The Consecration of the Sacraments

In continuation of our previous discussion: this is the difficulty I see in the practice of a layperson bringing communion elements to an elder and having the elder "bless" them and then the layperson taking them off to administer them to others. Or, for that matter, the elder blessing the elements over the phone or by e-mail:

It strongly implies that the elder has the mystical ability to make bread and grape juice into the body and blood of Christ. The principle actor in the sacrament thus ceases to be God, and instead becomes the elder.

And that's bad sacramental theology.

Another problem is this: if the blessing of the elements makes it an effective sacrament, could not elders "bless" water and then send that water off with a layperson for the layperson to administer the sacrament of baptism? There is an inconsistency in United Methodist practice that we consider one sacrament to be effective in the activity and one to be effective in the elements.

At any rate, one of the principle duties of an elder is to ensure that the sacraments are "duly administered", and I would think that this would be difficult if s/he isn't, you know, administering them.

As I've said, the Discipline says something, I say "Yessir" and I do it. But I think that we need to clarify exactly what we think "consecration" means in the United Methodist understanding of Eucharist.

Baptists and the Eucharist

Jeff the Baptist on the frequency (or lack thereof) of communion:

This whole thing got start because at many times in church history, there haven't been enough ministers to go around. The colonial period. The westward expansion. Even now some denominations like the Methodists are having trouble meeting their staffing needs. Many denominations solved this by having ministers "ride the circuit" to several churches. You had communion when you had a minister in town, otherwise not. Depending on the size of the circuit this meant you probably wouldn't have communion more than once a month and sometimes it was a lot longer than that depending on staffing and geography. Even though a lot of churches now have their own pastors, they rarely have communion more than once a month. Why? Well because once a month was good enough back in grandpa's day... etc. The exception became common and then became the new norm.

In short, our communion schedule is more about liturgical tradition than any theological reasoning.

That's certainly true in American Methodist history, and sacramental issues were among the primary reasons why an independent Methodist denomination formed in the US apart from Anglicanism.

When I was a Southern Baptist, I never experienced a Eucharist, but as I recall, it was held twice a year on Sunday evenings, and was served to members only.