Meeks, Charles. “Recovering a Wesleyan Sense of Open Table Communion for Anglicans with the Help of a Lutheran.” April 29, 2021, Tyndale University, Toronto, Ontario: MPEG-3, 28:45 min. 1 00:00:01.200 --> 00:00:03.300 This talk is born from work. 2 00:00:03.330 --> 00:00:07.220 I've done thinking about the practice of the Eucharist as 3 00:00:07.250 --> 00:00:12.500 a reflection of one's Christology, which sounds perhaps like common sense. 4 00:00:12.530 --> 00:00:18.660 But this, I found, is really only common sense within traditions that have elevated 5 00:00:18.690 --> 00:00:22.700 the Eucharist to the highest point of Christian worship. 6 00:00:22.730 --> 00:00:28.180 So mainly Catholics and Orthodox for the rest of us, Anglicans included. 7 00:00:28.210 --> 00:00:32.580 I'm convinced that it's time to come back to the table, to have a think about the 8 00:00:32.610 --> 00:00:38.120 implications of what we say we believe about the table and about Christ, to 9 00:00:38.140 --> 00:00:40.900 challenge them and to see where this leads us. 10 00:00:40.930 --> 00:00:45.180 And I'll highlight this undercurrent in Wesley's thought, 11 00:00:45.210 --> 00:00:50.500 justified, in a sense, by the deep theological work of Lutheran robert W. 12 00:00:50.530 --> 00:00:52.320 Jensen. 13 00:00:52.520 --> 00:00:58.180 A quick definition before I outline how I want to approach this topic today. 14 00:00:58.210 --> 00:01:01.060 What is opentable communion? 15 00:01:01.090 --> 00:01:03.340 Well, the definition is a little vague. 16 00:01:03.370 --> 00:01:05.770 Opentable communion is, at its most 17 00:01:05.800 --> 00:01:11.660 liberal, the welcoming of literally any person to the table with no caveats. 18 00:01:11.690 --> 00:01:13.180 At the conservative end. 19 00:01:13.210 --> 00:01:15.900 It's the welcoming of all baptized people, 20 00:01:15.930 --> 00:01:21.620 even if they're not members or have been baptized in your specific tradition. 21 00:01:21.640 --> 00:01:23.290 Some folks wouldn't consider this 22 00:01:23.320 --> 00:01:29.420 conservative option open at all, since it denotes a basic requirement of baptism. 23 00:01:29.440 --> 00:01:31.290 But I would only label traditions that 24 00:01:31.320 --> 00:01:36.420 require you to be baptized in that local church, denomination, or branch as 25 00:01:36.450 --> 00:01:40.660 celebrating what might be called closed communion. 26 00:01:40.690 --> 00:01:45.540 But we're not talking about that today, and nor am I going to be talking 27 00:01:45.570 --> 00:01:50.340 specifically in this paper to traditions such as the Salvation Army, 28 00:01:50.370 --> 00:01:54.740 who are fairly unique in its views on the Christian sacraments. 29 00:01:54.770 --> 00:02:00.620 Happy to delve into that more in the question and answer time. 30 00:02:00.650 --> 00:02:05.060 So in this talk, I have two goals to begin working toward. 31 00:02:05.090 --> 00:02:10.140 The first is to invite the Westlands of various affiliations among us who hold to 32 00:02:10.170 --> 00:02:15.170 open table communion in any sense, to reconsider the necessity of weekly 33 00:02:15.200 --> 00:02:20.960 participation in the Eucharist and two, to invite the Anglicans or the 34 00:02:20.990 --> 00:02:27.610 Anglican leaning amongst us to consider a fully open table communion positively. 35 00:02:27.640 --> 00:02:29.720 Not only because of the way Wesley was 36 00:02:29.750 --> 00:02:34.260 able to maneuver his way around the Book of Common Prayer, but because of the deep 37 00:02:34.290 --> 00:02:38.020 Christological import of what I'm going to say. 38 00:02:38.050 --> 00:02:42.610 So there's a sense in which I realize I've named this talk poorly. 39 00:02:42.640 --> 00:02:48.700 It is indeed both for Wesleyans and Anglicans. 40 00:02:48.720 --> 00:02:50.520 So the first issue that I think needs to 41 00:02:50.550 --> 00:02:56.040 be covered is trying to get at an answer to an overarching question that pops up in 42 00:02:56.070 --> 00:02:59.580 nearly all the literature is actually extremely important to get right. 43 00:02:59.610 --> 00:03:03.660 I think our debates about the Eucharist, 44 00:03:03.690 --> 00:03:09.660 or indeed, is the ritual itself just about hospitality? 