Thankfully,we have an associate pastor so we do not run into the issue of what to do about the Eucharist when the pastor travels on a Lord’s Day. But before we had a larger pastoral staff, it was a dilemma for us. After going several years and struggling to find a pastor who could fill-in, we finally adopted the paper below and incorporated it into our constitution in March, 2012. Because it contains a good bit of theology of pastoral office and the sacraments, I am posting it here.
APPENDIX #3: Who May Celebrate the Eucharist at TPC?
When we at TPC adopted our new church constitution in October, 2006, that constitution included provision for other church officers (ruling elders and deacons) to administer the Lord’s Supper in the absence of the pastor. Our elders wanted to be sensitive to the fact that this would represent a change for many in our church body and did not want to rush to implement this constitutional provision. Thus, up until this point, we have not invoked this feature of the constitution because we have not felt comfortable doing so apart from further discussion amongst the officers and further instruction to the congregation.
Well, the time has now come. With the permission of the elders, the pastor will appoint one of our deacons to be the celebrant at the Lord’s Supper when he is absent from Lord’s Day worship. This practice is not without biblical warrant or historic precedent in the ancient and Reformational eras of the church. But before turning to that data, let us first consider the relationship of pastors to the rest of the congregation.
Of Pastors and People
The church is a kingdom of priests (1 Pt. 2). Thus, the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, as aspects of that priestly ministry, belong to the body as a whole. Still, for a variety of reasons, including good order, symbolism, the integrity of the church, and the well-being of her members, it is normally best for the sacraments to be administered by a man who has been ordained and set apart for that task. This is the ordinary, usual pattern we should follow, as laid down in Scripture and reflected in church history. In the Old Covenant, Israel was a nation of priests, but still had a special priesthood set apart within the nation to teach the people and lead their sacrificial/sacramental worship (cf. Ex. 19:6; Ex. 29).
The same order holds true in the new covenant. According to Paul there is pastoral office in the new covenant, analogous to the old covenant Levitical priestly office, with special qualifications (1 Tim. 3; Titus 1) and responsibilities (Eph. 4:11ff). The priestly line is no longer genealogical in a biological sense, but there is a kind of “pastoral succession” as one generation of faithful men entrusts the next generation with the task of the ministry, through the laying on of hands (2 Tim. 2:2). In the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 3, some are used by God to plant/water/build, while others are God’s field and building. These metaphors describe the relationship of pastors to the people they serve. In 1 Corinthians 9, Paul draws an analogy between old covenant priests and new covenant pastors, showing that while all Christians are part of the royal priesthood, there is still a special servant priesthood within the body, called and set aside to do special priestly and pastoral tasks on behalf of the whole. Liturgical leadership is one aspect of this pastoral priesthood. While we are all priests in Christ, with the same holy status and access to God’s presence, there is a clear division of labor within the church’s priesthood. We are one body, with many essential but diverse members. Paul’s pastoral epistles of 1-2 Timothy and Titus, along with the book of Acts, also prove the apostolic church continued to have a special pastoral/priestly office; the early Christians saw themselves as heirs of the polity of the Jewish church, albeit transformed, fulfilled, and renewed in Christ.
The calling of this pastoral priesthood is “from below,” as a pastor must be elected and called by a congregation, but also “from above,” as he must be gifted and appointed to the office by God himself. There is both an outward, corporate call, and an inward, personal call to the specialized ministry. Thus, ordination is both an act of the whole congregation and an act of God, and the ordained man acts as a representative of the church as well of God. Pastors are both part of the church as well as Christ’s gifts to he church (Eph. 4:11ff). When a man is ordained to the pastorate, the royal priesthood entrusts certain of its privileges and responsibilities to this man who will act among and on behalf of the congregation as a recognized representative of the same Christ who indwells all and who fills all with his presence. The whole body, as the body of Christ, possesses the keys of the kingdom, but they are exercised by chosen men on behalf of Christ (in a ministerial way) and the congregation (in a representative way) for the sake of good order, allowing each indispensible member of the body to play its role.
