Padre Complex

Rev. Greg Neal, a United Methodist Clergy person in southeast Dallas, like many clergy, provides copies of sermons, Bible studies and even podcasts of the services at his church. But one thing caught my attention about Neal’s site - a link entitled “Holy Communion on the Web.”

Now - you need to know that I have regularly taken pot shots from the pulpit of my United Methodist Church about the very strange, foreign, and non-community oriented ways that the Eucharist is celebrated in mainline protestant churches. Many church supply houses will sell you individually, hermetically sealed cups of grape juice with a small (cardboard) wafer sealed in a compartment joined to the cup. In seminary we unaffectionately referred to them as ‘rip and sips.’ We also imagined that the only thing more foreign to the life of a community meal would be the addition of a small handiwipe folded into the bottom of the cup so that you could wash off the cooties, er I mean germs that might have been passed to you through the administration of the sacrament (or is that the administration of the communion ‘meal deal’).

Recently, my denomination completed a study of communion practices within the context of the Bible, our Wesleyan heritage, and cultural context. The document entitled This Holy Mystery is available on the internet.

In the document under the section entitled, The Gathered Community: The Community Extends Itself the following principle is advanced…

The Communion elements are consecrated and consumed in the context of the gathered congregation. 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 (Book of Discipline, ¶¶ 331.1.b and 1115.9). An elder or deacon should offer appropriate training, preparation, and supervision for this important task (¶ 331.1.b).

Later in the document it is explicitly noted that,

Both “self-service” Communion, where people help themselves, and “drop-in” Communion, where the elements are available over a period of time, are contrary to the communal nature of the sacrament, which is the celebration of the gathered community of faith.

Clearly, Rev. Neal is choosing to be a pioneer in terms of extending the table. He tells the story of his own illness and hospitalization. He narrates how he was starved for the sacrament and eventually found it in the ministry of a man who advocated for communion over the internet. In his F.A.Q. About Holy Communion on the Web he initially describes a very ‘Methodist’ understanding of communion. He articulates stances against a closed table, the perception of Eucharist as a memorial meal, the common oversight regarding the ‘communion of the saints,’ and transubstantiation. He even provides instructions for gathering the elements and consecrating the meal.

His argument for internet based communion revolves on the acceptance of extending the table to the sick, and the presence of the ‘great cloud of witnesses.’ Rev. Neal writes:

While it is always appropriate to celebrate the Eucharist in the company of other Christians, the doctrine of the “Communion of the Saints” tells us that we are always surrounded by a great cloud of glorified witnesses: believers who have already gone on to be with Jesus. This is no where more true that at the Table of the Lord. In a metaphorical sense, the Eucharistic Altar extends beyond every Church and every denomination and every moment in time and space to every other moment. When you receive Holy Communion, wherever and whenever you may be, you are receiving it with Billions of other Christians — past, present, and future. And, by the wonderful tools of the internet and computer technology, you will be receiving the Sacrament along with myself, my Associate Pastor Jim, my Administrative Assistant Peggy, and my Church’s Sexton Tim — all of whom were present, and communed, when the audio-video recordings were made.

I am all for a healthy understanding of the Communion of Saints and the ‘Great Cloud of Witnesses’ but isn’t there something lacking in the total absence of a community? Rev. Neal is avoiding the prohibition against “self-service” communion. Rev. Neal appears to have a very individualistic approach to sacraments and worship. Their is something crucial to the experience of communion in a community. To eat with others is to require a set of relationships that an individual does not have to consider. As an individual I can sit in front of the TV and watch The Simpsons while eating dinner. But if my family is home it is better for us to sit at the table so that we can learn of each other’s day, share in the hopes and dreams of life together. Communion is just not an individualistic experience. Even Jesus encourage community - two or more.

In the past there has been a lot of discussion about the denomination’s stance on having an ‘Open Table.’ ‘The document This Holy Mystery states:

The United Methodist Book of Worship says, “All who intend to lead a Christian life, together with their children, are invited to receive the bread and cup. We have no tradition of refusing any who present themselves desiring to receive” (page 29). This statement means that in practice there are few, if any, circumstances in which a United Methodist pastor would refuse to serve the elements of Holy Communion to a person who comes forward to receive.

Rev. Neal has latched on to the ‘We have no tradition of refusing any who present themselves desiring to receive’ but how does one know who is desiring to receive? With no communal dynamic to see the evidence of repentance and as Wesley might say ‘the desire to flee the wrath to come’ how would a pastor know who is desiring to receive.

Robert Webber’s work continues to highlight the march of our Western culture towards a impersonal yet private faith. We find ourselves in a lonely place standing in the middle of a mega-church crowd. Our life with each other and with God has become one that avoids making claims on our lives, our wallets, our bedrooms, and now even our pursuit of forgiveness. Rev. Neal admits that as a minister he could have invited others and performed the sacrament for himself, or one of his colleagues could have brought the sacrament to him. But both of those options would have required a community to be present — people would have had claims placed on their time and imposed upon their lives.

Jesus said we should care for the least of these, because in doing so we would be caring for him. He also encouraged an ethic of going out two-by-two in ministry. Paul addresses the needs of early church goers to share a meal with those who are richer, or poorer than they are. And he addresses the need to practice hospitality for the stranger. All of these have an impact on the need for our faith to be, as Jim Wallis puts it, “Both personal - but never private.”

As a student in a pastoral counseling degree program, I recognize that the internet poses significant challenges to pastoral care and counseling. Many professional bodies are still trying to untangle how to proceed with appropriate, ethical, and authentic services over the web.

The APA has this statement from their Ethics committee that dates back to the late 1990s and has not been updated as of yet.

Delivery of services by such media as telephone, teleconferencing and internet is a rapidly evolving area. This will be the subject of APA task forces and will be considered in future revision of the Ethics Code. Until such time as a more definitive judgment is available, the Ethics Committee recommends that psychologists follow Standard 1.04c, Boundaries of Competence, which indicates that “In those emerging areas in which generally recognized standards for pre- paratory training do not yet exist, psychologists nevertheless take reasonable steps to ensure the competence of their work and to protect patients, clients, students, research participants, and others from harm.”

If psychologists can admit that a different dynamic happens in the therapeutic relationship when the two individuals are not physically present — why is it so hard for us to consider as pastors that even with the powerful connection of the communion of the saints, and the power of God’s grace, there still might be circumstances where we as pastors should take “… reasonable steps to ensure the competence of their work and to protect patients (parishoners) …” How will confession and forgiveness continue to be an element of the eucharistic meal if it is done alone in front of a computer monitor?

So… what is the next step in the discussion? What reasonable steps should be taken? What sources should be used for discussion? Is Rev. Neal on the leading edge of ministry or the bleeding edge of heresey? Is this the next wave of church ministry or just the next punch line on Jay Leno’s Tonight Show?