United Methodist Law and Holy Communion

The Articles of Religion

In 1784, John Wesley gave the newly independent Methodists in America 25 articles of religion, adapted from those in use in the Church of England. The Articles continue to be established doctrine for the United Methodist Church.

The closing text of Article 18 says, "The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshiped". These final words were aimed at Catholic practices that flow from the doctrine of transubstantiation. There, Christ's presence in the consecrated host is separated from the context of the holy meal. The host is not just bread to be eaten in faith, it is the embodiment of Jesus even apart from the act of eating. Consequently, the sacrament is reserved so that it can be adored. To adore the consecrated host is to worship Jesus because it is Jesus. The consecrated host is lifted up and carried about in the Procession of the Holy Sacrament on the annual solemnity of Corpus Christi. The Articles of Religion insists that this is not what Jesus intended.

The article repeatedly refers to "the Lord's Supper" and "the Supper of the Lord," emphasizing that the sacrament cannot be divorced from the eating and drinking of it. "The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith." Twice, in the course of two sentences, we are told that the body of Christ is eaten. Jesus gives us a sacrament to consume, not an object to adore. The article itself, however, does not address how the meal must take place.

This Holy Mystery

This Holy Mystery was first adopted in 2004 as "an official interpretive statement of theology and practice in The United Methodist Church." It is a "guide" for teaching and formation. Its principles and practices are "commended" to the church. This Holy Mystery is not law. It has the same weight as other non-binding resolutions adopted by the church. Its text is found in Section 8032 in the Book of Resolutions. The Book of Discipline never refers to it.

If This Holy Mystery were law, United Methodist pastors would be explaining the connection between baptism and communion, offering the sacrament weekly, making the sign of the cross and instructing the congregation to stand during the Great Thanksgiving. I would love that, but This Holy Mystery is not law.

One sentence of This Holy Mystery's 43 pages speaks to "self-service" and "drop-in" communion, "where the elements are available over a period of time." These practices, it says, are "contrary to the communal nature of the sacrament, which is the celebration of the gathered community of the church." One might infer certain implications of this sentence as it relates to to other means of communion, but that is an interpretive leap.

This Holy Mystery does identify one context in which people can receive communion outside the presence of the larger assembly:

The Table may be extended, in a timely manner, to include those unable to attend because of age, illness, or similar conditions. Laypeople may distribute the consecrated elements in the congregation and extend them to members who are unavoidably absent.

It alludes to a practice that dates at least to the 2nd century, where we find it described in the First Apology of Justin Martyr, chapter 67.

On the conclusion of our prayer, bread and wine and water are brought forward. The president offers prayers and gives thanks to the best of his ability, and the people give assent by saying, “Amen.” The Eucharist is distributed, everyone present communicates, and the deacons take it to those who are absent.

This Holy Mystery provides for limited lay distribution of communion to the homebound, based in part on a section of the Discipline which, in 2008, will be challenged in Judicial Council Decision 1109 (see below). Provisions for lay distribution are limited to the same day as the congregation's communal observance of the sacrament. In that case, the Great Thanksgiving is not to be repeated. Both clergy and laity can lead the suggested liturgy, which consists of scripture readings, the Invitation, Confession and Pardon, the Peace, the Lord’s Prayer, and the post-Communion prayer.

Those who bring communion on a day when the congregation has not gathered at the table should offer a full Service of Word and Table with the Great Thanksgiving. Therefore, the presiding minister should be an elder or other person authorized to celebrate the sacrament.

Judicial Council Decision 1109

The Judicial Council rendered Decision 1109 on October 24, 2008. Like most judicial decisions, it is narrow in its effect. The language of ¶ 1117.9 in the 2008 Book of Discipline was ruled unconstitutional. That paragraph dealt with one of the responsibilities assigned to the General Board of Discipleship.

First, let's look at the texts in question.

In 2004, ¶ 1117.9 of the Book of Discipline assigned the Board of Discipleship this responsibility:

Encourage ordained elders to select and train laity to distribute the consecrated Communion elements to sick or homebound persons following a service of Word and Table. This distribution also may apply to laypersons who have been assigned pastoral roles in a church or in more than one church by the district superintendent.

