Ministry of Word AND Sacrament

Ministry of Word AND Sacrament

In the Reformed tradition we have always had a high view of both Word and Sacrament, and historically we have guarded both aspects of the ministry by insisting that only those duly recognised and trained by the church at large, the denomination, have the right to preach and administer the sacraments.  This is in contrast to the practice of some independents where ordination is an act of the local church, without the necessity of the concurrence of the wider church, or where all elders in a local church can preach or administer the sacraments.

Thus Calvin, in his Genevan Catechism, (1545):

Q366 Does the administration both of baptism and of the Supper belong indiscriminately to all?

A. By no means. It is confined to those to whom the office of teaching has been committed. For the two things, viz., to feed the Church with the doctrine of piety and administer the sacrament, are united together by an indissoluble tie.

 Q367 Can you prove this to me by the testimony of Scripture?

A. Christ gave special commandment to the Apostles to baptize. In the celebration of the Supper he ordered us to follow his example. And the Evangelists relate that he himself in dispensing it, performed the office of a public minister. (Matthew 28:19; Luke 22:19.)

The Westminster Directory for Public Worship (1645):

Baptism, as it is not unnecessarily to be delayed, so it is not to be administered in any case by any private person, but by a minister of Christ, called to be the steward of the mysteries of God.

The Directory, without explicitly saying so, also assumes that the Lord’s Supper is also only to be administered by an ordained minister.  This is made explicit in the Westminster Confession, 27:4:

There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained.

This high view of the ministry of Word and Sacrament guarded not only preaching and the administration of the sacraments, but even the public reading of Scripture in worship:

“Reading of the word in the congregation, being part of the public worship of God, (wherein we acknowledge our dependence upon him, and subjection to him,) and one means sanctified by him for the edifying of his people, is to be performed by the pastors and teachers” (DPW)

Thus the preaching and reading of God’s Word, and the administration of the sacraments were bound together, and belonged to the office of the minister. There was to be no separation of the Lord’s Supper from the Word; there was not a special class of church officer who could administer sacraments but not preach.  

However, in time, there came to be a separation of Word and Sacrament in the development of a class of office bearers who could preach but not administer the Lord’s Supper.  This was already anticipated in Scotland in the office of the Reader, who while not entitled to preach did read Scripture and lead in public prayer.  (Hence the objection of the Scottish Commissioners, e.g. Baillie, to the restriction in the Directory to the minister alone in the reading of Scripture.)

In Scotland, based on pragmatism and necessity, a new class of office bearers variously designated resident lay preachers, lay agents, or lay missionaries served faithfully in remote parishes fulfilling all the duties and responsibilities of the ministry apart from the administration of the sacraments.  Word and sacrament were torn asunder!

For example, in the practice of the Free Church of Scotland, men could serve a church or even a grouping of churches, perhaps over many years, but never baptise those adults converted under their ministry, or feed those at the Lord’s Table who had been regularly fed and nourished by their preaching .

As recently as 1981 the General Assembly enacted:

Regular Helpers: Although the Free Church of Scotland holds that ideally the functions of the pastoral office should be exercised only by those specially set apart, that is ordained to that office, necessity has compelled the employment of others as regular preachers and shepherds of Congregations. These were in earlier days known as Preachers or Catechists but now such help is given by Resident Lay Preachers. By an Act of General Assembly only men acceptable as elders in the Congregation may so function (Act X, 1981).

My question is this, what necessity compelled the Church to accept the preaching ministry of such men, but deny them the sacramental ministry that goes hand in hand with the proclamation of the Word? If the men had the gifts and graces to preach and exercise faithful pastoral ministry, and these gifts and graces were recognised by the denomination, what was it that they lacked biblically that prevented them officiating at the sacraments?

It may have been an educational deficit – they had no university degrees, or classical Greek and Latin or proficiency in the original biblical languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek.  It cannot have been a theological deficiency, for they were entrusted to the task of feeding the flock, ministering the Word to them, and teaching them the catechism.  At this point I have not done the research to trace the development of this practice or the underlying theological justification for separation of the ministry of the Word from the ministry of Sacrament, so I cannot say historically why it was established and encouraged.

Logical consistency would dictate that if a man cannot be appointed to administer the Sacraments, he should not be appointed to preach the Word.  If the Sacraments are visible forms of the Word, a man who cannot be trusted with the Sacraments, should not be trusted with the greater task of preaching the Word.  Conversely, if a man can be trusted with the preaching of the Word on an ongoing and regular basis, he should also be trusted with the administration of the Sacraments.

There are consequences of a separation in practice of Word and Sacrament:

1.  It encourages a misplaced exaltation of Sacraments over the Word, in particular, a misplaced exaltation of the Lord’s Supper.  This is seen, not as a regular aspect of public worship, but as a particularly high and holy event, far more important than preaching, for even regular preachers cannot celebrate the Lord’s Supper.

2.  It encourages a false view of the Lord’s Supper, as somehow dependent on the worthiness of the celebrant.

3. It encourages the practice of non-communing.  This has been a particular problem in the Highlands, where true believers would not come to the Lord's Table but remained adherents rather than members of the congregation.  They sat week by week under the ministry of the Word, were blessed by that Word, but would not come to the Table because it was not seen as an aspect of the proclamation of the Word.  After all, if their regular preacher and pastor could not administer the Lord's Supper, it must be something above the Word, more sacred than the Word and even more "dangerous" than the Word - therefore the weak avoided coming to the Table

4.  It encourages a false view of the ordained ministry.  They must have some special gift that enables them to preside at the Lord’s Supper, a gift that mere preachers, faithfully ministering the Word to their people on a weekly basis, do not have.  It tends towards a Romanist view of ordination as impartation of a gift rather than the recognition of gifts already in evidence in the individual.

5.  It discourages the more regular celebration of the Lord’s Supper.  Both Calvin and Knox argued for a weekly celebration of the Lord’s Supper.  Without entering into the validity of their arguments, even a monthly celebration of the Lord’s Supper becomes difficult if the resident preacher has to call in someone who has the necessary status to preside at the Lord’s Table.

4 It demeans the ministry of the resident preacher in the eyes of his flock. He can preach regularly Lord's Day by Lord's Day, he can preach at a preparatory service before Communion, he can even preach on the occasion of the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, he can serve at the table as a participating elder, but he cannot himself administer the sacrament.  The man who feeds them from the Word, who is a shepherd to the flock, who visits them when sick, who buries them when dead, cannot lead them at the Table of the Lord.

These anomalies have been recognised and rectified by some churches.  They have introduced forms of auxiliary ministry, sometimes locally restricted, sometimes non-stipendiary.  These are ministries of both Word and Sacrament. There was an attempt to introduce such a concept within the Free Church of Scotland, but the draft legislation was rejected by presbyteries and dropped. The Assembly record (2007) states:

NON STIPENDIARY AND AUXILIARY MINISTERS Copies of the document: ‘Auxiliary Ministers – Draft Deliverance’ were distributed to Presbyteries and Committees for their comments. Although there was sympathy for some of the proposals in the draft legislation, there was no overall support from any of the Presbyteries. The Committee express its disappointment that this issue has not been taken up and developed and therefore proposes to drop this matter.

It may now be time to revisit the issue. Whether this leads to a decision not to appoint any man to a congregation in a regular pastoral and preaching ministry without sacramental ministry, or whether it leads to the possibility of an auxiliary ministry, a local non-stipendiary ministry or other forms of ministry, it is surely possibly with biblical and theological integrity to ensure that Word and Sacrament are joined together.  To quote the words of Christ in another context, “What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Mark 10:9)