|
Southwest
Minnesota |
I C M |
||
     |
|||
|
Newsletter |
|||
|
What’s in a Name:
Eucharist or Holy Communion?
Scott Grorud
Recently, I talked with an old friend who is starting at seminary. At one point, I mentioned WordAlone, knowing that he mostly shares those concerns. His response surprised me. He said, “I read some stuff on the web site, but when I saw they were complaining about using the name Eucharist, that was enough for me. Can’t we celebrate at communion?”
I am one of those who complains about using the name
Eucharist and his comment reminded me
how important it is to see what’s in a name. For my friend, the name Eucharist
simply meant that Holy Communion doesn’t have to be sad and solemn, and indeed
it does not. But with this particular name, there is more than that at stake.
Eucharist is a Greek word that means thanksgiving. It is widely used by
Roman Catholics and Episcopalians as the name for the Lord’s Supper and, in
recent years, has come to be used almost exclusively among liturgists, including
in the ELCA. It is seen both as an ecumenical move and as a way to emphasize
the joyful aspects of Holy Communion.
However, there are several good reasons not to use that name. The first is
simply practical. Eucharist is Greek
and we speak English. The church is already full of too much theological jargon
which non-believers and even many Christians do not really understand. Why
replace a clear English name such as the Lord’s Supper with an obscure foreign
word?
It goes deeper than that, however. The emphasis on the sacrament as
eucharist grows out of a theological tradition which views it as our sacrifice
of praise to God more than God’s gift of grace to us.
This theology is expressed several ways liturgically. One example is
bringing the bread and wine forward during the offertory, which says that these
are our gifts given to God, rather than a gift of grace provided by God and
waiting for us on his altar.
Another is using a eucharistic prayer, a long prayer of thanksgiving in which
the Words of Institution are prayed to God, rather than proclaimed to the
people. It suggests that the point of the sacrament is for us to thank God for
his past actions, rather than to receive from God the Word of grace which
justifies us in the here and now.
That leads to the third and most important reason to avoid using the name
Eucharist. By putting the emphasis on us and the thanks we offer to God, it
reverses the direction of worship. It directs worship “upward,” from us to God,
even in the sacraments.
Lutherans, however, have always insisted that worship moves “downward,” from
God to us. It is entirely a function of God’s Word, read, preached and
enfleshed in water, bread and wine. Whatever thanks and praise we offer is only
our “Amen,” our joyful response to the salvation which God works among us for
Jesus’ sake.
What’s in a name? More than you might think. With the name Eucharist, it
carries the danger of losing track of who is in charge of worship, what happens
there and what is of central importance in it. By preserving traditional names
such as Holy Communion (the community of God gathered around his feast) or the
Lord’s Supper (Jesus is the host of the meal and the very food we eat), we keep
the focus where it belongs, on the Word made flesh, who gives us his flesh and
blood in, with and under bread and wine so that we might be brought yet again
through death into new and eternal life.
Scott Grorud is a pastor at Gloria Dei in Redwood Falls
Further Reading:
Scroll down to the entry for February 12, 2005. This is the Word-Alone Hymnal Project website.
