A lot of people misinterpret the position reformed believers take regarding the communion of the saints as mere memorialarization and that we therefore disrespect this.

Generally people who argue this way use the term Eucharist, but that is not totally reliable. The most firm position here is that taken by the Catholics — of transubstantiation — that the real body and real blood of Christ is in the elements and that this passage is literally true.

John 6:52-59

52The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; 55for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. 57Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever.” 59He said these things while he was teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum.

I’m reformed. I take scripture seriously: as god inspired, as worthy for teaching, reproof, correction and training us in right living. And yes, I am paraphrasing Paul in the last sentence.

But part of taking scripture seriously is knowing what the teaching is. Jesus explicitly used metaphors and parables when teaching. He spoke by illustrations. At times these illustrations involved hyperbole — if it (body part) offends you, cut if off! — which has to be interpreted this way as the Law bans self mutilation. At times it involved metaphors. Such as “destroy this temple and I will rebuild it in three days (which we are told referred to his body). Or the use of the elements.

For the reformed there are but two sacraments — places where ordinary, everyday items are imbued with the divine. One is baptism — which Barry noted, on Sunday we have not taught enough about — and the other is Communion.

Here the ordinary elements — the bread and wine — are to be for us as the body and blood of Christ. Again I am paraphrasing the words used in the Presbyterian Book of Order. But those words are a metaphor. Like much of Christ’s teaching, the ordinary has a second meaning. It is more than symbolic: the symbols become holy because God deems them holy.

And it is for that reason we should approach this in a right manner, having confessed our sins (and being aware that this is not ever completely full: we delude ourselves that we are doing right all too often).

It is not a right. Instead it is a holy rite that only the qualified should come to. Which is why this reformed bloke would support a Priest from that Papist Kirk down the road who refuses to give communion to a woman living with her lover. Regardless of Gender. Or a politician who had voted for abortion. The holy should be kept holy: that is part of the symbolism of this.

For in communion we remember what Christ has done and we unite with all those of the church and with Christ. Never take that lightly. It is not a social act, it is a declaration of our faith. And as such, it will always be as offensive as the teaching Jesus gave was to his Jewish audience.