Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
The Lord’s cocktail party
Melinda Henneberger writes about an unorthodox subject for Slate: the Lord’s supper, also known as communion. For most Christians, communion is a pretty big deal, which is really a pretty enormous understatement. It’s one of those few things that nearly every modestly confessional or doctrinal or biblical church takes seriously. Despite differences in theology – specifically A) what it is (real body and blood, or a metaphor), and B) when it’s to be taken (every week, or every month, or every quarter, etc.) – most churches are careful to proclaim that it’s an exclusive meal open only to believers. This exclusionary proposition isn’t welcome to contemporary ears, but that’s just how it is. I won’t get into the meaning and purpose of communion here, but I will share this article with you, about how one person’s cavalier attitude toward communion made someone take note about their own cavalier attitude.
Henneburger writes about how Sally Quinn – a writer at the Washington Post-Newsweek religion site “On Faith” – decided to take communion at Tim Russert’s funeral. This quote is from Quinn’s own narrative about what she did.
Last Wednesday at Tim’s funeral mass at [Holy] Trinity Church in Georgetown (Jack Kennedy’s church), communion was offered. I had only taken communion once in my life, at an evangelical church. It was soon after I had started “On Faith” and I wanted to see what it was like. Oddly I had a slightly nauseated sensation after I took it, knowing that in some way it represented the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Last Wednesday I was determined to take it for Tim, transubstantiation notwithstanding. I’m so glad I did. It made me feel closer to him. And it was worth it just to imagine how he would have loved it.
Oh, this is wrong on so many levels. First, Quinn has a prestigious platform for religious journalism, so doesn’t she know that Evangelicals don’t believe in transubstantiation? One Jesuit writer said this:
[I]t is probably not too much to expect that the co-founder of a prestigious online blog about religion run by two of the nation’s premier journals would understand something about the most basic practices of the Catholic church. Most intelligent people know a few facts about the Catholic church: this is one of them. And even if one doesn’t know this, one would know to act with great care when in the midst of a worshiping community not your own.
Read the whole article. It should offend anyone who takes communion seriously, not to mention anyone who takes journalistic professionalism seriously.
And for a basic few points about the different Christian views on communion, read this.
back to top22 Comments to “The Lord’s cocktail party”
How do people who don’t know anything, or can’t find out anything, or more probably, can’t be bothered to find out, get a job as a reporter or journalist? Isn’t it a requirement of the job?
Honestly!
Report comment to moderator
I’m having trouble with the fact that she thought taking communion would bring her closer to Tim Russert. That’s what slightly nauseated me.
Report comment to moderator
Just a couple of comments:
As a Protestant of Catholic upbringing, if the RCC decided to welcome non-Catholic Christians at the communion rail, I don’t think I’d have any problem at all participating. I don’t think the fact that they (falsely, IMO) teach transsubstantiation means that I have to agree with it to participate.
That said, I’ve been to a few RCC services in the last few years, and have for the most part appreciated them from a Protestant perspective. The service is loaded with Scripture that, while I suspect most nominal Catholics let it go in one ear and out the other, genuinely speaks to me; but I neither venerate the elevated host, nor recite the Hail Mary. And I respect (though I disagree with) the RCC policy “fencing” the communion table against non-Catholics.
Also, I take some slight issue with Melinda Henneberger’s remark, “And good as he was, we don’t really take Communion to feel closer to Tim Russert.” Maybe not closer to Tim, given that he is dead. But one major aspect of the Lord’s Supper is a right consideration of our brothers and sisters in Christ:
I used to think that “discerning the Lord’s body” pertained more to intense meditation on the meaning of the bread and wine. But given the earlier context of vv. 17-22 — i.e., taking the elements without regard for others, by eating or drinking selfishly — I’ve come more to the view that Communion ought to be … communal!
Thus, during our weekly communion time, I now tend to look around the congregation at my fellow believers .. smiling and nodding if I catch someone’s eye, maybe shaking the hand of a parishoner nearby, resolving in my hear that, if Christ died for him or for her, then I ought to be willing to sit down and dine with them myself, regardless of what I think their faults or foibles may be. (Tim Gallant unpacks this idea in greater detail in “Discerning the body – 1 Corinthians 11:29 and paedocommunion.”)
