Question on Communion

[Dave-W]

This is one subject I can recall almost nothing about from my days in the CoN and Assembly of God. Never heard my dad (ordained in the Wesleyan Methodist denom) talk about it either.

It was only after coming to this site I found out the Wesleyan position is "Real Presence" as opposed to Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation, or mere symbolism.

In discussing the Torah Portion this past Saturday (Tetzaveh Exodus 27:20-30:10) we talked about the priestly garments and functions. Someone brought up the fact that for the sin offerings, the priests were required to EAT the sacrificed lamb.

The command to "eat my flesh and drink my blood" in John 6 was a HUGE stumbling block since drinking blood is strictly forbidden in the Mosaic covenant, as is eating flesh from a non-kosher animal. (that includes humans)

But if we look at HIM as the ultimate sin sacrifice, and us as priests in the New Covenant, it makes sense.

It has given me food for thought. Comments?

 

[John Shrewsbury]

As a British Methodist, all I can say is that we do not believe in the Real Presence, rather seeing it as more symbolic than anything else.

 

[food4thought]

Hi DaveW;
The UMC I attend doesn't comment on exactly what we believe about communion, and I believe the UMC practices an open table (iow, any believer in Christ may partake regardless of how they understand the presence of Christ in it). But I like the idea of real presence, in a spiritual sense, as the symbolic idea does not capture the importance of communion to a believer's faith walk.

I sympathize with the jewish leaders/people who were stumbled by Jesus teaching in John 6, and I have never connected the priests eating the sacrifice with believer's partaking of Christ... great insight. I recently taught on the passage and focused on how the ancient people believed that eating/drinking something made you one with it and it one with you, which lines up well with Jesus' prayer in John 17.

 

[GraceSeeker]

The UMC doesn't use the terminology "real presence," but that is essentially what we believe.


This Holy Mystery: A United Methodist Understanding of Holy Communion, the official statement on communion, says, “The Christian church has struggled through the centuries to understand just how Christ is present in the Eucharist. Arguments and divisions have occurred over the matter. The Wesleyan tradition affirms the reality of Christ's presence, although it does not claim to be able to explain it fully.”

This Holy Mystery later continues, “United Methodists, along with other Christian traditions, have tried to provide clear and faithful interpretations of Christ's presence in the Holy Meal. Our tradition asserts the real, personal, living presence of Jesus Christ. For United Methodists, the Lord's Supper is anchored in the life of the historical Jesus of Nazareth, but is not primarily a remembrance or memorial. We do not embrace the medieval doctrine of transubstantiation, though we do believe that the elements are essential tangible means through which God works. We understand the divine presence in temporal and relational terms. In the Holy Meal of the church, the past, present, and future of the living Christ come together by the power of the Holy Spirit so that we may receive and embody Jesus Christ as God's saving gift for the whole world.”

Also, realize that the UMC is officially in full communion with the Lutheran Church (ELCA), and the "real presence" is essential to their understanding of holy communion. They would NOT be in full communion with us if they were not satisfied that our two theological understandings where similar enough that they can perceive us saying the same thing, even if it is with different language.

 

[circuitrider]

As a British Methodist, all I can say is that we do not believe in the Real Presence, rather seeing it as more symbolic than anything else.

Are you sure John? I was under the impression that "real presence" was the official position of most all Methodist denominations. Given that the British Methodists consider reuniting with the Church of England which also believes in real presence I'll be a little surprised if that isn't your official doctrine.

 

[GraceSeeker]

According to this document prepared by the Methodist Church in Britain, they do believe in "an undefined but real presence" of Christ in Holy Communion.

http://www.methodist.org.uk/downloads/conf-holy-communion-in-methodist-church-2003.pdf

 

[circuitrider]

According to this document prepared by the Methodist Church in Britain, they do believe in "an undefined but real presence" of Christ in Holy Communion.

http://www.methodist.org.uk/downloads/conf-holy-communion-in-methodist-church-2003.pdf

Thanks! I thought I had seen that somewhere. Communion for Methodists is a sacrament. So you can never say it is just "symbolic." That's more Zwingli that Wesley. Wesley had a high view of the sacraments.

