An Active Eucharist

As a liturgical theologian and an Episcopalian, I typically prefer communion prayers that are rooted in the ancient Eucharistic tradition and are led by ordained clergy. Despite my personal preference, I have come to believe that the lay-led communion service, as is typical in the Church of Christ, provides a unique integration into the very heart of Christian worship what the Roman Catholic Church has described as "active participation" of the laity based on an understanding of the priesthood of all believers. The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy emphasizes how central lay participation is: "The Church earnestly desires that all the faithful be led to that full, conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations called for by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as 'a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people' is their right and duty by reason of their baptism" (14).

While neither the Roman Catholic Church, the Episcopal Church, nor most other Christian denominations would authorize lay people to preside over the Eucharist by leading the Eucharistic prayers, many attempt to integrate lay participation into the Eucharist by utilizing the laity to help in the distribution of the elements (and perhaps other ways). And, yet, the practice of the Church of Christ more fully integrates the theological assertions articulated in the Roman Catholic statement above. In fact, this unique practice of allowing lay people to preside at Eucharist has a long American history (though it may not be ancient). I wrote a paper a couple of years back about how this practice is rooted in Alexander Campbell's own theological understanding of the priesthood of all believers in the American context (which includes values such as individualism and democratic representation). I believe that this personalized approach is necessary in a Church of Christ context, and that formal and traditional prayers would not be authentic in this context. This particular practice is a great example of inculturation of a central Christian practice in an American context.

However, one of the main problems with allowing laity to preside over Eucharist, is that there very often is a lack of necessary theological elements, such as the use of the words of institution or the fraction of the bread, among other things. These basic parts are often left out as one's experiential story dominates the bulk of the meditation.

I believe that what is necessary in the Church of Christ is a basic list of elements that always (or at least frequently) get incorporated into the personal meditation in an orderly fashion. This would be preferable to a set written prayer that most would find uncomfortable in this church tradition. Yet crafting such a meditation is difficult work, even for someone who deals frequently with theological language. What elements do you think ought to be considered indispensible?

I would like to point you to a post on my wife's blog in which she shares a communion meditation from a member of her church in Brooklyn. I honestly believe that this is one of the best examples of a communion meditation that retains some of the most necessary elements for the Eucharist, yet is crafted from one's own experience for a particular community: Eucharisteo.

Very well done, Regina!