None of this is to excuse what Quinn did. You’d think a religion editor — Catholic or not — would know about these things. And I don’t even know if she’s a Christian, let alone Catholic.
Still, while I think I understand and respect where Henneberger is coming from, looking at some of the ignunt things I’ve done or said in a religious context in my 46 years, I wouldn’t want to come down too hard on Quinn.
Report comment to moderator
Frank beat me to it but I am Episcopal and ALL Baptized Christians are welcome at the Lords Table. My experience in the Catholic church has been that you HAVE to be Catholic to take communion and those of us who aren’t do not even try out of respect. (At least that is the way it was explained to me when I was 16 and visited with a friend.)
Report comment to moderator
My last visit to a RCC was a funeral, and I was the one who found the homily comforting. The Catholics didn’t like it at all. I was offered communion because the priest thought I was Catholic. I didn’t take it because I’m not Catholic, like Kim out of respect. Whoever takes communion and wherever they take it, it is in remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice, and this Quinn woman “disrespected” that, I think.
Report comment to moderator
In summary their are two basic Biblical requirements for taking communion:
1. One must be a Christian.
2. One must be genuinely repentant of their sins.
By taking communion the participant is publicly attesting to these two things as a disciple of Christ. If one or both of these requirements is not met, it is tantamount to a false witness/vow. Hence, the Biblical warning that Frank noted.
Quinn’s obvious ignorance or disregard of the requirements and warning show her to be unqualified for her job as a religion editor. But that is not surprising for publications like Newsweek and The Washington Post. They are stupid and ignorant as well.
Report comment to moderator
HSK,
Don’t you think you spend too much time on Slate?
It will turn your brain to mush
Report comment to moderator
I can understand an ordinary Joe or Jane getting confused about who’s invited to the Table if he or she was not raised in any church. Such a person might not quite grasp the distinction between those parts of the Mass in which visitors are welcome to participate (prayers, hymns, greetings, etc.) and those they are not. I could see such a visitor following his friend up to the rail because he thought it was expected of him.
For a non-RCC professional journalist specializing in religious news and issues, however, it would be laughable if it wasn’t already outrageous. Attribute it to post-modern fog with a twist of megalomania, I guess. It’s kind of like announcing to all the world that it matters not what the rite has meant to uncounted millions of adherents over two thousand years … because this is what it means to me.
Report comment to moderator
I went to Catholic schools while growing up, but was not allowed to participate in anything religious because I was a Protestant heathen. If I had participated in communion, I thought I would be kicked out of school.
I looked for the ‘cocktail’ part of the article, but couldn’t find it. The first communion was Passover and Jesus and the disciples would have drunk four large cups of wine. That’s probably why they couldn’t stay awake in the garden.
I wish Christians would do things a little more like Jesus did.
Report comment to moderator
The rules on communion do seem “Byzantine”. As a non-Christian I have visited several types of churches and they all seemed to have different rules. It’s very confusing to say the least.
The most visits I had were with Episcopalians, who, as Kim mentioned, have a rather generous rule – anyone who’s a Christian can participate. Then I noticed some folk going forward and kneeling and forming an “x” with their arms and not getting communion. I asked someone and they said in the Episcopal church you can come forward during communion and get a “blessing” without taking communion, which is kinda cool.
In any event, I never have taken communion as a non-Christian. I would think that to be rather sacrilegious. Also, I don’t want to do anything to give the impression that I’m a Christian. I don’t even bow my head or close my eyes when people pray. I do stand (or sit) their quietly though. It’s always interesting to look around and see who else isn’t praying or who’s doing interesting things.
Report comment to moderator
Another opportunity to tattle!
One Sunday morning back in the 80’s, I was the guest of a co-worker at church in Palo Alto, CA — Presbyterian, if I remember correctly. We sat in the balcony. A young assistant minister celebrated/officiated/MC’d the communion service. He held up and waved a loaf of bread in his right hand, declaring “Folks, it’s only a symbol.” Talk about elevation! He was ecstatic, like a UN relief worker on the back of a food truck, or a rock star throwing souvenirs out to his fans, or like Tristan waving his bloody bandages at the beginning of Act III.
