Holy Communion in the Methodist Church

‘His presence makes the feast’

• CONTENTS
• Paragraphs
• 1 - 12 A Summary and conclusions
• 13 -18 B Introduction
• 19 -23 C Four ‘snapshots’ of Methodist Communion services
• D A survey of current practice and beliefs in the Methodist Church
• 24 - 28 (i) Background
• 29 - 62 (ii) The findings of the survey
• E Other characteristic features of Communion in the Methodist Church
• 63 - 68 (i) Holy Communion liturgies
• 69 - 75 (ii) Hymnody and Holy Communion
• 76 - 82 (iii) Communion and conversion
• 83 - 85 (iv) Communion Stewards
• 86 - 90 (v) The setting of Holy Communion
• 91 - 93 (vi) Observations from circuit plans
• 94 - 98 (vii) Methodist scholars who have made a significant contribution to our understanding of the Lord’s Supper
• 99 - 103 (viii) ‘Semi-official’ Methodist publications
• 104 - 108 (ix) Ecumenical and other experiences
• 109 - 119 (x) Ecumenically sensitive issues
• 120 - 136 F Previous Conference statements and decisions relating to Holy Communion
• G Theological Resources
• 137 - 146 (i) Language and the Sacraments
• 147 - 194 (ii) Nine key themes in the theology of Holy Communion, drawn from the Bible and Christian
• Tradition
• 195 - 202 (iii) The origins of Holy Communion
• 203 - 204 (iv) Eucharistic theology in recent years
• 205 Postscript
• 206 - 207 H Glossary and suggested further reading
• I Resolutions

A word about terminology. The foundational documents of Methodism (The Deed of Union, Standing Orders) refer to ‘The Lord’s Supper’, whereas the term used in the Methodist Worship Book is ‘Holy Communion’. In ecumenical circles, the word ‘Eucharist’ is generally employed. In this report, we will generally speak of ‘Holy Communion’ or simply ‘Communion’ unless the context suggests another term, as this is the predominant usage in British Methodism today (see paragraphs 30-31).

A SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

1 Methodism inherited from John and Charles Wesley a devout appreciation of Holy Communion as a divinely appointed means of grace. The undefined but real presence of Christ was proclaimed in their sermons and hymns. The Wesleys taught an understanding of the eucharistic sacrifice as one in which the offering of the obedient hearts and lives of the communicants was united by grace to the perfect, complete, ever-present and all-atoning sacrifice of Christ. John Wesley adapted the liturgy of the Book of Common Prayer (at first for use in the American missions) and this was later widely used in the Wesleyan Methodist tradition. In other branches of Methodism, the form of worship was closer to that of other Free Churches.

2 The early Methodists were expected to practise constant and frequent Communion, either at the parish church (although in the first century of Methodism, 1740 to 1840, it was not the custom to celebrate Communion every week in most parish churches) or in their own chapels, receiving Communion either from Church of England clergy or, later, from their own itinerant preachers (ministers). However, in each of the branches of Methodism before the 1932 union, the number of Sunday congregations far exceeded the number of such ministers. This was usually the main reason why the Lord’s Supper continued to be celebrated no more than monthly in the town chapels and usually only quarterly in the villages.

3 Today Methodists vary hugely in their attachment to Holy Communion. For some it is at the very heart of their discipleship, for some it is one treasured means of grace among others and for a small minority of Methodists Communion is not perceived as either desirable or necessary.

4 There is a wide diversity of practice in Methodist churches across the Connexion. Such differences reflect, to some extent, the different historical traditions that have come together to form the present day Methodist Church. Having somewhat diverse roots, it is not surprising that British Methodism as a whole has not developed a unified set of practices in respect of the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. Though clearly peripheral in some of the historical strands of Methodism, this service has more recently come, on a practical level, to play a more central role in the life of the whole Church.

5 The 1999 Methodist Worship Book, officially authorised and widely (though not universally) used throughout the Methodist Church, reflects both biblical insights and historic traditions of the universal Church in the content and liturgical shape of the several services set out for Holy Communion for different seasons and occasions.

6 As to a Methodist theology of the Holy Communion, in spite of distinguished work by individual scholars, it could be said that Methodist doctrine has received little official formulation and exists more as an undefined (or under- defined) tradition. The theology is implicit in the liturgies, hymns and the practical arrangements for Holy Communion. It should also be noted that there are tensions between what has been said by the various members of the world-wide Methodist family at different times and in different places. For example, there were differences between the responses of the British Methodist Church and the United Methodist Church to the World Council of Churches ‘Lima’ report Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (1982) (Churches Respond to Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry, World Council of Churches 1986).

7 Two alternative conclusions can be drawn from this. Either Methodism has signally failed by default to respond to the desire of other Churches for fuller definition (or doctrinal development) and perhaps doesn’t know what it believes; or it has deliberately maintained a proper reserve and agnosticism on some issues - at least in some circumstances. It can, however, be firmly said that Methodists have always sought to base their belief and practice in respect of the Lord’s Supper on thoroughly biblical foundations. Even so, this has been with a variety of emphases and interpretations and has only in recent years taken account of the full spectrum of eucharistic texts and liturgical principles.

8 Strictly speaking, ‘Holy Communion’ is, in Methodist understanding, a service that includes both Word and Sacrament (even though the Methodist Worship Book denotes one section of it as ‘the Lord’s Supper’, and it is on the latter that this report concentrates). This report identifies (paragraphs 147-194) nine essential components or themes of the Methodist Church’s theology of Holy Communion. In each case, the authors of this report have attempted to find a word or phrase that expresses the theme in everyday language, as well as indicating the more technical terms that may lie behind them:

• thanksgiving (Eucharist)
• life in unity (koinonia)
• remembering (anamnesis)
• sacrifice
• presence
• the work of the Spirit (epiclesis)
• anticipation (eschatology)
• mission and justice
• personal devotion.

9 As Methodists, we wish to maintain those insights that have developed within our own tradition and to share these with others. At the same time, we wish to remain faithful to the apostolic tradition shared by all Christians. We believe that Christian theology continually develops as new insights are received, both within and beyond Methodism. The theology of Holy Communion does not develop in isolation from the rest of theology. Understanding of Holy Communion has received a new emphasis through the rediscovery of sacramental theology (the idea that God communicates through physical realities). It has been argued that Christ is the original sacrament and by derivation, Christ’s body the Church is the sacrament of God’s presence in the world. Some have talked of the way in which Holy Communion ‘makes’ the Church. The 1999 Conference statement on the nature of the Church, Called To Love and Praise (CLP) holds that ‘the Eucharist, in particular, both focuses and expresses the ongoing and the future life of the Church’ (CLP 2.4.8.). Part of the uniqueness of Holy Communion lies in its use of a particularly wide range of the senses - touch and taste as well as sight and hearing.

10 For Methodists, there are some issues surrounding the Lord’s Supper that arise from the diversity within our own tradition. Other matters to do with Holy Communion arrive on the Methodist agenda as both formal and informal ecumenism present us with the eucharistic faith and practice of other Christian Churches. This is particularly important as we consider those with whom we would one day desire either much closer relations or organic union.

11 Internally, along with most other Christian traditions, Methodists would benefit from a programme of thorough and high quality teaching concerning the meaning and value of Holy Communion and its place in our spiritual lives. Such teaching would not be seeking to impose uniformity; rather it should take account of the diversity of belief and practice within our Church, acknowledging that some issues have been (and in some cases remain) controversial. It is not just about the nourishment of the individual pilgrim but also about seeing Holy Communion as a means of creating and expressing Christian fellowship.

12 Methodists also need to grasp afresh that Holy Communion can be a starting point in an effective pursuit of mission and justice, matters that we have traditionally pursued with great vigour.

B INTRODUCTION

13 ‘The Methodist Church recognises two sacraments namely Baptism and the Lord’s Supper as of divine appointment and of perpetual obligation of which it is the privilege and duty of members of the Methodist Church to avail themselves.’ (Deed of Union, Clause 4) It may seem surprising then that never, in over seventy years since Methodist union, has the Church attempted to set down in detail what it believes and practises when its people gather to share bread and wine in ‘Holy Communion.’ Of course, the hymns and liturgies we use imply much, as do the ways in which the worship resources authorised by the Conference have been compiled. This report attempts to address the lack of a more explicit description of the Methodist position, but does not pretend to be a ‘definitive’, far less ‘final’ word on the subject.

14 The report proceeds from the observation that for Methodists, theology often arises from reflection on practice rather than beginning with ‘abstract’ theories. John Wesley’s method of ‘practical theology’ is still central to Methodism, which is at heart a method of responding to God’s gracious offer of salvation and holiness. In order to know what Methodists believe it is necessary to look at what they do, for they are truest to themselves when they express, transmit and modify their beliefs in the context of the worshipping, learning, serving and witnessing life of the faith community - in the Church and in the wider world.

15 In consequence of this, in order to find out what Methodists believe and do it is necessary to go behind official statements and policies. This necessity arises, we believe, not because Methodism is a peculiarly disorderly tradition (far from it) but because its original motivation of having ‘nothing to do but save souls’ persists in the form of a strong desire that worship shall be effective. Called to Love and Praise notes the importance of experience in the Methodist tradition in the area of worship. The desire that worshippers shall experience a sense of ‘wonder, love and praise’ explains the existence of both connexionally authorised forms and significant local variations in Methodist worship. It also makes it necessary to investigate what worshippers actually experience. Therefore, this report offers a snapshot of Methodist practice at the start of the twenty-first century (with an eye to the wider ecumenical and historical contexts). It then offers some resources that inform and are informed by the underlying theology.

