Women Serving Communion?

[HeyHomie]

Before I started attending my (RM) church, I had never seen women serving communion in any RM church I'd ever set foot in. But in my church, women and men serve communion alongside each other every Sunday.

I was a little weirded out at first (more from being shocked than from having any problem with it), but now I'm so used to it that I don't give it a second thought. Unfortunately, I haven't seen women serving communion in any other church I've been inside.

What are your thoughts?

[Thenolos]

You get into controversial territory when you start talking communion and the RM. :) Biblically, communion was started using only one cup, which was passed around. So if practiced this way, any woman taking part would have to pass it to the next person. I'm not a one-cupper, though, so no argument on that from me.

What I'm trying to say is that the Bible does not establish who passes the cup(or cups) durring communion. However, the natural order of things would tell me that an Elder should preside over the service. Elders are only men. So it really depends on how the sister is involved. If she is merely assisting in the process, then I don't see a problem with it.

[HeyHomie]

Biblically, communion was started using only one cup, which was passed around.

Yeah, that would go over REAL well in this day & age, what with germs & all.

[TheHolyBrothers]

Yeah, that would go over REAL well in this day & age, what with germs & all.

You can see it now, people being sued cos they gave someone a cold!!!

[Thenolos]

Yeah, that would go over REAL well in this day & age, what with germs & all.



Well, there are a lot of RM churches that are dogmatic about using one cup. :) You can't make this stuff up.

[appaltngal]

Hi, I'm new to this site, and I'd like to offer something from my personal experience. At my church, we actually have female elders...we're in the Independent Churches of Christ. Not only elders are presiding over communion either. The actual way we do it is like this:
There's a table at the front of the sanctuary. The table is rectangular. Four servers sit at each end of the table and the presider stands in the middle (behind of course :-)) while giving the meditiation. Then he/she passes the bread and juice to the servers who take it to the congregation.

Our church also has morning Eucharist every weekday morning, noon prayer every weekday afternoon, and a special Eucharist service on Tuesday nights.

Some may label the church "a high" church thing, but it is only a response to a local desire for more tradition(s) without necessarily being Catholic.

I'm not sure if that helps you see the many different ways people do communion.

What are your thoughts on such differences?

[HeyHomie]

I'm not sure if that helps you see the many different ways people do communion.

What are your thoughts on such differences?

Variety is the spice of life. Serve it however you want, provided you don't get all dogmatic or sectarian about your way being the "right" way.

The only way I have a problem with is the "one cup" thing like they do in Catholic churches. It has a certain liturgical appeal to it, but from a practical standpoint it bites. If one person in the congregation has the flu....

A way I'd like to see is this: Have a loaf of bread and a goblet of juice (or wine, if that's your thing: I recommend Mission Hill Pinot Noir '99) at the table, and a bunch of those little plastic cups. Everyone approaches, grabs a chunk of bread, pours some juice, and takes it back to their pew to consume at their leisure.

Clever, huh? :preach:

[Theophorus]

Yeah, that would go over REAL well in this day & age, what with germs & all.

LOL, I take communion from a spoon that serves it. the bread and wine are mixed in one cup. Everyone lines up and takes it from the same spoon, and it isn't wiped off either between people. :P

[Revenwyn]

Paul says that women are not supposed to teach, and that they are to be silent in the churches. However, if an elder has given a woman authority to pray for the communion in front of the congregation I think there should be no problem because she is acting under the authority of the man.
So yes, i think there is nothing biblically that says a woman cannot serve communion, or even lead songs and such as that. Preaching is a different story.

[HeyHomie]

Paul says that women are not supposed to teach, and that they are to be silent in the churches. However, if an elder has given a woman authority to pray for the communion in front of the congregation I think there should be no problem because she is acting under the authority of the man.
So yes, i think there is nothing biblically that says a woman cannot serve communion, or even lead songs and such as that. Preaching is a different story.