45 00:03:09.690 --> 00:03:14.500 In a 2007 article by James Fitzgerald that I'm going to use to frame a lot of this 46 00:03:14.530 --> 00:03:21.060 argument, he's expanded this major question into three sub questions. 47 00:03:21.090 --> 00:03:24.740 Number one, is it inhospitable to restrict 48 00:03:24.770 --> 00:03:28.660 access to the Eucharist or to fence the table? 49 00:03:28.690 --> 00:03:31.020 And number two, if the table is fenced, 50 00:03:31.050 --> 00:03:35.740 what are the requirements for admission, who is to be invited? 51 00:03:35.770 --> 00:03:40.380 And three, how should requirements for admission to the table be enforced? 52 00:03:40.410 --> 00:03:42.480 And Fitzgerald offers what I consider to 53 00:03:42.510 --> 00:03:46.260 be actually kind of disappointing answers to these questions. 54 00:03:46.290 --> 00:03:50.900 But he does do the important historical work for us by trying to trace what he 55 00:03:50.930 --> 00:03:54.660 calls an arc of Wesleyan liturgy in practice. 56 00:03:54.690 --> 00:03:57.700 In realizing that the Eucharist is not not 57 00:03:57.730 --> 00:04:02.740 about hospitality, but it is certainly significantly more. 58 00:04:02.760 --> 00:04:04.740 To the first question, Fitzgerald points 59 00:04:04.770 --> 00:04:08.860 to the tradition Wesley inherited from the Book of Common Prayer, with its strict 60 00:04:08.890 --> 00:04:15.020 admonitions to those who would come to the table and receive unworthy, which seems to 61 00:04:15.050 --> 00:04:19.780 have meant doing so without confessing sins and making restitution. 62 00:04:19.800 --> 00:04:23.820 Otherwise, a participant opens themselves to quote, the increase of their own 63 00:04:23.840 --> 00:04:28.860 damnation and personal entrance of the devil. 64 00:04:28.890 --> 00:04:32.620 Fitzgerald does some great historical work that I don't need to rehash in 65 00:04:32.650 --> 00:04:36.620 demonstrating that quote, there was considerable opportunity for variance 66 00:04:36.650 --> 00:04:41.180 between the written instructions and the pastoral implementation thereof. 67 00:04:41.210 --> 00:04:45.260 Interesting, Fitzgerald notes that Wesley's climate then was actually one 68 00:04:45.280 --> 00:04:49.880 that did not shy away from fencing the table, yet did not want to fence it in 69 00:04:49.910 --> 00:04:53.140 such a way that kept earnest parishioners away. 70 00:04:53.160 --> 00:04:54.920 Other than this, Fitzgerald does not 71 00:04:54.950 --> 00:04:58.660 really offer an answer to that first question. 72 00:04:58.690 --> 00:05:03.460 I think Wesley actually tackles this issue effectively from a bird's eye view, though 73 00:05:03.480 --> 00:05:08.700 as we'll see when we approach his second question, there's a disconnect from the 74 00:05:08.720 --> 00:05:12.700 theoretical and what Wesley actually promotes. 75 00:05:12.720 --> 00:05:17.100 In Wesley's sermon on the Duty of Constant Communion sermon 101. 76 00:05:17.130 --> 00:05:19.900 He makes two fascinating moves. 77 00:05:19.920 --> 00:05:22.480 First is his explicit critique of the 78 00:05:22.510 --> 00:05:27.520 common Anglican practice, whereby parishioners rarely receive communion, the 79 00:05:27.540 --> 00:05:31.420 root of which we'll come back to when dealing with question three. 80 00:05:31.440 --> 00:05:35.340 The second move he makes is a little more implicit and actually resonates throughout 81 00:05:35.360 --> 00:05:39.780 many of his other reflections on the Eucharist, and that is how truly 82 00:05:39.800 --> 00:05:47.160 misunderstood one Corinthians eleven was among Anglican clergy because of how they 83 00:05:47.190 --> 00:05:51.020 fumbled the connection between Christ and the sacrament. 84 00:05:51.040 --> 00:05:53.220 And the partaker 85 00:05:53.250 --> 00:05:57.540 exegetically the command of Christ to celebrate the Eucharist as often as 86 00:05:57.570 --> 00:06:01.500 Christians gather trumps all other conditions for Wesley. 87 00:06:01.530 --> 00:06:04.340 He says it is a plain command of Christ. 88 00:06:04.360 --> 00:06:07.340 It is his dying words to all his followers. 