16 It is not the purpose of this report to set out the limits of what is acceptable. It describes ‘how things are’ rather than prescribing how things ‘ought’ or ‘ought not’ to be. It is offered to the Methodist people and to our ecumenical partners as an aid to understanding who we are and what we believe and do in relation to Holy Communion.

17 The report was prepared for the Faith and Order Committee by a small working party that consulted widely, in particular through the distribution of a questionnaire about belief and practice, and through an invitation to individuals, churches and circuits, to submit their views and experiences in writing. In the end over 400 questionnaires were returned, and over 80 other written responses received. These have greatly informed what follows and immense gratitude is due to all who contributed in these ways. The working party also drew upon the previous statements and publications of the Conference, international and ecumenical documents and the writings of Methodist scholars.

18 The members of the working party were: David Carter, Robert Dolman, Norman Graham, Margaret Jones, Jonathan Kerry, Samuel McBratney, Joanna Thornton, Norman Wallwork and Pat Watson

C FOUR ‘SNAPSHOTS’ OF METHODIST COMMUNION SERVICES

19 In order to set the scene, we offer the following snapshots as examples of ways in which contemporary British Methodists celebrate Holy Communion. They are composite pictures, not caricatures, drawn from the research carried out by the working party, and in that sense are ‘realistic’. They illustrate something of the considerable local variety in our Church.

20 At Woodlands Methodist Chapel, deep in the countryside, there is a Communion Service once a quarter. The minister has pastoral charge of eight other churches, so this is his only appointment here this quarter. The congregation is small, eight to twelve in number, all female and all senior citizens. The Communion Steward dices the slice of white bread into small cubes and pours the red grape juice into individual glasses. She directs the members up to the rail where they all kneel together to receive the elements, before being dismissed with a text of scripture or a short prayer. The Woodlands congregation likes to use the 1975 Methodist Service Book (from section B12), because “that’s what we’re used to”. The minister wears a dark suit and clerical collar to lead the service. After worship, the remaining juice is poured back into the bottle and the bread put out for the birds.

21 At High Street Methodist Church, in the suburbs, there is a service of Holy Communion once a month on a Sunday morning. The congregation comprises about 100 adults and 20 children. It is a multi-racial congregation, about half the membership is white, and half black. The children meet in Junior Church groups until near the end of the service, when they join their families in church for Communion. The children meet in Junior Church groups until near the end of the service, when they join their families in church for Communion. The minister has visited Junior Church to talk to the children about Communion. She has also consulted with parents about children receiving Communion. Any child or adult who wishes to receive is able to. The full service is from the Methodist Worship Book. The Peace is shared with much hugging and kissing, although this is not appreciated by everyone. The non-alcoholic Communion wine is poured into individual glasses and pieces of bread are broken from a roll. The Communion Stewards carry the elements to the congregation and the plates of bread and the trays of glasses are passed along the pews.

22 At Christchurch Methodist Church, in the centre of a market town, a small group of mainly younger people, drawn from around the circuit, meets for a monthly service of ‘Contemporary Worship’. This always includes an informal celebration of Holy Communion. Liturgies from various sources are used (including Iona, Taizé and the St. Hilda Community) and worship songs, accompanied by a flautist, generally replace traditional hymns. The congregation sits in a circle, around a table on which is placed a candle, a chalice (containing non-alcoholic wine) and a home-baked loaf. The presiding minister, wearing a pectoral cross over a sweater, remains seated in the circle and the members of the congregation serve each other with the bread and wine. There is a period of open prayer in which personal and national concerns are shared, silence is observed and the laying-on of hands is offered to those who wish to receive it.

23 In St. John’s Anglican-Methodist Local Ecumenical Partnership (LEP) the clergy of both denominations wear white cassock-albs with the appropriate seasonal stoles. At major festivals they concelebrate, using the denominational rites alternately. The presiding ministers face the congregation from behind the altar: ‘altar’ and, to a lesser extent, ‘Eucharist’ are words which now come fairly readily to Methodist lips here. There are two candles on the table and a chalice that is used at Methodist services for those involved in the distribution. The congregation leaves the rail in a continuous flow. The choir sings hymns or an anthem during the reception. Children are welcome to receive a blessing; the ecumenical Church Council continues to discuss the propriety of children receiving the elements. After the service, a few people receive the consecrated elements in their own homes. The remaining bread or wafers and wine are quietly consumed in the vestry.

D A SURVEY OF CURRENT PRACTICE AND BELIEFS IN THE METHODIST CHURCH

(i) Background

24 The Working Party understood its task to be to report on Methodist belief and practice not only from the point of view of Methodist scholarship and official statements but also from the perspective of ‘ordinary’ Methodists. This approach was not adopted out of populism or a desire to replace rigorous theology, but from the fundamental understandings of the way that Methodists do theology outlined in Section 2 above. For these reasons, it was decided to conduct a survey to investigate what Methodists believe and do about Holy Communion.

25 The next decision concerned the methodology of the survey. This was again informed by the relationship between the Connexional and the local in Methodist theology and practice. The need to give weight both to connexional policies and to local variations led us to recognise the need for a survey. A statistically significant survey of a very large or random sample would have been informative but might, by its very existence, be counter-productive, suggesting that what is more prevalent is somehow more acceptable. The Working Party therefore decided to conduct a purely descriptive survey. We simply needed to test the perception that there is great variety of practice around Holy Communion in Methodism, and to try to find out why.

26 For ease and economy a questionnaire was distributed at the Huddersfield Conference in 2000. Every member of Conference, together with ordinands and overseas representatives, was given three copies of the survey questionnaire. They were asked to fill in one copy themselves and pass on the others to people in their home setting, although this request was not universally carried out. 1350 questionnaires were sent out through Conference. The survey was also distributed through one District Synod and sent to individuals who requested it. This gave a good geographical spread, but it meant that the survey was not strictly representative of Methodism as a whole. In particular, the proportion of presbyters and deacons was higher than in the Church at large.

27 In addition, churches and circuits were invited (through the Methodist Recorder and the Conference Bulletin) to respond with more extended comments. 81 submissions were received, many of them substantial, and this material generally supported the evidence of the survey. It is quoted where appropriate in what follows - as indicated by the use of italics.

28 This survey illustrates some of the variety that exists in what Methodists believe and do about Holy Communion. Within the non-random and to some extent self-selected constituency there are clear trends and clusters: readers of the Report must use their own judgement in assessing how representative these are (more detailed analysis is available on request). The findings of the survey are offered as a description of one, not untypical section of Methodism against which experience and practice may be examined and questioned. Within the survey constituency there are valid comparisons to be made which throw up interesting insights. There is, for example, the difference between the beliefs and practices of presbyters, deacons and lay people. These will be examined as the survey is presented.

(ii) The findings of the survey

29 Question 1: Who are you?

429 questionnaires were returned altogether. The response rate (30%) is within normal limits for this type of survey, although it must be remembered that those for whom Holy Communion is too unimportant to rate a reply may have excluded themselves. All responses were anonymous and were not located geographically. 30% of replies were from British presbyters, 2% from overseas presbyters, 2% from British deacons and 66% from British lay people. Respondents were asked to reply for the church where they worshipped or (in the case of presbyters) presided at Communion most often.

30 Q2 What do you call the service we are talking about?

As soon as the Working Party began discussions it became clear that Methodists use several different names for the sacrament in question. The name used may reflect something of the theology of the individual or the community to which they belong. Survey respondents were most likely to call it ‘Communion’ and ‘Holy Communion’. Presbyters were more likely than lay people to say ‘Holy Communion’ and far more likely to say ‘Eucharist’, although numbers were small. Only a few of them would say ‘The Lord’s Supper’ (despite its use in official documents and liturgy) and ‘The Sacrament’ (even though this, or the symbol ‘S’, is commonly used on circuit plans), but while presbyters were in line with others on use of ‘The Lord’s Supper’, no presbyter reported using ‘The Sacrament’.

31

Individuals do not necessarily use the name that is used in the congregation to which they belong: more congregations than individuals were reported to use ‘The Sacrament’ as their preferred name, while fewer used ‘The Eucharist’, and of these 7 were Local Ecumenical Partnerships; only one was a British Methodist church alone.

32 Q3 How often in Holy Communion celebrated as a Sunday service?

‘Once a month’ or ‘less than once a week but more than once a month’ were by far the most common frequencies for Sunday celebrations, accounting between them for nearly 90% of responses. More frequent celebrations were very uncommon. 5% reported ‘less than once a month’.

33 Q3a Would you like to see any changes, and if so, why?

A few people expressed the opinion that the service would be devalued or lose its special character if it were celebrated ‘too often’. On the other hand, 16% of respondents said that they would like more frequent celebrations of Communion. Where reasons were given these focused on the ‘essential’ or ‘central’ nature of the sacrament. It is the ‘equipping and focus of sacramental lifestyle’, ‘essential for building up the faith and fellowship’, enabling people ‘to relate to each other and their Christian origins’ and to the wider Church.

34

In response to this question, as to all the questions about change, presbyters were far more likely to express a preference.

35 Q4 How often is Holy Communion celebrated in the church building on other occasions?

In the great majority of cases (72%) this was ‘less than once a month’, sometimes amplified as meaning ‘never’ or ‘at Christmas and Maundy Thursday’.

36 Q4a Would you like to see any changes, and if so, why?

Unsurprisingly, those churches that had the least frequent midweek Communions produced the greatest desire for more. Overall nearly a quarter of respondents would like more frequent midweek Communion (no one requested less frequent). Reasons for wanting change clustered around four main themes: people’s lifestyles, in terms both of work and church commitments, making Sundays problematic; the possibility of appealing to particular groups such as young parents, elderly or those attending a shoppers’ service; building up fellowship with one another; the development of communion with God. ‘To develop mystery and faith in daily discipleship.’

