Last semester, I wrote a paper about Wesley's theology of baptism. It was a fascinating study and I learned a lot. One curious fact that I turned up was that Wesley advocated a closed communion table. Only baptized Christians (specifically those that he considered to be baptized by a priest in apostolic succession) should take the Eucharist.Yet in the United Methodist Church, we practice an "open table" -- meaning that everyone, including non-Christians, can take the communion elements. Although I understand the evangelical purpose behind allowing God to impute converting grace to people during the sacraments, I am loathe to contradict Wesley. What do you think?
Should the UMC practice an 'open table' for the Eucharist?
20 comments:
I actually preached about this just this past Sunday and did emphasize that only baptized Christians should come forward to receive the Gift. Paul warned the Corinthians about receiving the Supper "unworthily", and this may have something to do with it (posted on my blog with also the Didache teaching on the Eucharist).
I would actually go a step further and initiate the Catholic practice of "First Communion" for young children so that they are properly instructed on what it really means. As it is right now, children come forward to receive it as nothing more than a snack, being unable to comprehend its meaning. In fact, I'm not so sure we adults can fully understand this incredible mystery.
In the end, as I pointed out to my congregation, though it is not my Gift to withhold, I would be remiss in the duties of my office if I didn't remind the congregation of St. Paul's admonishment to the Corinthians.
BTW, Wesley also encouraged the Sacrament as often as possible in a gathering of believers. Why do most UM churches choose to withhold this incredible opportunity to reflect and repent?
Michael, if we have communion every Sunday, we will never beat the Presbyterians to the Golden Corral Sunday Special Buffet.
It is "open" in the sense that we don't tell anyone they can't receive, but there is still an invitation: all those who all those who love Him (Jesus), all those who repent of their sins, and all those who seek to live in peace with their neighbor... these are the ones called to come to the Table.
I tend to think in family terms. Every member of my family belongs at our table. We have guests at the table, too, but everyone knows their status is "guest".
Following this model, I believe all baptized (including children) belong at the table. It's the table of the family of God.
Are others also invited as guests?
I can see that there are times for "family only" gatherings. I understand the ancient practice was to dismiss the unbaptized after the service of the word.
However, I wouldn't be opposed to opening the hospitality of the table to all those that Christ invites. The table can have a converting effect, even though its primary purpose is koinonia. Jesus ate with sinners (and I guess he still does, since he eats with me). Such an approach, however, requires considerable thought on behalf of the pastor and congregation so that communion doesn't become a form of "cheap grace."
John,
Growing up Catholic always meant racing the Baptists to the buffet line! And there were so darn MANY of them (Baptists)!!
It seems pretty obvious that only Christians should partake of communion. Having said that, I think it is important to be gentle when we point this out. I visit Catholic churches once a year or so when visiting family or at special services, and it used to bother me that they specifically said that we couldn't take communion with them.
Here's where my conservative insides show. I consider the scripture (I can find if anyone asks) which talks about how one might not be right with God and then bring condemnation on themselves by taking communion- one may have no inkling of "examination of conscience". So, it seems an open table may need a thought provided along these lines. YIKES.
Not that I have room to tell the UMC what to do.
i think crazier still is that John Wesley believed in baptismal regeneration. He thought that babies were saved by their infant baptism and that new birth came with the water. We're really not as Wesleyan as we profess. I think we're post-Wesleyan (much to our dismay). We evolved from the Wesleyan thing, but we surely aren't it (much to our dismay)!
While we don't rigidly "fence the table" by deciding who can or cannot take communion, we do inform everyone taking it of the consequences of communition from Corinthians. Members of the congregation are left to decide whether they should or should not partake.
I think having a completely open table and encouraging unbelievers to partake is irresponsible. You aren't helping someone by allowing them to eat or drink judgement on themselves, especially if they are ignorant of the consequences.
i agree. it really seems to come down to whether or not we believe what paul wrote to the corinthians or not.
I've only been attending the Methodist Church for about 2 years, an I still have a lot to learn about Wesley and his theology. What I have learned is that even the church that bears his name has drifted far from what he taught in many areas.
One are that Wesley excelled was his zeal for evangelism. Thas passion has been lost today.
Also, his views on Original Sin and Salvation are very similar to what is taught by Reformed Theologians today (with the clear exception being predestination). This is not the case with many contemporary Wesleyans. Here is a good reference.
I am influenced heavily by Reformed Theology, and I am learning that Wesley was as well.
I for one believe the open table is an essential part of the UMC's beauty. I usually don't weigh in on such matters, but this issue strikes particularly close to home for me.
Not being a UM by birth, suffice it to say that I could probably count on my fingers and toes the number of times I had even gone to church in my 35+ years. In 2005, however, we began attending various churches of various denominations before being drawn to the local UM church on repeated occassions.
Initially, I did not consider myself a Christian and thus did not partake in communion. As time passed, however, I began to feel that my faith journey was at a standstill (let's just say it had something to do with the divinity of Christ). In an effort to continue on the journey, I accepted the offer to come to the table. Needless to say, it worked. I began to feel the presence and grace of Christ.
It was only after particpating at the open table (and bringing all my doubts and questions to it) that I was able to proclaim publicly Christ as Lord and Savior, become baptized, and join the Church.
In short, Communion is serious and should be taken as such. But there are many people today (both within and outside our churches) that may have doubts and questions about their faith (if they even have any faith). Keeping the table open to them may help them to answer and resolve many of those questions and doubts, and also become disciples of Christ. I can't imagine Christ turning anyone away from his table.
p.s. I'm all for Communion on a weekly basis.
I recently served communion to a young girl. At the conclusion of the service she informed me during a chat, that she had never been baptized. She went on to say that in her earlier years she was refused the opportunity to receive communion as she had not been baptized. she never attended church after that until she appeared in my church and received communion. She continues to attend church and has rerquested to be baptized.
Jesus never said we had to be baptized to come to the "Lord's Table" Communion is means of grace.
I think while JW and his classes might have practiced a more closed communion table, his writings on communion give great theology and support for an open table, even if it isn't what he had in mind. As a means of grace, JW believed communion could be a saving experience. If communion is in a way the Word and the gospel message, then I think it should be open for all and encouraging for all to receive it. Sure, we can interpret what it means. We should be doing this. But to deny a person communion - I don't think I could do it. What bad intentions might we think they could have that we think we should tell them no? Even if they weren't Christians, isn't participating in something we consider containing the good news a way to share Christ? If we always require understanding before participation, we would never get very far...
As a pastor, I would never deny someone who comes forward to receive the Eucharist; this is not my place and the gift is not mine to withhold. I think it would not only violate what Paul was teaching the Corinthians but would also publicly humiliate someone who would very likely never darken the door of that church again.
The pastor must handle it carefully and preach it thoroughly, but it ultimately lies in the hand and the mind and the heart of the one who chooses to recieve it. How dare I to presume the condition of that person's heart?
what if someone brought their dog up for communion?
Dogs are perfect creatures, lacking original sin, and therefore do not need the Eucharist.
I've heard a great story of a seeing-eye dog receiving Holy Communion. As a perfect creature, he may not have been "in need" of the Eucharist, but if ever there was a servant of God, a seeing-eye dog qualifies.
Woof.
Depends on the breed
Yeah, I have my doubts about shi-tzus. Any dog that could also be used to mop the floor is suspect.
Post a Comment