89 00:06:07.360 --> 00:06:12.620 And anyone, quote who does not receive either does not understand his duty or 90 00:06:12.650 --> 00:06:17.900 does not care for the dying command of his Savior, the forgiveness of his sins, the 91 00:06:17.920 --> 00:06:23.820 strengthening of his soul, and the refreshing of it with the hope of glory. 92 00:06:23.850 --> 00:06:25.980 Those are intense words. 93 00:06:26.010 --> 00:06:30.420 Turning his attention to all the objections to Constant Communion, wesley 94 00:06:30.450 --> 00:06:35.220 does some good exegesis what it means in the context of one corinthians to receive 95 00:06:35.250 --> 00:06:40.520 the Eucharist, unworthily, is, quote taking the holy Sacrament in such a rude 96 00:06:40.540 --> 00:06:45.780 and disorderly way that one was hungry and another drunken. 97 00:06:45.800 --> 00:06:47.380 But what is that to you? 98 00:06:47.410 --> 00:06:50.340 Is there any danger of your doing so? 99 00:06:50.360 --> 00:06:55.860 However worthy you are to communicate, there is no fear you're communicating. 100 00:06:55.890 --> 00:06:59.020 Thusly therefore, whatever the punishment 101 00:06:59.040 --> 00:07:03.220 is of doing it, thus unworthily, it does not concern you. 102 00:07:03.250 --> 00:07:05.380 You have no more reason from this text to 103 00:07:05.410 --> 00:07:10.060 disobey God than if there was no such text in the Bible. 104 00:07:10.090 --> 00:07:16.980 So the real fear of damnation, for Wesley comes from disobeying Christ's command to 105 00:07:17.010 --> 00:07:24.100 receive the Eucharist, because to not receive is to reject the mercy of God. 106 00:07:24.130 --> 00:07:28.760 Though Wesley says preparation for taking communion is preferable to not taking it 107 00:07:28.790 --> 00:07:33.540 at all, he notes that this doesn't need to be an overly involved process. 108 00:07:33.570 --> 00:07:38.020 All the preparation that is absolutely necessary is contained in those words. 109 00:07:38.040 --> 00:07:40.820 He says, repent you truly of your past sins. 110 00:07:40.850 --> 00:07:43.060 Have faith in Christ, our Savior. 111 00:07:43.090 --> 00:07:48.600 So I think the real answer is yes, it is inhospitable to restrict access to the 112 00:07:48.630 --> 00:07:52.140 Eucharist, and I'll work this out more as we go along. 113 00:07:52.170 --> 00:07:54.800 But the key point I want to reiterate here 114 00:07:54.830 --> 00:07:59.740 is that this question goes two ways churches who do not offer frequent 115 00:07:59.770 --> 00:08:07.900 communion are in the same camp as those who do and are overly restrictive. 116 00:08:07.920 --> 00:08:11.420 To the second question what are the requirements for admission to the table? 117 00:08:11.450 --> 00:08:16.100 Fitzgerald relies on Randy Maddox to note that though baptism was historically held 118 00:08:16.130 --> 00:08:21.860 as the minimum requirement, wesley himself did not properly address this question. 119 00:08:21.890 --> 00:08:24.220 We might assume some things, however, 120 00:08:24.250 --> 00:08:28.980 based on Wesley's split with the Moravians over the way they fenced off the table. 121 00:08:29.010 --> 00:08:31.820 For only those who had full assurance of 122 00:08:31.850 --> 00:08:37.020 faith in Christ, wesley, Fitzgerald says, came to believe that the Eucharist itself 123 00:08:37.050 --> 00:08:41.660 could be the very moment that assurance was experienced. 124 00:08:41.690 --> 00:08:46.220 Most significantly, Fitzgerald points to Wesley's discourses at Federer Lane from 125 00:08:46.250 --> 00:08:50.940 Sunday, June 22 through Saturday, June 28, 1740. 126 00:08:50.970 --> 00:08:53.900 On Friday, June 27, Wesley actually 127 00:08:53.930 --> 00:08:59.320 states, quote experience shows the gross falsehood of that assertion that the 128 00:08:59.350 --> 00:09:02.820 Lord's Supper is not a converting ordinance. 129 00:09:02.850 --> 00:09:05.660 Ye are the witnesses for many now present 130 00:09:05.690 --> 00:09:09.540 know the very beginning of your conversion to God. 131 00:09:09.560 --> 00:09:15.700 Perhaps in some the first deep conviction was wrought at the Lord's Supper. 132 00:09:15.730 --> 00:09:20.180 Then on Saturday, Wesley made this even more explicit the Lord's Supper was 133 00:09:20.200 --> 00:09:27.940 ordained by God to be a means of conveying to people either preventing or justifying 134 00:09:27.970 --> 00:09:32.340 or sanctifying grace according to their several necessities. 