37 Q5 In what from is the bread when it is placed on the table?

Nearly half the respondents reported ‘a whole roll, loaf or slice’ and a further 40% ‘cut into small pieces with a roll or slice to be broken in the service’. Most of the remainder reported the use of bread ‘all cut into small pieces’. There would thus seem to be widespread use within the survey group of the symbolism of fraction (breaking the bread in the course of the service).

38 Q5a Would you like to see any changes, and if so, why?

There was a clear preference for a whole roll, stronger among presbyters. ‘Dry bits of Mother’s Pride is not my sense of the body of Christ.’ ‘A slice is part of something else and seems disrespectful and too ordinary.’ ‘God never serves us stale bread.’ Some responses gave sidelights on the importance (in terms both of spirituality and power relationships) of the practicalities of Holy Communion. Two lay people felt it important to mention the problems caused by the minister breaking off a piece that is too big for them to eat decorously. A minister would prefer a whole roll but ‘recognises the care on the part of the Communion Stewards in preparing bread according to their tradition’, while a layperson notes that ‘ministers seem to have preferences’. Otherwise the reasons for wanting change centred on the symbolism of one loaf, primarily as symbolising fellowship, breaking and generosity.

39 Q6 What kind of 'wine' is used?

Of the 6 respondents who reported the use of alcoholic wine, 4 were in LEPs and one outside Great Britain. 79% reported the use of non-alcoholic Communion ‘wine’ containing grape juice and 15% (63 responses) ‘other’, divided roughly equally between grape juice, raisin flavoured or blackcurrant cordial (and one mead!).

40 Q6a Would you like to see any changes, and if so, why?

This question attracted the greatest number of responses specifically saying ‘no change’: this indicates a strong commitment to the use of non-alcoholic ‘wine’. This practice is, of course currently required by Standing Orders and was confirmed by Conference only recently. Those expressing a desire for change were generally moving in the direction of greater authenticity; from blackcurrant cordial to non-alcoholic wine, from ‘phoney wine’ to grape juice. Taste was also a significant factor. A few respondents would prefer alcoholic wine, mainly for reasons of authenticity. Presbyters were slightly more likely than lay people to want all these changes.

41 Q7 Is a chalice or common cup placed on the table?

Roughly two-thirds of respondents reported having a chalice on the table. Wine was put in this chalice in most cases. When we were told who drank from a chalice on the table, it was most likely to be ‘the presiding minister and those assisting her/him’, followed by ‘no-one’ then ‘the presiding minister’ and ‘everyone who communicates’.

42 Q7a Would you like to see any changes, and if so, why?

A few lay people, but no presbyters, specifically expressed a preference for individual glasses, giving hygiene as the reason very occasionally. Other responses received from circuits, on the other hand, indicated considerable concern with hygiene. ‘The common cup is an artificial attempt to demonstrate unity (which) resides in the fellowship, including Christ.’ Nearly a quarter of respondents stated a preference for all to share one cup, mainly on grounds of unity, sharing, authenticity and symbolism. ‘Individual glasses are prissy and an over-privatisation of Communion.’ A very few respondents saw the practice of the minister alone drinking from the chalice as elitist. ‘It’s the Lord’s table. No one is in charge.’ Presbyters were markedly more in favour of a common cup but not necessarily for all to drink: they were more likely to want change in situations where a common cup was never used, but it was only lay people who asked that all should drink from the cup when one was placed on the table but not used by all.

43 Q8 How are the bread and wine distributed?

The traditional method of distribution ‘by tables’ proved to be by far the most common, either alone or in combination with other methods. In most Methodist churches the worshippers communicate by kneeling at the Communion rail. They arrive and leave the table in groups (this sometimes described as ‘by tables’), thus communicating in the 18th century Anglican style, but a custom now peculiar to the Methodist tradition. The continuous method of distribution was the next most common, although not often the only method used. A few churches reported having the elements brought round, although in most cases other methods of distribution were also used from time to time. Even fewer churches reported having the elements passed round, and this was only at some services.

44 Q8a Would you like to see any changes, and if so, why?

Of those who expressed a preference for ‘tables’, most did so on grounds of dignity and less hurry. ‘Coming forward and being blessed and dismissed is the most important part of the service.’ Of those who expressed a preference for continuous distribution, a third mentioned the time factor, while a very few found it more expressive of unity. Presbyters were in general more eager than lay people to change methods of distribution, particularly away from ‘tables’ and having the elements brought round. Responses to this question generally highlighted issues about time, dignity, the involvement of all who are present and the needs of the elderly.

45 Q9 What happens to the bread and wine left over after the service?

Nearly one-fifth of respondents reported that the bread and wine were consumed, either by those who had distributed or by the Communion Stewards. In all other cases the more usual Methodist ways of disposal were used. Putting the wine back in the bottle and the bread out for the birds (‘they are God’s creatures’) were the most common.

46 Q9a Would you like to see any changes, and if so, why?

A small number expressed a preference for more dignified or reverent means of disposal, ‘out of respect and love for the sacrifice made.’ There was hardly any reference to ecumenical sensibilities. Those who wanted change were nearly all asking for more reverent means of disposal. Presbyters were more than twice as likely as lay people to want such change.

47 Q10 What forms of service are currently used?

Responses to this question showed a good deal of variety as well as widespread use of the 1999 Methodist Worship Book (MWB). Use of the 1936 Book of Offices was reported by a very few, in most cases used ‘occasionally’. Less than 10% of respondents reported using the 1975 Methodist Service Book (MSB) ‘always’. Among the great majority who reported using MWB the most common patterns were to use either the whole service or part of it ‘sometimes’. Over a quarter of respondents reported the use of MWB services ‘always’, either whole or in part. Those using MWB in part were more likely than those using whole services to use ‘other’ material as well. Nearly half reported the use of ‘other’ material ‘occasionally’ or ‘sometimes’. Frustratingly, not many specified what kind of ‘other’, although a few mentioned Iona or extempore forms.

48 Q10a Would you like to see any changes, and if so, why?

Some people expressed a preference for MWB, usually on the grounds of liking the variety of Communion service orders. ‘It makes people think.’ ‘It prevents force of habit.’ A few liked the dignity of MWB. ‘I have more regard for a set order - not made up liturgy with lots of hugging.’ Some mentioned particular elements of the service: the Creed, the Peace, and the Prayer of Humble Access. Concerns were expressed about formal or ‘churchy’ language, in a few cases for the sake of ‘those not used to Church language.’ Some found too many words oppressive and asked for more space and silence.

49 

Variety was also given as a reason for using ‘other’ material. A few people, on the other hand, expressed the view that there was too much variety. ‘Congregations need to feel comfortable.’ Some people expressed a preference for ‘the practice where no book is used and the minister takes the service in his (sic) own words’. Most of those advocating more extempore liturgy were concerned with the distraction of following or holding the book, the difficulty of following rubrics, the danger of complacency and, in one case, the desire to have Communion services ‘built around other gospel stories than the Last Supper.’

50 Q11 Do other people assist the presiding minister at a service which includes Holy Communion?

Responses to this question indicated that it was very common for people other than the minister to read from Scripture (‘always’ in nearly half of cases) and lead prayers, both intercessions and other prayers (rarely ‘always’ but either ‘occasionally’ or ‘sometimes’ in well over half of cases). Assisting with the distribution of the bread and wine was reported by a third of respondents ‘occasionally’ or ‘sometimes’ and a further third ‘always’. Those who assisted were most likely to be a Communion Steward or Local Preacher, followed by a Church Steward, another minister and then a lay worker, unspecified other and deacon.

51 Q11a Would you like to see any changes, and if so, why?

The practice of lay people assisting with the distribution of Communion was clearly widespread within the survey group. But there was also evidence of confusion and misunderstanding about what is involved. Those who wanted change were mainly looking for more involvement of lay people. For some this was simply a question of equality. ‘Anyone who loves the Lord should be able to help.’ ‘We are all servants of God, so I feel it’s a great privilege and more people should try it.’ For others it was ‘a symbol that the Sacrament is something that we are all sharing together, not something that is being done to us.’ For another small group it was important that those assisting should be authorised by the congregation or the church or in some way seen to be representative of it. ‘A person who emerges as someone whom everyone respects and reveres.’ ‘From recognised roles and with some awareness/training.’ Lack of representative roles could lead to an unhelpful emphasis on personal qualities: ‘some have told me, when approached, that they are ‘not worthy’ … the question can become divisive.’ Some comments revealed confusion between presiding at Communion and distributing the bread and wine, and the significance of both. ‘More involvement of lay non-leaders (would) underline (the) priesthood of all believers.’ ‘I would prefer ordained ministers to distribute the bread and wine always … If we are all to be regarded as equal in the Communion service why do ministers have to be ordained?’ Others showed a lack of information: ‘As Steward and senior Steward I didn’t know I would be allowed to assist. I thought you had to be a Local Preacher.’

52 Q12 Are there occasions when your congregation would like to have a Communion service but is unable to do so because a minister is not available?

Just over a quarter of respondents answered ‘Yes’ to this question. The most common reason given was ‘not enough ministers’, but reasons connected with bad planning were also given.

53 Q12a What would you regard as the best solution to this problem?

A wide variety of solutions was suggested. Some respondents saw the possibility of changing service times, encouraging congregations to come together or sharing with other denominations. Some felt that there could be better use of ministers, including supernumeraries and ministers of other denominations. Among those who advocated some kind of authorisation there was a variety of proposals. Stewards, Local Preachers, Worship Leaders, deacons, Lay Workers, probationers and Communion Stewards were all mentioned, together with ‘ordinary’ or ‘competent’ lay people or those ‘of good standing’. Underlying these suggestions may be discerned a variety of theological ideas. Some discerned a need for training (‘competence’ was also mentioned). Some emphasised prayerful discernment. Some suggested appointment by the Circuit, others by the congregation. Some looked for seniority, good standing or those well established in an office, others for all those in a category (such as Local Preacher) to be eligible. No one specifically mentioned authorisation by the Conference.

