The Diocesan Dialogue
Current Issue
April 2008
Linton on Liturgy: Modern discussions about the traditional rite
of Communion
 The Rev. Adam Linton has served as Rector of the Church of the Good
Shepherd, Ogden, since 2000. A native of the San Francisco Bay Area,
his faith background has included both the Episcopal and Russian Orthodox
traditions. He earned his Master of Divinity degree at Gordon-Conwell
Theological Seminary, South Hamilton, Massachusetts.
Adam was ordained
a priest in 1980. Prior to coming to Utah he was Rector of parishes
in Colorado, Massachusetts, and Illinois, and also served as a Chaplain
in the United States Navy. Here in Utah he has served as a member of
the Canonical Review Taskforce, the Standing Committee, and as a Deputy
to General Convention 2006. Presently he is a member of the Ecclesiastical
Court and serves as Chair of our Diocesan Liturgy and Music Committee.
In a series of articles for my parish newsletter I've been commenting
on why we do what we do in the Eucharistic liturgy. This raised some
good, very practical follow-up conversations that I thought I'd
address here. These questions centered around issues that interfere
with people being able to consume either the consecrated bread (made
from wheat, especially) or wine.
Some churches make available a much
gluten-reduced wheat wafer, which some acute celiac sufferers still
find an inadequate solution. Other churches make available a fully
gluten-free wafer, kept on a separate paten. Such gluten-free wafers
are a "bread" made of another substance, usually soy. These
options obviously require that the clergy be previously informed of
the need.
Now, if gluten is a problem, wouldn't it be more inclusive—not
to mention convenient—to use gluten-free bread or wafers for
everyone? Not really, I'd say, for two reasons: Is it truly "inclusive" to
deny to people participation in a Eucharist which uses its historic
elements, specifically rooted in its Passover background? And secondly;
any foodstuff that might be used for the bread is potentially also
problematic for some.
Providing more and more "alternatives" over
time at Communion (trying to keep ahead of the autoimmune curve in
any given location) would not only sever us from the roots and history
of the Eucharist, it would fundamentally compromise its essential quality
of being a commonly shared experience. (Not to mention becoming
practically impossible to administer!) "Inclusion" doesn't
mean much if one has lost the thing in which one was trying to include
people, in the first place.
Alcohol Addiction
 It is a priority for us of highest
order that we fully support people who are recovering from alcoholism
(or any other substance abuse, for that matter). The issue of receiving
from the Cup is one that different folks in recovery have to address
differently. Yes, there are some who are able to entirely segregate
the sip from the Cup at Communion from all other alcohol consumption.
However, there are also many in recovery for whom the physiological
sensitivity to any alcohol is so acute that they must absolutely abstain,
even at Eucharist. (For such persons, many medications and even standard
mouthwash can be a real problem, as well.)
With all this in mind (and
unfortunately, yes, there are also severe allergies to grapes—and
fruits in general), how are we to love, care, nourish, and respect
one another, spiritually and otherwise?
I think that the key to this
question is theological, rooted in the awareness that it is the Lord
Jesus who is Host at his Table—that it is his own life that he
there gives us. It is Christ who overcomes all barriers— the
barriers in us, around us, among us—that Christ, truly and fully,
will feed Christ's People.
"The Gifts of God for the People
of God. Take them in remembrance that Christ died for you, and feed
on him in your hearts by faith, with thanksgiving."
This is why
there is a rubric in The Book of Common Prayer, included from the beginning
of our Prayer Book tradition:
"If a person desires to receive
the Sacrament, but, by reason of extreme illness or physical disability,
is unable to eat and drink the Bread and Wine, the Celebrant is to
assure that person that all the benefits of Communion are received,
even though the Sacrament is not received with the mouth." (B.C.P.,
page 457)
Such a lively awareness surely informs the questions at hand!
By
the way, this is also why a Minister of the Eucharistic Cup, either
Clergy or Lay Chalice Bearer, ought not simply pass by those who have
already received the Bread, but have thereafter crossed their arms
on their chests (indicating by doing so that they will physically not
be partaking of the Wine), but stop, face the Communicant, and say, "The
Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ keep you in everlasting life."
Right
along with this—and in no way inconsistent with it—is our
historic emphasis on Communion being offered to the whole church in
both kinds. (See "XXX. Of both Kinds" of the Thirty-Nine
Articles, B.C.P., page 874.)
What a wondrous thing, beyond all our humble ability to express, is Christ's Self-Gift! How utterly generous.
Jesus said, "I am the living Bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of the bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh…Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me and I in them." (John 6:51,56)
Thanks be!
The
Rev. Adam S. Linton
Chair, Liturgy and Music Committee Diocese of Utah
Return to current issue Table of Contents
or Dialogue main page » |