This wasn’t a dumb church, they just didn’t believe in transubstantiation. I don’t either, but I’m not anti-transubstantiation. One can desecrate a memorial, even if it’s made of stone. As a cultural Christian, though not a believer, I feel like unbelievers have some rights over their cultural traditions. Nowadays, unbelievers may be the only Christians — the only classy Christians, anyway.
Report comment to moderator
“Last Wednesday I was determined to take it for Tim, transubstantiation notwithstanding.” Here she is talking about the Mass. Catholics DO believe in transubstantiation.
At the evangelical church (earlier in her career) she had a slightly nauseated sensation knowing that in some way it represented the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Evangelicals DO believe that communion represents to blood and body of Christ.
It doesn’t sound to me like she is confused about who believes what… just what she believes in.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, Laky. I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one who noticed that.
Report comment to moderator
Slight nausea is an excellent description of the sensation, especially if you’ve read Freud’s Totem and Tabu. The reason I partake, when visiting relatives, is that Christianity owes some remedy for the ills it causes, and the illusion of peace and unity — especially with your own relatives — isn’t nothing.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
Most solid/non-liberal churches I’ve been to make it clear either in the bulletin or by the preacher as to who is welcome to partake. Most Presbyterian versions practice “open” communion, for example, which simply means it’s open to all believers. RCC is closed to Catholics only, and I’m not sure about Lutheran, but the last LCMS church I was in appeared closed, iirc. TJ makes it especially clear when we have visitors, too–both the invitation and the biblical warning/injunction for unbelievers.
Report comment to moderator
10. “Then I noticed some folk going forward and kneeling and forming an “x” with their arms and not getting communion. I asked someone and they said in the Episcopal church you can come forward during communion and get a “blessing” without taking communion, which is kinda cool.”
I’m pretty sure you can do that in most Catholic Churches.
Report comment to moderator
Interesting, I’ve only been to Catholic churches twice. I didn’t participate, but I never knew about the arm crossing.
Report comment to moderator
Re: #10 “I don’t even bow my head or close my eyes when people pray.”
That’s really something of which to be proud. Thanks for sharing.
Report comment to moderator
Something interesting, concerning #10, is that Anlir, as an admitted non-Christian, has a healthy grasp on things and is respectful to various traditions and practices concerning the Supper. It is the religion reporter, raised with a Protestant background, who is quite confused on these matters.
Report comment to moderator
I am a member of a LCMS church – Lutheran, for those of you who don’t know – and we welcome any believer to communion.
Report comment to moderator
FrankInPhoenix,
Well said. I, too, was raised Catholic. I abandoned it for agnosticism for about 10 years before submitting to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
I’ve forgotten which of the early church Father’s writings I was reading, but he mentioned that there was a problem of the pagan merchants at the market selling bread and wine at a premium price because it was “the body and blood of Christ”.
I suspect that practice to be the root of the doctrine of transubstantiation.
I’m always tempted to brown-bag bread and wine to a Catholic Church and after the priest announces that Communion is for Catholics only, to stand and announce that I have bread and wine to share with all Christians present. But since my visits to Catholic Churches are usually for either weddings or funerals, I stifle the urge at the behest of my wife and stay respectful.
Report comment to moderator
TL, Then your church (as does mine) disobeys the LCMS.
This, from the LSMS web site: “The official position of the Synod is that not only are members of other Lutheran churches with whom we are in altar and pulpit fellowship invited to commune with us, but also that in certain extraordinary cases of pastoral care and in emergencies, members of churches not in fellowship with us may be given Communion.”
Also, per the website, the only other churches in the U.S. with whom we have “altar and pulpit fellowship” are the American Association of Lutheran Churches, which I never heard of, although there is one congregation in Maryland, where I live. So, in other words, in the U.S., the LCMS does pretty much practice closed communion.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!