 

[John Shrewsbury]

Are you sure John? I was under the impression that "real presence" was the official position of most all Methodist denominations. Given that the British Methodists consider reuniting with the Church of England which also believes in real presence I'll be a little surprised if that isn't your official doctrine.

Yes. I have never met any British Methodist that believes in the Real Presence. The British Methodist church varies in what believers accept: some see a real presence, others see a symbolic presence, a minority see no symbolism within the Eucharist at all. The leadership allows each Methodist to hold to their own belief on this question.

As for reuniting with the Anglicans, that is all but dead in the water. I would also say that Anglicans vary widely on their belied in the Real Presence. The evangelicals would be extremely unlikely to hold this position, while the Anglo Catholics would be most likely (although even they may differ).

 

[John Shrewsbury]

According to this document prepared by the Methodist Church in Britain, they do believe in "an undefined but real presence" of Christ in Holy Communion.

http://www.methodist.org.uk/downloads/conf-holy-communion-in-methodist-church-2003.pdf

That was written in 2003, and as stated, positions change. It is irrelevant what the leadership says, on the ground it is virtually impossible to find a Methodist who believes in the Real Presence unless they are "high" Methodist, and even then opinions differ.

 

[circuitrider]

That was written in 2003, and as stated, positions change. It is irrelevant what the leadership says, on the ground it is virtually impossible to find a Methodist who believes in the Real Presence unless they are "high" Methodist, and even then opinions differ.

I'm not wanting to doubt you, but the link the Graceseeker posted shows that it is the official doctrine of your Church. As a United Methodist Pastor I'm bound to uphold the doctrines of my Church. Yes we have a lot of wiggle room on issues that aren't all that theologically significant. But it certainly seems odd to me that British Methodists could officially believe in "real presence" and yet others in the denomination not at least knowing that this is the position of the Church.

I would think that your pastors and leaders would be bound to teach real presence.

 

[GraceSeeker]

That was written in 2003, and as stated, positions change. It is irrelevant what the leadership says, on the ground it is virtually impossible to find a Methodist who believes in the Real Presence unless they are "high" Methodist, and even then opinions differ.

It also largely affirms what you have said above. The "undefined but real presence" it mentions is more undefined, or perhaps even better put defined in many different ways, and less what is meant by those denominations that typical emphasize the "Real Presence" of Christ in the Eucharist.

So, I decided to put the same question to a FB group of British Methodists that I am a part of and heard what you said there as well. Interesting.

 

[Thursday]

This is one subject I can recall almost nothing about from my days in the CoN and Assembly of God. Never heard my dad (ordained in the Wesleyan Methodist denom) talk about it either.

It was only after coming to this site I found out the Wesleyan position is "Real Presence" as opposed to Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation, or mere symbolism.

In discussing the Torah Portion this past Saturday (Tetzaveh Exodus 27:20-30:10) we talked about the priestly garments and functions. Someone brought up the fact that for the sin offerings, the priests were required to EAT the sacrificed lamb.

The command to "eat my flesh and drink my blood" in John 6 was a HUGE stumbling block since drinking blood is strictly forbidden in the Mosaic covenant, as is eating flesh from a non-kosher animal. (that includes humans)

But if we look at HIM as the ultimate sin sacrifice, and us as priests in the New Covenant, it makes sense.

It has given me food for thought. Comments?

Also worth considering:

1 Cor 11
27So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

 

[Dave-W]

Also worth considering:

1 Cor 11
27So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

Indeed. Don't forget the next verse:

30 For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep.

The pastor of the small pentecostal church I attended in high school REFUSED to serve communion because he was afraid people would start dropping over dead on him.