54 Q13 Are there any circumstances in which it would not be appropriate for someone to receive the bread and wine?

Note: The mere asking of this question, and the next two, presupposes to some extent that ‘there is a case to answer’. The underlying issues were selected as important following some preliminary conversations with a range of individuals and groups about the sort of questions that might be asked in the survey.

Most respondents felt that there should, in general, be no bar to people receiving the bread and wine. Those who answered “yes” to this question (clearly a minority) cited a number of different possible circumstances. The reasons most often mentioned were unresolved conflict, lack of penitence or blatant insincerity; public scandal (“local rogues’); very young children, or children whose parents had not given permission; the ignorant or “unchurched”.

55 Many felt that the decision whether or not to receive the elements should be a personal one, left to the conscience of the individual. Very little mention was made of Church discipline, although a few suggested that if someone had been expelled from membership for disciplinary reasons, they should be excluded. One respondent wrote of the danger of “abuse of the privilege” with regard to Communion, and another suggested that it should be up to the minister to decide.

56 Q14 How important is Holy Communion to you? Please give your reasons?

The majority of respondents wrote that Holy Communion is important to them, and many wrote that it is either “very” or “extremely” important. Communion was described as “vital”, “essential”, “a central building block” or the “supreme act of worship”. A significant minority, however, expressed the view that, whilst it is important, it is no more so than other acts or aspects of worship: “I could survive without it”. A few suggested that its specialness lies in its relative rarity and believe it to be devalued by over-frequent celebration.

57 Many reasons for regarding Communion as important were given. Grouped and listed roughly in order of popularity, the most common were:

• the awareness of the death/sacrifice of Christ - “what Christ has done for me” -and the forgiveness of sins; a reminder of Christ’s self-giving, his blood “shed for me personally”, so that I might have eternal life; God’s gift to us; celebration of the Easter faith
• the sense of fellowship with those sharing with us, but also with Christians around the world and in a continuing link going back through history to the experience of the first disciples at the Last Supper; the sense of being “Christ’s body”; being united “regardless of status”; the family of the Lord is together, entering into Christ’s passion; Christ creates community
• obedience to Christ; Christ requested that we should receive; Communion was instituted by Jesus; Communion is “a symbolic re-enactment of the Last Supper”
• foretaste of the heavenly banquet; a vision of sharing in the kingdom yet to come
• the opportunity for renewal, “forgiveness of sins”, “healing” and “peace”; a fresh start is given; we are sent out into the world with “strengthening of the power to love and serve”; we find spiritual strength and nourishment
• we come to Christ in a uniquely “personal way”; we are ‘face to face with the Lord”
• the sense of history and tradition; “… it has been important to the Church as a whole over the centuries”
• engages all five senses; it is “holistic” and with sign and symbol “gets beyond our obsession with words”; it communicates to us at many different levels
• gives opportunity for reflection and helps us find inner peace; “gives a standard of holiness”
• a central aspect of the call to, and vital part of, ministry; an extension of pastoral care; it “sustains, cleanses and energises for ministry” and strengthens faith; the “unique pastoral relationship” between minister and congregation is highlighted during distribution.

58 Q15 Do you believe or feel that Christ is present at the Lord's Supper in a unique or special way? Please give your reasons.

A clear majority answered “Yes” to this question. Some added that Christ’s presence is also mediated through other services. Many of the answers suggest that the respondents feel that Christ’s presence is experienced in a “special” rather than “unique” way at the Lord’s Supper, but these words mean different things to different people, are frequently confused, or are taken to be identical in meaning. A few people answered with a definite “No”, and a few were ambiguous, saying “Sometimes”, “Maybe” or “Yes and no”. A bewildering variety of reasons was expressed.

59 Amongst the answers of those who did not believe, or who were cautious about the notion of the presence of Christ being either uniquely or specially present were the following (listed in no particular order):

• Christ is present in all times and places; “he is everywhere the same. It is how much we are tuned in”; it is our perception of him that changes
• we mustn’t restrict Christ’s presence, or “overstate” the uniqueness of the sacrament
• it depends on the minister taking the service, or the style of the service; “presbyters have no power to summon Christ’s presence”
• Christ is not localised in the elements
• He isn’t specially present but we feel closer and more receptive
• “Christ’s presence is ‘real’ wherever his people meet in his name”.

60 The responses of the majority, who believed that Christ is present in a special or unique way, were also many and varied, and included the following (similar points from different respondents have been grouped together):

• the elements are “physical representations of Christ offered to each individual and taken and held by each individual”; “Bread and wine become for us the body and blood of Christ”
• Christ promised we would receive, and that he would be present, through the Holy Spirit … Jesus is there in the Holy Spirit; it is a spiritual presence
• Christ invites to, and presides at, his table; he is the host ... he is present, just as he was at the Last Supper ... we are like the disciples
• “He just fills my heart - inexplicable” … “I just ‘feel” him, like He’s hugging me, holding me in his arms”
• “symbolism is a gateway to perception”
• “Jesus is present in the bread and wine - a great mystery; Jesus is there for me”
• Christ is “both priest and victim”
• Communion is a foretaste of the heavenly banquet
• “Communion gives me a closer, one to one relationship”
• Christ is present in the body of believers, gathered together.

61 Only six or seven respondents used the phrase “the real presence”, and a few stated their “clear rejection of the doctrine of transubstantiation”“. There was a general lack of emphasis on the bread and wine as vehicles of Christ’s presence. A small number commented in their response to this question that they had made a personal commitment to Christ through, or during a Communion service.

62 In conclusion, it can be observed that there are many and various views about Communion expressed in the survey. Most respondents believed that Communion should be open to all, and that the decision whether or not to receive should be made by each individual. The majority said that Communion was important to them, and that they believed that Christ was present in a special way in the Communion, though not necessarily “uniquely” present. For many, Communion was tremendously important for their personal faith, but within this the corporate dimension of Communion was felt to be extremely important. We conclude that Methodists gain personal strength from this sacrament, but they wish to receive it together: many respondents wrote of the power of Communion to unite the people of Christ.

E OTHER CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES OF COMMUNION IN THE METHODIST CHURCH

(i) Holy Communion liturgies

63 Prior to the publication of the 1975 Methodist Service Book (MSB), Methodist liturgical provision for Holy Communion was found in the 1936 Book of Offices, with two forms. The first was essentially that of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. The second, ‘alternative’ form, was shorter and attempted to reflect the written forms of the non-Wesleyan traditions, although in practice many of them had been rather more informal. The MSB ‘Sunday Service’ provided for the first time a service in contemporary language and, in its name, signalled the closer integration of Holy Communion into the ‘mainstream’ of Methodist worship, rather than being very often an ‘optional extra’ for the very committed. The newer liturgy soon established its dominance over earlier forms and assisted the growth in frequency with which Communion was now being celebrated in our churches.

64 This very ‘success’, together with rapid developments in liturgical language in other traditions and the emergence of new theological concerns, notably that of inclusive language, contributed to a movement for further development, and the eventual appearance of the 1999 Methodist Worship Book (MWB). In its eucharistic provision, MWB offers eight full orders, following the main seasons and festivals of the Christian year as well as ‘Ordinary Seasons, not to mention seven further Communion orders for particular occasions such as Holy Week, Covenant, Marriage, Healing and Ordination services. Each of these orders has a distinctive ‘feel’, appropriate to the occasion, time of year or reflecting different emphases. There is much greater use of signs and symbols and a wider variety of poetic imagery, although many of these features are offered as suggestions rather than being in any sense mandatory, thus reflecting the variety of liturgical preference within the Church today.

65 To highlight the chief changes introduced with MWB is perhaps to play down the significant continuities in style and theology compared with its predecessors and many of the liturgies currently emerging in other denominations. However, we may note a few features briefly:

• the use of a stronger ‘epiclesis’ (invocation of the Holy Spirit) in the eucharistic prayers
• the re-introduction of the ‘Prayer of Humble Access’ in a version close to Cranmer’s 16th century original, alongside the MSB text, which had gained considerable popularity
• reinstatement of the traditional language of ‘angels and archangels’ rather than simply ‘the company of heaven’
• a wider use of ‘feminine’ imagery throughout and a eucharistic prayer addressed to ‘God our Father and our Mother’, included after vigorous debate
• material drawn from a wide range of other Christian traditions
• the inclusion of familiar music in one of the orders of service for Communion

66 However, despite the ‘success’ of MWB (almost 250,000 copies sold) and the continuing use of MSB in many places and the 1936 service in a few, these ‘official’ liturgies have never been exclusive of all others. Indeed, it would appear that there is even greater variety in liturgical use today than ever before. Extensive use is made of liturgies from such sources as the Iona Community, contemporary Christian writers and other denominations, and many congregations use extempore and ‘home grown’ liturgies, at least on some occasions. The ready availability of facilities for local reproduction of printed material has facilitated these developments. Such variety and creativity is a witness to the vibrant eucharistic life of Methodist Churches, and the continued interest in exploring the many theological riches of this sacrament. It is also in keeping with the status of the liturgies authorised by Conference as a standard for Methodist worship: ‘these forms are not intended to curb creative freedom, but rather to provide norms for its guidance.’ (Preface to MSB, quoted in preface to MWB). MWB offers a section of guidance for ordering a service of Holy Communion on occasions when the full liturgies are not used.

