A brief commentary on the regulations about elders leading communion.
The Session or Parish Council fixes the times of public worship, authorises and regulates the observance of the sacraments, and appoints special times for humiliation or thanksgiving or prayer.
Normally the sacraments shall be administered by an ordained minister of Word and Sacrament. The Session or Parish Council may nominate an elder or elders to administer the sacrament of Holy Communion. Elders so nominated shall be presented to the Presbytery for approval and training and following such training may be authorised by the Presbytery to administer the sacrament of Holy Communion. Elders so authorised may administer the sacrament of Holy Communion only with the authority of the Session or Parish Council and minister or interim moderator.
Here are the essential aspects of the Church's provision for administration of communion by elders: it remains the norm that the minister administers communion
[ The full Text of the Act of Modification is in Appendix B-4 of the Book of Order. Clauses 2-4 are included below.]
1. The Session or Parish Council fixes the times of public worship, authorises and regulates the observance of the sacraments and appoints special times for humiliation or thanksgiving or prayer.
The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is normally administered by ordained ministers except where, at the discretion of the Presbytery or Union District Council, certain elders may be authorised so to do but always under the authority of the minister or interim moderator and of Session or Parish Council...
Our church continues to believe that the appropriate persons to administer the sacrament of communion, in most circumstances, are those who-after theological training-have been set apart (ordained) by the whole church to the Ministry of Word and Sacrament and then called and inducted to pastoral leadership in a local setting. It is they who are responsible to the Presbytery for oversight of both the preaching of the Word and the conduct of the sacraments. As the recognised leaders of the worshipping community, it is natural that they should most often lead the celebration of the Lord's Supper.
Nevertheless, the church has agreed that such an understanding does not preclude elders from being authorised to administer communion, should that be either necessary or desirable...
A partial analogy to elder administration of communion is our church's long-established pattern of lay preaching. The preaching of the Word remains the responsibility of the ordained minister, who would normally do most of it. On occasion that function may be delegated to some suitably gifted lay person. In a similar way, the ordained minister who has the responsibility for the oversight of a parish (together with Session) must continue to oversee the provision of the Lord's Supper, and would normally be the one that administers it. On occasion that function may be delegated to a suitably gifted (and duly trained and authorised) elder.
Presbytery retains the authority to decide whether or not to permit elder administration of communion in a particular parish.
The minister of word and sacrament, together with the Session, is responsible to Presbytery for the administration of communion within the parish. When an authorised elder conducts communion, it is only at the invitation of the minister, and under the authority of both minister and Session.
The 1993 General Assembly adopted the following interpretative statement for inclusion in the Book of Order (1993, pp.149-150) 'as a guide to understanding the scope and intent of the Act of Modification, which remains the primary and definitive legislation':
The key words, in both the Act and the interpretative statement, are 'at the discretion of Presbytery'.
The statement is intended to preclude misunderstandings (in either direction) of the Act's scope and intent-to discourage both an unduly restrictive model and an unduly permissive model.
A parish must make a reasoned and responsible request. A Presbytery should take seriously the good judgement and local sensitivity of the Session, but in all cases retains full discretion.
Presbyteries need to be sure that nominated elders really do have the personal qualities and attitudes listed in 4(a)-(e) (Appendix E5 of the 1993 Book of Order, p.164), training and authorising such elders with care, and monitoring their service thereafter. Presbyteries must insist that the regulations (1-12) are followed, and must be prepared to respond to any abuses that might develop. For example, a Presbytery may withdraw authorisation from any elder who initiates communion services independently of either the minister or Session.
2. Assembly affirms the reformed understanding of the essential relationship between Word and Sacrament, and the need for Communion to be administered with understanding in the context of the preached Word.
The Lord's Supper is not a magical rite, with its own inherent power that makes it effective simply by being performed. The Lord's Supper may not be administered in isolation from the reading and preaching of the Word of God in the scriptures. It can only achieve its purpose of nurturing our faith in Christ when it is received in association with the proclamation of Christ. It is not essential, of course, that the same person both preaches the word and administers communion in any one communion service.