 

[GraceSeeker]

Also worth considering:

1 Cor 11
27So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

I read the same words you do, Thursday, but I have a feeling that we come to very different conclusions as to what Paul is referring to when he speaks of the importance of "discerning the body of Christ."

In the previous verses he's made it obvious that he's writing about Jesus' body, but he's reverted to his real concern; not the Eucharist itself, but the way some people (presumably the family living in the house the church met in, as nobody else would have the opportunity) stuffing their faces, while other people who came late went hungry.

I believe that in the context of his larger discussion of learning to love one another and how the church should not have some being fed and others not when they gather together, that this is not about discerning a change in the elements of the Eucharist, but needing to discern that the body of Christ is bigger than just those who are present in the room.
Curiously, to me that would mean that Christian bodies, such as the Catholic Church, that are unwilling to practice open communion are the ones who eat and drink "without discerning the body of Christ."

 

[Dave-W]

I read the same words you do, Thursday, but I have a feeling that we come to very different conclusions as to what Paul is referring to when he speaks of the importance of "discerning the body of Christ."

In the previous verses he's made it obvious that he's writing about Jesus' body, but he's reverted to his real concern; not the Eucharist itself, but the way some people (presumably the family living in the house the church met in, as nobody else would have the opportunity) stuffing their faces, while other people who came late went hungry.

And right after this (chapter 12) the apostle is talking about the individual believers being members of the body of Christ.
So I take that statement on "not discerning the body" as disputes and tensions between individual believers. He says:

1 Corinthians 12:15 If the foot says, “Because I am not a hand, I am not a part of the body,” it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body.
16 And if the ear says, “Because I am not an eye, I am not a part of the body,” it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body
...
18 But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired.
19 If they were all one member, where would the body be?
20 But now there are many members, but one body.
21 And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”; or again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.”
...
27 Now you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it.

 

[circuitrider]

So, I decided to put the same question to a FB group of British Methodists that I am a part of and heard what you said there as well. Interesting.

That is interesting. It breaks some stereotypes that I've had about British Methodism. I always thought of it as more traditionalist than US Methodism. I guess I was wrong.

The UMC most certainly teaches "real presence" in our official position on communion called "This Holy Mystery."

 

[Dave-W]

CircuitRider: I would love to hear your take on my OP discussion - us "eating" HIM as our sacrifice compared to the priests eating the sin offering per Leviticus 6:24-26.

 

[Thursday]

I read the same words you do, Thursday, but I have a feeling that we come to very different conclusions as to what Paul is referring to when he speaks of the importance of "discerning the body of Christ."

In the previous verses he's made it obvious that he's writing about Jesus' body, but he's reverted to his real concern; not the Eucharist itself, but the way some people (presumably the family living in the house the church met in, as nobody else would have the opportunity) stuffing their faces, while other people who came late went hungry.

I believe that in the context of his larger discussion of learning to love one another and how the church should not have some being fed and others not when they gather together, that this is not about discerning a change in the elements of the Eucharist, but needing to discern that the body of Christ is bigger than just those who are present in the room.
Curiously, to me that would mean that Christian bodies, such as the Catholic Church, that are unwilling to practice open communion are the ones who eat and drink "without discerning the body of Christ."

That's an odd interpretation!

Discerning means recognizing. In fact, some translations of scripture use the word recognizing rather than discerning in this passage.

So if you take communion without recognizing that you are partaking of the blood and body of Christ you are in danger and in error.

Here's a little more from the previous chapter:

1 Cor 10
15 I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say.16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?

 

[circuitrider]

CircuitRider: I would love to hear your take on my OP discussion - us "eating" HIM as our sacrifice compared to the priests eating the sin offering per Leviticus 6:24-26.

Can you point me to the post DaveW-Ohev?

 

[Dave-W]

Can you point me to the post DaveW-Ohev?

It is the OP of this thread.