for good to those who love God, not the giggles that betray the nervousness of a precarious defense system. The joy that develops in the Christian way of discipleship is an overflow of spirits that comes from feeling good not about yourself but about God. We find that his ways are dependable, his promises sure.” (A Long Obedience in the Same Direction, 100-101)
What better place to find his promises sure than during the Eucharist?
So, laughter.
There’s one last thing I’d like to briefly say about this communion we participate in with our new family. In the Christian Church we always worked ourselves up into a frenzy over communion. We looked forward to a time when we were baptized so that we could ‘take’ communion. The communion is passed around in little plates and cups and we individually serve ourselves our cracker and juice. At our new church and with our new family we do not take communion.
We receive it.
We do not serve ourselves communion. It is served to us.
I know that not every single Church of Christ/Christian Church celebrates the Lord’s Supper in such a manufactured, boring, self-centered way as I described in the above paragraphs. This is only my experience, so don’t misunderstand what I am saying or what I am criticizing. Every church, every congregation, every denomination is open to the possibility that worship will become a matter of what we take (and not what we receive), and every one also is susceptible to thinking that our worthiness to enter into that worship is dependent upon the level of contrition we display or that it is dependent upon how wonderfully we can contort our faces and show our deep, deep humility and piety.
That is not worship, but entertainment.
I think Jesus said this: “When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, so that it will not be obvious to men that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.”
Can you imagine going to the same dinner party for 29 years of your life and never once hearing the host crack a joke or do something silly that made you bust up into a fit of laughter?
I’m glad today we laughed. I believe we received that laughter just as much as we received the bread and wine and forgiveness and grace and mercy. It was He who invited us in and to the table.
Peace to you.
211 Comments(+Add)
As a fellow Anglican (CofE), I really appreciate the way we do communion. It is ordered, but friendly and also welcoming. In the Church of England the only condition to recieve communion if you are not a confirmed member of the CofE is that you are Baptised under the Trinitarian formula and are a member, in good standing, of a church that subscribes to the historic creeds.
“Can you imagine going to the same dinner party for 29 years of your life and never once hearing the host crack a joke or do something silly that made you bust up into a fit of laughter?”
I do not get the connection. Communion is extremely serious and a time for worship, contrition, and remembering. God dealt harshly with the Church at Corinth concerning their careless attitude with communion.
An inadvertant laughis always possible, but as a rule laughter would be inappropriate. We need not contort our faces, but we should contort our hearts.
Rick, I disagree. While communion can be a serious time that is not all it must be. It is also a celebration.
I think it is a good idea to find ways to incorporate the celebratory aspect of the Lord’s Supper now and then. It is, after all, a foretaste of the heavenly banquet to come. Will we all be dour and sour then?
I think this is one of the most misused passages of Scripture when it comes to worship practices.
The reason Corinth got such a backlash from Paul is because they were causing divisions between the rich and the poor with even their communion practices, thus rendering communion obsolete. They were drinking judgment on themselves because they were not recognizing that the body and blood of Christ breaks down barriers rather than builds them.
Historically this passage has been used in abusive ways, allowing those who hold the cup to “lord over” others by making them fear their very salvation if they don’t take “worthily,” and in so doing they are, ironically, taking communion unworthily.
Rick,
I said as much in my post and I think you may have overlooked it or just not read it.
I agree with Chad, this passage has been misused over and over by christians to support just the position you are advocating. That is not why Paul ‘chastised’ the Corinthians.
Our communion service is an outgrowth of the Passover. And it is celebrated on the first day of the week–the day of Resurrection. The day for sour faces and hearts is Good Friday. The day for celebration is Sunday.
I’m not suggesting that we are always giddy and belly laughing. I am saying that I doubt seriously Jesus spent 33 years doing passover and never laughed once during that time–which is exactly what I have done and been taught to do for nearly that same period of time.
jerry
I think we can, and should have a heart of Joy and celebration when we think about the Lord.
I think we should also have a heart of contrite brokenness before Him.
Our hearts should be laid bare before the Lord, at all times when we worship. Certainly there are times when solemn reflection is in order. Times of breaking out in joyful laughter are in order during other times.
I think what Paul was writing about throughout 1 Corinthians in particular was order in the service of worship so that people could come and worship the Lord in truth together. That was distracted from when people would speak in tongues and not have an interpreter, or women would be socializing/talking, or when people went out of order, gorging themselves and getting drunk during communion. These things were happening in this Corinthian church, and it was having a negative impact on orderly worship.
Nobody is advocating having a comedy hour during communion/worship. As long as it is done in order, with an open heart towards the Lord lifting Him up and honoring Him above all, and is not disruptive towards the worship of others, a joyful shout or a laugh has appropriate places within the worship service, as do somber reflection.
John,
well said. I like the ‘i think’ comment.
jerry
I should have expanded the following thought just a little more, but sometimes the best thoughts come shortly or longly after another thought has been completed or thought to have been completed. Here’s what I wrote:
Communion is a gift. I do not typically stand back and stare in disbelief when someone gives me a gift. I am joyful, happy, grateful.
Even Eucharist betrays this, doesn’t it? ‘A good grace’? Is that close? A ‘thanksgiving’? When has a good grace ever been something upon which to cast a frown?
Granted, I’m thinking about this in depth. But that moment of laughter in the midst of something that IS so holy, so serious was a gift. It invited me to rethink everything I have ever believed about Eucharist and turned that world of solemnity on its head. I’m glad for it.
jerry
The verse in question in dealing with communion at the Corinthian Church had to do with combining the “picnic” with communion for convenience.
I disagree, but I don’t have time right now to do it because I have to go to work. But I’ll be back.
And even if you are right, and I think there might be nuances of your point, it does not take away from the point of my post and the general observation that I am making about worship of which communion is merely a part.
We do well to remember what constitutes a celebration to the oriental culture may not be the same in an occidental culture. I believe there is a ce;ebratory aspect to the communion service, but I do not believe that it would be the same as a birthday party.
Rick, with all due respect, at what point did I suggest it should be? And at what point is that even close to the tone of what I wrote?
Well, kind of, but Chad is actually correct. The rich people in Corinth had turned the observance of the Lord’s Supper into just another dinner party which was common for the rich and elite of that city. It seems that they maybe had started planning a meal before the ritual that was excluding the poor members. Thus, they were creating division within the body.
The way I’ve traditionally heard pastors use that passage is as a warning for people to repent prior to taking Communion. While I do think that is a good practice, I don’t necessarily think it is supported by this Scripture.
“Can you imagine going to the same dinner party for 29 years of your life and never once hearing the host crack a joke or do something silly that made you bust up into a fit of laughter?”
That is where I derived the party reference.
#13 – Did Paul reference the social standing issue? I know he dealt with the focus issue rather than combining communion with “dinner on the grounds”.
I didn’t say a birthday party. I said a dinner party. A dinner party does not have the same connotation as a birthday party.
But if you want to go on believing that Jews never laughed during Passover or that Christians should never laugh during communion, Eucharist, that’s fine.
I love you, but I seriously think you have missed the bigger point I was making.
Be well today.
You miss the point. Paul was addressing mixing a dinner party and calling it communion as well. That indeed was the issue.
#13
1Co 11:17 In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good.
1Co 11:18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it.
1Co 11:19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval.
1Co 11:20 When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat,
1Co 11:21 for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk.
1Co 11:22 Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!
1Co 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you…
Particularly vs. 22
Sorry… meant #14
corey – It does seem that Paul references some kind of social issue, but it remains the overarching issue that believers were eating and drinking and calling it communion as well as excluding those who were coming.
Rick, I think if you read Corinthians carefully, you will see that the real issue Paul was dealing with at Corinth was one of disunity. What you are a describing was a symptom of that disunity or, perhaps better, something they were doing that exacerbated the disunity. This is clear from chapter 1 onwards.
Their contempt for the Eucharist was contempt for Christ. It had nothing to do with the seriousness with which they approached the meal. And, I might add, I seriously, seriously doubt they did communion the way we do it in America in the 2000’s.
OK. Done now because I have to go take a final at CSU. Later.