Hey, the picture in your avatar kind-of looks like Dave & Lori from this season of The Amazing Race! :eek:

[Revenwyn]

Hey, the picture in your avatar kind-of looks like Dave & Lori from this season of The Amazing Race! :eek:

*Is clueless about what you're talking about*

That's my fiance and I. :)

[ChurchofChrist]

Hi, I'm new to this site, and I'd like to offer something from my personal experience. At my church, we actually have female elders...we're in the Independent Churches of Christ. Not only elders are presiding over communion either. The actual way we do it is like this:
There's a table at the front of the sanctuary. The table is rectangular. Four servers sit at each end of the table and the presider stands in the middle (behind of course :-)) while giving the meditiation. Then he/she passes the bread and juice to the servers who take it to the congregation.

Our church also has morning Eucharist every weekday morning, noon prayer every weekday afternoon, and a special Eucharist service on Tuesday nights.

Some may label the church "a high" church thing, but it is only a response to a local desire for more tradition(s) without necessarily being Catholic.

I'm not sure if that helps you see the many different ways people do communion.

What are your thoughts on such differences?
how do you get around the fact that the Bible says only men can be elders?

[constance]

how do you get around the fact that the Bible says only men can be elders?
Do you have an educated pastor, a church building, a sunday school, little communion cups and crackers, a missionary society, tithing, musical instruments in service, etc?

Constance

[DiscipleOfIAm]

I haven't seen it, but I don't think it would be a problem if they did. Anyone should be able to "serve" the church. This isn't a elder or deacon type job only, in my opinion. They aren't "leading or teaching" anyone by doing this.

[SanctiSpiritus]

Before I started attending my (RM) church, I had never seen women serving communion in any RM church I'd ever set foot in. But in my church, women and men serve communion alongside each other every Sunday.

I was a little weirded out at first (more from being shocked than from having any problem with it), but now I'm so used to it that I don't give it a second thought. Unfortunately, I haven't seen women serving communion in any other church I've been inside.

What are your thoughts?


I would search for another Church of Christ, that follows the scriptures.

[mrconstance]

The church I attend now, and the church where I'll soon become the pastor (sorry, but that's what they call it) both have women elders serve communion. I don't have any problem with it.

[WesWoodell]

I would search for another Church of Christ, that follows the scriptures.

Please point me to the Scriptures that address what you're talking about.

[cremi]

This is an interesting topic for me also. Like the OP, I had not seen this done until the church I'm currently in. Biblically, I don't see anything wrong with it. After all, "serving" communion is just that--serving! It's not a leading or authority position.

On a comfort level, however, it's been a little different for me. I've had a harder time getting used to it.

Logically speaking though, there is really no difference between women serving communion on the outside of the aisles and the women sitting in the pews passing the trays!;)

As F. LaGuard Smith says, "it's okay for women to pass the communion trays...they do it anyway! It's just from side to side instead of from front to back!":cool:

[SanctiSpiritus]

Please point me to the Scriptures that address what you're talking about.


Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.



Thou shall not add too, nor take away from the Bible.

[WesWoodell]

See - that's where I guess I find a problem. Some people cite that Scripture to tell a woman she can't pass a tray of crackers.

I don't understand what passing a tray of crackers or grapejuice has to do with teaching, or how that gives someone authority.

Maybe I just misunderstood. I took "serving communion" to mean the tray passing.

[cremi]

See - that's where I guess I find a problem. Some people cite that Scripture to tell a woman she can't pass a tray of crackers.

I don't understand what passing a tray of crackers or grapejuice has to do with teaching, or how that gives someone authority.

Maybe I just misunderstood. I took "serving communion" to mean the tray passing.
This is the point I came to...serving communion, passing trays full of crackers and juice, is not teaching, preaching, authoritarian or usurping authority in any way. How is that different than serving food at a pot luck?

[SanctiSpiritus]

This is the point I came to...serving communion, passing trays full of crackers and juice, is not teaching, preaching, authoritarian or usurping authority in any way. How is that different than serving food at a pot luck?



