Our practice of the Lord's Supper

I haven't linked to any columns I've written in the United Methodist Reporter recently. I'm in the middle of a column series on the means of grace, and I had planned to do one post that pointed to the whole series when I was finished with it.

Then I had to go and write about Holy Communion. It's a topic that gets me in trouble every time I take it up.

The column - which you can find here - is a call for reform of our Eucharistic practice in a number of ways. But a certain part near the end has caught some folks' attention (to, in my opinion, the neglect of the whole). It is my critique of that un-Scriptural, un-historical, un-ecumenical quasi-doctrine that so many Methodists just love: the "Open Table" practice of inviting anyone in earshot to receive the Lord's Supper with a "y'all come!" enthusiasm. The Open Table ethos as many pastors and congregations practice it today presents the Eucharist as a meal where anyone is welcome - Christians, non-Christians, confessed adherents of other religions, unbelievers, agnostics, and atheists.

That such an approach to the sacrament of our Lord's body and blood is an utter novelty in the history of the Christian Church, without any biblical foundation or support in Wesleyan theology or widespread support in the church catholic, does not seem to factor into the consideration of those who consider it to be amongst the fundamental marks of Methodism.

And so it is incumbent upon us to preach and defend the gospel. As the Church's shepherds, pastors and theologians are called to be faithful in their teaching and preaching regardless of the shifting temper of the times. As the Apostle Paul instructs Timothy and all presbyters of the Church,

"Preach the Word: be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage - with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. The will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry" (2 Timothy 4:2-5, NIV).

Regardless of how well-meaning its advocates might be, the truth of the so-called Open Table is this: it is, in the true sense of the term, false teaching. The radical version of the Methodist practice of Open Table does violence to the institution of the most holy act of worship we have been given and disregards the salvation of the unbaptized. And there is not one word of the preceding sentence that is an exaggeration.

If this doesn't seem to make sense to you, then read on. To better explain, I'm going to edit and splice in a big chunk of a lengthy comment I left on John Meunier's blog when he posted about my column yesterday:

Whenever I write a column or put up a blog post on this issue, I inevitably take a lot of flack. Sometimes people act as if there is a deep arrogance at work in even engaging the issue of participation in Holy Communion, as if exercising a holy discipline over the sacrament were the equivalent of making a value judgment the intrinsic worth of persons. And sometimes people will act aghast that the Church would ever make a statement suggesting a standard of ministry or discipleship in anyway, because we are all supposed to bow at the altar of "inclusivism" - a concept that apparently means we never say 'no' to anyone, at anytime, for any reason.

Here's what I would offer in response: There are about 2 billion Christians in the world, and probably 1,980,000,000 of them have an understanding of Eucharistic practice that suggests one should be baptized before coming to the Supper of the Lord. Throughout the two millennia of Christian history, practically all Christians have had that understanding. That means there are, at present, a few million Methodists (and, I assume, probably a few million more sacramentally lackadaisical Protestants in other ecclesiastical communions) who do what we do.

Now I would ask this of anyone who happens to be reading this post: What in the world do we have to show as evidence to suggest that our doctrine is right and the ecumenical and historical consensus of the rest of the church catholic is wrong? A misquoted Wesley citation that gets regularly pulled out of context? Incoherent statements about 'prevenient grace' that get applied to the Eucharist in ways that could literally define the term, 'non-sequitur'? Fruits? Does our Eucharistic practice bring glory to God and serve as a means of grace such that those who partake are demonstrably affected in their journey of sanctification? In this last question (which is the type of thing liable to get indignant "of course it does!" replies), I would only say that, if we think we're being faithful to God and to Christ's institution of the sacrament in the shabby way we practice it now, I think we would be amazed at what the Holy Spirit would do with us if we committed ourselves to a greater faithfulness in our practice of it.