Rick,
I hear what you’re saying, but you kind of have to look into the whole subtext of what was going on in Corinth. Like Jerry said, the main theme of the book is unity of the body, and it appears that the people were dividing themselves along class lines, teachers, and other things. The fact that Paul specifically chastises some for humiliating those who have nothing certainly makes it sound like there was a purposeful exclusion of the poor from these meals.
In essence, you’re correct. What they were calling the Lord’s Supper wasn’t really because it was excluding certain members of the church.
I agree, disunity was major. But when Paul addresses the issue of physical illness and death attributed to the wrong practice of communion, he specifically mention they did not “discerning the Lord’s body”.
And these verses seem to address both unworthiness and examination of oneself.
27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
30For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
31For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
32But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.
There is no direct connection to rich vs. poor. These verses make it personal.
I don’t know how you can make the jump that Paul is speaking of a specific issue with this specific body at one instance in the book, and then all of the sudden, he jumps to speaking about a general sin issue.
I really suspect that if “eating and drinking unworthily” were really related to general sin in an unbeliever’s life, that there would be far more people dropping dead after taking Communion. To my knowledge, I’ve not seen it happen.
A lot of things do not happen today that happened in the early church. I did not say they died because of personal sin, they were judged because they mistreatede communion. And even under those circumstances, not many believers die today because of God’s judgment, it’s usually because of sugar, red meat, and lack of exercise judgment.
Well, OK, then. I guess we’re just disagreeing on the specifics of how they were mistreating it. I suppose I can live with that.
while i agree on unity as the greater context of the letter, i do not see economic status anywhere in chapter 11.
his emphasis on some remaining hungry and other getting drunk makes me think it has something to do with orderliness.
jerry,
your comment about getting trouble because you had music with vocals gave birth to two thoughts: 1) it is amazing how petty, personal preferences get elevated to biblical status and 2) how thankful i am that i rarely have to deal with that.
I would say it’s in this verse, Neil:
1Co 11:22 Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!
OK – i see that… yet, he speaks of not waiting, does the “have nothing” really mean in a socio-economic sense?
and if it does, what then do we do with verses 18 & 19? paul is certainly not saying some are poor and some are rich to show god’s approval.
i suppose
could refer to those who did not bring food because they just don’t have enough.
I believe he refers to those who have brought large amounts of food to eat at the church when they should eat it at home. Some haven’t brought food. If Paul wa diectly dealing with rich verses poor would he not have commanded those with much to share woth those with none? But instead he says eat it at home.
Amen Jerry,
Your simple point (the op) is made very well
Christ is present in the Eucharist no matter what I may be feeling (or not feeling) on any given day. He shows up for high mass at the cathedral, weddings, funerals, and even the 25 minute Tuesday afternoon Eucharist that apparently only senior citizens are aware of. He even shows up for the cute little 2-year old under the pew in front of me that escaped his mother to untie fellow parishioner’s shoes.
Joy has an object!
Each month, around the dinner table, my family gets together to remember the great sacrifice my brother made in saving all my family from a house fire in which he lost his life. It’s a time of sadness (due to his death), but also joy as we think about his willing sacrifice that saved our lives and what a great brother he was. Over the years this somber occasion got rather mundane and so our father started inserting the occasional joke just to liven things up. What had become a trite, boring rememberance took on new life. The purpose of the memorial got a little fuzzy, but hey, we came away ENTERTAINED and in the final analysis THAT’S ALL THAT MATTERS.
Choose one:
(a) Nothing is sacred.
(b) All is sacred. (Therefore see A above).
Disclaimer (no actual brothers were lost in the narrative above).
#33 – If I understand your point, John, you facetiously suggested it’s all about us.
In Paul’s day it was a common cultural practice to eat meals in public with seating arrangements set up to honor the elite and disgrace the non-elite. This practice seems to have had some carry-over in the church and how they practiced the Lord’s Supper, which is what Paul is addressing – primarily.
Yes, communion calls us to repentance and confession but it also reminds us that we have an Advocate and that our Lord is not in the grave but at the right hand of the Father.
There is every reason to rejoice and celebrate.
I understand what you’re getting at, John, but what if your brother was also a genuinely funny guy who himself liked cracking jokes? Don’t you think he would simply appreciate the fact the family is getting together to remember him and that feelings that arise during that remembrance, even if they are lighthearted and humorous are OK?
I guess what I’m saying is that acknowledging something as sacred doesn’t necessarily mean that everything associated with that has to be somber.
And let’s keep in mind that when Jesus says “do this in remembrance of me” he is not speaking solely (perhaps not even primarily) about his upcoming death. He is referring to ALL that is his life, what it stood for, what he taught and proclaimed. Not to mention, we cannot think of Christ’s death without thinking of Easter.
John- your story falls apart in that your “brother” did not rise from the dead in 3 days and in so doing defeat sin and death for all the world. If he had done that, I think your dinner would always be met with some anticipation and joy.
in some respects, everything after Genesis 3 is about us… at least as the objects. of course, god is the subject.
Not to mention, if your brother came back and and stood among the family and said, “Peace be with you. Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.”
I think we also forget the subversive quality of the Lord’s Supper. While the Romans are charging the first Christians with cannibalism they are no doubt laughing as they feast, thinking, “Caesar is Lord??!! HA!”
The “till He comes” of course means He is risen. But the communion/Passover observance is a celebration and remembrance of His sacrifice upon the cross. The words of Jesus identify what the wine and bread represent.
As we partake on the Lord’s Supper we might ask, “Why is this meal different than all others? And why was that death different than all others?”
The Jews ask, “Why was this night different than all others”. We know and remember why His death was different than all others.
Well, Rick, all that is true. I just don’t think it has to be a somber funeral dirge every time we partake. I encourage people to take as the Spirit leads them – sometimes that is reflective and penitent, other times it is anticipatory and celebratory.
All are acceptable, IMO, and all are taking it “worthily.”
I have been in communion serves where after partaking of the elements we were all overcome by a spirit of exuberant worship. I am a 6′5 crier who is easily moved and at times like that it is not uncommon for my demonstrative worship to either make others uncomfortable or help others go a little further.
I will never be part of a funeral dirge. And there have been times I refused to partake due to some issues of unforgiveness or sin. I have also danced at a Passover Seder!
Great, Rick!
I’m confused now as to what you are taking issue with.
Perhaps I misunderstood Jerry’s laughter or joke telling mentions.
Rick I ask a serious question. I’ve found that those who have been saved from deep things are often overcome with emotion experiencing and seeing others enter into God’s grace. This has been my experience and I’ve occasionally been moved to tears because of communion.
So my question is; do you think this to be a sensitive to the spirit or an outpouring of human emotion overcome with gratitude?
It is both. Remember Jesus observed that the woman whom anointed him “loved much necause she was forgiven much”. I am by no means a great example of Christianity, but if you knew me before Christ you would be amazed.
Wben I receive communion in a spirit of worship, I am reminded of where God found me and the depth of his grace and love. I STILL do not have anything that deserves God’s love and favor; I stand unashamedly and completely by His grace, and that is not some doctrinal montra for me.
I have shot dope, smoked dope, and sniffed dope. I have sold drugs into high schools. I have been promiscuous without parameters. I have been violent inlcuding planning a bank robbery that included killing the guard. I have blasphemed in creative and articluate way. I have an arrest and conviction record.
So you tell me, should I hold back in my worship and celebration of my Lord and Savior? I am not what I could be and I am not even what I should be – BUT PRAISE GOD I AM NOT WHAT I USED TO BE!!!!
i suspect he will give you an answer. in the meantime i will give you how i understood it.
if you look at how he describes communion at his former church, it’s easy to see how many there took it seriously in the wrong way. it looks like the “how” became more important than the “who” or “why.”
and the error of the priest and the laughter of the congregation struck a significant chord with jerry.
When The Passion of the Christ came out I took my Sunday School class to see it. At that time we were around 100 members. Afterward we went to a member’s house and observed communion. We took turns giving testimonies of what Jesus means to us, and as you can imagine it was a time of deep meaning a great gratitude.
I don’t know if #46 missed it, but I guarantee you #33 did.
Wow, John. That was an amazing piece of ‘I don’t know how to read.’ Good job.
Seriously. I’m not laughing at all at the quality and depth of error you display in that comment. (Uh, and I’m trying to say that nicely.)
