Comment by Bill Samuel on 2nd mo. 18, 2012 at 6:43pm

To Tom Smith's comment, I think Friends must look closely at preserving distinctives because they are distinctives, not because they feel called to the same witness in this time and place. Most Friends have dropped a number of features of early Friends, including their objection to the arts. Early Quakerism does not exist today. I think the main reason why most Friends groups don't practice the outward communion is because some Friends in most groups still object to it, or see no reason to engage in it. I understand that, but would question the view that even if one is not led to the position, one should support it because it is historically a Friends position.

On "primitive Christianity" I have always had a difficult time quite wrapping my head around it. The practices of early Friends clearly differed in some respects, including on communion with physical elements, from any known prior practice among Christians. The idea that early Friends were practicing "primitive Christianity" implies, in my mind, that they were going back to some earlier way of Christianity. But I've never seen any convincing evidence that any earlier group of Christians practiced the faith like early Quakers did. The Biblical record seems clear that the apostolic church did not.

I am aware that Penn wrote "Primitive Christianity Revived." However, I'm not clear that the primitive Christianity references were widespread among early Friends. Some of Fox's early writings imply that he was given a fresh revelation, something new for his age. The early Friends could be viewed as innovators, and that more convincingly than as imitators of some early stage of Christianity.

Comment by Bruce R. Arnold on 2nd mo. 20, 2012 at 1:28pm

Years ago at ESR I led a communion service at one of the morning worships. The scripture was read from the Cotton Patch Gospels, Clarence Jordan's version. Instead of wine and bread, there was apple cider and cornbread -- because these are commonly found locally, and wine and bread were just what Jesus had -- nothing special about that particular food and beverage. It was remarkable for this: the people who took part felt the presence of God moving powerfully between us. I never felt the need to do so again. It felt like a leading at the time, and that leading has not occurred again. 

What I learned from it was this: As Quakers have always known, if the Spirit is moving, there is no need for outward observances. Outward observances are dead if the Spirit is not in them. But the Spirit can move in outward observances also if it "wants" to. 

I'm glad to have had this experience. I don't feel like I need to chase after it again. I can imagine that there could be a time when a leading to observe outward communion would once again be just as clear and insistent. If it happens, I hope I will be faithful to it. If others find that same leading in their hearts, okay then. I would hope that our historic Quaker witness and ways of doing things would not be given short shrift, however. We have a testimony on the true meaning of communion that remains as valuable now as ever.

Comment by Bill Samuel on 2nd mo. 20, 2012 at 1:38pm

We once did it with V-8 juice and Wasa bread to meet the dietary needs of participants.

My church once did it at a family service with cookies and milk. I think there were some negative reactions, however.

Comment by Jim Wilson on 2nd mo. 20, 2012 at 2:17pm

I've enjoyed reading Friends' posts. Here are a few responses:

 

Elin, I'm sympathetic to your situation.  I have an Episcopelian friend who is very attracted to Quakers (and is weary of the internal strife in that community), but the lack of communion always leads her to stay where she is.  She is strongly drawn to the silent worship and the simplicity of Quaker settings, and enjoys visiting, but the absence of that one element is a barrier.

 

I have to admit that I am skeptical of the idea that people can dwell in the light under any circumstances.  No doubt there are a few (like 5 or 6 per generation) who can do so.  I am not one of those.  I'm a plodder and I need a lot of reminders of where I want to be heading.  Without those reminders I tend to take dead-end sideroads in an unthinking way.

 

Part of my skepticism has to do with my work as a Chaplain at a Prison for the Criminally Insane.  The inmates were not dwelling in the light.  The light of God was in them, His grace was available.  But the idea that they could just open themselves up to this eternal presence was something no one at the prison would take seriously; not the Chaplains, not the Guards, and not the inmates themselves.  I have come to think that the ideal of dwelling in the presence in every situation, just doing it, on one's own, is a teaching for a very tiny minority of people.  While most of us are not so severly afflicted as the people I worked with, nevertheless most of us have serious tendencies towards self-delusion, self-centeredness, in a w0rd, towards sin.  And most of us, I have observed, can make progress with these afflictions, but it is a step by step process.  For us plodders assistance in many forms keeps on the path.

 

James: Those are good observations and suggestions.  I suspect you are right that there is more to come from this leading.

 

Bruce and Bill: The scriptures don't actually say 'wine', they say that Jesus passed 'the cup'.  Now it is likely that it was wine, though probably lighter in alcohol content than today's wine.  It was common at the time to water down wine as well.  In any case, the passages say 'cup' and because they are non-specific as to the contents of the cup it leaves some nice wiggle room as to what to serve.

 

Thy Friend Jim

 

Comment by Roger Dreisbach-Williams on 2nd mo. 20, 2012 at 8:07pm

With my father spinning in his grave, I have found the Bible an essential tool - along with several spiritual disciplines - to dwelling in the Light.  And I found this after discovering that everyone I met who, to my observation, dwelt in the Light, took the Bible very seriously and used it on at least a daily basis.  None of us, left to our own leadings, will avoid serious trouble.  We need the Bible (that's what it's there for) and a community of saints to test our leadings and ask vital questions.  But I could be wrong and what you have learned in you ministry is important to understanding faith.