I like the way John Meunier poses the questions about the propriety of the Open Table in his post because I think he poses it as a question of doctrine. And indeed, as a doctrinal question, it should be engaged via rigorous theological examination. Charles Rivera, one of his respondents, points to the seriousness with which the Apostle Paul instructs the Church to practice Eucharist in 1 Corinthians. I'd suggest three other Scriptural images in addition: First, in the Great Commission (Matthew 28), Jesus' instruction to the disciples is to go into all the world to make disciples of every nation, and his single teaching to describe the way by which disciples are made is through baptism in the name of the triune God. Second, in the book of Acts, the apostles' response to converts who hear the Word of God and believe is "Repent and be baptized" (Acts 2:37-38). And third, throughout the NT epistles (e.g., Romans 6, Colossians 2, 1 Peter 3), it is clear time and time again that the manner of incorporation into the body of Christ is through the sacrament of baptism.

Moreover, in the early Church, new believers never received Holy Communion until they had been baptized. Actually, they weren't even admitted into the presence of the Eucharistic celebration until after baptism. And despite all the doctrinal differences that arose in later centuries over exactly what happens at Holy Communion, in the matter of what was requisite for participation in the Eucharist the divided Church was in agreement: baptism and repentance of sin.

Now one of John's respondents cited the This Holy Mystery doctrinal statement (passed by our General Conference and currently to be found in the Book of Resolutions), and on the whole, I think that is a fine piece of sacramental theology for our Church. But in the matter of which we are speaking, I can tell you that some on the study committee that developed it were vexed at the larger Church's attitudes over the radically "Open Table" ethos. Prof. Ed Phillips, who chaired that committee, recounts this in his article, "Open Tables and Closed Minds," in the journal Liturgy back in 2005. He writes (on p.28):

"What becomes curious to me is that attempts by some of us on the committee to do careful biblical and historical reflection (both from the perspective of the church catholic and the Wesleyan tradition) was often strongly discounted. Here is a typical response to my own attempt to explain to one individual why a totally open table is neither biblical nor Wesleyan: 

'Of course, we can go round and round about what Paul or the Gospel writers meant, . . . I just think one can make a strong theological case for an open table using prevenient grace (a primary theological contribution by Wesley via Augustine). I also think that . . . an open table appeals to our American sense of inclusive democracy.'

This is a significant key to what contemporary United Methodists in the West find so problematic about a disciplined table: it is undemocratic. It flies in the face of liberal freedom."

I'm well aware that advocates of the Open Table are sincere and well-meaning, and in most cases, they probably think that the Open Table stance is compassionate. The problem is that it isn't compassionate at all. Baptism and Eucharist are the difference between life and death. And when we ignore the clear teaching of the Scriptures and the tradition of the Church so that we can make either into whatever we want it to be, we are doing violence to the gospel entrusted to us. When we practice the Lord's Supper in as non-chalant a way as the Open Table implies, then we deny the saving gifts of God that should be at the heart of our evangelistic ministry. Salvation is not a series of isolated acts from which we can pick and choose at will; it is, rather, a reality into which God beckons us and is made manifest in our lives through our submission to the Holy Spirit in Christ's Holy Church. Baptism is the way we are initiated - no, incorporated - into that blessed reality.

I'm as serious as I can be when I say this: When we find ourselves to be in sin, the realization of that sin is a gift of the Holy Spirit, insofar as it is an invitation to repent and return to Christ in faithfulness. And that is exactly where the people called Methodists find themselves with their practice of the Lord's Supper.

John Meunier's post speaks of "shooing the unwashed from the Lord's table," but that's truly not what the orthodox practice of Eucharist does. Located within a form of ministry that embraces all the means of grace, it rather pursues the lost with an evangelical love, beckoning them to come to the living waters of baptism that they might die and be raised. And through those life-giving waters, it draws them toward the great feast that awaits, so that - once incorporated into the body of Christ and catechized through the preaching and teaching of Christ's holy word - they might then receive the body of Christ and know that it is the bread of heaven given to them for their salvation. We have all been offered the life that is a way of life, and there is a deep & profound logic to that journey.

