Andrew Thompson laments our laxity about Holy Communion. (My mother, an Episcopalian, would agree with his view.)
If I read Thompson correctly, he is saying we need to stop serving to the unbaptized.
Reforming the so-called “open table” will require more effort. The weakness of reasons given for its continued practice don’t seem to dampen the desire for some Methodists to define themselves by what they don’t stand for. But make no mistake: Wesley’s use of the phrase “converting ordinance” to describe the Eucharist did not refer to its use as an evangelization tool for the unbaptized. It was rather meant to refer to the sacrament’s ability to quicken the faith of Christians who were caught in the malaise of sin.
Christ does want all to meet him at his Supper. But that Supper takes place in the church, and the manner of inclusion into it goes by a specific name: Baptism. Recognizing the profound meaning of coming to commune with Christ through the baptismal call would help us understand both sacraments more fully.
At the church I serve, that would mean a significant portion of those attending on a regular basis would no longer be invited to the table, including all of the young people. Of course, congregational strife is a poor reason to continue a bad practice. (Thompson does not comment on the propriety of non-ordained clergy offering the sacraments. That may be a further source of trouble for me.)
What do you think? Is our “open table” theology wrong? Is the Lord’s Supper a meal for the baptized only?
I am a part-time local pastor serving 
This love we believe to be the medicine of life, the never-failing remedy for all the evils of a disordered world, for all the miseries and vices of men. Wherever this is, there are virtue and happiness going hand in hand. There is humbleness of mind, gentleness, long-suffering, the whole image of God; and at the same time a peace that passeth all understanding, and joy unspeakable and full of glory.
Perhaps another question first: why won’t they get baptised? The same commitments for both sacraments are assumed.
Will, that is a great question and one I’ve been working on for a couple years now.
First, the church culture in the area is basically quasi-Baptist on the sacrament of baptism. No one baptizes children. Indeed, I’m pretty sure I chased away one young couple by suggesting I would talk to them about baptizing their infant when they were ready to consider it.
Membership has little meaning as well. Church is the people who show up on Sunday. The only thing that membership does is make you eligible to serve on church board. I’m not saying that is right, but that is the attitude that I have not moved very much in a couple years.
All in all, this is one of the areas of greatest struggle and least fruitfulness I have in ministry.
Hoyt Hickman’s discussion on this very topic relates the history of the development of our current rubrics in the UMH and BOW. I see that the decision not to mention baptism in our current orders of worship was not accidental.
Link here.
John, perhaps it is my computer, but the link to Hickman doesn’t seem to be working.
In By Water and the Spirit: A United Methodist Understanding of Baptism, the official teaching of the church, we find this: “The Wesleyan tradition has always recognized that Holy Communion may be an occasion for the reception of converting, justifying, and sanctifying grace. Unbaptized persons who receive communion should be counseled and nurtured toward baptism as soon as possible. (Book of Resolutions 2008, pg. 958)
Also, This Holy Mystery tells us “Invitation to partake of Holy Communion offers an evangelical opportunity to bring people into a fuller living relationship with the body of Christ. As a means of God’s unmerited grace, Holy Baptism and Holy Communion are to be seen not as barriers but as pathways. Pastors and congregations must strive for a balance of welcome that is open and gracious and teaching that is clear and faithful to the fullness of discipleship. Nonbaptized people who respond in faith to the invitation in our liturgy will be welcomed to the table. (BOR 2008, pg. 978 emphasis mine).
Seems to me that the official teaching of the (UM) church is pretty clear on the subject.
If some folks want us to tighten up the sacrament requirements, I wouldn’t be surprised if this is an indicator of the coming schism. There might be 2 umc’s and one will look a lot more like the earlier holiness churches. the other one will probably eventually merge with several other protestant groups as they did in Canada.
Have a look at Let Every Soul Be Jesus’ Guest: A Theology of the Open Table by Mark W. Stamm. Stamm makes a very good argument for the current United Methodist practice of the open table.