OK, John. Just for a couple of disclaimers of my own since you are really, really, really way, way, way off base with your comment in #33. Here’s what you wrote:
First, I never said anything about communion being boring.
Second, I didn’t say that the preacher purposely inserted a joke to liven things up a bit.
Third, I never said communion was ‘mundane.’
Fourth, I never said communion was about entertainment or that I was looking to be entertained.
What I did suggest is that for one brief, un-planned, un-written moment I experienced something I had never been given permission to experience in church: joy.
I really think you and Rick (and all the cultured despisers of the random winds of the Spirit) go back to the OP, read it slowly, carefully, and listen to what I wrote instead of assuming I’m trying to lead a brigade of brigands down to the church where we will replace the Host with a clown, the wine with firewater, and the bread with cheese nips.
I am actually offended at the level of ignorance that your comment displays.
I’m seriously still not laughing.
“I really think you and Rick (and all the cultured despisers of the random winds of the Spirit) go back to the OP, read it slowly, carefully, and listen to what I wrote…”
I would if I had ears to hear. And as you castigate PB for his personal labels and demeaning hyperboles please remember your “the cultured despisers of the random winds of the Spirit”
As I have often observed, the only difference between ODMs and emergent leaning believers is the amount of time it takes before anger and linguistic barbs surface. Just a matter of time. And if civility can be lost in a blog thread, what does that say about the way Christianity is manifested in this post modern me-fest?
We have grown accustomed and content with not being Jesus.
Oh, but you did laugh. Gen 18:15
Jerry (and all), there is a time and a purpose for everything. The Lord has set apart communion as a time to remember His death (and all that it accomplished). It is a time of reverance, of introspection and meditation on the death of Christ. There are plenty of other opportunities and times to commemorate the other aspects of our Savior’s life (e.g., birth, resurrection, life, etc.), but at this time, this special time, our Lord is asking us to remember His death.
I actually agree that at the end of the reflection of Calvary there is joy. Joy for the coming resurrection. Joy at the thought of the personal salvataion that our Lord’s death brought. But for one moment can’t we dwell on the sacrifice the Lord made? Can’t we **remember** and meditate on that, and only that, just for a moment like He asked us to?
What I did suggest is that for one brief, un-planned, un-written moment I experienced something I had never been given permission to experience in church: joy.
I think you should have changed churches sooner.
I used to do this.
Yesterday I did this.
Yesterday was better.
What do you think?
I disagree.
You are ignorant.
(Classic)
I don’t like what was written because it goes against ‘Paul’.
So I’ll insult the author or jab him with a pointy noun.
I have no substantive argument.
So I’ll talk about how he is a semi-emergent christian.
Then I’ll continue offering nothing of substance.
Then I’ll drop a one liner with nothing of substance.
Then I’ll discontinue the conversation because the author is ‘angry.’
Why won’t you read what I wrote instead of what you want to see?
You are emergent and haven’t read Paul enough and rely to much on the Gospels which are no gospels at all!
(Classic)
“Why won’t you read what I wrote instead of what you want to see?
Then you will agree with me.
I am actually offended at the level of ignorance that your comment displays.
This statement is, apparently, just like everything else you write and say around here: No substance.
No where in my OP did I suggest I was accustomed or content with not being Jesus. I did, however, say that there are many churches that have the distinct and profound ability to suck the life out of people and kill Jesus so that there is no joy whatsoever, anywhere, at any time.
But once again, Pastor Rick believes it is important to add to something that which was not already there. So when Pastor Rick doesn’t like the post because it bucks his experience he has to create all sorts of fancy suited red-herrings that have nothing to do with the real point which, in this case, is that for one brief unscripted moment I experienced a joy in worship that I didn’t know I was allowed to experience.
But somehow that was quite lost on Rick and John.
I’m not going to agree with someone who hasn’t read what was written. Sheesh
JohnRick.My purpose in life is to strip people of unscripted joy.
There is a major disconnect resulting in Jerry completely missing the point. Completely. I have to go, Paul is ringing my doorbell.
BTW – This was an especially nice ODM touch:
“This statement is, apparently, just like everything else you write and say around here: No substance.”
Like I have said, given enough time (real short this time) some will discount everything you say and believe. My definition on ODM has just expanded.
I’m as un-postmodern as they come, but didn’t Depeche Mode write a song about that?
And Rick, what point did you make that I missed? Seriously? You told me that my experience was invalid because it goes against what you believe. That’s all you had to say.
You have yet to offer any substantial, theological, Biblical argument that says, “Thou shall not have unscripted laughter during communion.”
Sorry, Rick, but it is not I who have missed the point. I get completely what you are saying: Jerry doesn’t agree with Rick, therefore Jerry’s experience and OP are just flat wrong.
Here’s what you wrote:
This is a complete misunderstanding of what I wrote. But that’s OK. You are Rick Frueh and never wrong.
I am often wrong. And if I completely misunderstood your post I apologize.
Agreed. But how does this give one license to hi-jack the purpose of a communion service?
No there is not. Ooooo. There, I said it. How dare I be so black and white. There is a time and purpose under heaven for everything. “A time to laugh and a time to mourn”. When we laugh during a time of mourning it is inappropriate behavior. It means all of a sudden it’s all about me.
Uh, there’s a reason for that Jerry.
It is sad on many levels that it took laughter at an inappropriate time to experience joy in church. And what was the joy over? A release / rebellion from an overbearing and very unhappy environment, which by the way is not God’s design for the church.
So really, the communion service is a non issue. It could just have easily been a baptism or a weding or a literal funeral. But you are trying to make this inappropriate behavior into a virtue and I am not buying it. It might have worked out for you good but that was just a coincidence.
The laughter, in context, was inappropriate and no amount of rationalization is going to change that. It’s not the end of the world. It happend amongst family/community. OK’s lets move on. But it was inappropriate by definition, if not by context. And that you experienced “joy” from the experience had nothing to do with some hidden joy found in the communion service, but everything to do with rebelling against an oppresive environment. Now, based on a personal pleasurable experience, you’ve made a new paridigm for the ordinance and are attempting to promote it as something good. You’re now circumventing the clear instruction via blatant rationalization and making the ordinance in to what it was never intended to be.
No. There is a time and a purpose for everything. There is a time for somberness and reflection and no amount of rationalization or rebellion against an oppressive environment will make this right.
To me the issue is not communion and never was. It was this oppressive environment in which you found yourself. I think you need to come to this realization. You can’t just hijack an ordinance and promote it as “good”. Sorry.
jerry,
i understand you are frustrated, but comments like “You are Rick Frueh and never wrong” are not only unhelpful – they are hurtful.
i will grant that john made a complete mockery of your post with his parable… and your point by point response was spot on.
that said, if you take a step back, i think you and rick can discuss this without the mutual barbs.
john,
you did read the op right? it was an unplanned error that caused the laughter – not an attempt to hi-jack the communion.
Wow John. I confess I have no response to that.
Freaking wow. I’m speechless.
Wow.
And in case I didn’t say it, Wow!
And where in Scripture are we told that the Lord’s Supper is supposed to be a time of somberness and reflection? Honestly? It seems to me that you’ve inserted your own standard onto the undertaking.
I was actually just at a funeral last week. Our friend’s grandmother had passed away, and she was presiding over the service. There were a few times during the service where she laughed when sharing memories about her grandmother, and family members in the audience laughed along with her. According to you, this was wrong. I just don’t see it that way.
There is a time and place for everything, but that time and place isn’t necessarily the same for everyone. Some people work through grief and mourning by quietly reflecting and crying. Some people work through it by remembering the joy that a person brought them. Who are you to say which one is right and which one isn’t?
Neil,
You are right. I’m sorry Rick.
jerry
i reject this on several levels… i reject that the lord’s table is only about mourning… i reject that spontaneous laughter based on human error is necessarily inappropriate… and i certainly reject that said laughter mean it’s all about me.
i have no idea what you are trying to say with this paragraph.