135 00:09:32.370 --> 00:09:37.020 The persons for whom it was ordained are all those who know and feel that they want 136 00:09:37.050 --> 00:09:43.580 the grace of God either to restrain them from sin or to show their sins forgiven, 137 00:09:43.610 --> 00:09:47.220 or to renew their souls in the image of God. 138 00:09:47.250 --> 00:09:49.220 Even more importantly, however, Wesley 139 00:09:49.250 --> 00:09:55.460 goes on to admit that, quote no fitness is required at the time of communicating but 140 00:09:55.490 --> 00:09:59.700 a sense of our state, of our utter sinfulness and helplessness. 141 00:09:59.730 --> 00:10:07.320 Everyone who knows there are fit for hell being just fit to come to Christ. 142 00:10:07.880 --> 00:10:10.140 So there's something significant happening here. 143 00:10:10.170 --> 00:10:12.740 Wesley does a very almost patristic thing 144 00:10:12.770 --> 00:10:17.740 in framing his theological discussion around degrees of practicality. 145 00:10:17.770 --> 00:10:21.300 In other words, he thinks in degrees of best case scenarios. 146 00:10:21.320 --> 00:10:26.700 But he is entirely comfortable pushing his positions to their theological balance. 147 00:10:26.730 --> 00:10:28.940 Fitzgerald says that while Wesley's table 148 00:10:28.970 --> 00:10:33.880 was much more open than prevailing Anglican positions, still it was not a 149 00:10:33.910 --> 00:10:38.340 blanket invitation given to all, regardless of intent or desire. 150 00:10:38.370 --> 00:10:41.060 I am not certain I agree 151 00:10:41.080 --> 00:10:45.220 there's a point to be made about the exclusivity Wesley exercised in 152 00:10:45.250 --> 00:10:50.020 establishing class meetings and the way the Eucharist was implemented therein. 153 00:10:50.050 --> 00:10:52.260 This is the most closed the table can get. 154 00:10:52.290 --> 00:10:57.260 But on the whole, as Karen Westerfield Tucker points out, even by the mid 19th 155 00:10:57.290 --> 00:11:02.340 century, due to disputes with the Baptists, Methodists, quote were reluctant 156 00:11:02.370 --> 00:11:07.180 to concede the necessity of baptism prior to Communion. 157 00:11:07.210 --> 00:11:11.420 It was only a little later that this necessity was written into stone, namely 158 00:11:11.450 --> 00:11:16.540 by the Free Methodist Church and then the Church of the Nazarene. 159 00:11:16.570 --> 00:11:19.660 So again, no definitive answer by Fitzgerald. 160 00:11:19.680 --> 00:11:21.500 And while I hazard to give a definitive 161 00:11:21.530 --> 00:11:27.740 answer myself, I think Wesley's theory is clear, even if his practice isn't, and 162 00:11:27.770 --> 00:11:32.820 thus the question I will wager might be moot. 163 00:11:32.850 --> 00:11:34.840 To the third question, Fitzgerald notes 164 00:11:34.870 --> 00:11:38.980 that the Anglican Church tried pretty hard to make sure those coming to the table 165 00:11:39.010 --> 00:11:43.740 were fit, including by home visits from the parish priest and the issuing of 166 00:11:43.770 --> 00:11:46.980 tokens to folks who had paid their contributions to the Church. 167 00:11:47.010 --> 00:11:49.540 And as mentioned above, the class meetings 168 00:11:49.570 --> 00:11:52.820 had their own ways of enforcing eligibility. 169 00:11:52.850 --> 00:11:57.820 Practically too, this particularly Methodist way of being exclusionary led 170 00:11:57.850 --> 00:12:02.220 directly to the dropping of the exportations of the BCP about spiritual 171 00:12:02.250 --> 00:12:05.900 preparedness from Wesley's Sunday service liturgy. 172 00:12:05.930 --> 00:12:08.020 So it seems that we move in an ironic 173 00:12:08.050 --> 00:12:13.100 direction, given Wesley's theological justification for openness. 174 00:12:13.130 --> 00:12:15.480 The practical result was actually, by and 175 00:12:15.510 --> 00:12:20.840 large a closed table, only to loosen very gradually as the years moved on and the 176 00:12:20.870 --> 00:12:26.620 Methodist Episcopal groups further split over interestingly expressly exclusionary 177 00:12:26.650 --> 00:12:32.400 social issues such as slavery and women's suffrage. 