I can't believe you are comparing the communion to pot luck. It speaks volumes. You should already know this, but I will reemphasize; the communion is sacred. Why not play it safe and be silent where the Bible is silent? Why risk it?

[WesWoodell]

Practice what you preach. ^_^

[Frame1520]

Passing the bread and the grape juice is not the whole concept of communion. To me, and I could be retarded or crazy, I would have a problem with a woman up at the pulpit teaching what the communion means in front of the congregation...Passing the trays down is different. I do however think that if there are capable men, they should be the ones administring the communion. Definately administring the meditation, but also starting the passing of the trays...But women passing them down the rows after they have been handed to them from the men, well theres not much of a problem with that.

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

I can't believe you are comparing the communion to pot luck. It speaks volumes. You should already know this, but I will reemphasize; the communion is sacred. Why not play it safe and be silent where the Bible is silent? Why risk it?
There is no authority in passing a tray. It is a position of servitude and not having any usurping aspects to it at all. Christians ate together almost every time they met in Acts. Why is a meal shared amongst believers any less important than communion? We are commanded to forsake not the gathering together so isn't time we gather a sacred event? Do we need crackers and grape juice to make it so? If you want to actually follow scripture are you using wine and leavened bread? If you need references I can give the day during passover and show that Christ passed alcoholic wine and leavened bread. Our communion is nothing like what happened at the last supper or what was practiced in the early church or is still practiced today in the EO church. The EO have the closest practice to what actually went on in the early church if you do the research. So why call somethin sacred if you are not even doing it the same way it was done in scripture? I assure you they were using alcoholic wine so without that is the ceremony invalid? If it is still valid then why it is any less if a woman serves?

[cremi]

Why not play it safe and be silent where the Bible is silent? Why risk it?Hmmm....well, I guess it was a bad comparison. What I was trying to get at was the "service" aspect of serving communion trays.

As far as being silent where the bible is silent? Yes, I know the rhetoric well. The problem is that people ARE NOT always silent where the bible is silent or speak ONLY where the bible speaks. I could list many things that are practiced in the CoC that are merely traditions of men. I guess my question to you would be, what exactly are we risking? Our salvation? Do you really think that God will barr us from heaven if we break a rule--that is IF we are even breaking a rule?

I guess that is another theological debate and perhaps this is not the place to start it, but I have come to place of not fearing the "CLOUD OF DOOM" . (Those are my terms, btw, not yours.) You could take my words to mean that I think I can do whatever I feel like doing, but that is not what I mean at all.

I guess one thing that has really hit home with me over last few years, is that God's grace is huge. I am undeserving of it. I did nothing and can do nothing to recieve his grace. The New Testament is filled with verses that talk about how our "works" do not save us...
Romans 11:6
6But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.

OTOH, I would be remis to not mention James 2. Yet, even if you look carefully at this passage, the works are meant to work together with our faith, and there is nothing in that passage that talks about works in the sense of "appropriateness" during worship services. The works talked about in James are in relation to how we treat people. IOW, if you say you have faith, but walk right past those who need food or shelter and do nothing, then your faith is dead.

I apologize if I offended you regarding the Lord's Supper. It is important to me and I do take it seriously. I in no way meant to diminish its importance. I think mostly, I just want to be careful to not make the traditions of men as impending or important as biblical mandate.

[Rich48]

No, in our church, they do not serve, nor, IMHO, will they ever-at the risk of causing nothing short of a riot. But would I have a problem with it? Nope! It is not showing authority, or anything of the kind-it is SERVING!

Rich

[ModestGirlsRock]

well, we're serving communion in the sense that we pass the plate when we give it to the person sitting next to us, but I've never seen in an RM church actually have girls serve communion...if you're seeing that in an Rm church then they're slipping away from sound doctrine. The women of the early church didn't do that and weren't called upon to do so and therefore, it is not our place to do so either.