Comment by Rodney Guy Pharris on 2nd mo. 21, 2012 at 9:49pm

For me, if I am going to consider tradition when deciding my conviction about the outward ceremony of the Lord's Supper, I feel as though I am "barking up an unhelpful tree."  First of all, there is the Quaker fork, which traditionally does not use the outward elements.  But then if I consider the other Christian, non-Quaker forks, I find many subtle and some not-so-subtle variations within the elemental observation of the ordinance.  Tradition, for the most part, informs me what the two sides of Christian do and don't do; tradition doesn't really tell me why, which is important to me.

Scriptures are, however, a helpful "tree" to explore.  When I comes to the Scriptures, Quakers are definitely not modernists.  They are experientialists, finding truths in the bible which match up and confirm their own encounters with God.

How this applies to an Quaker, such as George Fox, is readily apparent with the subject of the Lord's Supper.  Fox will quote 2 Cor. 11:26, which states that "whoever partakes of the bread and the cup proclaims His death until He comes."  Fox sees a definite "time limit" for observing an eating/drinking ordinance, and that time limit is reached when the believer senses the Presence of the Risen Christ.  Fox will then immediately jump to I John 5:20, as a biblical confirmation of his (and other early Quakers):  "And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, to know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ.  This is the true God and eternal life."  For Fox, the limit Paul describes in 2 Corinthians is fulfilled; Christ is present.  Why proclaim Christ's death when He is alive and present.  When the Bridegroom is present, it is a time of celebration, not mourning.

Comment by Bruce R. Arnold on 2nd mo. 21, 2012 at 10:26pm

 

@ Rodney Pharris Very nice explication, thank you.

Comment by Jim Wilson on 2nd mo. 22, 2012 at 2:11pm

Roger:  I see it the same way.  Part of my leading to practice communion was biblically based; it appears in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul's 1 Corinthians.  The leading feels to me to be strongly biblically based.

 

Rodney: Fox's interpretation is a legitimate one, I think, but it is not the only one.  My view of the Bible is that it is not a work of systematic theology.  It contains a multitude of meanings. 

 

I've said before on this thread, but I think it is worth repeating, that communion has been buried by centuries of interpretation and rancor over various dogmatic issues.  I think that is unfortunate.  But it does help to explain why Quakers would elegantly sidestep the whole arena of contetion, just as they did with baptism.  It makes sense to me because I find these kinds of disputes almost physically repulsive.

 

The biblical passages used to support communion are very simple and amoun to 'do this in remembrance of me'.  Anything else is an add-on. 

 

I think the question is how can communion be done 'in the manner of Friends'?, or can it be done in this manner?  First, I think a Quaker communion would be one that does use a specialized priesthood.  Like a clerk of a meeting, the leader of a Quaker communion should be a post that rotates among those interested.  Second, the communion should be simple and accessible, easily understandandable.  Those are two good starting points.  I also think a period of silent reflection would be useful to incorporate into a Quaker communion.

 

In closing this post I want to comment about the risen Christ being present.  I don't think it follows that the presence of Christ in the world today negates the efficacy of communion.  Jesus was/is both fully human and fully divine.  Communion acknowledges the fully human Jesus; the Jesus who suffered and died.  The fully divine Jesus is celebrated by dwelling in his presence in the present.  But one does not negate the other; they are both equally true.  That's the great mystery.

 

Thanks,

 

Jim

Comment by James C Schultz on 2nd mo. 26, 2012 at 8:28pm

I think you have to be very careful when you start thinking of the physical body of Jesus being present in Communion.  Raised as a Catholic that was the teaching I was brought up on though I understand that they have changed it to Jesus being present in a "special" way.  The bible is pretty specific that Jesus is sitting at the right hand of the Father,although I don't doubt that he gets up once in a while and goes for strolls or plays a round of golf once in a while, maybe even goes fishing with Peter and John.  However it lessens the reality of "Christ in us, the hope of glory".  Like the Borg the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit (who I like to remember as the Holy Ghost) are God in a way we don't understand but they are one(Check out John 17).   Furthermore it subconsciously minimizes the full meaning of the Holy Spirit dwelling within us in a special way all the time, 24/7.  In a moment of personal communion with God/ the Holy Spirit, I sensed being told that I was going to go through a period of not sensing His presence as strongly as I had but that He wanted me to know that He would be with me at those times when I wouldn't sense him just as much as at the times I was overwhelmed with His presence and He has been there for me 24/7 ever since.  Reliance upon mystical experiences is not the way to build a relationship with God.  Mystical experiences come and go and to the extent that they can be controlled by a person or group(to the extent you are told when you can partake if at all) they are to be avoided at all costs.  Remember what Noah, or was it Bill Cosby, said to God when it started to rain: "you and me God!

Comment by Tom Smith on 2nd mo. 26, 2012 at 10:51pm

And  remember what God had said just before that: "How long can you tread water?"

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page