3. Assembly affirms the biblical principle of the Lord's Supper being administered decently and in order.
In 1 Corinthians 11:17-23, the apostle describes the disorder that had developed in the church at Corinth, then outlines a few essential principles (the phrase 'decently and in order' is borrowed from the last verse of chapter 14).
4. Assembly affirms that the true significance of the Lord's Supper depends upon the work of the Holy Spirit and the command and promise of Christ.
The basic point of this affirmation is that the effectiveness of a communion service is not dependent upon whoever it is that administers it. If there is to be spiritual benefit, then the work of the Spirit in giving us understanding and faith in Christ is essential.
That is, Celebrating Communion - reprinted and revised edition, 2001.
158: In every celebration of the Lord's Supper bread and wine shall be set apart, with the unfailing use of Christ's words and acts of institution with thanksgiving, and there shall be communion using both bread and wine by presbyter and people. Any consecrated bread and wine remaining after the Communion of the people shall be disposed of in a reverent manner.
159: The service of Holy Communion shall normally include:
This is a well established aspect of Presbyterian order (Reg 85).
Both sentences state in different words the same all-important rule. It is the minister, whether local parish minister or interim moderator, who on behalf of Presbytery and together with the Session oversees the sacraments in the parish.
Interim moderators in particular need to be sensitive to the attitude of a vacant parish to elder administration, and should check with the local Session. It remains helpful for the interim moderator to lead worship in the vacant parish at least on occasion, to strengthen links with that parish.
Elders leading communion outside their own parish should be the exception rather than the norm: one of the attractive features of elder administration is that the elder would normally have strong pastoral links with the local worshipping community.
The Presbytery should exercise its ongoing oversight essentially through the minister, whether local parish minister or interim moderator, and through the Session.
In cases where the Moderator is an elder, the Presbytery or higher court may, if it so desires, authorise such an elder to administer communion during the tenure of office, and shall ensure that such a moderator receives assistance and training as required.
(Note: The 1993 Assembly resolution also made provision for a 'higher court' to make the same authorisation.)
This regulation makes provision for authorisation of lay moderators to lead communion, but does not make it mandatory. The words 'may if it so desires' indicate that the discretionary power remains with the Presbytery or higher court.
Some lay moderators may prefer not to administer communion, and may wish to ask an ordained colleague to lead communion on their behalf. That remains their choice. In the same way, an ordained moderator has always been free to ask another minister to preach the Word or to lead communion.
The narrow context provided for in this regulation is only that of the worship life of a Presbytery, Synod, or Assembly, or-conceivably-a formal moderatorial service in some parish setting. It is not authorisation generally, but only in the context of moderatorial duties. It is authorisation only for 'during the tenure of office'. If such a lay moderator is later to lead communion in the normal context of a parish, all the due processes of nomination, training, and authorisation must be observed, as with any other authorised elder.
The provision for lay moderators to lead Presbytery or Assembly communion services has nothing to do with necessity. It is rather a different application of the basic principle, affirmed by successive Assemblies, that there is no valid theological or biblical basis for prohibiting lay administration of communion. In 1988, it was reported to Assembly that the basic biblical pattern of celebrating communion was that the natural leader of the community or gathering would normally preside. In a Presbytery or Assembly the natural leader of the community is the moderator.
The Act of Modification states that the essential Reformed principles are that communion should always be celebrated in the context of the preached Word, and with all due reverence and order. Neither of these Reformed principles are compromised by a lay moderator leading communion. The Word would always be preached, and there would always be due reverence.
It must be emphasised that in no case should the leadership of communion ever be seen as a mark of special status or privilege. It is, to quote another section of the regulations (E4(d), above), always but a 'servant role', to be exercised 'in humility'. In giving permission for a lay moderator to administer communion, a higher court is not conferring an honour, but rather expressing trust, and freeing their chosen leader to make a contribution in all aspects of their corporate life of worship, fellowship, and business.