Communion: Can You do it at Home?
October 12th, 2008Book Says Yes
Hope everyone is having a fine Sabbath. If you’re Jewish, pardon me for being a day late. It’s a magnificent day here. Sunny and bright, even though we have a high chance of rain. The best sunlight comes from inside, but the regular kind isn’t bad, either, especially during an unusually rainy October. Usually, June and September are the rainiest months here, and we get some relief in the fall. You wouldn’t know it from the way it has been coming down all month.
As mentioned in an earlier post, my sister surprised me by giving me a book and some sort of home Communion kit. I know how weird this is, given the the bitter nature of our relationship over the last decade; I don’t want to go back over that. I’m just glad to see the burden of our estrangement lifting, and I hope things continue to improve.
Anyway, she also gave me a book by a minister named Perry Stone. The book is called The Meal that Heals. I haven’t finished it, but I know enough to tell you that the premise of the book is that communion is something Christians are supposed to experience privately as well as in church. I know many of my readers are Christians, and I thought I’d throw it out for discussion, to see if anyone knows anything about it.
Stone is a Charismatic. That can be good or bad, in my opinion. The Holy Spirit has been systematically excluded from Christians’ lives over the centuries, and I am fairly sure private prayer in tongues is legitimate, and that it builds a believer’s strength. I’m a hundred percent positive the fruit and gifts of the Spirit are real, regardless of whether I’m right about each one of them. On the other hand, Charismatics and other Protestants are subject to horrendous doctrinal deviations and excesses, and sometimes we swallow utter nonsense, to our great detriment. I have been there.
I am also confident that I am right when I say the traditional churches, for all their strengths, have done a wonderful job of putting God behind a wall of glass, as though lay people were not qualified to approach him. For example, they have provided scriptures and services in languages believers can’t understand. They have also put clergymen in charge of actions ordinary believers should be performing for themselves. We should all pray every day. We should all share our knowledge with other believers. We should read the Bible for ourselves. And so on. You can’t expect to know God when you rely on middlemen to perform your religious obligations. That should be obvious. The ancient Jews relied on priests to do a lot of the work for them, but the Temple no longer exists, and Christianity is not ancient Judaism, as the events in the Upper Room demonstrate. The New Testament is full of believers who approached and worked with God one-on-one, in addition to the activities they performed at gatherings.
I think what I said in the last paragraph is true, but that doesn’t mean we should be taking Communion on our own. But I can’t dismiss the possibility.
Look at the way churches have gotten away from the truth. Take baptism. It began as a Jewish purification ritual. Jews immersed themselves in ritual baths (“mikvahs”), or in running streams. Somehow, some churches ended up replacing immersion with a few drops of water on the forehead. Does that make sense? How is that equivalent to sitting in a mikvah or being dunked in a river? It’s not even remotely similar. Some churches did away with baptism altogether, which is even stranger. The importance of baptism is indisputable. If it’s meaningless, how can you explain the career of John the Baptist, or the continued emphasis of baptism after Christ’s assumption into heaven? Remember the eunuch who insisted on being baptized? That wasn’t in the Gospels. It came later. And the eunuch was traveling in a dry country; surely he had a container of water with him. Yet he did not ask to be baptized until he saw a substantial body of water in which he could be immersed. He didn’t try to get by with a sprinkle. And Peter pointed out that the Genesis flood was symbolic of baptism. The flood was more than a few drops.
If baptism is messed up, and it definitely is, maybe Communion is messed up, too.
Stone believes private Communion somehow increases the power of God in your life, and that it may bring benefits such as healing.
We get the Communion concept from the Gospels. I just looked it over. The descriptions are not identical, but it’s clear that the Last Supper was a Passover seder, and that what we now call Communion occurred during the course of the meal. And the 11th chapter of 1 Corinthians tells more, suggesting that early Christians celebrated Communion as a meal, as well as a ritual. So the tiny crackers and the sip of wine we see today seem inadequate to me. It seems clear that it wasn’t a typical meal, because Paul cautioned people who were truly hungry to eat at home. But the sense I get is that these people “broke bread” together in the usual sense of the term, which means they sat down and shared some food and drink.
If that is true, is it something you would only do at church? That would be a little odd. I wouldn’t want people eating and drinking while a pastor tried to teach. It would be chaos. Is it possible that Jesus was just telling the disciples, who were Jews and therefore obligated to observe Passover, to think of him during future seders and understand the significance of the wine and matzah?
I don’t know what the answer is, but it seems that we are now in the process of re-learning things about our Jewish past, and it only makes sense that some of our traditions are going to be shattered and corrected.
I Googled Stone to see what kind of person he is. I can’t find any scandal or any meaningful criticism. I see no record of private jets or mistresses or fur-lined Bentleys. Maybe he’s okay. There are some sites that criticize him, but they are…odd…to put it kindly.