This is one of the most ironic posts I’ve ever read on this blog. One of reasons I truly enjoy having theological discussion with non-catholics is that this debate is usually missing. Catholics blogs/arguments/differences of opinion always seem to be split along external matters. There’s always the traditionalists (more Catholic that the pope) that claim all liturgy must be in Latin (it was good enough for Jesus, right
). Debates rage about whether one should stand or kneel, sit or stand, frown or smile, genuflect or bow, whether the priest should face east or west, chasuble, stoles, what metal the chalice must be, all the way done to what color jock strap the priest should have on.
It’s not that these matters should be discussed, or are not important. Many have to do with valid traditions that are of great value.
But whatever the Bishop decides is good enough for me. Just give me my script, tell me when to kneel, and get out of the way.
re 71:
and it’s not like jerry is advocating we interject humor into communion on a regular basis – as john’s parable implied.
what jerry described was a spontaneous event, the congregations reaction, and his interpretation of it.
do i think it a bit over played to call this a work of the spirit – maybe. but i can in no way tell jerry he is wrong – i was not there.
After further reflcetion I would suggest that Jerry’s view of communion will continue to be refined as time goes on, as will mine. And without suggesting my view is inspired, I would also suggest that on some level on Sunday Jerry was released from a former atmosphere of harsh tradition and bondage.
Perhaps I missed that important element.
Our football team once had communion with doughnuts and orange juice- it followed a wonderful time of true fellowship and confession and it was all that we had for elements. Afterward, we had great joy, and we laughed, and we cried, and we remembered the Lord.
What part of that was wrong?
(This was 23 years ago, and my view on communion has evolved….)
What kind of doughnuts?
Brett,
That is eloquent, but beside the point. Ironically, I wasn’t suggesting we never see Jesus or that I am looking for something or someone other than Jesus.
And that passage in John is an ironic quote too because Jesus then immediately goes into a speech about being crucified and glorified. We know that those who ‘wished to see Jesus’ didn’t get to see him–because Jesus is not a sideshow or a tourist attraction.
They will see him, but only at the cross where he was glorified. Your quotation of John 12:21 is non-sequitor to this discussion.
Unless I didn’t read you properly.
Brett – I appreciate the solemnity of the RCC communion service, and I would be willing to overlook the transubstatiation issue if it wasn’t considered a means of salvidic grace.
Jerry, yeah I don’t think you read me properly. Sorry, just something you reminded me of.
I just use John 12:21 contantly as a reminder to myself. It keeps my mind off the goofiness of myself and the people around me. I don’t care whether my kids make the sign of the cross with the right hand in the right direction. It’s OK for me to smile and laugh at their best effort. And I don’t give a rat’s ass whether anyone around thinks I genuflect profoundly or deeply enough. And I don’t worry about whether or not the same priest’s hands that hold up the heavenly host are going to be out behind the church in 20 minutes puffing on a cigarette. I would hate to miss out on the communion of saints.
If I’m not mistaken this was one of the weapons in Uncle Screwtapes arsenal.
Jerry,
I find a statementsthat you made to be quite troubling, and I truly feel for you. Not in a condescending way, but as one who cares deeply for brothers and sisters in Christ. You said:
“…the real point which, in this case, is that for one brief unscripted moment I experienced a joy in worship that I didn’t know I was allowed to experience.”
First, your profound experience of joy in worship was due to lighthearted laughter about a mistake?
Second, you have previously served as a minister and you say you experienced a joy that you previously didn’t know you were allowed to experience?
It seems very odd to me that your joy must be contrived through humor and that you do not have an abundance of joy in your salvation in Christ so as to overcome the perceived drudgery of a solemn remembrance. And of course, the point is not whether or not you used the actually word “drudgery”, as your post belies the fact that you felt that way.
RE#76 – Neil,
He did say the following in #8:
“But that moment of laughter in the midst of something that IS so holy, so serious was a gift. It invited me to rethink everything I have ever believed about Eucharist and turned that world of solemnity on its head.”
Notice he says that the humor caused him to “[turn] that world of solemnity on its head”. This statement that he has abandoned everything that he believed concerning the solemnity of communion does lead one to the reasonable conclusion that Jerry is advocating for less solemnity and more humor on a regular basis as a correct and right observance of communion.
LOL, I’m from Tennesse and leave in Texas. We don’t have culture, and I’m a Baptist with Pentacostal leanings to boot.
You had a “moment” Jerry. I get it. I’m actually glad for you. But that “it” happend during Communion was just a coincidence and should not be extrapolated regarding communion to where you have taken it IMO.
No. No. No. Eric. That is not what I said at all. But it is terribly easy, isn’t it, to yank one or two sentences out of a post containing a hundred or so, and making them say whatever you want them to say isn’t it?
As I also said, ”eu-charist’ comes from two words. ‘eu’ meaning something like ‘good’. And ‘charis’ meaning something like ‘grace.’
Surprised you missed that paragraph in all the others.
I don’t want your sympathy either, OK? What is so difficult about understanding an unscripted moment as being a blissful, eye opening moment? Most of the time our reception of communion involves, kneeling on a small bench, praying, kneeling at the altar, bowing our heads, being prayed over, singing songs, and repenting among other things.
But now one sentence about an unscripted moment of laughter, in the midst of human error, and several of get your shorts in a wad.
Just reading through the comments here and there… I think the bigger picture (going beyond communion) is how religion, with all its trappings and ritualistic sacraments, has virtually stripped the life out of what would normally be an organic and true faith.
Don’t want to put words in Jerry’s mouth, but I am hearing you correctly that your experience basically caused a crack in the religious exterior, revealing something more beneath?
I think we would all be quite surprised at how far our religion has departed from what was originally intended.
If I had to guess, those who are having a cow over Jerry’s post are people who only have communion once in a blue moon, say every quarter or maybe once a year.
#87 – Irrelevant and I assume you are numerically superior in you communion observance. God is impressed.
not irrelevant at all. People who only observe communion 4 times a year or once a year tend to treat it like grandma’s heirloom. They are generally the traditions that misinterpret Paul’s warnings to Corinth the most, or take them to heart in the way not intended to be taken.
Jerry,
How is it not what you said when it is a direct quote?
I didn’t make your words say anything, they said plenty on their own. Unless, of course you’d like to assign different meaning to them than a plain reading would warrant. If that’s the case, I suggest that you not be so quite to be offended when others express concern about the plain meaning of your words. I did not yank anything out of context, and my shorts are not in a wad. You are particularly ungracious in your interaction with others. I’m surprised that you’re so willing to have “stream of consciousness” type blog posts where you ramble on with little or no point and then become unduly offended when people have the audacity to respond to your words.
““stream of consciousness” type blog posts”
I will
stealuse that in the future.I honestly don’t know how some people are drawing some of the conclusions they are in these comments. I think some people just must simply have a lack of real things in their life to be concerned about.
As I read it, all Jerry was saying is that we can’t let our rituals dictate what is and isn’t acceptable in given situations. I guess I took it in a way that what he was talking about was something analogous to Jesus healing on the Sabbath.
I actually believe that Jerry will have some residual effects of his recent past color his view about almost anything. I have experienced the same thing previously after being wronged by a church. You become unreasonably open to anything the former church was against, and critical of anything the former church was in favor of.
All of us know about that.
I reject the notion that communion is ALL and ONLY about the death of Christ and should always be a somber moment. Nothing could be further from the truth. Jesus did not say “remember my death” but “remember me.” Nor did he attach the appropriate emotion that must accompany this everytime.
If our Messiah were still in the grave than yes, I’d say we should be very sad when we take communion. It would mean all hope is lost.
But the tomb is empty. We aren’t taking communion on Saturday but on Sunday – the Lord’s Day – a day to celebrate what God has done.
I feel sorry for people who have sat under the teaching of pastors who failed to recognize this.
And Rick, If I am right about my guess that those who are having the hardest time with this are those who have communion the least than I find all this highly ironic. The very people who think communion should be taken so seriously are part of traditions that don’t think it is something worth taking every time they gather!
Very well said, Chad.
Minor point, but I prefer the term “receiving communion” to “taking communion”.
And if you really wanna go whole hog, I will be receiving communion tonite (Tuesday) in honor of the feast of the immaculate conception.