67 It is also important to note traditions of ‘informal’ and ‘extempore’ observance of Communion. This may take the form of a ‘minimalist’ liturgy, and/or eschew written forms for a freer expression of thanksgiving and remembrance. One common pattern, differing from that in the ‘authorised’ liturgies, and akin to that of some ‘Reformed’ Churches, is that of ‘Narrative of Institution’ (typically a reading of the account of the Last Supper in 1 Corinthians 11), followed by prayers of Intercession and then the Sharing of the Bread and Wine.

68 However, it is undoubtedly the case that in Methodism, the publication of a new book of liturgies (as of a hymn book) is a significant event, and a spirit of connexionalism is reinforced, as the new material becomes, in most places, the ‘norm’.

(ii) Hymnody and Holy Communion

69 Hymns are important to Methodists at Holy Communion, as elsewhere in their worship. The increased importance of Holy Communion in Methodist consciousness and worship is underlined by the increased provision, as compared with earlier hymnals, of hymns suitable for Holy Communion in Hymns & Psalms. It contains 39 hymns in the section on the Lord’s Supper as against 18 in the 1933 Methodist Hymn Book.

70 The hymns in total represent a blend of traditional and contemporary. As well as eucharistic hymns by the Wesleys and ‘traditional’ writers, there are also a translation of part of the ‘eucharistic’ prayer from the Didache and 20th century hymns by Fred Pratt Green, Fred Kaan, Brian Wren and Patrick Appleford. These also stress the dynamic nature of the encounter of the living Christ with his people at the Lord’s Supper.

71 Taking the eucharistic hymns in HP as a whole, one can discern certain recurrent themes. There is a strong emphasis upon celebration, set in the very first hymn, no 592 and maintained in a variety of ways in others e.g. 606, 609, 610 (with a more individual emphasis). Another emphasis is upon eschatological expectation and longing for the fulfilment of the experience to which Holy Communion points e.g. 598, 600, 603. Many hymns stress the spiritual nourishment received at Holy Communion, e.g. 595, 604, 608, 611, 613, 620. Several hymns stress the way in which Holy Communion enhances and deepens the unity and fellowship of the Church. The best two examples of this are to be found at 612, ‘Jesus invites His saints’ and 622, ‘See where our great high priest’. Dedication, and inspiration to dedication are emphasised in several hymns e.g. 594 and 595.

72 It is traditional, at least in some circles in Methodism, to ascribe great importance to the 166 ‘Hymns on the Lord’s Supper’, written by the Wesley brothers. What is not simple to ascertain is the degree to which they have been used and their theology ‘received’ by the Methodist people in succeeding generations. This collection of hymns is not readily accessible to the ‘ordinary’ Methodist. A few, certainly, have appeared in successive official Methodist hymnals. Only one, ‘Victim Divine, Thy grace we claim’, appeared in the last two Wesleyan books, of 1877 and 1904, and the two books of reunited Methodism 1933 and 1983. In practice, the hymns of the Wesleys do not represent the contemporary understanding and piety of many Methodists.

73 Nevertheless, if Methodism is to be faithful to the obligation to wrestle with its tradition, perhaps it should continue to take account of the hymns that undoubtedly present a very rich and nuanced understanding of Holy Communion. The hymns, mainly written by Charles, are arranged in six sections, viz.- ‘As it is a memorial of the sufferings of Christ’, ‘As it is a sign and a means of grace’, ‘The sacrament as a pledge of heaven, ‘The Holy Eucharist as it implies a sacrifice’, ‘Concerning the sacrifice of our persons’ and ‘After the sacrament’. The comprehensiveness of their coverage anticipates much that was to become commonplace in the Liturgical Movement and in contemporary ecumenical consensus on Holy Communion. Though only eight of the hymns are in the present Hymns and Psalms, they do reflect this comprehensiveness and richness, including, as they do, a hymn invoking the Holy Spirit (602), a hymn emphasising the eucharistic sacrifice (629), others reflecting the eschatological dimension of Holy Communion (e.g. 598, 614) and one reflecting the intimate union of Christ and His people (622). A constant emphasis is upon the joyful mystery of Holy Communion in such couplets as

‘He bids us eat and drink Imperishable food’.

or

‘Who Thy mysterious supper share. Here at thy table fed' (HP 614)

74 The essential feature of the eucharistic piety of the Wesley’s with which contemporary Christians of all denominations would do well to engage, is its sense of doxological awe and wonder, as seen in such verses as:

‘O, the depth of love divine, the unfathomable grace! Who shall say how bread and wine God into man (sic) conveys!’

and

‘Let us taste the heavenly powers, Lord we ask for nothing more. Thine to bless, ‘tis only ours to wonder and adore’’.

and

‘Angels round our altars bend to search it out in vain’.

75 The eucharistic hymns of the Wesleys focus on the union of Christ with His people at the Lord’s Supper. Some of their phraseology may be felt problematic for the present generation, but a vital dimension of eucharistic spirituality might be lost were they to fall completely out of use. It could be argued that Methodism has a duty to commend their appreciation to the wider Christian world.

(iii) Communion and conversion

76 In the early days of Methodism, members of the societies were expected to continue to attend the parish church to receive Communion, so questions about admission did not immediately arise. When they did, as in so many other matters of Church order John Wesley was so committed to what he believed to be the pattern of the primitive Church that he regarded baptism as a sufficient qualification for admission to Communion. Indeed, he completely omitted the rite of confirmation from his Sunday Service revision of the Book of Common Prayer. In his abridgement of his father’s Short Discourse of Baptism, which Wesley published in 1756, he declared baptism to be the initiatory sacrament of entry into the covenant, of entry into the Church and of incorporation into Christ. Neither of the Wesley brothers ever wrote anything about confirmation. Charles Wesley was in the habit of baptising those who became believers before admitting them to the Lord’s Supper. During the Methodist revival John Wesley welcomed English dissenters to Communion on the assumption that they had been baptised.

77 John Wesley urged those who believed that Christ had died for them to eat of the bread and drink of the cup at the Lord’s Table. Furthermore, from the 1740s he stood out against those who took the view that the Lord’s Supper was only a ‘confirming ordinance’ leading from confessing faith to fullness of faith. On the grounds of experience Wesley declared that there were those who owed the very beginning of their conversion to God to what God had worked in them at the Lord’s Supper: it was a ‘converting ordinance’. The teaching of the Wesleys was that Communion could lead a genuine seeker first to find Christ, then to be justified by believing faith and finally through constant attendance at the Lord’s Supper and the other means of grace to reach a state of scriptural holiness and entire sanctification in heart and life, having been made perfect in love. The Lord’s Supper was ordained by God as a means of conveying ‘preventing (i.e. prevenient), justifying or sanctifying grace’.

78 In their joint manifesto Hymns on the Lord’s Supper (1745) the Wesleys placed a huge emphasis on sinners finding salvation at the Table of the Lord. The Lord’s Table in early Methodism was however ‘fenced’ by the dual requirement of evidence of fleeing from sin and a genuine seeking after Christ and in addition a ‘class ticket’ or ‘Communion note’ from the Wesleys themselves or from one of their Assistants. John Wesley stated emphatically ‘no fitness is required at the time of communicating, but a sense of utter sinfulness and helplessness’. The Lord’s Supper was open to all bona fide seekers however frail their hold upon the faith. Some ten years into the Methodist revival the Wesleys were at pains to admit to Communion only those they knew to be seekers. ‘Strangers’ were not admitted to Communion without a ‘ticket’ from one of Wesley’s assistants. Admission was by presentation to the Steward of a ‘society ticket’ or a ‘band ticket’ or a ‘Communion ticket’ or, in Scotland, ‘a Communion token’. After ‘morning prayer’ or ‘the preaching’ those without admission tickets would leave.

79 In the early part of the nineteenth century both the Wesleyan and the Primitive Methodist traditions required a ticket or note of admission from those attending the Lord’s Supper. The United Methodist Free Churches recognised at the Lord’s Supper both their own ‘sacramental members’ who had a monthly Communion ticket and ‘strangers’ who would eventually be approached about becoming ‘sacramental members’.

80 The Wesleyan Methodists lived with a dichotomy. On the one hand they never rescinded the rule that no one should partake of the sacrament unless they could present a class ticket or a quarterly note of admission. On the other hand, in practice, the Wesleyan Conference claimed no one had ever been denied the Lord’s Supper if they did present themselves without a ticket! The present and almost universal Methodist custom of inviting to the Lord’s Table ‘all those who love the Lord Jesus Christ’ (the so-called ‘open table’) is a phenomenon that developed in the twentieth century. The primary motive behind this practice is the belief that none should be prevented from finding and receiving the love and nourishment which Christ offers at his table. It enshrines Wesley’s concept of the Lord’s Supper as a ‘converting ordinance’ open to all ‘seekers’ and avoids deciding at each celebration who are ‘members’ and who are not. The 1975 Methodist Service Book tried to take a tighter view and indicated that only communicant members of other Churches, whose discipline so permitted, were welcome to receive Communion in Methodist congregations. Provision was made in the rubric for ‘those who leave’ to do so after the prayers of intercession, before the sharing of the Peace, reflecting the earlier custom that Holy Communion was, in practice, an observance only for the most committed, adult believers. The 2000 Conference, referring back to Guidelines about Children and Holy Communion issued in 1987, affirmed that those receiving Communion should, if not already baptized, be encouraged to be baptized - but acknowledged that this ‘theological principle’ was not widely adhered to.