The congregation does not approach God through their ordained minister; rather, we all (pastor included) approach God through Jesus, our sole High Priest. The pastor is not any closer to Jesus than any other Christian. But the pastor is ordained to represent Jesus to the community and the community to Jesus in a unique way. Thus, his voice and hands act as the hands and voice of Christ, as he preaches, absolves, baptizes, distributes, and blesses. What he does, he does for the community, even as the community, as a whole, so that the whole church is acting in and through him when he acts in these ways. This is the system Jesus set up, when he commissioned the apostles and gave the church preachers and teachers (Eph. 4:11-12). Having ordained men lead in this way may not be necessary to the being of the church (though that is debatable), but it is certainly necessary to the well-being of the church, as ecclesiastical history bears out again and again. We’re all gifted in different ways, but not everyone is gifted in a way that suits public leadership of the church (1 Cor. 12). Modern Americans might not like it, but the church is not an egalitarian institution. God has established a pattern of government and authority for his people.
Augustine captured the relationship of pastor to the people best when he spoke about his own work as a bishop this way: “What I am for you terrifies me, what I am with you consoles me. For you I am a bishop; but with you I am a Christian. The former is title of duty; the latter, one of grace. The former is a danger; the latter salvation.” Augustine knew he had been set apart not from the covenant community, but within the covenant community, and for the sake of the covenant community, that he might lead them by serving them.
In our contemporary context, N. T. Wright has also captured the essence and spirit of pastoral ministry within the life of the local church:
“If a Christian is one who is from God in Christ, and if an ordained Christian is one who brings that to clear and focused expression to enable the rest of the church to be the church, our calling is always for the sake of mission, the mission of the church to speak God’s wise foolishness, to act in God’s weak strength, to live out God’s noble humility.”
In other words, pastors are called to embody the worship and mission of the church in a unique way, equipping the rest of the body for ministry through their teaching, liturgical leadership, and exemplary lifestyle. The pastor brings the calling of the body as a whole to focused expression in his ministry. The pastor’s calling is to help the church be the church. Lesslie Newbigin says the same, focusing on the pastor’s equipping role:
“The task of ministry is to lead the congregation as a whole in a mission to the community as a whole, to claim its whole public life, as well as the personal lives of all its people, for God’s rule. It means equipping all the members of the congregation to understand and fulfill their several roles in this mission through their faithfulness in their daily work. It means training and equipping them to be active followers of Jesus in his assault on the principalities and powers which he disarmed on the cross. And it means sustaining them in bearing the cost of that warfare… [The minister] is not like a general who sits at headquarters and sends his troops into battle. He goes at their head and takes the brunt of the enemy attack. He enables and encourages them by leading them, not just by telling them. In this picture, the words of Jesus have quite a different force. They all find their meaning in the central keyword, ‘follow me’.”
Liturgical Fixtures and Flexbility
Reflecting this pattern of pastors and people, which is seen both in Scripture and in the Christian tradition, it makes sense to prefer an ordained man to preach and administer the sacraments, since such a man has been publicly recognized and set apart as a leader in the church specifically for these tasks. If not for this reason, why have ordination and office at all? And yet virtually the whole church has agreed that there must be a specialized ministry, even if Christians have not always agreed on the particulars of polity. Just as the Levites were the pastors of ancient Israel, in charge of teaching the Word and conducting the sacramental meals at the tabernacle/temple, so pastors are called to exercise a similar form of leadership in the new covenant church.
But there also has to be some prudential flexibility, to cope with the messiness of life. Thus, following the tradition of our fathers in the faith (including the best early Christian teachers and the Reformers), we allow men who have not been ordained to the office of pastor to preach and administer the sacraments when it is deemed absolutely necessary. In the absence of a pastor, another man (preferably one who holds another office, such a ruling elder or deacon) can take charge and lead, under the oversight and authorization of the pastor (or the presbytery, or the moderator of presbytery, if the congregation does not have a pastor). In the case of baptism, Martin Luther wisely argued that even Christian mid-wives or nurses can baptize babies whose lives are in danger, since the need for baptism trumps the need for good order. It’s more important to baptize than to have baptism performed in a technically correct way; thus, “emergency baptisms” should be considered lawful and valid, even if irregular. By analogy, just as we allow non-pastors to preach on occasion, we are saying that “emergency Eucharists” can be presided over by non-ordained men, provided they have been entrusted with the task on a limited basis by a pastor.