Let me know what you think. It’s an interesting issue.
October 12th, 2008 at 4:57 PM
Just got home from church, and communion.
I never gave thought before to private communion, but communion suggests some other word, let’s see, it’s on the tip…. O Yeah! Community! This hopefully does not suggest that we need a Community Organizer for Communion. but it does suggest a group effort. On the other hand, a private remembrance of Christ and His sacrifice for us is perfectly wonderful.
Of course it started out as a Seder, but I don’t think it need be limited to that anymore. We had crackers and Welch’s today.
I’ve been in a large church where these little “communion” packets with juice and cracker combined were passed out. Highly unsatisfying. Had it torn off from a loaf, which of course was not unleavened. Done pita and passed it around, but haven’t seen wine at communion since I was an altar boy (and it wasn’t particularly good for that priest to drink that much). Protestants, being generally anti-alcohol, are generally opposed to wine at communion. Frankly, I’d hate to see a recovering alcoholic have to avoid communion.
Ya know, you need to exert the time and energy (and pain) of finding a church to attend. It’s something I wouldn’t look forward to given the disappointments of not finding a perfect fit on the first, second, third, fourth,…. try. Paul does talk about not forsaking the assembling together as is the custom of some. The Body of Christ is a body of believers acting under His influence/guidance, as I’m sure you are aware. It’s practiced better in a group setting, but I also believe it is practiced here between myself, yourself and others. I appreciate your postings here, as I’m sure you are aware. I look forward to them, and sometimes find a sense of fellowship through the week that I don’t elsewhere. Thanks.
October 12th, 2008 at 5:13 PM
Of course, you are right, Ed. I had a close call this week. Maybe next weekend.
October 12th, 2008 at 5:56 PM
I see nothing wrong with celebrating communion with any number of people from 1 on up. The Scriptural accounts strike me as contemplating some sort of 2 or more scenario, but in no way excluding those times when one happens to be alone.
Being overly alone is one of the Achilles Heels of Western (particularly American) Christianity (particularly Protestant denominations). It isn’t good for us to be alone, we sharpen each other through our interaction, we shouldn’t foresake or neglet meeting togethre, etc., etc. Those things being said, when we happen to be apart from other people, we are still togther with God/Christ/Spirit and we do the communion thing as a part of rememberance of Christ taking the big hit for us (individually as well as collectively).
I am pretty much fully on board with everything you said here.
October 12th, 2008 at 5:57 PM
When I was in Catholic school we were taught that Church doctrine meant communion to be a communal activity.
October 12th, 2008 at 6:08 PM
That’s an interesting question. On one hand, I like the idea of celebrating communion with others. On the other, I think that anything that brings you closer to God can never be bad.
In other words, I have no idea. I say go for it.
October 12th, 2008 at 7:30 PM
Whenever I see anyone espousing what is essentially a doctrinal matter (including communion and baptism in particular, and what I call “dress codes” in general), two verses always come to mind.
One verse is in Corinthians where Paul addresses a difference (not quite a dispute) in the length of hair of its women members between two church bodies …and he basically says, it’s okay for church A to ask this of its members, and it’s okay for church B to **not** ask this of its members. “15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. 16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.”
The other verse is in Acts, in the verse that is the only direct answer posed to the question of personal salvation …”30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.”
The point that I’m pointing out here is that rigid adherence to a particular “local” doctrine doesn’t necessarily lead to the conclusion that the doctrine should be adopted by the Church (yes, I differentiate between a church, and THE Church …or between a local church body – whatever “local” means within such context – and the practices of Christianity in the greater context).
There are many other scriptural “witnesses” that relate to the above (providing support for for the last paragraph). I have quite a little Bible study on the subject, actually.
…but more importantly, there are *none* that suggest adherence to any particular local custom is a deal breaker between you and God.
It’s always between you and God.
October 12th, 2008 at 10:10 PM
Lakes and oceans work as mikvahs, too. Pools and other containers of water are disqualified. A an urban mikvah is constructed so that rainwater flows unimpeded into a large basin of a minimum halachically-specified volume. To keep it from getting scuzzy, adjacent clean “pools” are connected by tube to the mikvah basin, effectively extending the “reach” of the initial mikvah. (If you pour a glass of lemonade into the ocean and figure out a way to stir it uniformly around the planet, any glass of ocean water will contain molecules from that glass of lemonade.) What makes a mikvah a mikvah is that it is called “living water”, never put into a man-made container. Tap water that originated from a reservoir that, itself, was a mikvah, would be disqualified from having been in a vessel (the intermediary pipes that open and close) in the interim. Plenty of archeological support of ancient mikvahs and their ubiquity in the Holy Land.