However, Andrew Thompson is correct when he says that Wesley’s practice of the open table and the contemporary practice are quite different. Historically, until the mid 20th century, baptism initiated persons to the Lord’s Table.
I suspect Andrew is pushing back against the “cheap grace” that is so often dispensed in churches today.
As a Methodist seminarian, open communion is something that has come to trouble me more and more as I have become better acquainted with sacramental theology and ideas of the church. 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 is serious, serious business and we should think long and hard on what we are doing when we offer the bread and the cup to someone who does not ‘discern the body,’ whether we are indeed offering them a cup of grace, or, as I think Paul is clear, a cup of wrath and judgment.
John, thanks for this post. Steve Manskar makes an important point when he notes the very recent advent of the particular version of “open table” that gets practiced today. 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 question of 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 it is people who 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 read this comment: 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 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.
John, I like the way you posed the questions in your post because I think you are posing the issue rightly. It’s a doctrinal question that should be engaged via rigorous theological examination. Charles Rivera above 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.” And third, throughout the NT epistles (Romans, Colossians, 1 Peter), 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 I know one of your respondents cited the “This Holy Mystery” statement, 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 the study committee that developed it was 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. 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.
Your post speaks of “shooing the unwashed from the Lord’s table,” but that’s truly not what the orthodox practice of Eucharist does. 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 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.
Andrew, thank you for your thoughtful and instructive response. I’m going to respond to only a couple pieces of it.
First, no fair breaking out the Latin on a licensed local pastor.
My take – and I have not inquired about this closely enough – is NOT that people feel it is undemocratic so much as inhospitable. Talk with church folks about cutting people off the church rolls and you get a similar reaction. Telling our friends and neighbors they should not take part feels wrong to them.
I’m not saying that justifies bad theology, but I think that is a better description of the source of the resistance than liberal democratic principles – at least in my context.
It seems to me that this is a General Conference issue, but if I read Hoyt Hickman properly the General Conference is unlikely to change this practice. In the Hymnal, the Book of Worship, and This Holy Mystery, the General Conference has accepted – if not endorsed – common practice.
This certainly gives me some food for thought (pardon the pun.) I invite people to the table with a variation of the words in the Hymnal rubric – anyone who loves Jesus, repents of sin, and desires to live in peace with one another is welcome at the Lord’s table. You are suggesting I need to qualify this quite a bit.
Heck, I took communion many times in a United Methodist Church before I was baptized. So far, I have not confessed that as a sin and asked for forgiveness. Should I have?
This is all fascinating and perplexing.
I don’t see the New Testament evidence being clear that baptism must precede being invited to the Lord’s Table. The only one we know for sure was baptized when Christ instituted it was Jesus Himself – the 12 who received it from at the time, who knows? Paul’s instructions to the Corinthians, as I read them, do not clearly spell out that he is assuming those receiving the sacrament are baptized, or that they should be. In fact, he expresses some sort of glad relief that he only baptized a few people in Corinth (1st Cor 1:14), although for reasons unrelated to communion.
IMO, if you are baptized, great – of course you should receive the Eucharist if you are willing to repent of your sin! Do you love Jesus with your whole heart, but have not been baptized? Then come have communion, under the same condition as the baptized – repentance – and get baptized too!! No reason to experience only half of t he sacramental life of the church.
Larry – Repentance is the very prelude act to baptism, which then incorporates us into the body of Christ that we might receive the body of Christ. Do you not think there is a logic behind Peter’s instruction to the converts in Acts 2:37-38? If there are those in a congregation who are being moved by the Holy Spirit to receive Eucharist, then that is a sign to the shepherd to whom they are entrusted that they desire baptism – for there is no true ability to receive the body of Christ apart from the body of Christ.
In regards to the the 12 disciples of Jesus at the Last Supper, I think John 1:35-42 clearly indicates that Jesus encountered some of his first disciples in the very midst of his cousin John’s baptismal ministry. And at the beginning of Acts, Jesus tells the twelve (minus Judas Iscariot),”John baptized you with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:5). The biblical witness seems clear on this point.