178 00:12:32.440 --> 00:12:38.900 The unfortunate disciplinary move in these split groups is to reassert with 179 00:12:38.930 --> 00:12:45.660 the BCP the tired and erroneous appeal to one corinthians eleven. 180 00:12:45.680 --> 00:12:47.580 Fitzgerald's answer to this third question 181 00:12:47.610 --> 00:12:52.900 is more fully elaborated upon in his conclusion that, quote it is possible, 182 00:12:52.930 --> 00:12:57.540 even preferable, to simultaneously focus on extending an invitation to the table to 183 00:12:57.570 --> 00:13:03.220 those not yet converted and develop more specific ways of fencing the table. 184 00:13:03.250 --> 00:13:07.820 Essential to this approach is a renewed emphasis on the Lord's Supper as a means 185 00:13:07.850 --> 00:13:13.300 of grace, not just a memorial of the death of Christ. 186 00:13:13.330 --> 00:13:17.460 Here he relies on Jeffrey Wainwright to restate his position. 187 00:13:17.490 --> 00:13:21.780 To limit the scope of the invitation is poor hospitality. 188 00:13:21.810 --> 00:13:26.780 But to extend an invitation that fails to give the truth of the new life to which 189 00:13:26.810 --> 00:13:30.500 one is invited is likewise poor hospitality. 190 00:13:30.530 --> 00:13:32.820 In the end, he favors the assessment of 191 00:13:32.850 --> 00:13:37.740 Tom Odin, who states that, quote A community with no boundaries can neither 192 00:13:37.770 --> 00:13:42.020 have a liturgical center nor remain a community of worship. 193 00:13:42.050 --> 00:13:46.300 To eliminate the boundary is to eliminate the circle itself. 194 00:13:46.330 --> 00:13:52.940 The circle of faith cannot identify its center without recognizing its perimeter. 195 00:13:52.970 --> 00:13:55.860 Fitzgerald concludes that the quote goal 196 00:13:55.890 --> 00:13:59.740 of fencing the table is not to create a boundary that is impermeable. 197 00:13:59.770 --> 00:14:01.940 Instead, we delineate one that is clearly 198 00:14:01.970 --> 00:14:05.960 marked with an open invitation to all to enter the boundary's. 199 00:14:05.990 --> 00:14:08.240 Intent is less to keep people out than it 200 00:14:08.270 --> 00:14:13.840 is to mark a threshold that all are invited to cross. 201 00:14:13.880 --> 00:14:16.500 I might ask at this point, is this not 202 00:14:16.530 --> 00:14:20.900 saying the same thing as what Odin was talking against? 203 00:14:20.930 --> 00:14:26.780 If a boundary is fully permeable, what is it dividing? 204 00:14:26.810 --> 00:14:29.020 A simple answer to Fitzgerald's third 205 00:14:29.050 --> 00:14:34.060 question, then, might be you can't enforce any particular requirements. 206 00:14:34.080 --> 00:14:35.940 But of course, the third point becomes 207 00:14:35.970 --> 00:14:39.500 moot if you remove all boundaries from the table. 208 00:14:39.530 --> 00:14:43.180 But even if you don't, we might add 209 00:14:43.210 --> 00:14:49.900 what are we actually afraid of when someone receives the Eucharist? 210 00:14:49.920 --> 00:14:51.740 It seems to me that the obvious major 211 00:14:51.770 --> 00:14:55.700 potential worry for Anglicans stemming from these points is that it's dangerous 212 00:14:55.730 --> 00:15:00.140 to start from phenomenology and then work backwards to doctrine. 213 00:15:00.170 --> 00:15:02.660 Anglican doctrine seemed pretty clear. 214 00:15:02.690 --> 00:15:09.260 Wesley knew the 39 articles finalized and included in the BCP in 71, and definitely 215 00:15:09.290 --> 00:15:15.140 knew articles 25 and 28 on the sacraments through which the witness to the Eucharist 216 00:15:15.170 --> 00:15:20.020 as an effectual sign of grace helped elucidate that the supper of the Lord is 217 00:15:20.050 --> 00:15:26.380 actually a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death, insomuch that to such as 218 00:15:26.410 --> 00:15:29.740 rightly worthily and with faith received the same. 219 00:15:29.770 --> 00:15:34.040 The bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ, and likewise the cup 220 00:15:34.070 --> 00:15:37.820 of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ. 