Dr. Mark Patterson - Reflections on the Debate Surrounding Communion

As a pastor, as chair of ECO’s Standing Committee on Theology, as an adjunct professor in theology at two seminary’s I can truly say I am thrilled with the theological discussion Greg Wagenfuhr’s blog on communion has stimulated. As a committee we have long wanted to increase theological conversation across the church and I for one am delighted to see it unfold and read through the thoughts (and feelings!) expressed. Thank you to all involved! Even more, thank you to all pastors, elders, and church members who are wrestling with how to “do church” in this new normal in a way that is faithful to the Scriptures and our Tradition. It is labours such as these, by faithful people, through every age and countless circumstances, that has kept the church true and effective. 

Conversations such as these (i.e. theological debates) have been a part of our Reformed tradition from its first days and they remain vital to the life and mission of the church. The main reason is obvious: the simple desire to shape the church’s life and mission faithfully around the teaching of Scripture. Nothing is more important than conforming our lives and ministries around the will of God expressed in the Bible. The pursuit of this is noble and life giving. 

But there are other reasons for our theological conversations and they are reasons we should strive to remember and maintain. They all intertwine of course and affect one another but each stands as a guiding value within our tradition. Let me name just two. 

The first is a deep and guiding sense of humility. A central part of the Reformed Tradition is the recognition that study of theology and the theological conclusions that emerge from it are always and only a human work. There is no doctrine that dropped upon us from heaven. None that is perfect. None that finally or perfectly articulates all that God has given in his revelation. Thus we approach all theology (even our own!) with a deep humility that shapes every part of the dialogue. We acknowledge from the beginning that ours is a human effort to describe the indescribable. Our approach then is as learners and listeners humbly seeking to discern if what is being expressed is faithful to God and his Scriptures.   

A second reason is our desire to speak of God and his work and will in ways that are as true and accurate as we are able. The goal of our theological work is not expediency or popularity but verity. We all acknowledge this but it is a point that is easily lost in the front lines and trenches of ministry. In our current situation we are all wrestling hard with the multi-faceted question of how to do and be the church within an isolating pandemic. But the church has learned through all its centuries and through countless trials and hardships that there is nothing more helpful than the truth. Truth is sometimes hard and slow to discern and thus the temptation is to grasp for answers and methods that appear to meet the need without pondering how they affect or even confuse the message is ever pulling at us. This, I believe, was what Greg was seeking to address in his blog post. He was raising serious questions about what this says about our understanding of God and our understanding of the sacrament. This kind of reflection and dialogue is vital. I am grateful it occurred and grateful for our tradition that places such theological reflection ahead of pragmatic considerations. As we seek to meet the needs of our people separated by this pandemic and the isolation that is necessary we must first address the questions about the meaning, place, and purpose of the sacrament and then, and only then, shape how we do it around these principles. 

Let me close with one important fact that appears to have been confused in the conversations. When I write on our web page or speak before the plenary session of our National Gathering, as chair of the Standing Committee of Theology, I am never speaking ex cathedra. My words, or the words of any on our committee or even staff, should never be understood as official statements to which the church is bound. Our writing, speaking, blogs, and posts are merely statements given to God’s people in hope that it might faithfully address needs, answer questions, and help guide our church in ways that are faithful to Scripture and our tradition. In this debate around communion the purpose was not to tell church what they may or may not do but simply raise questions church leaders might want to consider as they wrestle with the question of doing Communion in these strange times. To be absolutely clear, Communion done according to standards of Scripture and our tradition with the help of modern technology is not forbidden. It remains for each session to carefully consider the issues involved, to pray, and discern how best to lead their people in worship.  

Finally, let me express that I agree with Greg’s position (as well as some of the “yeah, buts” that have been raised against it). I think he makes some excellent points that are worth seriously considering. Of course that is not a ruling. It is just my opinion. I am grateful for Greg’s humble and gentle spirit through the dialogues and conversations and grateful for his insights and willingness to converse with all who responded. May we always wrestle with such great ideas with humility, grace, and love, each of us united in our desire to bring glory to God and strengthen the church he loves. 

Mark Patterson is the chair of the Standing Committee on Theology and was prior to this part of ECO's Theological Task Force. Mark has been lead pastor of Community Presbyterian Church since 1999. He served eight years as associate pastor of Wabash Presbyterian Church in Auburn Washington. He studied Theology and Biblical Studies at Whitworth University. Mark attended Princeton Theological Seminary and earned his PhD in systematic theology at King's College, London. Mark has been married to Linda for 38 years. They have two grown daughters and a joyous, all-in, labradour named Mosley.