1166. In a world where entire meals are consumed in forgetfulness, there's something powerful and evocative about focusing attention, gratefully, on one tiny morsel.
(Dave Tomlinson, How to be a Bad Christian)
Showing posts with label Communion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Communion. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
Monday, October 27, 2014
General Ignorance
If the three possible ways of going wrong are ignorance, weakness and deliberate fault, I have a marginal personal preference for ignorance. I have indeed found ignorance a much misunderstood skill in ministry.
For instance, I am way smart enough to learn to operate a sound desk, but I have never done so. Likewise the computer projection system in our church. I remain profoundly ignorant. I am never called upon to solve problems with these items, both of which would distract me from the more important work (for me, not in the whole scheme of things) of praying and readying myself to preach or lead a church service.
I can also fall back on the excuse of ignorance when forced to do something which I get wrong. I can either learn to do it right next time or, and this I prefer, the press-ganger can learn never to ask me again.
A few months back I was assisting at a service when our Archdeacon was visiting. Nobody had arrived to set up communion. This is another area where my ignorance is deep.
When people ask me how they should set up communion for me (a question often asked when I am the visiting president at another church) my reply is always 'However you normally do it.' If this is followed up by 'We wouldn't want to do it in a way that would be difficult for you', I quietly explain that that would not be possible, I have no preferences whatsoever about positioning of elements, books and thing. If pushed I often crack and tell the sacristan, or server, or whatever that church calls the setter-upper, to try and upset me and betting that they can't. I cannot say this strongly enough. There is not, for me, a right way to do communion but if there is for you I will try my hardest to do it your way.
So I asked the Archdeacon the question I often get asked. 'Is there any particular way you would like this set up?' He told me what I tell everyone else, to do it as I usually do it.
It may come as a bit of a surprise to many of you ordained readers but apart from my first curacy I have never regularly set-up a communion and I do not have a usual way. I am also unfamiliar with any legalities.
So I put the stuff out in a way with which I would be personally happy and then got this response:
'I think you will find a lot of people will be upset if you do not put everything on a fair, white, linen cloth.'
Really? I could not imagine being upset at this and, although Anglicans have the capacity to become turmoiled rather easily, couldn't think of a single person who might moan. This is probably one of the several hundred reasons why I am not an archdeacon.
I did it again and hope the Archdeacon learned never to ask me again. You can wipe wine stains off the varnished communion table at this particular church, but bio-detergents are necessary to clean a no-longer fair, or white, linen cloth. Ain't that a bit daft?
Ignorance really is bliss. Embrace it.
For instance, I am way smart enough to learn to operate a sound desk, but I have never done so. Likewise the computer projection system in our church. I remain profoundly ignorant. I am never called upon to solve problems with these items, both of which would distract me from the more important work (for me, not in the whole scheme of things) of praying and readying myself to preach or lead a church service.
I can also fall back on the excuse of ignorance when forced to do something which I get wrong. I can either learn to do it right next time or, and this I prefer, the press-ganger can learn never to ask me again.
A few months back I was assisting at a service when our Archdeacon was visiting. Nobody had arrived to set up communion. This is another area where my ignorance is deep.
When people ask me how they should set up communion for me (a question often asked when I am the visiting president at another church) my reply is always 'However you normally do it.' If this is followed up by 'We wouldn't want to do it in a way that would be difficult for you', I quietly explain that that would not be possible, I have no preferences whatsoever about positioning of elements, books and thing. If pushed I often crack and tell the sacristan, or server, or whatever that church calls the setter-upper, to try and upset me and betting that they can't. I cannot say this strongly enough. There is not, for me, a right way to do communion but if there is for you I will try my hardest to do it your way.
So I asked the Archdeacon the question I often get asked. 'Is there any particular way you would like this set up?' He told me what I tell everyone else, to do it as I usually do it.
It may come as a bit of a surprise to many of you ordained readers but apart from my first curacy I have never regularly set-up a communion and I do not have a usual way. I am also unfamiliar with any legalities.
So I put the stuff out in a way with which I would be personally happy and then got this response:
'I think you will find a lot of people will be upset if you do not put everything on a fair, white, linen cloth.'
Really? I could not imagine being upset at this and, although Anglicans have the capacity to become turmoiled rather easily, couldn't think of a single person who might moan. This is probably one of the several hundred reasons why I am not an archdeacon.
I did it again and hope the Archdeacon learned never to ask me again. You can wipe wine stains off the varnished communion table at this particular church, but bio-detergents are necessary to clean a no-longer fair, or white, linen cloth. Ain't that a bit daft?
Ignorance really is bliss. Embrace it.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Leave it out
Interesting exchange of emails with a local clergy colleague follows. Can any of my ancient evangelical chums throw any further light on this?
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 5:41 PM
Subject: Help with understanding liturgy please!
An appeal to those of you in the LMG (Local Ministry Group - ed) and beyond who know me and can spare my blushes to see if any of you can give me a (preferably simple) answer to a thought that struck me again recently, and which a church member asked me about a few weeks ago and is still awaiting a comprehensive reply!