81 Methodism came late to the idea of a liturgical act for making members. Young people were encouraged to see their becoming members as the occasion for starting to receive Communion. Ever since first using the term ‘confirmation’ in the mid-1960s, Methodism has been confused about the meaning and purpose of that rite. When Methodism moved to a position of inviting children to receive Holy Communion it was baptism, parental permission and catechesis that became the necessary or highly desirable criteria.

82 Both the Wesley brothers administered Communion to catechised children at their own Kingswood School near Bristol. John Wesley’s journal implies that all he required of any child before giving them Communion was ‘a sense of the pardoning love of God’. The Methodist Service Book expected children to come to the rail - but for a blessing rather than to receive the bread and wine. Clearly, the customary Methodist open invitation to Communion, to all who love the Lord Jesus Christ was not, in practice, intended to include children. But even this was an advance on the practice in most Methodist churches prior to this time, to celebrate Holy Communion as an ‘add-on’, after the main service was concluded - few children would have even been present in church, and could only speculate as to the mysteries hidden under the white Communion tablecloth. However, by 2000 British Methodism had undergone a major shift on the place of children at Holy Communion, as outlined below (see paragraphs 133-135).

(iv) Communion Stewards

83 The office of Communion Steward gives a distinctively Methodist flavour to the organisation of a Communion service. The office originated with the Poor Stewards of the Methodist societies: when the societies began to celebrate their own Communion services (especially after the Plan of Pacification of 1795) an offering was commonly taken for the relief of the poor. The existing Poor Stewards thus became responsible for the arrangements for the service. This dual responsibility is still enshrined in Standing Orders (SO 637). Communion Stewards are appointed by the Church Council to ‘make provision for the proper celebration of the sacrament’ and to be responsible for a separate collection, if one is taken, for the benevolence fund or other charitable purpose authorised by the Church Council. This degree and type of delegation, with the associated use of the term ‘Steward’, gives the office its Methodist character. The (itinerant) minister has great influence but does not totally control the arrangements for Communion services.

84 This shared responsibility invests the office of Communion Steward with great dignity and significance although on one level the tasks are wholly practical. Communion Stewards are generally responsible for providing the bread and wine, setting the table, ushering communicants to the place of distribution and (usually) all aspects of clearing the table, as well as overseeing the care of the table linen. Conversation with Communion Stewards frequently reveals the spirit of humility, reverence and love in which the service is offered, and the joy of being at the heart of the liturgy in this supremely practical way.

85 Conversation, together with comments from the survey, also reveals the delicate balance of influence and expectation focused on the office. Communion Stewards may have their own traditions about the type of bread and wine used and the form in which it is provided, while different ministers and members of the congregation may have other preferences. Members of the congregation are unlikely to question the Communion Stewards’ practices; ministers may feel it would be insensitive or impolitic to do so. The disposal of the bread and wine is often the Communion Stewards’ responsibility to the extent that others do not know how it is done. The task of ‘directing the approach of communicants to the Lord’s Table in an orderly and expeditious manner’ (SO 637) is felt as a heavy burden by some Communion Stewards, due largely, it would seem, to the awareness of time pressures revealed by the survey.

(v) The setting of Holy Communion

86 In the latter part of the twentieth century, there was a renewed awareness among Methodists of the significance of how church architecture and furnishings both express and shape our faith. In Groundwork of Worship and Preaching (Epworth Press 1980, p.9ff.), Richard Jones describes different types of Methodist church buildings. In the first, (typically 19th century), the pulpit dominates, below which there is a small Communion table and rail. The architecture emphasises the importance of preaching rather than Communion. The second type (probably dating from around 1860 - 1900) is a grand, “parish church” style building, with transepts and a chancel. The Communion table is raised on high, at the far end of the chancel emphasising the transcendence and mystery of God. Another type is the multi purpose hall (probably built between the 1930s and 1960s), with a sanctuary area at one end that is screened off, except on Sundays. Within the sanctuary area there is a pulpit to one side, a font and a small, central Communion table. The sanctuary area within a hall used for purposes other than worship suggests a belief in the presence of the Word and Sacraments in the midst of daily life, although the screening of the area suggests a separation of worship from daily life. The last of Jones’ examples is a modern church building, with a pulpit or lectern to one side at the front of the worship area, and a central table, on a raised area, around which people will kneel to receive the elements. The centrality of the table reflects the increased awareness amongst many Methodist people of the importance of Communion.

87 Susan White (Groundwork of Christian Worship, Epworth Press 1997, p.77) observes that “... in the past half-century, important changes in Communion practice, in baptismal theology, in the role of music, and in our understanding of the nature and mission of the Christian community have shaped and reshaped the setting in which Christian worship now takes place”. This can be seen in many churches where the Communion table, originally distant from the people, has been brought forward to a position of greater prominence within the worship area. Instead of people walking up the chancel towards the table, there is more of a feeling of being gathered around the table. In many churches the table was originally positioned against a wall, or at the base of a pulpit, and where space permits, the table has been drawn forward so the minister can preside from behind the table, facing the people. (See John Lampard, It’s More than Washing Glasses, MPH 1987, p.7)

88 Methodists, always borrowers, have unashamedly begun to learn about the movement and shape of the liturgical year and its accompanying liturgies and customs from Churches where such traditions are much stronger. Banners and liturgical hangings have become widespread features of Methodist churches, evidence of a renewed appreciation of the visual dimension to worship. Sacramental stoles in traditional liturgical colours are increasingly being worn by ministers presiding at services of Holy Communion. Some ministers have sought a measure of ecumenical convergence in the wearing of a white cassock-alb, but others feel that more informal ways of celebrating Holy Communion should be led by people more informally dressed. In a pluralist age there is inevitably less uniformity and not a few ministers have adopted individualistic and idiosyncratic forms of dress. A report on liturgical dress adopted by the Conference in 1987 gave some guidance on these matters, but there seems little prospect of universal agreement.

89 Another effect of liturgical renewal is seen in the ‘art of presidency.’ The older Anglican and Methodist practice was basically for the priest or minister simply to stand or kneel at one end of the table and ‘read’ the service. In Methodism it was not unknown for ministers to read the service facing the congregation with their backs to the elements. Sometimes, the presiding minister would ‘take’ the bread and the cup at the ‘offertory’ or during the words of institution (the ‘manual acts’) and sometimes, apart from the earlier removal of the upper cloth, during the Communion hymn, no attention was drawn to the elements at all until the moment they were required for distribution.

90 In more recent years presiding ministers have been introduced to a wider variety of possibilities. These include first, sitting near the table during the service (especially when others are taking part in the Ministry of the Word) as the visible ‘president’ of the service, secondly, standing behind a free-standing table facing the congregation during the Prayer of Thanksgiving and thirdly, placing the book on the table so that the hands and arms are free and they can preside at the liturgy with simple actions rather than just reading from a book held in the hand. The overriding aim is to engage with the worshipping assembly in a corporate event. Some have argued that, like a good teacher, something of the professional actor in the presiding minister can help to ‘lift’ the whole drama of the eucharistic event ‘off the page and into the life of the congregation’.

(vi) Observations from circuit plans

91 A statistical analysis of circuit plans undertaken by John Lenton (Epworth Review, October 2000) demonstrates that Methodists now celebrate Communion more frequently than previously. Using plans from circuits in various parts of England, from the periods 1807 - 1926 (including examples from Wesleyan, Primitive and United circuits) and 1997 - 2000, the percentage of services that were marked as Holy Communion was calculated for each plan. It was shown that, in the earlier period, this percentage figure was 2.08%, compared to 20.31% for the more recent period.

92 A separate analysis of circuit plans was undertaken on behalf of the Working Party, looking at the years 1960 - 2000, and using similar methods, although drawing samples from a much smaller number of circuits. Although this survey was only partial, there was a clear indication that there had been an increase in the frequency of Communion services over the period. A sample of plans from four circuits in four different districts from 1969 showed that 13.8% of services were Communions. Plans from the same circuits for 1999 showed that 16.6% of services were Communions.

93 The frequency and regularity of Communions on some plans was clearly affected by the preferences of the minister in pastoral charge, and would change with a change of minister. On some more recent plans, the figures were influenced by the presence of an Anglican/ Methodist LEP, with a weekly celebration of Communion.

(vii) Methodist scholars who have made a significant contribution to our understanding of Holy Communion

Space does not permit a full account of the writings of the many Methodist scholars who have contributed to the Church’s thinking. The following summary is offered simply to indicate some of the most significant contributors and something of their thought.

94 Long before it was fashionable Adam Clarke (c.1760-1832) drew scholarly and original parallels between Passover and Communion and laid the foundations for work which reached its finest exposition in the writings of William Burt Pope (1822-1903). Pope wrote of Baptism and Lord’s Supper as the Spirit’s instruments in aiding and strengthening faith: ‘In the eucharistic commemoration (we obtain) all the benefits of the sacrifice’.

95 Joseph Agar Beet (1840-1924) set out a famous parallel between word and sacrament. ‘Just as in the preached word and in the fullest sense (we have) the real and objective presence of the crucified God ... So we need not hesitate to say, that in the same sense, we have his real presence in the Lord’s Supper. To the eye of faith the symbols disappear and the infinite reality alone remains’. Charles Ryder Smith (1875-1956) in his Sacramental Society (1927) put forward the distinction later taken up with some force by Gordon Wakefield (1921 - 2000) that Methodist eucharistic theology and devotional practice revealed a profound distinction between ‘sacramentalists’ which Methodists undoubtedly were and ‘sacerdotalists’ which Methodists were undoubtedly not.