221 00:15:37.850 --> 00:15:40.900 In the words of Article 28, 222 00:15:40.920 --> 00:15:45.020 the English reformers were taking a strong stance against Catholic transfigurational 223 00:15:45.050 --> 00:15:50.400 mysticism by emphasizing the importance of personal faith when receiving the 224 00:15:50.430 --> 00:15:57.540 Eucharist, with dire consequences to those who do so recklessly. 225 00:15:57.570 --> 00:16:02.500 Such a large emphasis was placed on this personal examination, however, and such 226 00:16:02.530 --> 00:16:07.280 harm was caused by associating financial contributions with participation in 227 00:16:07.310 --> 00:16:12.300 worship that even what mystery remained in the Anglican perspective on Christ's real 228 00:16:12.330 --> 00:16:16.860 presence stopped holding sway in the minds of parishioners. 229 00:16:16.890 --> 00:16:21.420 The result is that even Anglicans stopped offering frequent Eucharistic services. 230 00:16:21.450 --> 00:16:26.180 What we see today with weekly worship only regained momentum in the mid 19th century, 231 00:16:26.210 --> 00:16:29.540 with an emphasis on the assurance of God's grace for salvation. 232 00:16:29.570 --> 00:16:32.180 And only by the mid 20th century did 233 00:16:32.210 --> 00:16:37.520 weekly Eucharistic services again become the norm. 234 00:16:37.720 --> 00:16:39.940 And this is where we bring in our friend Robert W. 235 00:16:39.970 --> 00:16:42.200 Jensen, perhaps too little and too late 236 00:16:42.230 --> 00:16:46.900 for this talk, but hopefully in a way that spurs further thought for those unaware. 237 00:16:46.930 --> 00:16:51.340 Jensen was a loser and theologian, passed away just a few years ago. 238 00:16:51.370 --> 00:16:55.540 He's mainly known for his two volume Systematic Theology, and his theology 239 00:16:55.570 --> 00:17:00.540 takes very seriously the place of the Church and her sacraments in the 240 00:17:00.570 --> 00:17:05.810 trajectory of the biblical narrative of history. 241 00:17:05.840 --> 00:17:08.460 Most interestingly, perhaps, is the way 242 00:17:08.490 --> 00:17:14.700 Jensen identifies the sacramental Church with the risen Jesus Christ. 243 00:17:14.730 --> 00:17:17.090 And I fear that Wesley's practical fencing 244 00:17:17.120 --> 00:17:22.530 of the table via the establishment of societies and classes and bands, which led 245 00:17:22.560 --> 00:17:25.480 to centuries of continued misunderstandings of one corinthians 246 00:17:25.510 --> 00:17:31.860 eleven paralleled by Anglicanism's weakened Eucharistic theology together 247 00:17:31.890 --> 00:17:36.810 miss the most amazing aspect of the Eucharist that Jensen brings to the fore. 248 00:17:36.840 --> 00:17:39.090 Not only that it acts as a grace that 249 00:17:39.120 --> 00:17:44.960 remits sins, but that it is that which connects us to the person of Christ as the 250 00:17:44.990 --> 00:17:51.980 gathered church in a real way, what we might call an ontological way. 251 00:17:52.010 --> 00:17:54.380 In an essay that is helpful for situating 252 00:17:54.410 --> 00:17:59.220 what the Eucharist is about in a Christological sense, wesleyan theologian 253 00:17:59.250 --> 00:18:04.460 John Drew calls us to resist reducing the Eucharist to just one aspect of its 254 00:18:04.490 --> 00:18:11.090 timeliness, or the way it reflects just one office of Christ, which is excellent. 255 00:18:11.120 --> 00:18:16.290 He uses a handy diagram, which you'll see in the slide there, to show how different 256 00:18:16.320 --> 00:18:22.180 traditions get pigeonholed into one or two particular points of emphasis. 257 00:18:22.210 --> 00:18:28.010 Where I think I must depart and agree more with Jensen, however, is 258 00:18:28.040 --> 00:18:33.250 in how Drury notes that those quote who assert that Eucharist makes the Church 259 00:18:33.280 --> 00:18:37.980 highlight only the past tense royal work of Christ. 260 00:18:38.010 --> 00:18:41.740 He says by instituting the Eucharist, Christ constitutes his Church, 261 00:18:41.770 --> 00:18:45.380 establishing the apostolic community as his body on earth. 262 00:18:45.400 --> 00:18:47.330 But jury wants to say so much more than that. 263 00:18:47.360 --> 00:18:53.740 So he sort of leaves that point as is as simply one option of reductionism. 264 00:18:53.770 --> 00:18:56.140 And I think 265 00:18:56.170 --> 00:19:01.770 this sort of view greatly influences the way actually many evangelical Protestants, 266 00:19:01.800 --> 00:19:06.980 especially those in the Wesleyan tradition, view the Eucharist. 