Anything less than this is a commodification of the sacrament. That's something we could rightly do if we owned it, but we don't. Vicit agnus noster.

Cokesbury Upgrade

Cokesbury has been sending out e-mails to let customers know about recent upgrades to its website. I checked out the upgraded site today, and I've got to say I'm impressed.

It's admittedly always going to be difficult to compete with an online retailing behemoth like Amazon, but Cokesbury wasn't doing itself a lot of favors with its old site. It was clunky and difficult to navigate. There were times I went to Cokesbury.com to look for a book that I knew had been published by one of the imprints of the United Methodist Publishing House and I still couldn't locate it.

I was in Nashville late last summer to take part in a focus group at the offices of the Publishing House. One of the things that editors and executives told us that day was that upgrading the Cokesbury website was high on their list of things they wanted to do. As you can see from navigating the improved website, they've really followed through on that.

"Cokesbury is more than just 
a Christian book retailer;
it's a ministry of the Church.
And that's important!"

My wife and I try to patronize locally-owned businesses here in Durham that are well-run and grounded in the local community, even when there is a "big box" store that might have slightly lower prices. I'm going to follow that logic when I buy books online from here on out, as a way to recognize the strides Cokesbury is making. Cokesbury is more than a Christian book retailer; it's a ministry of the United Methodist Church. And that's important!

Duke Bonfire after 2010 Championship

I shot the previous video right after the final buzzer in the Duke-Butler game. There were about 5000 people in Cameron Indoor Stadium watching the game on the scoreboard's big video screens. The video above was shot about 30 minutes later, on the main quad of West Campus. The students always burn wooden benches to make a bonfire after victories over UNC, but I've never seen one this big.

Victory celebration in Cameron

Inside Cameron Indoor Stadium

My wife and I went with our friend, Jeff, to watch the NCAA Championship Game at Cameron Indoor Stadium tonight. It's very late, but I wanted to post some of the pictures we took

So the university administration made the decision to open up the Blue Devils' arena to students and their spouses for the game. About 5000 of us took them up on it. It might sound weird since the actual game was being played 650 miles away in Indianapolis, but it was a pretty incredible experience. I've been to several games at Cameron over the past few years when the arena was packed, but I've never heard it louder than it was in the last 10 minutes of regulation tonight. It seemed like every undergraduate at the entire university was there and screaming their lungs out (and that's probably not far from the truth).

These are mostly pictures taken in the leadup to the game. We got into Cameron about an hour prior to tip-off. The energy in the room only increased throughout that time. I've got some great videos from both halftime and post-game, but I have no energy to put them on Youtube at present. (I've got two videos up on Youtube now and will embed them in posts in the coming days!)

Enjoy the photos, Duke fans. And let me say two things before I sign off: First, the Butler Bulldogs played out of their minds for this entire tournament, including tonight against Duke. The job they did rebounding in the first half of tonight's game is almost inexplicable. Outsized at every position, their effort at getting to the ball was remarkable. They played with as much heart as any basketball team as I've ever seen, and truly, the final couple of minutes could have gone either way. Their coach and their players deserve huge respect for what they accomplished.

Second, for those of you who aren't Duke fans, don't buy into the Goliath squashing David script. It's too easy. I've been at Duke for four years now, and I can tell you a few things for a fact: First, the Duke players are not snobbish or elitest or any of those adjectives people use as an excuse to cast them in a bad light. Second, Coach K is a humble and faithful man who loves his players and always pays respect to his opponents (as anyone could see from his postgame comments tonight).

And third, despite what anybody thinks about Duke's prowess on the national basketball scene, in this day and age, it is tough to convince top-quality students to come to a school and actually spend 3 to 4 years playing and studying - all the while engaged in the process of development in both basketball skill and personal character. Prior to this year, a lot of folks questioned whether Coach K was following a philosophy that was hopelessly out of date. He proved them wrong tonight.

Resurrection Day

"... While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, 'Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here. He has risen!'"