Note that if preaching and administering the Supper belong to all Christians, without distinction and without qualification, there is no objection to women pastors. And yet Paul forbids women to serve as pastors (1 Tim. 2), so we know that can’t be right. Hopefully, having a man ordained to the pastorate provides an added measure of comfort and assurance when we hear the Word preached and receive the sacrament. With an ordained man leading us, we can know that when forgiveness is declared, God himself has authorized this man to speak that promise and stands behind it, so much so, it is as if God himself spoke from heaven. (This is what the ministry of the keys is about in Matthew 16; see also John 20:19-23.) That’s not to say pastoral authority can be identified with divine authority — pastors are sinful, limited, and fallible like every other Christian, even though the pastoral call has certain moral and doctrinal qualifications and conditions attached. But ordination (like vestments, to a lesser degree) reminds people, this is not just Rich Lusk, a private individual speaking to us; rather, this is an ambassador of Jesus Christ, deputized to act as his representative on earth. The pastor is not just another Christian any more than an ambassador to a foreign embassy is just another citizen. This doesn’t make the pastor better or holier, but it does mean he has a special role to play in the midst of the community, and that role is for the good of all.
Thomas Oden’s book Corrective Love paraphrases Luther’s view this way:
“The laity have all the same range of saving graces pertaining to salvation that the clergy have. The benefits of repentance, faith, and baptism are equally shared by all. The laity/clergy distinction is not a spiritual or religious difference, but a functional differentiation of order, wherein some, being allotted a particular duty and guardianship, are by due process set aside and called for representative ministries on behalf of the whole people…If some are made teachers and shepherds on behalf of the welfare of others, the purpose is that all may share more effectively in the common body of the faithful and become more completely the temple of the Spirit….Christ chose the twelve from among the disciples, and they in turn appointed and ordained elders, overseers, and deacons to enable and actualize the mission of the church. These he instructed and empowered by the Holy Spirit to proclaim, teach, intercede representatively, and to guide. The recipients of the tradition communicated this mission to later generations of leaders who were similarly authorized to proclaim, intercede, and guide the church.”
Oden continues, further explaining and grounding the representative nature of pastoral ministry:
“The spiritual priesthood of all believers offers eucharistic sacrifice of prayer, praise, thanksgiving, and oblation to the service of God. Only Jesus Christ is sacrificing priest, being both priest and sacrifice. The Christian minister is a priest in the same sense that all believers are priests, yet he acts representatively for all believers. This ministry is representative of all the members of the church who constitute a holy priesthood…The minister discharges a priestly office as the representative of his fellow-members of the universal priesthood…yet this authority to minister the Word and Sacraments is not derived from them, but from Him who called him to be an ambassador. In Luther’s view, the ministerial office rests upon the priesthood of all believers. To the whole church is given the office of the keys, of administering the Sacraments, and preaching and discipline. But not all can preach, and even if they could, there would be great confusion if all should simultaneously wish to exercise shepherding and teaching functions. Hence, ‘the individual members of the congregation agree to transfer their rights to one whom they call and who now acts in their place,’ hence ordination is viewed as ‘the confirmation of the act of transferring in an individual charge the office of the ministry by the many priests to the one.’”
In other words, the one servant priest is entrusted with tasks that belong to the many royal priests. The one acts on behalf of the many when he preaches, prays, baptizes, and celebrates the Eucharist. The pastor, in his official capacity, is a representative figure, a corporate person.
But then Oden goes on to deal with exceptional cases:
“In a locale where no effective ministry has yet been provided, where preaching and the Sacraments are lacking, under emergency conditions, according to Luther, lay persons may undertake actions ordinarily reserved for ordained ministers. ‘If a company of pious Christian laymen were captured and sent to a desert place and had not among them an ordained priest, and all were agreed in the matter, and elected one and told him to baptize, administer the Mass, absolve, and preach, such a one would be as true a priest as if all the bishops and people had ordained him.’ Melanchthon adds, ‘Where there is, therefore, a true Church, the right to elect and ordain ministers necessarily exists…Augustine narrates the story of two Christians in a ship, one of whom baptized the catechumen, who after baptism, in turn absolved the baptizer.”