96 J. Ernest Rattenbury (1870-1963) developed Richard Watson’s determination to find a Methodist understanding of Holy Communion based on the Wesleys themselves. Rattenbury insisted that in their devotion to the Lord’s Supper the Wesleys’ experience of 1738 simply set on fire the sacramental foundations already laid. The Lord’s Supper became an instrument of the gospel. In The Eucharistic Hymns of John and Charles Wesley (1948) Rattenbury also brought to the fore the distinctive eucharistic theology of the Wesley brothers set out in Hymns on the Lord’s Supper (1745). A vigorous critique of the Wesleys’ slavish adherence to Dean Brevint and of Rattenbury’s interpretation was supplied by Franz Hildebrandt (1909-1985) in I Offered Christ: A Protestant study of the Mass (1967). Hildebrandt’s interpretations were themselves overturned by Bishop Ole Borgen in John Wesley and the Sacraments (1974).

97 The eucharistic practice of Methodism was set out in two classic studies by John C. Bowmer (1911-2000), The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper in Early Methodism (1951) and a sequel covering the years 1792-1960. In 1962 in Dow Kirkpatrick’s symposium on The Doctrine of the Church Raymond George (1912-1998) produced perhaps the finest of all reflections on the Wesleys and Holy Communion in which he concluded that Hymns on the Lord’s Supper (1745) owed far more to Cyprian than to Augustine. ‘In the Eucharist we are brought into the heavenly places and there is made present to us, the once for all sacrificial act of Christ.’

98 The most monumental piece of original twentieth century Methodist writing on Holy Communion was undoubtedly Geoffrey Wainwright (1939-) in his Eucharist and Eschatology (1971; re-issued, Epworth Press 2003) in which he could claim that ‘not until the Wesleys’ Hymns on the Lord’s Supper (1745) did the Western Church achieve again the richness and appreciation of Holy Communion as a sign of the future banquet of the heavenly kingdom.’

(viii) ‘Semi-official’ Methodist publications

Methodist thinking and practice is influenced by resources such as those mentioned here, which, whilst not having the formal authority of Conference, have been published by connexional bodies.

99 There are a number of relatively recent publications that, whilst not actually sanctioned by Conference, describe the Methodist Church and its history, theology and current practices. Many of these are published by the Methodist Publishing House (MPH), or the Epworth Press. Among the most recent is Michael Townsend’s The Sacraments (Epworth Press 1999). Some of these publications illustrate something of Methodist belief and practice with regard to Communion. For example, the booklet It’s more than washing glasses by John Lampard (MPH, 1987) describes the duties of a Communion Steward. The practicalities of the task are outlined, but the Communion Steward’s role in enhancing the atmosphere “of something which is both holy and joyful” (p.19) is also stressed.

100 Discussions about children and Communion have produced a number of publications over the years, including Children at Holy Communion. One Body With Him (Peter Sulston and Leigh Pope, MDEY 1989). In this booklet the Lord’s Supper is described as a “proclamation of the Gospel” and “a means of grace, God’s sign to us of his love, the assurance that Christ who met and ministered to people in his earthly ministry, meets and ministers to his people now”.

101 In Rupert Davies’ What Methodists Believe (Epworth Press 1976, 1988) there is no sustained focus on the sacrament of Communion and no specifically Methodist beliefs or practices are highlighted. We are told, however, that “The Lord’s Supper supplies the regular nourishment we need for sustaining our Christian life”. Moreover, Jesus “can and does come to us to be the host at his supper as a living personal reality from whom we can receive once again his gift of himself...” (p. 42). He is the host and we are the guests. Through Communion “... The whole action of God in Christ for the salvation of mankind becomes ours in the present time” (p. 43).

102 A lack of direct focus on Communion is also found in Thomas Langford’s Methodist Theology, in the Exploring Methodism Series (Epworth Press 1998). References to the Lord’s Supper in this book are generally confined to the discussion on events leading to the 1932 union and the debate on presidency (p.73f). With regard to presidency at the Lord’s Supper, Langford comments that “The minister neither adds an essential element nor is the sacrament specifically activated by the minister’s presence” (p.92). (This emphasis on the question of presidency reflects the emphasis found in conference statements with regard to Communion.)

103 The leaflet The Methodist Church, an introduction (MPH 1998; part of a set of materials designed as an introduction to the Methodist Church) observes that Holy Communion is at the heart of our worship. Through Communion we remember the Last Supper, and receive the Holy Spirit into our lives. It says, “all that is wrong in our lives can be dealt with and we are given hope and strength”.

(ix) Ecumenical and other experiences.

104 Methodist appreciation of the breadth and variety of practice, spirituality and theology of Holy Communion has grown considerably over the last generation. Both wider travel and increased ecumenical co-operation and friendship across traditional denominational boundaries have contributed to this. A considerable number of Methodists have experience of the eucharistic worship of other traditions through Local Ecumenical Partnerships, shared worship and visits to other churches. The majority of our ministers are now trained alongside those of other denominations. There is also much ‘informal ecumenism’, as denominational allegiances become more fluid. Some have been considerably attracted to the eucharistic ethos of other Churches, both those with a more ‘catholic’ and ‘liturgical’ style and those in the simpler tradition common in the other Free Churches. Thus, for example, some Methodists have come to a more rounded appreciation of Holy Communion as making present sacramentally the great events of salvation. Others treasure the emphasis upon Holy Communion as a corporate act, vividly signified by such practices as all receiving the elements simultaneously in the pews or ‘in the round’. In the latter case, the survival of some pre-Union practices from the smaller Methodist Churches has also played a role.

105 In some quarters, the influence of the avowedly ecumenical ‘Iona’ liturgies, with their combination of tradition and modernity in structure, style and phraseology, has been profound. Some Methodists have been and continue to be influenced by traditions and practices that view every part of life as sacramental, for example the Society of Friends, with their emphasis upon every meal as an occasion for thanksgiving for all God’s benefits.

106 One Bread, One Body (1998) is the Roman Catholic bishops’ (of Britain and Ireland) teaching document on Holy Communion. Most ecumenical partners have expressed admiration of its clarity and the Anglican bishops acknowledged the general acceptability of much of its general teaching, although much of it would probably be put differently, but not contradictorily, by others. The one area which has caused particular controversy has been over the very restricted guidelines for eucharistic hospitality spelt out by the Roman Catholic bishops, which is felt by some to be a less than generous interpretation of Vatican II teaching. The bishops emphasise Holy Communion as the sacrament of existing unity and deny that there yet exists enough agreement in faith, both generally and specifically in regard to Holy Communion itself, for ‘intercommunion’. They also do not accept that Anglican or Free Church Eucharists are fully ‘valid’.

107 The Eucharist, Sacrament of Unity (2001) is the Church of England bishops’ response to One Bread, One Body. The Anglicans assert that the fundamental unity given in Baptism justifies the interim sharing of Holy Communion as an integral aid to the process of growing into communion. ‘We do not believe that ... eucharistic communion must be reserved for full ecclesial communion, visibly and structurally expressed’. Though there are other points on which they dissent from the teaching of One Bread, One Body on eucharistic hospitality, this is the key one - that Holy Communion is a means towards the unity of the Church not just a sign of unity existing or already achieved. Methodists would generally endorse this line.

108 Many Methodists now recognise that there is an immense amount to be learned from other Christian traditions. Increasingly, this is not just from those traditions which have long been established in Britain, but also from the world church. The universal tradition and the local tradition need to be in constant dialogue, so that by sharing with our sisters and brothers each other’s insights and practices, we may all grow towards a fuller appreciation and expression of the complex mystery of Holy Communion.

(x) Ecumenically sensitive issues

109 Once Christians from particular eucharistic communities begin to live alongside others their current practices will either be called into question or require justification. The issue of lay presidency is discussed in paragraphs 163 to 166 of the report An Anglican Methodist Covenant (2001), which includes the comment that the difference of polity on this issue between us and the Church of England ‘can cause tension within LEPs’. When Methodists are involved with other Free Churches an opposite tension can arise where other Free Churches permit greater use of lay presidency than Methodism. Other issues such as the arrangements for the disposal of unused bread and wine, the use of non-alcoholic wine and the use of individual cups tend not to cause difficulty in relations with other Free Churches but are sensitive in LEPs involving Anglicans. We would hope to grow in positive appreciation of the best in every tradition.

110 Presidency. Methodism does have very definite rules about presidency at Holy Communion - both as to who may preside (paragraphs 126-132 below outline the ways in which successive Conferences have addressed this issue) and also as to what they are expected to do and say (for example, in the ‘Guidelines for ordering a service of Holy Communion’ contained in the Methodist Worship Book).The Presiding minister must be an ordained presbyter or other person specifically authorised by the Conference. In some other traditions, the Presiding minister must be an episcopally ordained presbyter, and no exceptions are permitted. By contrast, some other traditions insist that anyone authorised by the local church community should be able to preside, and this may well include lay people. Methodists are usually happy to accept the eucharistic discipline of other Churches, and try not to act in any way that might cause offence. In LEPs, circumstances relating to presidency vary from case to case as negotiated. Methodists have different views as to whether it is ever appropriate for a Methodist who is not an ordained presbyter to preside at Holy Communion of some other Free Church tradition. This whole question is linked to issues of ecclesiology and differing ways of understanding the relationship between the local church and Universal Church.

111 Whose Communion is it? Methodists emphasise that Communion is the Communion of Christ, and of the whole Church. Holy Communion may be celebrated according to differing, denominationally authorised rites, but there is no such thing as a ‘Methodist’, ‘Anglican’ or other denominational Communion as such: there is only the one Holy Communion of the Universal Church, celebrated as the ‘foretaste of the heavenly banquet’. Since all are called to this banquet, it is appropriate that as many as are already willing share in its foretaste now.