- Luke 24:4-6a

The Fulcrum of History

"When they came to the place that is called The Skull, they crucified Jesus there with the criminals, one on his right and one on his left ... And when it was about noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon, while the sun's light failed; and the curtain of the Temple was torn in two. Then Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, 'Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.' Having said this, he breathed his last."

- Luke 23:33, 44-46

"If any of our own people inquire, not from love of debate from from love of learning, why he suffered death in none other way save on the cross, let him be told that no other way than this was good for us, and that it was well that the Lord suffered this for our sakes. For if he came himself to bear the curse laid upon us, how else could he have 'become a curse,' unless he received the death set for a curse? And that is the cross. For this is exactly what is written: 'Cursed is he that hangeth on a tree' [Deuteronomy 21:23].

"Again, if the Lord's death is the ransom of all, and by his death 'the middle wall of partition' is broken down, and the calling of the nations is brought about, how would he have called us to him, had he not been crucified? For it is only on the cross that a man dies with his hands spread out. Whence it was fitting for the Lord to bear this also and to spread out his hands, that with the one he might draw the ancient people, and with the other those from the Gentiles, and unite both in himself. For this is what he himself has said, signifying by what manner of death he was ransom to all: 'I, when I am lifted up,' he says, 'shall draw all men unto me.'"

- Athanasius, On the Incarnation, 25

"This, according to my view, is the subjection of Christ, namely, the fulfilling of the Father's will. But as the Son subjects all to the Father, so does the Father to the Son, the one by his work, the other by his good pleasure, as we have already said. And thus he who subjects presents to God that which he has subjected, making our condition his own. Of the same kind, it appears to me, is the expression, 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?' It was not he who was forsaken either by the Father or by his own Godhead, as some have thought, as if it were afraid of the Passion, and therefore withdrew itself from him in his sufferings (for who compelled him either to be born on eart at all or to be lifted up on the cross?). But, as I said, he was in his own person representing us. For we were the forsaken and despised before, but now, by the sufferings of Him who could not suffer, we were taken up and saved."

- Gregory of Nazianzus, Fourth Theological Oration, 5

"God did not force Christ to die, there being no sin in him. Rather, he underwent death of his own accord, not out of an obedience consisting in the abandonment of his life, but out of an obedience consisting in his upholding righteousness so bravely and pertinaciously that as a result he incurred death."

- Anselm of Canterbury, Why God Became Man, 9

"Let me seek You in desiring You; let me desire You in seeking You; let me find You in loving You; let me love You in finding You ... For I do not seek to understand so that I may believe; rather, I believe so that I may understand. For I believe this also, that 'unless I believe, I shall not understand.'"

- Anselm of Canterbury, Proslogion, 1

"For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have come to fullness in him, who is the head of every ruler and authority ... And when you were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive together with him, when he forgave us all our trespasses, erasing the record that stood against us with its legal demands. He set this aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and made a public example of them, triumphing over them in it."

- Colossians 2:9, 13-15

Taste and see that the Lord is good

Two months since my last post ... but this has been a full time in my life. In fact, it is going to continue to be so for most of this year. I said that I'd pop my head up every now and again, even while stepping back from regular blogging. And there is no better time to do that than now, in the midst of Holy Week.

In the services at my church tonight, tomorrow, and on Sunday, we will gather to worship, pray, and sing our common faith. The vigil that will begin tomorrow, and the celebration that will follow on Sunday, are the very events that all of history hinges upon. So it is appropriate that we remember the passage from Hebrews:

We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, where Jesus, who went before us, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek (Hebrews 6:19-20).

If you find yourself in need of a prayer for Maundy Thursday, I want to offer you this one from our Book of Worship (p.349) -

O God, by the example of your Son, our Savior Jesus Christ,

you taught us the greatness of true humility,

and call us to watch with him in his passion.

Give us grace to serve one another in all lowliness,

and to enter into the fellowship of his suffering;

in his name and for his sake. Amen.