267 00:19:07.010 --> 00:19:11.980 But I want to assert with Jensen that to say that the Eucharist constitutes the 268 00:19:12.010 --> 00:19:17.420 Church actually encapsulates all these areas on the chart. 269 00:19:17.440 --> 00:19:19.290 I would argue that this constitute of 270 00:19:19.320 --> 00:19:23.900 activity is an appropriate way to think about the connection between Christ and 271 00:19:23.930 --> 00:19:28.140 those who participate in the Eucharist and in fact, provides the Christ a logical 272 00:19:28.170 --> 00:19:33.440 justification for the open table whereby those who are so inclined to celebrate the 273 00:19:33.470 --> 00:19:39.180 Eucharist join with Christ in a very real way, baptized or not. 274 00:19:39.210 --> 00:19:43.900 This not only reflects the open hospitality of Christ's life and work, but 275 00:19:43.930 --> 00:19:46.810 also the sheer mystery of what the Eucharist is. 276 00:19:46.840 --> 00:19:50.180 In Jensen's words, the quote church 277 00:19:50.210 --> 00:19:56.740 assembly is the body of Christ, that is Christ available to the world and to her 278 00:19:56.770 --> 00:20:02.290 members, just in that the Church gathers around objects distinct from herself the 279 00:20:02.320 --> 00:20:08.420 bread and cup which are the availability to her of the same Christ. 280 00:20:08.450 --> 00:20:11.620 This means that to a certain extent Drury 281 00:20:11.650 --> 00:20:16.530 is right that we cannot pigeonhole ourselves into a section of that chart. 282 00:20:16.560 --> 00:20:20.290 But in reality the whole chart is subsumed. 283 00:20:20.320 --> 00:20:25.740 It is because the Lord has come, but nevertheless is yet to come, in the words 284 00:20:25.770 --> 00:20:30.700 of Jensen, that the Church's life is sacramental. 285 00:20:30.730 --> 00:20:33.220 Jensen highlights how many Protestant 286 00:20:33.240 --> 00:20:36.600 traditions veered from any sort of fool and viewing of the Eucharist with the 287 00:20:36.630 --> 00:20:41.220 power of Christ Himself, such as, we might say, Wesley, allows for in the way that 288 00:20:41.250 --> 00:20:46.010 they, quote, substituted the faith of the individual for the power of the Church. 289 00:20:46.040 --> 00:20:48.050 Jensen offers a correction here. 290 00:20:48.080 --> 00:20:52.090 Interestingly, in the middle of a discussion on resurrection, by implicitly 291 00:20:52.120 --> 00:20:57.860 insisting that we read One Corinthians Eleven in light of One Corinthians Twelve, 292 00:20:57.890 --> 00:21:03.290 Paul says unequivocally that you are the body of Christ. 293 00:21:03.320 --> 00:21:06.530 Jensen unpacks this quote we are the one 294 00:21:06.560 --> 00:21:11.920 body in that we do something that can equivalently be described as sharing in 295 00:21:11.950 --> 00:21:15.980 the body of Christ and partaking of the one bread. 296 00:21:16.010 --> 00:21:18.220 In the context of these passages, there is 297 00:21:18.250 --> 00:21:22.530 no way to construe body as a simile or other trope. 298 00:21:22.560 --> 00:21:27.010 That does not make much of Paul's arguments. 299 00:21:27.040 --> 00:21:33.000 So Jensen is saying, in Paul's language, somebody's body is simply the person, him 300 00:21:33.030 --> 00:21:39.220 or herself, insofar as this person is available to other persons. 301 00:21:39.250 --> 00:21:41.800 What this means is that the Church, 302 00:21:41.830 --> 00:21:46.250 according to Paul, is the risen body of Christ. 303 00:21:46.280 --> 00:21:48.620 She is this because the bread and cup in 304 00:21:48.650 --> 00:21:53.620 the congregation's mitts is the very same body of Christ. 305 00:21:53.650 --> 00:21:58.800 So when Paul is saying in One Corinthians 1129 that the congregants failed to 306 00:21:58.830 --> 00:22:04.660 discern the body of Christ, he's talking about both the sacrament and the group 307 00:22:04.690 --> 00:22:09.810 gathered around the sacrament at the same time. 308 00:22:09.840 --> 00:22:11.740 Now, there's a tricky bit to navigate 309 00:22:11.770 --> 00:22:14.620 here, and something I admit I'm still thinking about. 