Of course, Luther’s liturgical flexibility was rooted in the historic practice of the church. The Reformers were seeking to return to apostolic patterns of church life, especially as represented by the early post-apostolic church. The church father and martyr Ignatius wrote in his “Letter to the Church at Smyrna” (dated early 100s), “Let that Eucharist be considered valid which is under the bishop or him to whom he commits it.” Ignatius had as high a view of the office of bishop/pastor as anyone in the early church, but he apparently believed the bishop could designate someone else to celebrate the Eucharist in his absence. If the church was already making provisions for communion in the absence of bishop or pastor within a generation of the apostles, our practice (like Luther’s) can hardly be considered a novelty.
While many early Christian documents show us that bishops and pastors were the regular celebrants of the Eucharist, they also show a certain prudential flexibility, which allowed other men within the church to serve in cases of necessity, if no clergy were available. In Roger Beckwith’s Elders In Every City, he points out that men not ordained to the pastorate, “even other laymen,” are found “celebrating communion” in “exceptional circumstances” in the Didache, Hippolytus’ Apostolic Tradition, and Tertullian’s Exhortation to Chastity. Beckwith concludes,
“It has been a longstanding Christian practice, in emergency cases, for laymen to baptize, and though lay celebration of communion has not been nearly so common in Christian history, it does not appear that in the earliest period it was seen as in principle wrong, provided the layman in question had been invited to perform it by an apostle or presbyter-bishop. So the ordained ministry of apostles and presbyter-bishops was always involved in the administration of the sacraments but not necessarily in the direct way that we have been accustomed to think.”
Sacramental Presidency in Presbyterianism
Luther’s view that pastors should normally preside over the sacraments, but exceptions can be made, is rather mainstream among classical Protestants, though with some admitted inconsistencies. In traditional Presbyterianism, only pastors/teaching elders administer the sacraments and pronounce benediction; other men are allowed to preach on occasion even if they do not hold an office. Of course, most Presbyterians today do not take the Lord’s Supper very frequently, so there has not been much need to consider “emergency measures” for the administration of the Supper in the absence of an ordained pastor. Weekly communion presents a fresh set of challenges that many Presbyterians have not had to face since John Calvin failed to achieve the weekly celebration of the Eucharist he so strenuously desired. If the congregation rightly believes the Lord’s Supper should administered every Lord’s Day, and the congregation only has one ordained pastor, what is the community to do when that pastor is unavailable because of sickness or travel? The principles already suggested above show a faithful way forward that preserves ecclesial order and respect for the office of pastor while also not depriving the congregation of the body and blood of the Lord.
Lesslie Newbigin, whose roots were in Scottish Presbyterianism, admitted the need for non-ordained celebrants as a practical necessity in his essay “Lay Presidency at the Eucharist.” His ecumenical efforts to create a unified church in South India led to intense discussions among representatives of various Protestant traditions. While defending as a “rule of order” that “the person presiding at the Eucharist should be a person who has, by ordination, received authority thereto,” since good order is a necessary expression of love, Newbigin (and the Church of South India Basis of Union as a whole) went on to “allow exceptions in cases of clear pastoral necessity. In other words, if the choice was between no Eucharist at all, and a Eucharist presided over by a properly authorized layman, then the decision should be for the latter.” We agree with Newbigin on this point. Newbigin explained his view by examining the relationship of the two kinds of priesthood within the church:
“[T]he difference between the priesthood of the one who is authorized to preside at the Eucharist and the priesthood in which all share through their incorporation into the body of Christ is not an ontological one but a relational one, not the difference between two different kinds of priesthood, but a difference of role within the ordering of the body…As I understand it, the primary priesthood is that of Christ himself. Into this priesthood all the baptized are incorporated by their baptism and are called to exercise it in the power of the Holy Spirit. This priesthood is exercised by the baptized in the course of their daily life in the world. The one who is described as ‘a priest’ is part of this same priesthood and is called to a special responsibility to cherish, nourish and enable the priesthood of the whole body…One thing seems to me to be of decisive significance. In all eucharistic liturgies, as far as I know, the one who presides and speaks the words of the eucharistic prayers uses the first person plural, not the first person singular. Plainly the president speaks these words not as an individual priest, but in the name of the entire body of the baptized – not only of those who are present at this moment, but of the entire catholic Church. It is the whole body which remembers, gives thanks and prays for the consecrating action of the Holy Spirit. It is the whole body which is exercising its priestly function in and through the one who is called to lead…”
