Recently there have been several directions by church authorities regarding Communion that seem to restrict practices. One of these was issued by the Church of England and is therefore not directly applicable in New Zealand. The Canons of the Church of England state that for Communion “the bread, whether leavened or unleavened, shall be of the best and purest wheat flour that conveniently may be gotten, and the wine the fermented juice of the grape, good and wholesome.”
The question has arisen whether gluten-free wafers are acceptable as “bread”. The Church of England in its direction stated that low-gluten wafers made from specially processed wheat are acceptable, but wafers made from any other flour are not.
Some churches also offer grape juice instead of wine, as alcoholics cannot consume any alcohol. The Church of England stated that the wine offered at Communion must be fermented and therefore have some alcohol content. Wine that has undergone some process to lower the alcohol content is acceptable, but not wine from which alcohol has been nearly entirely removed.
I think these directions would exclude some people from the Eucharist. It is a legalistic approach. In the Near East bread and wine were quite common staple foods. In England they were not necessarily staple food, but still readily available. When CMS missionaries first came to New Zealand, they translated the word “bread” in many instances as “taro”, the root plant that was a staple of Māori diet. To this day the Te Reo version of the Eucharist liturgy refers to “taro” when the English mentions bread. Even though Māori these days also generally use wheat wafers for Communion, it is clear that the early missionaries had no problem using taro for Communion and were not that legalistic. I think that is good enculturation. It is not a syncretistic practice that takes away from the meaning of the sacrament.
Another recent direction by New Zealand bishops is that parishes should not celebrate Maundy Thursday (or any other occasion) with a Seder meal, the common Jewish practice of remembering Passover. The main concern here seems to be that Christians could be appropriating cultural practices. And that is frowned upon in the modern world. While the explanation is right in saying that Seder meals developed in Judaism after the time of Jesus, I think it is incorrect to cast doubt on whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal. The Synoptic Gospels clearly say that the Last Supper was a Passover meal. The Gospel of John seems to indicate that it was a festive meal before Passover and that Jesus died at the same time as the Passover lambs were killed in the Temple. That would identify Jesus’ death even more closely with the Passover. The New Testament overall closely associates the crucifixion with the Passover and the traditional reading for Maundy Thursday is the Passover reading from the Book of Exodus.
I have only once participated in a Christian Seder meal. I found it a powerful experience, but not one I would think necessary. While I can appreciate some of the difficulties, I wonder whether ruling it out is taking a quite restrictive approach. While Christian seder meals became popular from the 1980s onwards, in the 19th century there was constant borrowing between Synagogue and Church with regard to art, liturgy and music.
In our modern, liberal times, are we suddenly becoming more restrictive again in the Church, even more so than our Victorian ancestors?