Chaplain's Corner

A few months ago I was seeing a woman on our Hospital’s Medical unit and an interesting question arose. She asked me, “Is it OK to take communion if you can no longer get out to church.” The lady had been a missionary in Mexico for a few years and had been a committed Christian for many, many years. After becoming shut-in (no longer able to make it out to church) she missed participating in communion so much that she began self-administering the ordinance/sacrament. I suppose my position as a spiritual care giver that is not attached to a church but to the hospital made me the logical fellow to receive the question. She has since passed away but her question continues to roll about in my mind. It seems now is as good a time as any to address this question for no doubt there are others who have had the same question..

In all honesty, this question would be approached differently depending on which Christian tradition one embraces. Just a little bit of research demonstrated that both Catholic and Protestant traditions would answer this question in the same emphatic way, “NO”. Here are representatives from both traditions:  Bruce Bickel and Stan Jantz in their book Bible Answers 101 write on page 177, “The tradition of the Scriptures and of the church is that communion…is administered by a responsible leader in the church…There is no precedent for the self-administration of communion.” Christine McCarthy, a Roman Catholic, founded the Society for Eucharistic Adoration. She asserts that it is even wrong for the faithful to self-administer communion in the sanctuary before the priest, let alone privately in their own homes. This practice which she says is becoming more popular in many parishes, hospitals and convent chapels “is in outright defiance of the Church’s tradition and laws. There is no authority nor historical precedent for this.”

Yet, how do those who are no longer able to attend church services regularly participate in this rite that is so central to the Christian faith?   Well, when things work as they should, members of the person’s congregation who are authorized go to the person, wherever they might be: at home, in the hospital, or in a personal care home and provide the opportunity to participate in this rite. But we all know that things do not always work they way they should. Shut-ins, those hospitalized for long periods of time and people in personal care homes often “fall off the radar” of their local congregation and not only are they not provided with opportunities to participate in communion on a regular basis, they are also often neglected by those in the congregation who are responsible for pastoral care.

From my perspective this is the larger question. How do we nourish the spiritual lives of those who are no longer able to make it out to church services?  This CAN BE A CONSIDERABLE CHALLENGE! Yet, if we are to fulfill our mandate as local manifestations of the Body of Christ, then this can not be a matter that we neglect. I am reminded of the numerous times throughout the Scriptures where God expresses clearly that he has a special commitment to the widows and orphans (the isolated and disenfranchised people in a society).

Theologically, although I understood this dear woman’s desire to participate in the rite that commemorates the Lord’s death for our sins, I must agree with the catholic and protestant and free church position that the self-administration of the sacrament /ordinance of Communion is not either scriptural or allowed in any Christian tradition. As well, the self-administration of communion has not be the first, not will it be the last aberration of scriptural teaching that develops out a desperation connected to the failure of local congregations to be to their members what churches ought to be.

This being said, moving beyond the Scriptures doctrinally (orthodoxy) or in practice (orthopraxy) is always a dangerous thing that ultimately leads to confusing at best or misleading at worst the people of God that depend on the church for guidance. This is true from the most sophisticated and ordered churches like the Catholic Church to the most organic manifestations like the present day “house church” movement.

God intended the church, the gathered people of God who: worship together, learn together, care for each other, keep central the gospel and extend the offer of the gospel to all who live outside the church; that they be faithful and not neglect one another. Organizational agendas, programs, buildings and the comfort of a tight group of “insiders” can often cause a congregation and it’s leaders to lose sight of those children of God who are, by no fault of their own, not able to participate actively by coming out to the gatherings of the congregation.

I’m not sure there is one list of things a church can do to care for those who embrace Christ and his saving graces who are unable to attend church gatherings. Rather I believe God has left that open to the creative gifts he has given to us to find ways that are culturally relevant and practically achievable to insure that its shut-in members are able to be worship, encourage in the Faith, supported in their struggles, taught the truths of God’s word, have opportunity to serve others and can participate in the Gospel ordinances or sacraments of the church.

It is a shame on the local congregation, when its shut-in members resort to unbiblical acts such as the self-administration of the Lord’s Supper out of desperation and because of the neglect of the congregation that they long participated fully in. No, shut-ins do not “contribute” much by way of offerings or volunteer service. No, their presence does not swell the attendance count on a Sunday morning. Yes, their needs often far outweigh their ability to contribute to the life of the church. But, do we really want to say by our neglect that these people are of little or no importance to us?  Do we really want to echo the devaluation of these folks that they feel everyday from a society that only values the young, the healthy, the self-sufficient and the productive?  Do we really want to behave no differently than the members of the local curling club or the members of other groups in society that have no sense of obligation to former members who are no longer able to participate?  I hope not.