112 Baptism and Confirmation Some traditions regard Baptism as an absolute pre-requisite for receiving Holy Communion - describing Communion in such terms as ‘the family meal of the Church’. Others would want to exclude no one, believing that Christ’s hospitality is for all; nevertheless, they would expect anyone who wanted to become a regular communicant to avail themselves of the other great sacrament. Both these views are found among Methodists, and the stipulation of the 2000 Conference that those admitted to Communion should normally be baptised was much debated and is still controversial. In a similar way, there are varied views and practices amongst Christian traditions in regard to the relationship between confirmation (where practised) and first Communion.

113 Admission to Communion In the spectrum of Christian thought, there has been a tension between those traditions and individuals who have emphasised Holy Communion as the Church’s act, for which the Church has full authority to set regulations, including those of admission or exclusion, and those who have emphasised it as the Supper of the Lord from which the Church has no right to exclude any who come in faith seeking to meet the One who is the invisible host at his own Table. Our Lord’s openness to sinners and his table fellowship with them, would seem to imply that none should be excluded from Holy Communion. This accords with Methodism’s Arminianism. (See also paragraphs 133 to 135, which consider issues to do with baptism and the admission of children.)

114 There is perhaps an irresolvable tension here that explains why the Christian world has been so divided on the matter. Roman Catholics and Orthodox insist there must be full agreement in faith and common acceptance of Church authority before there can be full eucharistic hospitality. Holy Communion must be a sign of already existing unity. The issue of eucharistic hospitality is linked to the question of how much unity in faith is required, the main ‘reformation Churches’, including Anglicans, being less exacting in this respect than the Roman Catholics and Orthodox. (For the Roman Catholic bishops of Britain and Ireland in their report, One Bread, One Body (1998), eucharistic hospitality is not a serious option. For the Church of England bishops, in their reply The Eucharist: Sacrament of Unity (2001), our common Christian Baptism justifies the interim sharing of Holy Communion.) Others believe the Table must be open. It is Christ and not the Church that is host. Commitment to him is all that is needed rather than doctrinal agreement or membership of a particular Church Communion. Holy Communion is the meal of the Pilgrim People of God, who are still on a journey towards the final promised fullness of fellowship in Church life (cf. Ephesians 5:27). As a means of grace, it builds up the body and leads it towards fuller unity. Therefore, it can and has been argued that participation in it is a means towards greater unity as well as acting as a sign of the existing, though not yet perfect, degree of unity. In recent years, the Church of England has shifted some way from the first position towards the second, though without going the whole way.

115 By virtue of our policy of an open table, the Methodist Church does not exclude those of other traditions, but is sensitive towards those of other Churches whose discipline does not permit their communicants to receive elsewhere. When Methodists are in dialogue with the Roman Catholic and Orthodox traditions there will be a diversity of opinions as to whether mutual eucharistic hospitality is a means to the desired end of organic union or the final goal and consummation of the search. By conviction Methodists would claim that eucharistic sharing deepens the bonds between Christians and does not have to wait for the formal and final stages of visible unity. In the responses to the Lima Report ‘Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry’ British Methodists found no outstanding issue more important to them than the principle of the Lord’s Supper as a ‘converting ordinance’ to which they held by conviction and the ‘open table’ which they now perceive as ‘fundamental to their own eucharistic faith and practice’.

116 Alcoholic wine/unleavened bread Some argue that the elements must be the same as those used by Christ in the Upper Room. Others argue that it is appropriate to use ordinary, leavened bread and non-alcoholic wine. In some LEPs, there are compromises and alcoholic and non-alcoholic wine may both be available at the same Eucharist.

117 Disposal of the elements This is a particularly difficult issue, since views as to what constitutes ‘reverent disposal’ vary. Some traditions insist the only reverent way is consumption at the end of the service; others feel throwing the elements away, even ‘sharing them with the birds as another part of God’s creation’ is acceptable. Many, in other traditions, are horrified by this practice and Methodists will want to think very carefully about the need not to scandalise others unnecessarily. Consumption at the end of the service is the most widely recognised form of reverent disposal across the Christian Churches. It does not of itself commit one to any particular view of the status of the remaining elements.

118 The Common Cup The main reason for advocating the ‘common cup’ is theological: it testifies far more eloquently to koinonia than separate glasses or cups. However, a matter of great concern to many people in the use of a ‘common cup’ or chalice is the likelihood of the spread of infection. Expert opinion is that this need not be a serious problem - the risk is remote, and there is no evidence to suggest that there have been problems in those Churches that have centuries of tradition of using a common cup. Infectious agents such as viruses only survive a matter of a second or two on a silver chalice, and this risk can be reduced by wiping the rim after each communicant. There may be a greater risk with other sorts of chalices, e.g. pottery, due to the uneven surface, which may harbour micro-organisms. It makes very little difference whether alcoholic or non-alcoholic wine is used. Koinonia is about risk of all sorts and there is no reason to be deterred from using the common cup by a level of danger that is no greater than that involved in breathing in each other’s germs at any service. Individual glasses were introduced (around the start of the twentieth century) into Free Churches as much to facilitate the custom of distribution to communicants as they sat in the pews as for any reasons of hygiene, and not specifically in the context of the use of non-alcoholic Communion wine.

119 Frequency of Communion services This is also a live issue within ecumenical partnerships. Where only the Free Churches are involved the matter is not nearly so difficult to resolve as when the Church of England is within the partnership. Where there has been a weekly tradition of early Communions and parish Eucharists the ‘stronger’ tradition is likely to prevail.

F PREVIOUS CONFERENCE STATEMENTS AND DECISIONS RELATING TO HOLY COMMUNION

120 Methodist theology and practice of the Lord’s Supper rests on the Methodist Church’s foundation document the Deed of Union (1932). Clause 4 (‘Doctrine’) includes the words, “The Methodist Church recognises two sacraments namely Baptism and the Lord’s Supper as of divine appointment and of perpetual obligation of which it is the privilege and duty of members of the Methodist Church to avail themselves.” Clause 9 (‘Privileges and Duties of Membership’) states, ‘It is the privilege and duty of members of the Methodist Church to avail themselves of the two sacraments, namely Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.’ New members are to be received during an act of worship including the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper (Clause 8b) and persistent absence from the Lord’s Supper is one of the grounds for instigating the process that can result in cessation of membership (Clause 10a).

121 Aspects of the Methodist Church’s present practice are embodied in Standing Orders 011 (which deals with the procedures for authorisation by Conference of named lay persons to preside in cases of deprivation) and 609 (which deals with the practice of ‘Extended Communion,’ whereby elements set aside at a previous celebration of Holy Communion are received during acts of worship in homes - including nursing and retirement homes -, hospitals and hospices). Question 49 of A Catechism for the use of the people called Methodists describes the Lord’s Supper in terms of Christ’s presence with his worshipping people, receiving him by faith and with thanksgiving as they eat the bread and drink the wine: the service is an act of thanksgiving, recollection, proclamation, unity sacrifice and a foretaste of the heavenly banquet.

122 What is distinctive about the Methodist Church in respect of Holy Communion and what it shares with other world Churches have been set forth in considered Conference responses to various major ecumenical statements namely, Edinburgh (1937), Lund (1952), Lima (1982) and the Roman Catholic encyclical Ut Unum Sint (1995). These responses suggest that what is shared with other Churches is first, that the Lord’s Supper (Eucharist) is ‘of divine appointment and perpetual obligation’. Second, that it stands as a memorial of Christ’s life, death and resurrection. Third, that it is a sacrament of his ‘real presence’ and sacrificial self-giving. Fourth, that it is an eschatological anticipation of fellowship with him in his eternal kingdom. However, it is also made clear that there are issues that deeply distinguish Methodist understanding and practice from those of some other Churches, such as questions of eucharistic presidency, frequency of celebration, and the nature of Christ’s presence. These issues are the subjects of on-going study, debate and search for mutual understanding and reconciling principles.

123 A limited exposition of the Methodist Church as ‘sacramental society’ was developed in the 1937 Conference report The Nature of the Christian Church. This emphasises the continuity of the Methodist Church and its legitimate place in the Holy Catholic Church - the Church Universal. It also holds that the Methodist Church (following its founder John Wesley) lays great stress on sacramental worship and recognises two divinely appointed sacraments - Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.

124 The 1999 Conference statement Called To Love and Praise was the first attempt by Conference since the 1937 Report to explore systematically Methodist understanding of itself as Church. Not a great deal is said in this report about the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper but it clearly sees Holy Communion as central to the life and worship of the Methodist Church and strongly maintains that "in this typical act of worship Holy Communion strengthens and, in a sense, makes the Church.” In this the partnership of ordained ministers and lay people remains vital to the work and well-being of the Church, though it is thought appropriate that the Lord’s Supper should mainly be celebrated under the authority of those who are representative of the whole Church.

125 In between those reports Conference has received and considered many Memorials from Circuits and Districts and Notices of Motion from individuals and groups concerning beliefs and practices surrounding the administration of the Lord’s Supper. This is evidence both of the growth of interest in the centrality of this service in Methodist worship and at the same time it reveals the diversity of belief about what is authentically Methodist about our doctrine and practice. In response to this stream of Memorials and Notices of Motion Conference has, over the years, commissioned and subsequently received or adopted no less than twenty reports and responses having a bearing on this important topic. Of these, sixteen have dealt with questions regarding presidency at the Lord’s Supper.

126 The 1946 Report Lay Administration of the Sacraments began with these affirmations: -

• There are two divinely appointed sacraments - Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Provision for their orderly and regular celebration must therefore be made.
• The general usage (in the Methodist Church) is that ministers should normally preside.
• The principle of duly authorised lay administration is upheld.

127 These affirmations, now embodied in Standing Orders 011 and 609, represent something of a compromise between the different views and practices prevailing among the three Connexions t