Can a local Methodist or Baptist pastor do Communion for us when we’re on vacation? W-2.4012b states that the Lord’s Supper must be done by “a Minister of the Word and Sacrament.” The new Form of Government does not address this issue, but the former G-11.0405 states that a minister of the Word and Sacrament can be from “another denomination in correspondence with the General Assembly,” which would include United Methodist, American Baptist, and any other church that belongs to the National Council of Churches or World Alliance of Reformed Churches.
But many presbyteries approach this issue more narrowly than the Book of Order does. Aside from the three churches with whom we are officially in full communion (UCC, RCA, and ELCA), local presbytery policy often does not allow other pastors to do Communion in our churches unless they are first examined and approved by COM. We are told that the purpose is to avoid unacceptable variants in theology and practice, which is the same reason why we “train” local elders before we allow them to preside at the table when necessary.
What are these unacceptable variants in theology and practice that are so threatening to us? All I can think of is the language of “ordinance” versus “sacrament,” and the Zwinglian theology of the Lord’s Supper as just a memorial service. (We might also be afraid of laypeople with Catholic beliefs about the elements.)
What is the huge danger here? Why are we so worried about somebody who is fuzzy about, or even denies, that the Lord’s Supper is a visible symbol of a spiritual reality, or that Christ is spiritually present with us at this table? What if someone questions in their mind why Christ is any more present at this table than anywhere else, but passionately believes in the substance behind the symbols, namely, that Jesus gave his body and his blood to take away our sins? Why would we bar such a person from presiding at one of our Communion tables?
I have a much greater objection to the Lord’s Supper being led by someone who does not believe that Jesus actually died to take away our sins, who believes that the classic view of the atonement is “divine child abuse.” Or what about Communion led by a minister who believes that Jesus is still dead in the ground? Good luck trying to get COM’s to screen for those kinds of departures from the Reformed faith. Why are we so determined to screen out views on Communion that we don’t like, but we don’t bother to keep out other more substantive departures from the Reformed faith?
Same-sex marriage is OK, but not Communion from a Methodist? Methinks that same-sex marriage is a far greater departure from Reformed faith and practice than the danger of a Baptist view of Communion. I think Calvin would agree, if he were forced to make the choice. I think Communion is just one more excuse we use to screen out those dastardly Baptists, Methodists, and other low-church Protestants who believe the Bible more passionately than we do.
Both the Arians and the Athanasians would have thought that we were out of our minds to be debating whether to allow same-sex marriage within our communion. And they would have been right. If we’re going to tolerate, if not mandate, such a huge departure from Reformed faith and practice, then we should dispense with our barriers to clergy from other Christian traditions, and go back to the broad boundaries of the present and previous Form of Government. For that matter, let’s open our Communion tables to Southern Baptist and Pentecostal clergy. Some of them, in my opinion, are closer to historic Reformed faith and practice than some within our own communion.
TOM HOBSON of Belleville, Ill., a PC(USA) pastor for 29 years, is adjunct professor at Morthland College, West Frankfort, Ill. and is currently seeking a call.