Halacha mandates that a Jewish community build a valid mikvah before it builds a synagogue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikvah
I take my sons before festivals and often before the Sabbath. It’s an effective spiritual defrag and reboot to get me out of the mundane world.
Ask any Orthodox Jewish couple about the romantic value of a monthly reboot and honeymoon-reminiscent reunification due to the separation. Of course, in secular cultures, people live with each other before marrying so the “you may now kiss the bride”, dashing off to a honeymoon, or other such permission at the wedding ritual is nearly laughable. There is no notion of delayed gratification heightening anticipation and longterm joy. In fact, the word for wedding in Hebrew is kiddushin, which is related to the words kaddish (santification) and kodesh (holy). All are rooted in the idea of exclusive separation. Bachelor parties or the bridal equivalent, or “dances with the bride” and garter ceremonies are unseemly beginnings for a couple that intends to embark on a mission that they intend to last for 5 or 6 decades.
Nearly every Jewish law that was around 2000 years ago was around 1300 years before that and specified in the oral tradition at Mt. Sinai. There are minimum requirements for the volume of a mikvah, for the volume of wine to be drunk at a seder, for the volume of matzah to be eaten, for the volume of the Paschal sacrifice eaten (the Earl of Sandwich stole his eponymous meal from Rabbi Hillel who put his Paschal lamb between matzah, a little charoses, and the requisite bitter herbs [horseradish or romaine lettuce suffice]). For those who balk at an oral tradition being binding, I’ll ask you to explain where in scripture are the details about kosher slaughter, mezuzahs, tefillin, and what exactly the four species that are gathered together for the festival of Sukkot (Tabernacles). Umpteen bazillion other scriptural requirements simply can’t be explained w/o oral tradition that is given over in scripture to the Sanhedrin and priests to specify in Deuteronomy 17:8-13:
8 If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, even matters of controversy within thy gates; then shalt thou arise, and get thee up unto the place which the LORD thy God shall choose. 9 And thou shall come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days; and thou shalt inquire; and they shall declare unto thee the sentence of judgment. 10 And thou shalt do according to the tenor of the sentence, which they shall declare unto thee from that place which the LORD shall choose; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they shall teach thee. 11 According to the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do; thou shalt not turn aside from the sentence which they shall declare unto thee, to the right hand, nor to the left. 12 And the man that doeth presumptuously, in not hearkening unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the LORD thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die; and thou shalt exterminate the evil from Israel. 13 And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously.
Ergo, the requirements specified by a legitimate Sanhedrin are 100% scripturally valid and binding.
On Jews.
God said so. And promises benefits for growing in faithful observance.
Deut 5:9 …showing mercy unto the thousandth generation of them that love Me and keep My commandments. … 5:29 Ye shall walk in all the way which the LORD your God hath commanded you, that ye may live, and that it may be well with you, and that ye may prolong your days in the land which ye shall possess.
And I have the promises of Deuteronomy 30. http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0530.htm
And when the prophecies of Zechariah 12-14 come to pass… believers, Jew and Gentile, will be celebrating Sukkot… as Jews have prayed for the righteous Gentile from time immemorial.
October 12th, 2008 at 10:57 PM
I would not criticize anyone for their own religious searching or practices. However, I wonder about the dismissive way we treat tradition in the Christian religion. For example, we seem to take it for granted that Jews have their traditions and the traditions are not to be disturbed. (And there’s nothing wrong with that.) Same for the Muslims, Hindus, Zoroastrians. Tradition is tradition. But not for Christians. The Christian tradition has become — lack of tradition. Perhaps that’s why non-Christian religions seem fascinating to so many Christians.
October 12th, 2008 at 11:08 PM
The big difference is that Christianity has supernatural enemies working overtime to diminish the scriptures and replace them with destructive, wrongheaded doctrines that cripple the church. The enemy doesn’t care what kind of Zoroastrian you are; any kind is fine, as long as you’re not a Christian.
October 13th, 2008 at 2:04 AM
I have to admit that, when I returned to church after many years, I didn’t like the deviation from tradition. Over the past couple of years, though, I’ve learned to appreciate anything that will bring people to church.
October 13th, 2008 at 2:27 AM
Steve,
i have a friend in Jacksonville who takes communion each morning all by herself.
She has expressed to me that she treasures these times.
She has suffered through 35 operations to correct many birth defects.
For a time, going to some place to have communion was almost impossible.
The only command I know of is from the Lord, Himself. “When you do this, do it in rememberance of me.”
October 13th, 2008 at 2:31 AM
That is about as powerful a case for private communion as I could imagine.
October 13th, 2008 at 8:10 AM
Hi Steve,
Don’t take this the wrong way, and get your nose out of joint.
Because I don’t say this to try and be nice, you are alot more on track then me.
The Seventh Day Adventists only had Communion once a year.
Don’t know if it was during Passover or not, but it probably was.