Unless ordination authorizes the one ordained to do what he would not otherwise be authorized to do, what is the purpose of ordination? Newbigin argues that ordination is relational, not ontological; that is to say, it does not confer a status or change the “being” of the one ordained, but it does put him in a unique position in relationship to the rest of the congregation, as a priest to the priestly people. Newbigin argues, further, that presbyterially ordained leadership is normatively important for the sake of catholicity. In regular circumstances, the congregation should receive the Eucharist from the hands of one who connects them with the broader church catholic:
“Why, then, is it important that the president should be ordained? Why is it not sufficient that he…be authorized by a local manifestation of the Church – a congregation or a synod – to preside? The answer lies in the nature of the Eucharist itself. If in the Eucharist we are partaking of the body and blood of Christ, then it is in the whole Christ that we are partakers. We are not an automomous body. We are not a ‘branch’ of an entity whose centre is elsewhere. It is the one holy catholic Church which is present in this local happening. Where Christ is, there is his Church. What we are doing is not an event in which we-the local congregation-alone are involved.
But this holy catholic Church is also a body of sinful human beings among whom love may fail, and faction, jealousy and schism take over. How, when we are considering the local gathering for the eucharistic celebration, do we distinguish between the local presence of the universal Church, and a faction? Paul faces this question in his dealings with the factious Corinthians. Paul does not raise the question of presidency in his words to the Corinthians, but it was by settling the question of presidency that the matter had to be dealt with. A ‘valid’ Eucharist, one which is truly the manifestation of the one universal Church and not a schismatic faction, will be a Eucharist presided over by the bishop or one appointed by him (Ignatius). And – another early and logically necessary development – the bishop will be one committed to his office not just by the local congregation but with the consent and participation of the bishops of at least three congregations. This is a matter of order, and order is love in regulative operation among people who know that they are sinners and liable to become victims of faction and jealousy.
Order is needed to protect a society which is called to live by the law of love but is always liable to fall into faction. It is a necessary safeguard for the Church, but not a limit on the grace of God. In all our ordinals the presiding minister uses the first person plural and the prayers addressed to God are in the name of the universal Church. None of us intends to ordain merely for one of the separated Christian communities. We claim to ordain to the ministry of the universal Church. If God were bound by our rules of order no Eucharist in the world would be ‘valid’ for all are presided over by persons whose ordination did not carry the assent of the universal Church. The Church exists by the grace of God to sinners who have constantly violated good order. The recognition of this is the key to any advance towards unity among Christians. God continually bestows his grace on bodies of Christians who – in one way or another – have violated good order. We should not draw the conclusion ‘Let us continue in sin that grace may abound’. We have every reason to seek and cherish good order, and therefore acknowledge the rule that the person presiding at the Eucharist should be one who has by ordination received authority thereto.”
Newbigin, showing his deeply formed Presbyterian convictions, makes the strongest possible case that the celebrant should normally be one who has been properly ordained by a presbytery (including representatives of multiple congregations, not merely a local body acting autonomously, so that his ordination will be linked to the church catholic) and that the one ordained is authorized to represent and act on behalf of the body as whole, including his offering of the Eucharistic prayers and elements. But Newbigin’s missionary experience also taught him that some degree of flexibility was necessary since ordained celebrants are not always available. Newbigin, following Irenaeus, allowed for exceptional circumstances in which an ordained celebrant could authorize a non-ordained person to administer a valid Eucharist. This is basically what we are looking to do at TPC: Within the context of a high ecclesiology, a high view of the pastoral office, and a high view of the Eucharist, we are recognizing the practical and prudential necessity of lay presidency under certain conditions and within certain tightly defined parameters.