And while I don’t want to belabor the point, it seems equally clear in regards to the church in Corinth. You mention Paul’s language in 1 Corinthians 1, but that is in the middle of a rhetorical argument where he’s counseling the Corinthians not to be divided; contrary to what you suggest, Paul is indicating that they were all baptized into the body of Christ. That’s his whole point! Now look further on at 1 Corinthians 6:11, where the apostle writes, “… But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” About this passage, the New Interpreter’s Bible comments that the phrase, “having been ‘washed,’ makes clear that Paul is employing baptismal references as a way of positioning the Corinthians’ understandings of themselves and of their new and distinctive calling in Christ” (vol.X, p.856). To wit, the very reason that Paul can so strongly criticize their Eucharistic practice in 1 Corinthians 11 is because these people have been incorporated into the new covenant by virtue of their baptism. No baptism, no covenant. And no covenant, no responsibility to one another as redeemed children of God within the living body of Christ.
I mean this in a kind way, but it needs to be said: We don’t get to base our practice on “in my opinion” statements when the opinion of God’s word is clear and grounded in the very covenant Christ came to establish among us. And a part of our identity as Wesleyans must be that we take Scripture as seriously as did he – homo unius libri and a believer that “the Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary for salvation” (article VI in the 39 Articles, which becomes article V of the Articles of Religion of the UMC).
Andrew, I don’t have time for a lengthy response at the moment, but I want to address the Acts 1:5 reference in particular. Maybe later I’ll come back to Corinthians.
The NRSV actually translates the Greek fairly well on this verse – I understand Jesus to be saying that John’s ministry of baptism was with water, but there is no underlying construct in the Greek to make it say that John baptized “you” with water unless you read it in solely from the context of his next statement, “but you will be baptized” – the use of the word “you” is as the subject of the verb “will be baptized” while John is the subject of the first verb “baptized.” Whether or not Jesus called the 12 within a context of John’s baptism I think is a debatable point, not as cut and dry as you make it sound.
I am completely agree that this whole question is really about how seriously we take baptism, not communion.
John – It means, “Our lamb has conquered,” and I meant it as a way of saying that the victory celebrated in Eucharist is Christ’s victory, not ours. Or as a divinity school professor of mine used to put it, “When we are invited to the table it is incumbent upon us to abide by the table manners of the host.” The meal is Jesus’ own, but he invites all of us to it – through baptism into his sacrificial and atoning death. That’s what makes us a part of him and draws us toward fellowship with him at his table.
I have no doubt the issue in most churches is one of hospitality. And herein lies our real dilemma: Our problem is not that we don’t want to take the Lord’s Supper seriously. It’s that we don’t want to take Baptism seriously, largely because we don’t understand it and are ignorant of its place in Holy Scripture. But just read my response to Larry above; here’s someone who seems to know his way around the New Testament quite well, and yet the baptismal witness is practically jumping off the page at every turn without being noticed. How is that possible? (I’ve got my own theory, which is part the machinations of the Evil One and part the historic Methodist neglect of baptismal theology due to Methodism’s emergence in the Evangelical Revival). But the important point is that we don’t see it because we haven’t been formed to do so. That is an eminently correctable problem.
So how do we think about hospitality as it regards our worship practices at the local church level? We begin by recognizing God’s greatest act of hospitality in all of history – the universal invitation to be reconciled to God and one another by the atoning death of Christ and through the sacrament of baptism. Romans 6:2ff – “We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from teh dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.” Therefore, it is through the sacramental act of baptism that we extend God’s hospitality to all people, so that they might find their sins forgiven and find new life with the people of God, i.e., the Church.