In the Eucharistic prayer we have the Sanctus - Holy, Holy, Holy - then the bit in square brackets, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest'.
Now, what I remember from when I was lad, and went to things like Diocesan or Deanery Eucharists, or even clergy conferences, part of the divisiveness of worship, and an essential badge of who was and wasn't 'sound' or an evangelical or a catholic was whether or not they joined in with these words.
So, 20 - 25 years ago in Lichfield Diocese, the small and beleaguered Evangelical group would tend to sit together and very pointedly and loudly NOT say the phrase - which for a while I went along with, without understanding why. And of course I never used the words myself 'because you didn't do that'.
I've long since given up being too bothered, and cheerfully always use them when presiding.
But I still don't understand why, or why not! Can anyone explain in simple terms?
I suspect it was because someone somewhere in ecclesiastical history (Oxford Movement?) was taking the words very literalistically to imply / state that the person saying the words was a Priest in the place of Jesus?
I note with relief that all sorts of things that used to be 'not done' (e.g. wearing stoles) are now not even given second thoughts! Is this something else that has ceased to have any weight or significance? Or are there still churches / Dioceses where to say or not say would lead one into hot water?
A
Sent: 26 September 2008 12:12
Subject: Help with understanding liturgy please!
Good question. I became a Christian in a church that didn't say those words. Never really knew why except that the liturgy said they were optional so I guessed we were opting out. I think you are right about misunderstandings that arose. The ASB (Alternative Service Book -ed) separated the anthem from the proper preface and I think that solved it.
I've just read through the communion section of Anglican Worship Today (which you may recall Colin Buchanan published as a commentary to coincide with the ASB launch in 1980). Nothing there. With your permission I'll put this on my blog and see if any of its readers has an answer.
St
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 5:41 PM
Subject: Help with understanding liturgy please!
An appeal to those of you in the LMG (Local Ministry Group - ed) and beyond who know me and can spare my blushes to see if any of you can give me a (preferably simple) answer to a thought that struck me again recently, and which a church member asked me about a few weeks ago and is still awaiting a comprehensive reply!
In the Eucharistic prayer we have the Sanctus - Holy, Holy, Holy - then the bit in square brackets, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest'.
Now, what I remember from when I was lad, and went to things like Diocesan or Deanery Eucharists, or even clergy conferences, part of the divisiveness of worship, and an essential badge of who was and wasn't 'sound' or an evangelical or a catholic was whether or not they joined in with these words.
So, 20 - 25 years ago in Lichfield Diocese, the small and beleaguered Evangelical group would tend to sit together and very pointedly and loudly NOT say the phrase - which for a while I went along with, without understanding why. And of course I never used the words myself 'because you didn't do that'.
I've long since given up being too bothered, and cheerfully always use them when presiding.
But I still don't understand why, or why not! Can anyone explain in simple terms?
I suspect it was because someone somewhere in ecclesiastical history (Oxford Movement?) was taking the words very literalistically to imply / state that the person saying the words was a Priest in the place of Jesus?
I note with relief that all sorts of things that used to be 'not done' (e.g. wearing stoles) are now not even given second thoughts! Is this something else that has ceased to have any weight or significance? Or are there still churches / Dioceses where to say or not say would lead one into hot water?
A
Sent: 26 September 2008 12:12
Subject: Help with understanding liturgy please!
Good question. I became a Christian in a church that didn't say those words. Never really knew why except that the liturgy said they were optional so I guessed we were opting out. I think you are right about misunderstandings that arose. The ASB (Alternative Service Book -ed) separated the anthem from the proper preface and I think that solved it.
I've just read through the communion section of Anglican Worship Today (which you may recall Colin Buchanan published as a commentary to coincide with the ASB launch in 1980). Nothing there. With your permission I'll put this on my blog and see if any of its readers has an answer.
St
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Me and Communion
 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eucharistic theology created with QuizFarm.com | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| You scored as Zwingli You are Ulrich Zwingli. You believe that bread and wine are symbols of the absent Jesus. You believe in interpreting Scripture reasonably.
|
Thursday, February 22, 2007
More on Ash
I've never celebrated a silent Eucharist before. We use so many words, me more than most, that the chance to simply follow the drama through the offering of gifts, pouring of wine and beckoning people to come, receive was poignant squared.
The pouring out of wine with a noisy, bleeding glug sometimes needs to be heard. The breaking of bread, in complete and wordless silence, with a snap and crumbs, was more symbolic of brokenness for me than any, 'We break this bread..' liturgy. Did anyone notice me gulp and gasp?
The handing out of crumbly baton, without verbal reminder, to the ashed eighty of us in semi-darkness will live with me this Lent. Haunting, in the best sense of the word. Thanks for sharing it with me if you did. Who needs conversation to have communion? On which thought, it's now quiet day and the computer, phones and fax go off until late afternoon.
Go in silence into the peace of lent.
Go in stillness into this time of self-examination.
Go in peace to love and serve the Lord, awaiting the joyous party of Easter.