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

well, we're serving communion in the sense that we pass the plate when we give it to the person sitting next to us, but I've never seen in an RM church actually have girls serve communion...if you're seeing that in an Rm church then they're slipping away from sound doctrine. The women of the early church didn't do that and weren't called upon to do so and therefore, it is not our place to do so either.
The early church didn't do communion in any manner that we do it today. Women passing trays is not a problem.

[WesWoodell]

Flesh speaks the truth. Restorationist tradition doesn't always equal sound doctrine.

Sometimes it simply equals restorationist tradition. :)

[Hospitaller]

I believe the early church did indeed practice communion very closely to what the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches do today. If you read the Didache or some of the early Church Fathers, like Ignatius you'll find that so. It was Ignatius in 97AD who wrote of the gnostics "they do not come to our prayer or eucharist ( thanksgiving ) because they do not believe the bread that we eat is the flesh of our Lord "
Now I now for sure the Catholic church still holds to that doctrine, and believe the EO does as well. As far as women are concerned, I'm not anti-women, I just believe Jesus was not just being politically correct by choosing only male disciples

[constance]

Mod Hat:

Please note that debate in this forum is limited to members of Restoration Movement churches...

If you have a question about what movement your church is affiliated with, or if you are currently seeking a church home, please let me know.

Thanks!

[Rich48]

Flesh speaks the truth. Restorationist tradition doesn't always equal sound doctrine.

Sometimes it simply equals restorationist tradition. :)

I totally agree. Passing the tray is, as I stated in a previous post, serving only-it has absolutely nothing to do with leadership or anything of the kind.

Rich

[heapshake]

The women of the early church didn't do that and weren't called upon to do so and therefore, it is not our place to do so either. I was told by a professor once that women did serve communion in the early church. He said that communion was served at the end of a meal and that women served it just as they had served the meal. I'm not sure where he got his information from and I've never heard anyone else say that, but I thought I'd toss it out here.

[cremi]

I've also heard that they did not practice the Lord's Supper in the early church at all like we practice it today. When they meant, "beaking bread", it was an entire meal and the Lord's Supper was served after or during the meal. That would definitely put a differernt light on women serving the communion meal today.

Interesting thoughts, to be sure...

Maybe some of you residents theologians would like to address this?

[cremi]

*deleted*

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

I've also heard that they did not practice the Lord's Supper in the early church at all like we practice it today. When they meant, "beaking bread", it was an entire meal and the Lord's Supper was served after or during the meal. That would definitely put a differernt light on women serving the communion meal today.

Interesting thoughts, to be sure...

Maybe some of you residents theologians would like to address this?
I have heard this as well but the evidence says otherwise:


1 Cor 11

27Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be (AF)guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.

28But a man must (AG)examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

29For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.

30For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number (AH)sleep.

31But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged.

32But when we are judged, we are (AI)disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with (AJ)the world.

33So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another.

34If anyone is (AK)hungry, let him eat (AL)at home, so that you will not come together for judgment The remaining matters I will (AM)arrange (AN)when I come.

To me that doesn't sound like they were eating a meal together. If they were to eat a meal why would one eat at home if they were hungry?

[heapshake]

The passage in 1 Cor 11 shows that meals were involved in the Lord's Supper. I'm not sure if Paul's condemnation of what the Corinthians were doing is applicable to all churches or not. It may be that the problem of rich folks eating like gluttons in front of the poor folks with no food was just a Corinthian issue. But either way, it still doesn't show that women weren't called to serve the communion.

[SanctiSpiritus]

Hmmm....well, I guess it was a bad comparison. What I was trying to get at was the "service" aspect of serving communion trays.

As far as being silent where the bible is silent? Yes, I know the rhetoric well. The problem is that people ARE NOT always silent where the bible is silent or speak ONLY where the bible speaks. I could list many things that are practiced in the CoC that are merely traditions of men. I guess my question to you would be, what exactly are we risking? Our salvation? Do you really think that God will barr us from heaven if we break a rule--that is IF we are even breaking a rule?