“The Lord hath done great things for us, we are filled with Joy”
Then Chad you add to Scripture. For reflection on the DEATH of Christ is the purpose of communion. It’s always odd that context, context, context is touted until all of a sudden it does not agree with your point. No, Jesus did **not** say “remember me”. He said “do this in remembrance of Me”. Do what? Take the bread and wine in remembrance and reflection of His death.
The other parts of Christ’s ministry are awesome and certainly to be celebrated. Further we should not always segregate the milestones in Christ’s life (e.g., birth, ministry, death, resurrection, ascension, return, etc.). But in the Lord’s Supper we are given explicit instructions to memorialize Christ’s death. Again. There is a time and purpose for everything and here is a time designed and set apart for meditation on Christ’s death and introspection of where one stands with Christ. Somber reflections all, worthy of the utmost respect.
If one wants instrumental music, or if one wants to sing during communion that is fine – there are many songs appropriate for the occasion, but there are also many songs that would not fit the occasion. These types of things are not the issue. If one wants to celebrate the resurrection after the Lord’s supper is concluded, fine. Nothing says that would be improper. But are we to apply our own wants and desires above the clear teaching of Scripture? Christ asks us to remember His death during this time, but we say “no Lord, I want to remember your resurrection”, or “no Lord, I want to remember your ministry,” or “no Lord, I want to contemplate your return.” All good things, but not want our Lord asks of us during **this** time. I will trust God that He has His reasons for asking us to meditate on His death and my relation to Him during communion.
So laugh away! Conflate every venue of Christ’s life and ministry in one great ubiquitous hodgepodge. Again, for many, nothing is sacred (i.e., set aside), nothing is special, nothing is unique. Do what you want, when you want it. It’s all good.
*********
We do not mourn when the dirge is played.
We do not dance with the flute rings out.
We’re cheerful in the time of sadness and cheerless in the time of joy.
Times and seasons have no hold, no meaning.
It’s what I feel — in the moment.
It’s what I feel — that’s what’s right.
Mourn or dance? Hmm. What do I feel like today?
John,
Please supply me with a list of what appropriate emotions I should have for every sacrament of the faith. Please!
Oh and the last supper version in Luke is different. Just saying…
It’s become very apparent to me that those that have the hardest time with “emergents, liberals, Catholics, unitarians, etc…” are those who most often conflate their Paulinian view of scripture with the teachings of Christ.
Actually we are told to remember Christ and proclaim His death. I’m not trying to split theological hairs, but Communion is more than simply a memorial service. It’s really analogous to the Passover meal, which was something God gave the Jewish people so they would never forget His deliverance of them from slavery.
So Communion is a time when we remember the New Covenant and proclaim Christ’s faithfulness through His death on the cross. That remembrance can be played out in any number of ways from on an emotional level.
#96 I thought that the immaculate reception was only celebrated by Pittsburgh Steeler fans like Jerry, and I didn’t know they went whole hog and took communion over it!
That offends me, we should only celebrate communion to remember Christ, not some lucky catch made by Franco Harris.
when i read this i had the same thought jerry apparently did – you missed the point.
jerry did not say his salvation was insufficient to produce joy. he did not say that communion as he experienced it before was even joyless. jerry never called it drudgery.
he simply contrasted the atmosphere at one fellowship with the atmosphere at another fellowship.
i believe you sympathy is misplaced.
chad,
i do not see the correlation between the frequency with which communion is taken and the issues with jerry’s post.
Paul,
#86. Thank you. You and several others get it.
Eric, this is no ’stream of consciousness’ blog post. It is coherant and ties the end in with the beginning. And, to be sure, my post has a point.
“A Communion Blessing From Lake View Avenue.” I interpreted and experience I had during worship. Or are we not allowed to have those in the church?
Chad too has a point. Communion every so often means we put it in a place it was not intended to be.
Rick, you are right. Some of my recent experiences have influenced, not colored, the way I interpret things now. Someone said earlier I should have changed churches sooner; he was right.
But don’t misunderstand the influence they have wielded. It wasn’t the church; it was the role. I am seeing things from the pew now and not from the pulpit. That makes a huge difference and that is what I am learning.
Brett- great catch, thank you. Communion is all about receiving, never taking – something I stress each time we have Eucharist. I need to be more careful with my words
Phil is right – this is not simply a memorial service. As a Methodist we understand Eucharist to be a “means of grace.” It is essential to our nourishment as Christians and is a gift to us from Christ himself.
Yes, it is a call to reflect. This is why we have confession and pardon prior to receiving. But it is also a time to rejoice over what God has done on our behalf.
I have no problem with people being reverent and somber. But don’t assume this is the ONLY emotion one must have in order to take “worthily.”
Talk about emotional legalism.
some lucky catch made by Franco Harris
I promise to pray for your evangelistic ministry tonight, Pastorboy. God bless!
herein is where i think you misrepresent/misinterpret what jerry said. this is not a moment of abandoning solemnity. it is a moment of revelation within solemnity. he never said he was abandoning solemnity. your conclusion are not reasonable at all.
he wrote:
i think it unfair, and incorrect to insert the belief that he abandoned solemnity of communion.
so much of the objections have been based on this.’
why not, instead, rejoice at the revelation he came to – what he actual said!
John H.,
Again, wow. Talk about conflation! You have a knack for it.
Again, I say this kindly and gently so as not to hurt your feelings, you didn’t read what I wrote very well at all did you?
But I submit that if there is no time amidst the holy and sacred for the sort of joy I spoke of above, then there is no time for joy at all. Have you ever read The Last Battle by CS Lewis? What I’m saying is that perhaps now is the time for running, and laughing, and leaping, and shouting.
Maybe all this blasted sadness does nothing for us at all. It hasn’t helped heal the world yet has it? Lift up your heads, you gates be lifted up. Maybe communion isn’t the best time for contrition and sadness and distorted hearts. Maybe communion IS the time for laughter after all?
When I remember Jesus during communion, I remember all of him. I guess maybe if communion were served on Friday’s it would be OK to be sad all the time. As it is, communion is served on Sundays–the first day of the week, the Lord’s Day, Resurrection Sunday. If I cannot be joyful then, when can I?
Go ahead, conflate.
john,
this is so far removed from the post jerry shared with us, it makes me wonder if you even read it.
Chad,
#105. One of the things I emphasized in the post was that in my old denomination, we always took communion whereas in the Anglican stream I am in now we receive it.
It is a beautiful contrast of something I do for myself and something Christ has done for me. At the table where he is the Host, we receive what he gives.
Thanks for picking up on that, Chad and Brett.
Neil,
I want to say publicly that I appreciate that you have taken the time to read what I wrote and have thus far interpreted correctly my words.
jerry
Jerry,
I remember the first Sunday I explained to the congregation why it is I tear off the bread (from one loaf) and place it in their open palms. People who had taken communion for decades , who apparently never knew this, came forward with tears in their eyes.
It was, and continues to be, a powerful, beautiful time of our worship. HOW we do communion says so much about what it is we are proclaiming. I think if we are dour and sour ALL the time we proclaim only a portion of the message.
Isn’t the gospel GOOD News???
As there are only three here goes.
Baptism – Joy, gladness, happiness, cheer, relief, awe.
Communion - thankfulness, gratitude, awe, sadness, joy.
– joy, happiness, fear, dizziness, fear, disbelief, fear, relief, fear.
Glad to be of help.
I have taken the time to read your words more than twice. Are you publicly appreciative of that?
Chad – I am in favor of receiving communion every single Sunday. So you have mis-categorized me.
jerry,
thanks – maybe shorter posts in the future would help… maybe not.
i suspect they all read it, they just missed your point.
what annoys me is the insistence of what you MUST have meant – even after you yourself have denied the same.
re 113 – why no sadness in baptism… does it not also represent our lord’s DEATH and BURIAL?
It is not about whether you tear off from one loaf; it is not about whether you use wine or juice; it is not about whether you drink form one cup or many; etc., etc., etc..
It’s ALL ABOUT the body and blood of Jesus Christ GIVEN FOR US on the cross of Calvary. And if you can add to that, well I cannot.
Rick
I wasn’t categorizing you. I was simply making an assumption of those who are having trouble with this. And while you may be in favor of it that does not mean you practice it every week.
John H – how often do you celebrate Lord’s Supper?
