St. Paul, Luther, and Klemet Preus all have something in common. They all say that out of love one should yield to the weak and immature in faith, particularly when it comes to change in the church (I’m referring to Preus’ book, The Fire and the Staff). As I read this chapter, I found myself described on many of its pages. I have made a lot of changes in the congregation I serve, all of which I believe are for the best. And, they have been done with the support of my elders and other members of the Church.
Weekly Communion is one. We also brought back the Chalice onto the altar (it was kept in the sacristy in case they ran out of individual glasses). In fact, now we have a new Chalice and Ciborium thanks to some generous donations to the church for these things. We have changed how Communion is prepared and cleaned up–now it is usually consumed by myself and some elders after the service, instead of mixed back in with the unconsecrated (This by the way was done after a couple of “altar-guild workshops” that I held); a large wooden Crucifix now stands on the altar where there was no cross before; the Confirmands are questioned publicly before Confirmation; we have added processional torches, and I have boy acolytes and torch-bearers and crucifers when we have processions. Last Easter we tried out Gospel processions. I chant a lot more than the previous pastor did. And (GASP) I often (not always) hold my hands palm to palm like they do in the ‘Cath’lic Church.’ I’m sure there are more that I could think of if I thought long enough about it.
Admittedly, during these past two years, there have been people that have not been entirely comfortable with these changes. Yet, there have been people that are completely supportive. My elders supported the idea of offering Communion weekly, after about seven or so months of teaching Bible class on the Doctrine and Practice of the Lord’s Supper. Several people have thanked me for the opportunity to receive Communion weekly. But always there have been a few, a handful maybe, or maybe more, that have silently (at least as far as I am concerned) borne these changes, but not being in favor of them.
According to Preus, and maybe even Luther and Paul to some extent, I am guilty of committing some pastoral practice “sins.” I have not forced anything. I made it quite clear to the congregation that no one is being forced to receive Communion, but it is a free gift, etc. But one could, perhaps, argue that I did not have concern for the “weak” in faith, the immature, and that as a result I am dividing the congregation, not waiting for everyone to be on board with these changes and comfortable with them before doing it. My question though is, “Who are the weak?” Are “the weak” only those who don’t get the reasons for the changes, or who dislike the changes? Are “the weak” only those who want things to stay the way they have been for the last 30 years?
What about those who want to receive the Lord’s Body and Blood every week? If we were to take this away from them, would that not be unloving? Would that not be scandalous to their faith? They love the Sacrament precisely because they are weak. Should they yield for the sake of those whose “weakness” in faith causes them not to want the sacrament available every week? And what about the children of the Church? Are they not also “the weak?” They do not have the hang-ups with Communion and Catholic customs that many of the older members have. They will grow up with these things and will not see them as “changes.” They will see it as completely normal. Should we not also have regard for the children? Are we only to base our practice and changes on those in the congregation that oppose them or do not understand them completely?
I think I have to disagree a little with Preus on this. I agree with him in that we shouldn’t go and ram-rodding changes in without teaching about them. And, to be honest, I should perhaps have been a little more patient in bringing some of these things into the church. It is, in general, a good thing to build a broad consensus before doing so many “new” things. Perhaps one could argue that I should have focused on one thing, and stuck to that, and left everything else alone. Perhaps I will live to regret this.
But again, just how much consensus must one build before making changes? If Luther had waited until every single “weak” member of the church was on board with serving Communion in both kinds, then he probably would never have done it. Should I feel guilty for having done these things? Should I now turn by back on those who are loving the opportunity to receive the Lord’s body and blood every week, because they know they are “weak” and in need of God’s sustenance? I have toyed with the idea of offering an early, non-Communion service (Matins or Morning Prayer) before Bible class, and there have been several who have responded positively to this idea. I have also toyed with the idea of actually allowing people to be dismissed after the Prayer of the Church, if they do not wish to remain for the Communion.
I just think that this whole “weaker brother” argument can be looked at from several angles, not just one. Who are the weak?