Laters.
The pouring out of wine with a noisy, bleeding glug sometimes needs to be heard. The breaking of bread, in complete and wordless silence, with a snap and crumbs, was more symbolic of brokenness for me than any, 'We break this bread..' liturgy. Did anyone notice me gulp and gasp?
The handing out of crumbly baton, without verbal reminder, to the ashed eighty of us in semi-darkness will live with me this Lent. Haunting, in the best sense of the word. Thanks for sharing it with me if you did. Who needs conversation to have communion? On which thought, it's now quiet day and the computer, phones and fax go off until late afternoon.
Go in silence into the peace of lent.
Go in stillness into this time of self-examination.
Go in peace to love and serve the Lord, awaiting the joyous party of Easter.
Laters.
Monday, September 19, 2005
Holy Communion
There used to be a tea towel which had the description of the game of cricket on it:
CRICKET: AS EXPLAINED TO A FOREIGNER...
You have two sides, one out in the field and one in. Each man that's in the side that's in goes out, and when he's out he comes in and the next man goes in until he's out. When they are all out, the side that's out comes in and the side that's been in goes out and tries to get those coming in, out. Sometimes you get men still in and not out.
When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in. There are two men called umpires who stay out all the time and they decide when the men who are in are out. When both sides have been in and all the men have been out, and both sides have been out twice after all the men have been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game.
You may remember this. Well yesterday morning I was listening to a sermon about Holy Communion which began with a topical illustration about the passion we all felt for cricket and rather than listening I started trying to write an explanation of Holy Communion for a tea towel. It is work in progress but so far:
The church comes into the church to commemorate the death of someone who is still alive. The one who is still alive isn't there and a person stands up and invites everyone who is already there to come into the presence of the one who was dead and is alive and isn't there.
On a table is a loaf of bread and a bottle of wine. But the bread isn't bread it is the body of the one who isn't there and the wine isn't wine but the blood of the one who isn't there. But they are still bread and still wine and still look and taste like bread and wine even when the person who said come into the presence of the one who was dead but is alive and isn't there says they are now blood and body.
The bread is food but not for those who are hungry. The wine is drink but not for those who are thirsty. The hungry and thirsty should eat and drink before they arrive.
The bread needs to be broken in order to work. If it isn't broken it won't work. The person who breaks the bread says, 'We break this bread to share in the body of the one who was dead' but this is not cannibalism or violence.
Everyone is invited to share in the bread but some churches won't let go of the cup to let this happen. Although the bread and wine are the most important bits of this ritual the cups and plates are treated as more valuable. Some churches use funny bread which sticks to your dentures.
When everyone has eaten and drunk a little bit they go in peace to love and serve the Lord. They do this by drinking coffee and talking about each other.
Some people like to eat bread and drink wine to remember the dead one every day. Some only do it on special occasions. Some still don't remember the dead one however often they do it. Others never do it but don't forget the dead one. This is not because wine makes you forget.
CRICKET: AS EXPLAINED TO A FOREIGNER...
You have two sides, one out in the field and one in. Each man that's in the side that's in goes out, and when he's out he comes in and the next man goes in until he's out. When they are all out, the side that's out comes in and the side that's been in goes out and tries to get those coming in, out. Sometimes you get men still in and not out.
When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in. There are two men called umpires who stay out all the time and they decide when the men who are in are out. When both sides have been in and all the men have been out, and both sides have been out twice after all the men have been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game.
You may remember this. Well yesterday morning I was listening to a sermon about Holy Communion which began with a topical illustration about the passion we all felt for cricket and rather than listening I started trying to write an explanation of Holy Communion for a tea towel. It is work in progress but so far:
The church comes into the church to commemorate the death of someone who is still alive. The one who is still alive isn't there and a person stands up and invites everyone who is already there to come into the presence of the one who was dead and is alive and isn't there.
On a table is a loaf of bread and a bottle of wine. But the bread isn't bread it is the body of the one who isn't there and the wine isn't wine but the blood of the one who isn't there. But they are still bread and still wine and still look and taste like bread and wine even when the person who said come into the presence of the one who was dead but is alive and isn't there says they are now blood and body.
The bread is food but not for those who are hungry. The wine is drink but not for those who are thirsty. The hungry and thirsty should eat and drink before they arrive.
The bread needs to be broken in order to work. If it isn't broken it won't work. The person who breaks the bread says, 'We break this bread to share in the body of the one who was dead' but this is not cannibalism or violence.
Everyone is invited to share in the bread but some churches won't let go of the cup to let this happen. Although the bread and wine are the most important bits of this ritual the cups and plates are treated as more valuable. Some churches use funny bread which sticks to your dentures.
When everyone has eaten and drunk a little bit they go in peace to love and serve the Lord. They do this by drinking coffee and talking about each other.
Some people like to eat bread and drink wine to remember the dead one every day. Some only do it on special occasions. Some still don't remember the dead one however often they do it. Others never do it but don't forget the dead one. This is not because wine makes you forget.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)