Baptism is IDENTIFYING in faith with Christ and His death and resurrection; communion is remembering that event. So baptism is rejoicing in a new convert; communion is converts sacredly remembering the grace of God through the sacrifice of Christ.
#117 – I never said it is ABOUT those things. But what we do matters. Rituals mean things. They help form us into the people we are becoming.
I receive communion once a month at church and at home when they do not observe it. The early church took communion every week and more.
Sorry Jerry, my interpretation of your comments is getting lost in sorting through all the ad homin attacks included in your comments which must be some sort of record by a contributor here. They were quite clever and quotable however!
“Rituals mean things.”
Only the rituals God commands. What matters to God is the heart, and only He can see that.
Reverence does not equal dour and sour.
Graditude does not equal dour and sour.
Godly Sorrow [for sin] does not equal dour and sour.
Thankfulness does not equal dour and sour.
You may laugh when you remember someone’s life, you do not laugh when you remember the hour of their death.
In communion we proclaim the Lord’s death until He returns. We proclaim His birth, life, ministry, resurrection, ascension and return in other venues. That is the sum of my argument.
#123
Try that one on your wife.
“I kissed you and told you I loved you on our wedding day. Why do you want me to do it again, dost thou knoweth my heart?”
We celebrate quarterly at my current church although it is available on a weekly basis. At my former church we celebrated monthly.
I often get confused. Some believers go to great lengths to uncover what the early believers did or even what Jesus actually did, in a righteous effort to pursue authenticity in our modern reflections of Christ and His example.
But the some of those same people refuse to go back and see what the tone and spirit was at that Last Supper. It was a time of betrayal and death. It was a time of heartache and impending sacrifice. It was a time of mystery and profound truth.
Why aren’t those applicable for toady as so many other early church issues are?
Rick,
How do you know what emotions were felt during the Last Supper?
jerry,
it would be better not to apologize at all as opposed to comment #122.
#125 – In full dsiclosure, my wife of 30 years came in contact with an unbeliever at her receptionist job. She and he carried on an affair for 4 months and she left me, divorced me, and is now living with him. She openly rejects the Christian faith.
My son, his wife, and my grandaughter now live with me to help me with my health issues. But Christ is still my Savior and Lord and I completely forgive my former wife and pray she comes to the knowledge of Christ. I still have good relationships with all three of my children.
re 124:
if the last three lines are all you are trying to say – then you have no argument with anything in the op.
course, if the last three lines is all you are trying to say – why the six lines that preceded them?
re 130:
well, that sucks!
(i hope that is not offensive, i mean it in all sincerity and that is the first and most thorough thought that comes to mind.)
i am sorry to hear it.
John, when St. Paul says he he resolved to know nothing but Christ and him crucified does this mean that Paul lived a sorrowful, humorless life because ALL he thought about was the crucifixion?
Proclaiming Christ’s death is to say MUCH more than just a fixation on the cross. It is to capture all that God had done and is doing through Jesus.
I think you are just arguing for arguments sake. No one is saying communion should be made into a circus. But it is nonsense to insist that it must be done with only the emotions you think are appropriate and that we focus on only what you think we should focus on.
#128 – The narrative says the disciples were very sorrowful when Jesus said someone would betray Him. After they observed Passover Jesus said that they all would betray Him. I assume the tone was subdued.
#130: Rick, I am so sorry to hear about your marriage situation. May the Lord continue to bless and keep you. I am encouraged by the spirit you consistently display.
Tone and emotion are two different things. We can somewhat control the tone of a situation, but we can’t really control someone’s emotional response to something. If someone is overcome with joy when he receives communion how can we say that he’s wrong? I don’t understand how we can condemn someone for a genuine emotional reaction.
Rick, #130
Sorry to hear that; Bad analogy.
God Bless you for praying for her, I will do the same.
Thank you Neil and Paul. Christ’s grace is sufficient and His Spirit has ministered to me. I probably do not have many years left so I do not desire bitterness to take root.
#134- and their sorrow was for a particular purpose: Someone among them was going to betray Jesus.
Their reaction and emotion was fitting to the present circumstance before them.
In Jerry’s story, the reaction and emotion was fitting to the present circumstances before them.
I imagine many of the disciples felt a sense of indignation over Judas running off, betraying Jesus. Some might have even said to themselves or others, “Of course it was him. He was always sort of weird.” Are these appropriate emotions and feelings to have during communion?
Thank you everyone for your prayers and burden sharing.
re:130: May God’s peace continue to sustain you
all the talk about the mood and solemnity and joy and whatever that should or may or might accompany communion is interesting.
but it is not what jerry tried to communicate in the op.
Neil – when has a comment thread ever been anything about the OP after it goes beyond 10 comments?
i understand…
Rick, I am amazed at the grace you display even in that situation. Many would be angry and bitter and those emotions would reflect themselves in their writing on a blog.
I have not seen that in yours. May the God of all comfort continue to minister to you in your affliction.
Talk about reading comprehension. Where have I said basically anything about emotions? Laughter is not an emotion, it is an action. Where have I said joy is inappropriate during communion? Hint: nowhere. What I have said is that laughter is an inappropriate part of communion. And I stand by that.
An emotion that is usually prevelant but unrecognized:
Ambivalence.
And to follow with Chad’s principle of more means something, see how wonderful your congregation feels about communion if you elongate it to two hours.
I did not say “more” means something. I said ritual means something. Has nothing to do with time, short or long.
It IS to say that how we do things matters. Surely you are aware that more is communicated non-verbally than verbally, yes?
I am saying one thing when I place the body of Christ in the open palm of a parishoner who comes to the altar in need.
I am saying something else if I allow each individual to rip or take from the body of Christ as they come forward.
And I am saying something very different if I just dice up the loaf and toss them out to the congregation like party favors.
I think communion is important enough that it demand attention to detail and some intentionality in how it is observed.
Chad,
Give me a break. My “list” of emotions was a totally tongue-in-cheek response to a poster’s sarcasm. Let’s see: emotions suitable for marriage . . . fear . . . fear . . . .fear. And you took all that as I was being serious?
My point exactly.
Rick,
So sorry to hear about your wife. Been there and got the same T-Shirt many years ago, but God is faithful. I love you in the Lord dear brother.
that may be all you meant to say – but you said sooo much more.
in #33 you said that laughter was purposefully added to combat the mundane and that entertainment is all that matters.
in #97 you said the goal/result was to “Conflate every venue of Christ’s life and ministry in one great ubiquitous hodgepodge.” saying further that “…nothing is sacred (i.e., set aside), nothing is special, nothing is unique. Do what you want, when you want it. It’s all good.”
so you have said much more…
chad,
i assumed he was serious when he listed appropriate emotions as well.
#153 – You are correct, but John offered a parable to express his thoughts and he was met with this:
“I really think you and Rick (and all the cultured despisers of the random winds of the Spirit) go back to the OP, read it slowly, carefully, and listen to what I wrote instead of assuming I’m trying to lead a brigade of brigands down to the church where we will replace the Host with a clown, the wine with firewater, and the bread with cheese nips.
I am actually offended at the level of ignorance that your comment displays.”
I dealt with –
*the social element
*the early church
*the Scriptures in Corinthians
*my own experience
*etc.
The thread tone changed with someone else, not John or me.
Neil – you may take issue with the sarcasm or force in comments 33 and 97, but the words “cultured despisers” and “ignorance” seem to go beyond issues and into the realm of personal.
…and i believe jerry apologized to you as well.
He did. I was just providing a more clear thread history.
John,
Can you please explain the distinction you are making in the following statement? I really so no difference whatsoever between the former and the latter.
Thanks.
Rick,
To be sure, the tone of the thread was set in the third comment when you deliberately misinterpreted what I wrote in the OP. Don’t put this off on me. You and John are the ones knocking around the world of hyperbole and conflation.
understood, rick.
and i was just trying to point out to john how he has said much more than just that laughter is an inappropriate part of communion.
“deliberately misinterpreted”
You have motive interpretation? I did not do anything deliberately and you have told an untruth. I truly believe you have some bitterness that has changed your tone in recent months.
Of course I could be wrong.
Neil,
Yes I said much more, but I never got into which **emotions** were or were not appropriate. Laughter is not an emotion. It is an action. Joy may produce laughter but laughter is not necessarily joy.