I guess that is another theological debate and perhaps this is not the place to start it, but I have come to place of not fearing the "CLOUD OF DOOM" . (Those are my terms, btw, not yours.) You could take my words to mean that I think I can do whatever I feel like doing, but that is not what I mean at all.


How dare you speak of the literal meaning of the Bible as "rhetoric." Indeed, we risk salvation once we tinker with His Word. Is that so unbelievable in this day and age as to believe we may be cast into hell for doing things inconsistent to his will?

Not what you mean?!? We are to fear and love the Lord. We are not equals and have no right to theorize, change, or manipulate his Word. Not fearing the "cloud of doom" as you so carnally put it usually means one will reap it.

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

How dare you speak of the literal meaning of the Bible as "rhetoric." Indeed, we risk salvation once we tinker with His Word. Is that so unbelievable in this day and age as to believe we may be cast into hell for doing things inconsistent to his will?

Not what you mean?!? We are to fear and love the Lord. We are not equals and have no right to theorize, change, or manipulate his Word. Not fearing the "cloud of doom" as you so carnally put it usually means one will reap it.
Well since the Word is Christ and the word is scripture I think you have some errors in your post. The capital W refers to Christ and Christ only. Putting scripture on a level with God is known as Bibliolatry.

Very simply put the post is refering to all those piddly things like having a kitchen in a church or a gym or women passing the plates at communion or musical instruments and so on. None of those are either forbidden or allowed. There is no scripture on them. And yet some of us are NOT silent on these issues. There are claims that we cannot do these things and more when in fact scripture is silent an we should be as well. The rhetoric refers to people who quote that bit of the motto and then are not silent making the motto entirely rhetoric.

[SanctiSpiritus]

None of those are either forbidden or allowed.


Then we are to stay silent. i.e. Not to do, or have those things.

Either I'm catching your sarcasm, or you don't fully understand the meaning of staying silent where the Bible is silent. This motto certainly doesn't mean we are to stand silent and idly by while these things are happening. Maybe I read too much into your post.

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

None of those are either forbidden or allowed.


Then we are to stay silent. i.e. Not to do, or have those things.

Either I'm catching your sarcasm, or you don't fully understand the meaning of staying silent where the Bible is silent. This motto certainly doesn't mean we are to stand silent and idly by while these things are happening. Maybe I read too much into your post.
it is you who are reading it wrong. It is SILENT which means we do not speak to anything scripture does not speak to. We do not call sin what is not called sin in scripture. We do not require anything not required in scripture. We do not forbid anything not forbidden in scripture. I am well aware of the radical CoC doctrine here and it goes against everything that Stone and Campbell meant for this movement to be. It took years of debate for them to add baptism to the list of things required for fellowship. Staying SILENT means not speaking. Oddly enough SILENT means SILENT as in no sound.

[SanctiSpiritus]

it is you who are reading it wrong. It is SILENT which means we do not speak to anything scripture does not speak to. We do not call sin what is not called sin in scripture. We do not require anything not required in scripture. We do not forbid anything not forbidden in scripture. I am well aware of the radical CoC doctrine here and it goes against everything that Stone and Campbell meant for this movement to be. It took years of debate for them to add baptism to the list of things required for fellowship. Staying SILENT means not speaking. Oddly enough SILENT means SILENT as in no sound.


Then you are adding to the Word of God. And I don't believe the Bible is SILENT on that topic. You are correct that we do not speak to anything scripture doesn't speak to. However, we do not add and/or expand on the Bible as well. If the women were not preaching and/or serving communion, then we don't either. That would be adding to.

[SanctiSpiritus]

As you say, I suppose living as close to Biblical scripture as one can, In today's age is "radical."

[Rich48]

Then you are adding to the Word of God. And I don't believe the Bible is SILENT on that topic. You are correct that we do not speak to anything scripture doesn't speak to. However, we do not add and/or expand on the Bible as well. If the women were not preaching and/or serving communion, then we don't either. That would be adding to.

Please-give some scripture that says that women cannot serve. We are NOT talking about preaching, rather, we are talking about SERVING.