The Pentecostals use to have it EVERY WEEK!!!!
…the Messianic Christians which I would think are most on track, I think they have it once a year on Passover.
…so maybe it’s meant to be once a year on Passover.
..within a group of ….even small group, of Christians.
..as G_d ordained it not how we want…….
Noticed you said: our Jewish past.
/me teases Steven.
Don’t know if your read my next answer, before everything got deleted.
Just said I don’t know scholarship, just that if Abrahams seed was going to be as numerous as the stars.
..and we have always been called and blessed like no other peoples.
..anyways….
Connie
P.S. You’re lucky to have a friend like Aaron, who can explain all the festivals to you.
P.S.S. Hi Aaron.
Your information is great to read.
Only an idea….feel free not to bother….
If you want to you could hit enter every time a sentence is finished.
…..easier to read. : )
October 13th, 2008 at 11:34 AM
Matthew 18:20 “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” I haven’t found anything that specifically says communion has to be with others or given by a pastor. I like the idea that we are also communing with those who have gone before. I always picture my grandparents with me at communion.
October 13th, 2008 at 3:08 PM
I grew up in the Christian (Disciples of Christ) church and we had communion every Sunday and if a person was unable to come to church, due to illness, old age, etc. and they requested it an Elder of the church would take the communion to that person somtimes with a Deacon to assist.
Now in my old age I am a Stephan minister (a lay person who helps another one on one) and in our Methodist church we keep a supply of the grape juice, (Welch was a Methodist who did not drink wine and he perfected the bottling of grape juice initially for communion.) and the wafers in a little refrigerator along with the communion kits. Each week one of our pastors blesses the elements and we can pick them up on our way to visit our care receiver and share communion with them. It seems to me that this sharing experience is a beneficial part of communion but I am not aware of any reason why a ritual of taking the bread and wine in communion on ones own would not also be of great value in making a connection to the Lord.
Jesus did a lot of self-examination and praying on his own as well as working well with others. And as for the water on the head, sprinklers vs. dunkers I understand the rituals of both methods, I was dunked at nine years old and our Methodist Church works with another church near by if any one coming into our church wants to be immersed.
The running water purification sounds very good to me and I like the concept but I don’t know much about it. I feel very strongly that the Lords loves all his children and he does not differentiate about the which door they come through as long as they get there. It seems to me that personal intent and purpose are what bring us from Prevenient Grace into a state of Sanctified Grace and that is a very nice thing that can happen to us. In the end, I don’t see solitary communion as a substitute for the communal ritual in a church service but I see it as one additional way to help a person as an individual in his faith journey.
October 13th, 2008 at 3:21 PM
Ack. I’m a conservative Lutheran, who believes that in the act of communion we are truly eating and drinking the body and blood of our Lord in, with and under the bread and wine, and that this change happens when our pastor consecrates it. We see it as a Sacrament, along with Baptism. I can see I’m not on the same page with anyone else here, but I thought I’d share the Lutheran faith tradition, which we continued, with a slight change, from the Catholics. Catholics believe it is solely body and blood, not bread and wine at all.
As far as not receiving communion if you can’t get to church, my pastor was happy to commune me privately while I was in the hospital.
October 13th, 2008 at 5:37 PM
Communion, along, with baptism, is one of the two dominical sacraments–that is, instituted by Christ himself. It is solemn and holy, and there is a formula for it (cf, “after supper he took the bread and when he had given thanks he brake it…,” just as there’s a formula for baptism (in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost).
Christianity sets up the proper administration of these sacraments because they’re important–not to be done lightly or improperly, eg, you can’t use cheetos and chocolate milk or baptize a horse. And there is a context for communion–it was incorporated into and fulfilled a feast that God commanded and prescribed in formal detail.
One thing Christians have attempted to do from the start is require order and submission in ministry. We try to eliminate the ad-hoc, every man his own Pope thing by requiring that clergy attend seminaries, be submitted to coherent doctrines, and fit into some sort of hierarchy, whether the Roman church or a loosely organized Protestant denomination. Laymen running around with the hyper-egalitarian attitude that if the minister can do it, who’s going to tell me I can’t, are setting themselves up for pride, envy, and rebellion.
A huge problem with Islam, remember, is that religious leaders are self-styled. Anyone can begin calling himself a mullah and start issuing pronouncements.
Better and safer to come together as a body to communicate, as commanded (remember, in “this do ye,” “ye” is plural).
October 14th, 2008 at 1:11 AM
Something to think about indeed… Private communion has *never* been on my radar but now is. And thank you for that. Sometimes we all need communion – whether we can get to church or not…
October 14th, 2008 at 9:34 PM
My earlier comment (which caught Steve’s Zoroastrian response) was primarily from a cultural point of view. Margaret stated my religious perspective on the topic better than I am able to state it.