Jerry: 159
Again, Jerry I am very glad (sincerely) that you had your epiphany. I believe that God causes all things to work together for the good of those who love Him and in His mercy He used an inappropriate moment during a communion service for the good.
Jerry just think a minute. The event that made you so joyous was not the communion, it was something else, an intruding circumstance, that just happend to happen **during** communion. Again, it could just as easily have happend during a sermon, wedding, baptism, dedication or funeral to the same effect. The response, laughfter was inappropraite for communion.
But it’s not the end of the world. It happend inside a family in community. Things happen in families. We laugh when they are funny and then move on. Except in your case you seemingly have a very uptight community and this event became some sort of release and life changing event. Well OK. Good. But that does not change the intent of the communion service and again laughfter is not an appropriate response in remembering the death of our Lord. It is an intruder in this venue, the comemmoration of our Lord’s death, athough it may be certainly appropriate and even desirable in other worship venues.
Laughter has been a part of my overall worship experience my whole life. We laugh all the time during worship services at our Pastor’s illustrations and life stories. We laugh in Bible study. We’re a family. Families have fun. But we don’t laugh during communion when we are remembering our Lord’s death.
Rick,
Please stop bringing that up. I am no more bitter about what happened to me than you are about what happened to you. To continue throwing that up into my face is childish and cheap. I told you I was sorry for being crabby, but my crabbiness above was only with respect to yours and John’s inability to get beyond the word ‘laugh’ in the post–as if I wrote nothing else.
Fact is, the above post is what 1500 words and you and John managed to pick up on one word ‘laughter’ and miss the other 1499 words that I wrote expressing the importance, holiness, and sacredness of communion.
That is quite the problem with posting at a blog. Sometimes people get so hung up on one word that they miss the point, the content, and all the other words. So, for the sake of the argument, I’ll repost a couple of quotes from the post here for you to read again how I happen to feel about communion.
Now, John. The laughter was not an ‘inappropriate moment’ under any circumstance. You once again are profoundly misinformed and have not understood what I clearly wrote about.
Furthermore, it was not the laughter that made me joyous. It was the laughter that helped me realize the joy that was already present. This is what you haven’t understood. That’s the irony: Joy during the holy time of communion. And if God didn’t strike us dead during that moment of laughter (a period that lasted maybe 10 seconds), then perhaps it’s OK to laugh at other times too.
And, to be sure, I would argue the point with you that laughing during the sermon is appropriate…if you want to press the issue. Where in Scripture does it say that it is OK to laugh during the reading or proclamation of God’s Holy Word? To me that is more disrespectful than anything else you have complained about.
This is too long. Why don’t you focus now on the other 1499 words I wrote about communion and worship? I refuse to believe that every single moment of the worship is a funeral service. Yet, even when I get together with my family and we talk about those in our lives who have died, we have moments of both laughter and sadness, crying and rejoicing; there are happy times and sad times–precisely because we remember the person.
The reason I thought that is sprinkled throughout your post is some unflattering rememberances about the way your former denomination observes communion. And in a very short time, you seem to have totally rejected that tradition and embraced a fairly new one to you.
And it is worth noting you had a very bad experience leaving that church. In the end, what does it really matter. I believe the Lord’s Supper should be a serious time of rememberance and reflection; you believe the ambiance can be more expansive. I do not receive communion where you do, so what does it matter?
BTW – i am an expert at facial contortions. I’ve learned it by watching Jim Carrey.
I guess I simply don’t understand your use of the word “inappropriate”, John. Do you mean it’s inappropriate simply because it’s out of the ritualistic norms we have built into the event? Certainly, I don’t see anything in Scripture telling us that it’s inappropriate to laugh during the Lord’s Supper. Can you point to a specific passage that tells us what actions are and aren’t appropriate beyond what is described in 1 Corinthians 11? I just don’t understand how you’re determining what is and isn’t appropriate.
Neil – There are, of course, no verse that say “Thou shalt not laugh during communion”, just like there are no verses that say “Thou shalt not put on makeup during communion”. John’s point is that the Lords Supper should be a time more associated with serious reflection and deep gratitude for a sacrifice that included vicious suffering physically and spiritually for us all.
All of us have laughed at something during funerals, etc. and that is not sin, but I am suggesting that is not an appropriate norm during communion. We usualy do not look at a vivid picture of a bloody Jesus on the cross and laugh.
Since this is a memorial meal, I think we ought to look back at the situation as it was.
It was, after all, the Passover Meal. It was a remembrance of what God did in taking his people out of Egypt. He rescued them, passing over their homes because of the blood of the lamb painted over the door. It was a time of packing, getting ready for deliverance. It was a solemn time of thanksgiving and remembering and hope. It was a time that families joined together to travel and to worship together with the rest of the nation.
It makes me wonder; though it was a remembrance of what God had done, with all the families gathering and kids if there was not joy and laughter even in the remembrance. I have attended a seder, it is a time of instruction and celebration. But I cannot imagine having children that it was always celebrated perfectly in terms of containing emotions.
Even the last gathering of the disciples with Jesus, it seems, was thought to be just another Passover. As they are reclining around the table, they are communicating with one another, having conversations amongst each other. I can feel it gets very serious when Jesus stands up with the bread, and with the cup, and begins the teaching. I suppose you could have heard a pin drop.
I don’t know that there was any more celebration at that time. In the gospels we see a lot of confusion, we see a lot of fear, we see a lot of conversation, even wrangling for position.
It is also interesting how Paul in 1 Corinthians emphasizes what the meal has become, and what it should look like. He does not speak to emotions; He didn’t have to. People understand this is a solemn remembrance. It is not party time, but neither is it a mournful time. It is a memorial with hope; that the Lord has saved us and will one day return and deliver us. It does indeed finish with joy.
When I pastored in Florida, we had a tradition after communion to sing a little ditty that goes like this:
Oh the best thing in my life I ever did do, Oh the best thing in my life I ever did do, Oh the best thing in my life I ever did do, was to take off the old robe and put on the new-
It was a celebration after the remembrance. It was joyful. It was appropriate. It was family time.
john,
while phil does not understand why you think it so inappropriate – i wonder why you make such a big deal about it.
jerry is not advocating incorporating laughter into communion on a regular basis. he simply described a spontaneous event that was freeing for him.
speaking to the tangential issue: i look at communion as i do BOTH good friday and easter. good friday is, of course, solemn, dark, mournful…. while easter is just the opposite.
i think communion embodies both.
#168–who are you and what have you done with Pastorboy?
You can say what you will, but in my experience when people leave a church under duress they are predisposed to quickly embrace other traditions, especially if they are at odds with their former church.
I am sure that somewhere and at sometime in a Christian Church someone laughed at a foul up during communion.
…and yes, i probably would never incorporate laughter into communion intentionally. but if something happened that resulted in spontaneous laughter – i would not fret it either.
re 171 – i was typing the exact same thing… nice comments pastorboy!
Communion implies the resurrection, especially to those who know it, but communion is predominately a memorial of the sacrifice on the cross. Even Jesus taught the same.
Rick,
I didn’t necessarily reject my previous denomination. They rejected me–three times in fact if I count correctly. I can still worship with the congregation who ordained me, but as it is right now, I have been rejected; i am not called to preach now and no one answered when i called them. Bitter? No. A bit bothered as to why I spent since 1991 in school and ministry only to be rejected? Yes.
I never really did fit into it though. I grew up Methodist and I have always been more ‘liberal’ about some things than my denomination traditionally has been. There are aspects of the COC/CC I love; there are aspects I despise.
Communion is one such aspect that troubles me (I don’t despise it, it just troubles me). But there has always been, in the churches I have served, a sense of legalism and stagnance. It’s an almost inability to move forward content as they are with maintaining their own status before God. Not being there is a good, freeing thing. That doesn’t mean I am happy to be in the pew as opposed to the pulpit.
As it is, I have always been on the outside looking in when it comes to the COC/CC because I didn’t know the right people or have the right name or grow up in the right church. And believe it or not, those things matter. After all, I went to school in Michigan and not KY or Cincinnati.