If you want to be that legalistic, does your church us a common cup? That is how the early church did it. Does that mean that we must also share a common cup??

Can you quote scripture that says that only men severed communion? I cannot find any. In Luke 10, Mary served, yet the worker, Martha was rebuked.

We are talking SEVRICE, and not doctine.

As I said in a previous post, no women serve communion in my church, but personally, I can find nothing that says that they cannot do so. :wave:

Rich

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

Then you are adding to the Word of God. And I don't believe the Bible is SILENT on that topic. You are correct that we do not speak to anything scripture doesn't speak to. However, we do not add and/or expand on the Bible as well. If the women were not preaching and/or serving communion, then we don't either. That would be adding to.
Scripture never says one word to the subject of who served communion it is SILENT on the subject as we should be. We are not expanding on scripture at all by allowing things never once addressed in scripture. If we are then every church is by having a church building at all. You show me a single scripture that says anyone served anything for communion or even remotely did this in the manner that we do today and you will be right but such scripture does not exist.

I am not adding anything to the Word of God. No-one can add anything to Jesus. Word means Jesus. To capitalize it raises scripture to the level of diety and is bibliolatry.

[cremi]

How dare you speak of the literal meaning of the Bible as "rhetoric." Indeed, we risk salvation once we tinker with His Word. Is that so unbelievable in this day and age as to believe we may be cast into hell for doing things inconsistent to his will?

Not what you mean?!? We are to fear and love the Lord. We are not equals and have no right to theorize, change, or manipulate his Word. Not fearing the "cloud of doom" as you so carnally put it usually means one will reap it.How dare I? That seems a bit strong and condescending. I was simply trying to explain why I came to the conclusion I have. I'm sorry, but that sounds a little threatening. It also reminds me of why I left the CoC--at least the one that said the same things that you are saying here. It is rhertoric if it is not God's Word, but man's. You seem to take "silence" to mean that it is now a rule. I don't. I think silence is just that---silence. How do we suddently derive rules out of silence?

Your post is quite offensive and assumes many things about me regarding my beliefs. I have done nothing except study the Word of God and come to realize that the old ways are sometimes not very bibical.

We can disagree, but I do not see a need for you to be so condescending to me. I've had quite enough of that from other members of that church, nor do I believe I have written anything that would inflame you so. I was simply trying to explain.

[Rich48]

How dare I? That seems a bit strong and condescending. I was simply trying to explain why I came to the conclusion I have. I'm sorry, but that sounds a little threatening. It also reminds me of why I left the CoC--at least the one that said the same things that you are saying here. It is rhertoric if it is not God's Word, but man's. You seem to take "silence" to mean that it is now a rule. I don't. I think silence is just that---silence. How do we suddently derive rules out of silence?

Your post is quite offensive and assumes many things about me regarding my beliefs. I have done nothing except study the Word of God and come to realize that the old ways are sometimes not very bibical.

We can disagree, but I do not see a need for you to be so condescending to me. I've had quite enough of that from other members of that church, nor do I believe I have written anything that would inflame you so. I was simply trying to explain.


Right on, brother. If the Bible is silent, then we are silent! No mention of insturments? Then we are silent!
it is not right or wrong. :thumbsup:

You have done nothing wrong! :wave:

Ricfh

[cremi]

Right on, brother. If the Bible is silent, then we are silent! No mention of insturments? Then we are silent!
it is not right or wrong. :thumbsup:

You have done nothing wrong! :wave:

Ricfh
Actually, I think I'd be your sister!:cool:

[Rich48]

Actually, I think I'd be your sister!:cool:

:P :thumbsup: ;) :) Sorry

[YoungBerean]

I think that the way communion is practiced in most churches these days is not very biblical anyway so I guess I would confront that issue first before worrying about a female distributing it.
At our church we each go up in small groups and take the elements back to our seats so its always the pastor distributing anyway.
I would prefer one cup though which I see as closer to the bible.