The 2008 Discipline changed ¶ 1117.9 to read:

Encourage ordained elders to train laity to distribute the non-perishable consecrated Communion elements to the sick or homebound and to other appropriate persons as approved by the pastor. Every family is encouraged to have at least one consecrated Communion distribution in each family annually. This distribution also may apply to laypersons who have been assigned pastoral roles in a church or in more than one church by the district superintendent.

It was this paragraph, as amended in 2008, that the Judicial Council ruled unconstitutional because it purportedly established a new doctrine regarding the reserved sacrament. The Book of Discipline then reverted, starting in 2012, to the language of 2004, with the paragraph being renumbered to ¶ 1116.9. This is how the Book of Discipline now reads:

The language is identical to that in the 2004 Book of Discipline.

In its analysis and rationale, the council said:

The remaining question is whether ¶ 1117.9 in the 2004 Book of Discipline and its 2008 amendment establish a new theological concept in the doctrine of The United Methodist Church. This Judicial Council honors the precedent of Decision 358 and will not become the arbiter of theological debates. Nevertheless, the Council cannot overlook the fact that ¶ 1117.9 creates a fundamental shift in the way that the Church talks about the elements of the Sacrament of Holy Communion. Certainly, it is a shift from the explicit stipulation in Article XVIII of the Articles of Religion that the Sacrament is not “reserved” or “carried about.”

In its decision, the council only addressed the 2008 version of ¶ 1117.9, declaring it "null and void." The decision begins:

Paragraph 1117.9, as amended by the 2008 General Conference, creates a doctrine of the “reserved sacrament” for The United Methodist Church.

In its analysis and rationale, the council says that it won't become the arbiter of theological debates, but that it "cannot overlook the fact" ¶ 1117.9 is a departure from the "explicit stipulation" of Article 18 that the sacrament is not to be reserved or carried about.

So what was the offending language in the 2008 version? What created the illegal doctrine regarding a "reserved sacrament"? Was it the elimination of "following a service of Word and Table"? Was it the recommendation that every family "have at least one consecrated Communion distribution in each family annually"? The Judicial Council doesn't make that clear. The 2004 version, apparently, was not similarly defective since its language was reintroduced in the 2012 Book of Discipline. It remains there today. The council doesn't tell us how these two versions are legally distinct.

It's interesting that the council's rationale includes Article 18's language about the sacrament being "carried about" in addition to it being "reserved". How did the Judicial Council understand the context and intent of Article 18? Did it think that "carried about" meant transported? Did it think that "reserved" applied to any consumption outside the assembly?

It's relevant to note at this point that John Wesley's The Sunday Service of the Methodists in North America includes an order for communion of the sick adapted from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. Wesley followed the lead of his church in requiring an elder to preside over an abbreviated service of communion, one that picked up the full ritual beginning with the words, "Ye that do truly and earnestly repent of your sins." Neither Wesley nor the church that first produced the Articles of Religion envisioned lay distribution to the sick or homebound.

But if that's how the Judicial Council understood the problem - distribution of consecrated elements by laity outside the assembly - then the 2004 version would have been equally objectionable.

The Bishops' Moratorium

In the fall of 2013, a group of 27 pastors, bishops, theologians and denominational staff members convened a two-day conversation regarding online communion. The meeting produced several papers, none of which (as far as I can tell) are still available online. According to the published summary of the meeting, the group reached consensus on some points and made several recommendations to the Council of Bishops, including a request that "the Council of Bishops call for a moratorium on all online sacramental practices."

Again, according to reports, the Council of Bishops did so in 2013 and again in 2014. In published descriptions, the council's statement is described as a "call", which can be interpreted as either a request or an order, depending on how one understands the bishops' authority in this matter. Like the papers produced by the consultation, however, the text of these calls is nowhere to be found online, even on the Council of Bishops' own website. Without seeing the text of the the bishop's statement, it's impossible to gauge their intent or the scope of their request.

Since then, we've entered a new quadrennium, with new bishops, and an intervening General Conference. General Conference had the opportunity to turn the bishop's request into law in 2016, but it did not do so. Some bishops have subsequently offered different guidance or advice.

General Conference has taken no action in regard to online communion.

Search This Blog

Strangely Warmed