Non-Pastoral Presidency in Other Traditions
In the Anglican/Episcopal tradition, there has been at least some degree flexibility in these matters. Priests are ordained to a sacramental office, but deacons sometimes have sacramental privileges too. They are typically not allowed to consecrate the elements, but they can lead the liturgy and distribute the elements to the congregation under the oversight of a priest or bishop (who may or may not be physically present in the service). Richard Hooker set a precedent since his view, according to Beckwith, is that
“no one may administer divine things without receiving authority from God to do so; but this does not mean that the authority may not be delegated, or that in case of necessity it may not even be dispensed with, for the real minister is God or Christ. Whoever the earthly minister of the sacraments may be, it can only be Christ himself who baptizes with the Spirit and who imparts his own body and blood. At the Lord’s table, the host is always the Lord, and the minister (whether apostle, presbyter-bishop or the delegate of either) is at most an assistant.”
Similarly, in the Methodist church, the sacraments are entrusted to the minister, but deacons are regarded as liturgical assistants to the minister and can perform the sacraments under his oversight. In most contemporary conservative Lutheran churches, pastors are the normal officiants of the sacraments, but deacons who are training for the ministry are allowed to preside at the Lord’s table if need arises. Following Luther, Lutherans maintain order and flexibility in their sacramental practices.
Our form of government at TPC is deeply rooted in the tradition of vintage Protestantism, which in turn can be traced back to the conciliar movement of the medieval period, and from there, all the way back to the early church and the apostles. Our constitution draws heavily from the form of government found in Book 4 of John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion and the “Form of Government” produced by the Westminster Assembly. To sum up the matter: In general, we are in full agreement with the traditional view of the pastoral office and the traditional practice of having only ordained pastors administer the Lord’s Supper. However, we also find precedent in church tradition for using other officers in special circumstances, when a pastor is not available. We intend to avail ourselves of this provision, in accord with the orderly principles of our Constitution, for the good of the congregation as a whole. We believe this practice conforms to the best of the Reformed catholic heritage we claim as our own.
Our Solution
Given the difficulty of finding ordained men to come to TPC on a Sunday morning to do the Lord’s Supper when the pastor is out of town, the TPC leadership was faced with a choice. Do we simply forgo communion on those weeks? Or do we suspend ordinary church policy in order to partake of the bread and wine even without the pastor present? In the end, we decided (again, with quite a bit of precedent in church history) that it is more important to have the sacrament than to maintain pristine church order. In other words, while both the means of grace and church polity are important, when it comes down to it, having communion is more important than maintaining the uniqueness of the pastoral office. We think this is what Jesus would have us do — he would rather eat and drink with us under the leadership of a non-pastor, than have us “fast” in worship in order to maintain “normal” church procedures. Good governmental order is crucial to the life of the church, but it is not an absolute, even for Presbyterians. To put it another way, the sacramental meal is more important than the officer who serves it.
Also, by using “one of our own” to do the Supper rather than bringing in an outside priest or pastor, we have a much better opportunity to maintain liturgical continuity and flow as well as pastoral familiarity. The face behind the table will be one that TPC members and regular attenders already recognize as a Spiritual leader in our body, rather than a stranger brought in from another congregation. He will also be someone who knows how our liturgy works on a weekly basis, and so he can execute it with minimum distraction for the congregation.
Please understand that using an elder or deacon as Eucharistic officiant in the pastor’s absence does not represent some “big change” in our view of church office or church government. Our constitution is quite clear on this matter. Whoever is entrusted to administer the Supper will be authorized by the pastor to do so, and thus will be acting under legitimate authority. The absence of a pastor is considered “extraordinary” and so special, emergency provisions kick into effect. In our constitution, the pastor’s job description includes “To administer the Sacraments publicly…as the priests under the Law administered the sacrifices.” This duty/privilege does not belong to any other office. The pastor is uniquely ordained as a Minister of Word and Sacrament. However, our constitution also states the pastor may, “authorize and deputize a ruling elder or deacon to administer the Lord’s Supper in his absence.” Our plan is to begin utilizing this provision.
TPC Pastor's Page 