It’s not anger or bitterness you sense. It is confusion and growth. That’s why I blog here, in part, about my personal stuff. Here I have found a community where I can work this stuff out and learn and grow and get un-confused.
Does that make sense?
jerry
ok guys – words from a third-party observer:
jerry – a lot of what you write, particularly in the op, lends me to agree with rick that your past experiences are making this experience intensely more personal – and this is causing you to be more caustic in your reactions.
rick - you have made the point, making it again serves only to “poke the bear with a stick.” he apologized to you, you to him… (repeat). i think jerry agrees with you assessment of communion as a whole.
john – to you my words will be stronger – like “Seriously, Dude, what’s your problem?” as jerry said, you have latched on to one word in the whole op that you find inappropriate. fine, we all get it. some may agree, many do not. time to move on. and in the process you escalated the rhetoric by inserting motives to jerry’s joy – (e.g. – the mundaneness of communion, wanting to be entertaining, anything goes ,etc). you have gone far beyond just condemning the spontaneous laughter.
to all – if anyone should be dressed down for doing something inappropriate, it is the priest who made the joke about his eyesight in the first place. the communicants were simply reacting to him. not that i agree it was inappropriate… since I WAS NOT THERE!
I don’t know the secret of escaping the ritualistic legalistic doldrums of communion; I only experienced those in the Episcopal church I was attending. But that was a personal thing at the time also; because I was not saved. Once I got saved, the rituals, liturgy, and traditions came alive for me.
What I do, and this is descriptive, not prescriptive, is preach the Gospel when we have communion. I preach about how Jesus was crushed for our sins, that the wrath of God was upon Him, and the joy in knowing that we can experience the grace of God in communion, and indeed in life, because of what the meal represents.
We also take joy in fellow-shipping around prayer of healing, confession, etc. because of the promise of God.
I didn’t read in all those things to what Jerry was saying about being mad at an old congregation. I have experienced the same thing in different churches. But where it is extremely personal, it is also a time of community and fellowship with brothers and sisters who love the Lord. Thats what brings me joy
#177 – Blessed are the peacemakers. Thank you, Neil.
Where there are no sticks, the fire goes out.
Jerry, the context of the laughter during the worship service was in the context of the Pastor’s anecdotes and illustrations, not during the reading of scripture.
The American need for humor is insatiable. Go to Mexico, Venezuela, Russia, and almost anywhere in the world. People have a sense of humor, but it does not approach our level of humor.
And I am a huge example of it.
Apples and oranges. We are commanded to remember His death, not His life during communion. A razor sharp focus on Calvary. If my father gave his life for me and I am having a service commemerating HIS SPECIFIC ACT OF SACRIFICE, not his life, it is a time of somber reflection and yes graditude, appreciation and joy. But even in the result of Christ’s death the “joy” of salvation is tempered in that He had to die for me, for the things I did, so for me that joy is tempered by regret that He had to do that because of my disobedience.
I believe you have expanded the purpose of communion beyond what is written, but in the end that is a personal issue. I still maintain your experience had nothing really to do with communion and involved bigger issues although I am obviously unable to convince you of that.
I think this disucssion has run its course. Peace!
Neil,
I can only say that I have dogged this for so long because every ephipany deserves close inspection because people throughout church history have gone off in serious errors because of mis-placed emotionalism. (Spoken as a practicing Baptacostal). All such personal revelations need to be judged by Scripture.
But I think I have said all I can say which many obviously think is too much.
you are welcome rick.
what does the sticks and fire thing mean?
#184
it’s proverbs 26:20
re 183: john, i might agree if jerry were advocating some change in communion praxis. i might also agree if your objections were aimed at the priest who made a joke during communion.
I don’t agree with John at any level: not practically, not theologically; not one iota.
I don’t even think he knows what he is arguing for any longer (if ever). I think he just wanted to be on Rick’s side.
“I think he just wanted to be on Rick’s side.”
There are some tough requirements before you are accepted.
Thanks Jerry, from ad homin attacks to assignment of motives. First I was accussed of dogging a single issue to death and now I don’t know what I was ever arguing about. Well alrighty then!
Hey you have an open inivation to come over to the dark side of Baptist life. We laugh all the time in church (except during communion) and eat well to boot. Peace guys.
I believe baptism should be in waters that flow south (Jordan) with a median tempreature of 70 degrees, the convert must be dressed in middle eastern garb and he must quote the exact words of Jesus when He was baptized. After coming out of the water a dove is released and the new convert is taken to a rural mountain for 40 days.
Upon his completion of the ritual the new convert is allowed to receive communion, and more importantly he is allowed to vote at church busness meetings. That, my friends, is New Testament Christianity!
John,
That was tongue in cheek.
jerry
laughter during communion is prohibited?
well, there goes sola scriptura again…
Yeah, it’s right next to the prohibition against alcohol consumption in the Church Covenant and we all know how well Baptists obey that one.
john,
what puzzles me in this whole discussion has been the manner in which you chose to address the question.
instead of asking question, or even posing your objections/concerns – on your very first comment you laid out a scenario that implied humor was purposefully and strategically interjected into communion because it had become mundane.
you further said
this is one of the more offensive things said in this thread. it was uncalled for.
it was certainly not in line with anything jerry described in his experience.
and you have yet to recant, apologize, or defend this accusation.
did jerry respond harshly – yes.
but seriously, when what is seen as a spiritually significant moment is met with such hyperbolic mockery – just what do you expect?
why not raise the issue of appropriateness as a question to explore?
why not pursue why this was such a significant moment for jerry?
why not, if you must, ask whether or not the interjection of humor in response to a mistake was appropriate on the part of the priest?
you could have done any of these and we could have had a good discussion
instead, you decided to immediately assign motives and declare the inappropriateness of of the moment.
i see no reason to take that tactic.
Neil – John may have made some sarcastic points, however I do not find him attacking Jerry personally.
Neil, I believe I congratulated Jerry (sincerely) on his ephiphany. But believe his extrapolation of it wrong on many levels — which I further discussed.
If I cut to the chase it’s because I have to dip in at lunch or on breaks during the day. So it is what it is. I do try not to get in to ad hominem attacks. I have been in community on this website for years and have rarely, if ever done so.
If we remove any and all hints of personal swipes, the thread was a spirited discource.
#197
Just as long as it wasn’t a ‘conversation’
i guess it depends on what you define as “personally” – as well as what difference that distinction makes.
the most salient of my points was the fact that the very first thing john did was to accuse jerry of wanting to be “ENTERTAINED and in the final analysis THAT’S ALL THAT MATTERS” (all caps original).
re 196: cutting to the chase is one thing… saying his desire to be entertained was his primary/sole motivation is more than being blunt.
it is being unnecessarily mean and nasty.
Neil:
Mean and nasty? Really?
“All you want to be is entertained”.
Well if that is the most offensive thing I ever say to a Brother in Christ I will consider myself to have lived a very controlled and disciplined life.
Cheers!
How about, “What you say is without any substance, like everything else you say or write around here.”
Pretty nasty.
ok john, i acquiesce. if you think it appropriate behavior to demean and mock the motives a brother so be it…THAT’S ALL THAT MATTERS!
Yippee. I won the argument. That was my whole intent right?
Neal meditate on #202 a minute and then get back with me.
Anyhoo, I am apologize to the ones I offended –I am sorry Jerry. I am sorry Neil.
i am not going to suppose your intent.
Neil you have been assigning my motives for the past several posts. But whatever. I have sincerely apologized. Moving on.
technically – no. i have been saying what you did… not why. i have addressed you actions not your motives.
Rick,
How about, “Neil, you are right. I’m sorry Rick.” My gawd man, let it go.
NOW I’m starting to think about my recent experiences in church.
jerry
Jerry – You apologized for the “Rick is never wrong comment”. If you peruse several recent threads you find several personal swipes directed at me and some others. Your recent tone has been personal, aggressive, and quick.
Neil seems to be more concerned with John’s comments. But in the end, what does it matter. We all are still who we were two weeks ago.
Many, if not most, times this blog thing is no more productive than playing a video game.
Which video game, Rick?
I do not play any, however in my day it was Pacman, Frogger, and Mario Bros.! Those where the King James versions of video games. These current post modern versions are apostate!