This requires us to teach and preach in a certain way, of course. But I can tell you that my own flock is beginning to see this after the past 18 months of my being with them. In a bible study this past Sunday night, we were discussing Paul’s troubles in Philippi when the Roman colonists were complaining about the Jews and their customs which were so disruptive. This led to a discussion about racial/ethnic strife in the contemporary world, which is a significant social sin in the county where I minister. But after a very short time, the conversation turned toward baptism and the 10 or 11 people there unanimously affirmed that the “dividing wall” we so often see in the world between races is overcome in baptism – that act whereby we take off our old clothes and put on Christ.
John, you are right in saying that it is a General Conference issue. That means the sooner we start taking Scripture & tradition seriously in our local churches, the sooner it will begin to bubble up to that level. (And I’m really not exaggerating here; I do not think we test our practices by biblical precept and the ecumenical consensus of the church catholic nearly enough. Many of the errors under which we currently labor could be solved thereby.)
As far as your own confession, I have to believe you confess your sins every time you receive the sacrament. You say so yourself! There would also be some question in my mind about sin committed unintentionally; any serious sin involves a certain willfulness to it that you clearly did not have (nor does anyone who is seeking to find Jesus and receives the host prior to baptism). I assume you were rather seeking after Christ and had simply not been catechized properly. No, this situation is, in the truest sense, the Church’s sin. And that’s why I’m willing to engage in this conversation so fully; I believe the Holy Spirit, in all his graciousness and love, is always calling us to a fuller knowledge of Christ Jesus. And I think that is, always and everywhere, very good news.
Pingback: Sacramental blog storm « John Meunier's blog
Thanks for the pointer to this, John. It’s an interesting discussion and I’ll need to think about some of this.
In general I’d say I’m in favor of an open table. But I’m bothered about the idea that “Baptism and communion require the same commitment to Jesus but I’m not ready to be baptized”. I’ll have to think about that further.
As a British Methodist, what has bothered me more has been the “get this over quick” approach to communion that I’ve seen in both the Methodist and Lutheran churches I’ve attended so far here in the US. Yes, the hyper-shortened liturgy bothers me somewhat, but I’m even more bothered by the off-hand way in which the liturgy is said. Certainly in the Methodist case, by a pastor who is an advocate of revival and of calling more people to make a genuine commitment to Christ.
Larry: there is no doubt that Jesus’ ministry was a baptizing ministry from the beginning. See Jn 3:22: “After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized.” Of course the apostles were baptized.
In the NT whenever someone repents and turns to Christ this is accompanied by baptism. The Lord’s Supper is never associated with the initial move to conversation in the NT or in the church fathers, or anywhere else, to my knowledge, until modernity. From this angle it is apparent what a striking novelty the current UMC practice is when judged against Scripture and tradition. The sheer fact of its novelty is not proof that it is incorrect, but it gives one pause.
The repentance – i.e. the examination of oneself – in 1 Cor 11 is a of a different sort: Paul is speaking to those who have already been baptized (cf. 6:11) and who were “profaning the body and blood of the Lord” by partaking “unworthily” (11:27). What was this unworthy partaking? Apparently the wealthier members were gorging themselves while others went hungry (11:21-22). Paul admonishes them that the Lord’s Supper isn’t for filling one’s belly (11:34). The most striking part comes in 11:27-30:
“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.”
The self-examination here is not some vague realization that everyone sins sometimes. It’s very specific and very serious: some of those who communed without addressing their sins against other members became sick or even died. This is why the church has thought it necessary to lead people to the grace of baptism, and to teach them to confess their sins (something that can hardly be accomplished adequately during the brief comments before the Lord’s Supper) before leading them to the Lord’s Supper. Christ, with whom we commune in the Supper, is not to be trifled with.
None of this contradicts the love of God, but rather shows how wide and deep that love is. As C. S. Lewis put it:
“When Christianity says that God loves man, it means that God loves man: not that He has some ‘disinterested,’ because really indifferent, concern for our welfare, but that, in awful and surprising truth, we are the objects of His love. You asked for a loving God: You have one. The great spirit you so lightly invoked, the ‘lord of terrible aspect,’ is present: not a senile benevolence that drowsily wishes you to be happy in your own way, not the cold philanthropy of a conscientious magistrate, not the care of a host who feels responsible for the comfort of his guests, but the consuming fire Himself, the Love that made the worlds, persistent as the artist’s love for his work and despotic as a man’s love for a dog, provident and venerable as a parent’s love for a child, jealous, inexorable, exacting as love between the sexes.”
In sum: communing before baptism lacks warrant in Scripture and tradition. Second, even if one should object to the first point, Paul shows us that no one should commune – including the baptized! – unless they have “discerned the body” and examined themselves, something more serious than vaguely admitting you’re a sinner as you approach the table.
Nathan: What makes you say “Of course the apostles were baptized”? John 3:22 may imply that, but it does not say it in black and white. And even if they were baptized, was it John’s baptism or another? I have never been able to reconcile John 3:22 with John 4:2 that seems to say Jesus did not baptize people – it seems very murky to me to draw a hard and fast conclusion that either Jesus himself baptized anyone (John’s gospel is the only one to mention it at all, and then confuses the point a few verses later), or that the disciples at the time of the institution of the Lord’s Super were baptized in any Christian sense. Maybe so, perhaps even likely, but the evidence seems slim to me to posit it was necessarily the case.
Andrew: I don’t base my assertions on “in my opinion” because they happen to be what I already like, but base them on my study and interpretation of Scripture. That is why I laid the brief evidence from Scripture in my first comment, as I see it, for having a table open to those not yet baptized. I don’t find God’s word to be as clear on this point as you do.
I can agree that John 1:35-42 would support the claim that certain of Jesus’ disciples had received the baptism of John, but I find it insufficient evidence to conclude that all 12 who were with him the night he was betrayed had been baptized.
As to the situation in Corinth, Paul writes that “Christ did send me to baptize but to proclaim the gospel.” (1 Cor 1:17). He openly admits he baptized a handful of people there, and I am sure from his other writings and the testimony of Acts, he valued baptism immensely (Romans 6:3ff, for example). That is not the issue. Was the Lord’s table in Corinth such a mockery because so many were violating their baptisms? Or because people were partaking who had not been instructed and baptized? Arguments from silence don’t mean much, but for what its worth, Paul does not rebuke them on account of their weak follow-through on their baptismal promises. Is it assumed by Paul that 100% of his audience in Corinth is baptized so he doesn’t need to spell it out? Or is not a valid argument for Paul to make in that context because some are receiving it without having been baptized? It is clear that the Corinthian church practiced the gifts of the Holy Spirit that the NT describes as accompanying baptism – in fact he uses that argument in chapter 12 in discussing the gits that “we were all baptized into one body” (12:13), but that is in dealing with a different issue than the Lord’s Supper. Interesting that he applies the argument there but not in relation to communion.
When Paul went to Ephesus (Acts 19), he finds people there who know only John’s baptism. Paul fixes the situation by “baptizing them in the name of the Lord Jesus” and they receive the Holy Spirit. This account, for example, begs the question, were these disciples (Luke’s word in Acts 19:1) participating in the Lord’s Table improperly up to that point? It makes no mention of their other worship practices, so one is left to speculate.
What’s the difference between receiving the sacrament without being baptized at all and having been “baptized with the baptism of repentance” that is insufficient for Christian baptism? Was God’s grace reduced or not present in the sacrament as a result?
Ultimately, I have no doubt that:
1. The early church restricted the table to the baptized, and it may be likely that the NT era church did as well. Still it was work in progress, and I think it just as likely that people received communion without Christian baptism.
2. I agree is preferable that those receive communion be baptized, but based on the Biblical witness as I read it, I have not yet concluded that such practice be mandatory. As a pastor, I can and do strongly urge anyone I know who receives but is not baptized to become a baptized believer.
To me the question hinges on whether baptism is your basic sacrament of initiation. If it is, then it should be required before taking communion. If not, it would be wrong to restrict the table to the baptized. Determining whether baptism is such a sacrament requires a Biblically and historically minded search.