310 00:22:14.650 --> 00:22:19.780 Jensen generally assumes a chronological priority to baptism here. 311 00:22:19.810 --> 00:22:23.940 First we are baptized into Christ quite literally. 312 00:22:23.970 --> 00:22:29.460 Then we renew our bodyship, in a way through Eucharistic participation. 313 00:22:29.490 --> 00:22:31.620 It would perhaps be too far a stretch 314 00:22:31.650 --> 00:22:35.980 then, for Jensen to say that it is possible for a person to truly be Christ's 315 00:22:36.010 --> 00:22:42.020 body in the Eucharist without first dying and rising with Christ. 316 00:22:42.050 --> 00:22:45.700 However, I'm willing to take a risk on a Wesleyan reading of Jensen. 317 00:22:45.730 --> 00:22:47.660 Insofar as the Eucharist is Christ's 318 00:22:47.690 --> 00:22:51.980 availability, it is so to the world as he says. 319 00:22:52.010 --> 00:22:53.980 This must mean 320 00:22:54.010 --> 00:22:59.090 that it evinces the convenient grace with which Wesley sees things that are, by 321 00:22:59.120 --> 00:23:03.330 their practice, if not their very nature, sacramental. 322 00:23:03.360 --> 00:23:05.810 Would it then be fair to say that perhaps 323 00:23:05.840 --> 00:23:10.570 reading Wesley through aquinas the fact that justification and forgiveness of sins 324 00:23:10.600 --> 00:23:15.050 are found in the sacrament of baptism through faith might mean that the 325 00:23:15.080 --> 00:23:20.460 experience of Christ raw and not through mere symbolism through the Eucharist, 326 00:23:20.490 --> 00:23:24.620 might be that very thing which ignites the faith of the believer? 327 00:23:24.650 --> 00:23:27.540 Is our constraint of chronology too simple 328 00:23:27.570 --> 00:23:31.980 a metaphysic for whatever it is God is doing in these sacraments? 329 00:23:32.010 --> 00:23:34.960 That might be the case. 330 00:23:35.680 --> 00:23:37.180 To sum up, there are a couple of major 331 00:23:37.210 --> 00:23:42.620 points I can restate as we make furtive glances across the aisle at one another, 332 00:23:42.650 --> 00:23:48.180 Wesleyans and Anglicans and all the rest, which eventually bring us back to some of 333 00:23:48.210 --> 00:23:53.330 the finer areas of applicable reflection on One Corinthians Eleven and Twelve. 334 00:23:53.360 --> 00:23:56.380 What does it mean to take the Eucharist unworthy? 335 00:23:56.400 --> 00:23:58.460 Does it have to do with one's own personal 336 00:23:58.490 --> 00:24:01.780 understanding of what's happening in the Eucharist? 337 00:24:01.810 --> 00:24:05.330 What are we to do with considerations of unworthiness and sin? 338 00:24:05.360 --> 00:24:07.540 Or the book of common prayers and joinder 339 00:24:07.570 --> 00:24:11.380 that quote as the benefit is great with penitent hearts and living faith. 340 00:24:11.410 --> 00:24:14.140 We receive the Holy Sacrament, so is the 341 00:24:14.170 --> 00:24:20.090 danger great if we receive it improperly, not recognizing the Lord's body? 342 00:24:20.120 --> 00:24:24.570 Finally, what are we to say about baptism in light of all this? 343 00:24:24.600 --> 00:24:29.660 First, to Wesleyans, a varying denominational ilk, for communion to truly 344 00:24:29.690 --> 00:24:33.740 be open in any sense of the word, it must be available. 345 00:24:33.770 --> 00:24:38.500 This point bridges not only theological issues but indeed practical ones as well. 346 00:24:38.530 --> 00:24:41.180 It doesn't matter what your handbook says. 347 00:24:41.210 --> 00:24:46.140 Just because you're mandated to celebrate at least once a quarter with Wesley, I say 348 00:24:46.160 --> 00:24:48.810 there's nothing saying you can't celebrate more often. 349 00:24:48.840 --> 00:24:52.500 And in fact, there seems to be a louder voice saying you should. 350 00:24:52.530 --> 00:24:56.180 The Eucharist is the rehearsal of our uniting with Christ. 351 00:24:56.210 --> 00:25:00.500 I can think of no better jumping off point for a discussion on, say, Christian 352 00:25:00.530 --> 00:25:04.260 perfection than by starting with the sacraments. 353 00:25:04.290 --> 00:25:09.330 The real hurdle is not the theological for Weslings, I think, but the pastoral. 354 00:25:09.360 --> 00:25:12.740 How do you treat the topic of the Eucharist in your church? 355 00:25:12.770 --> 00:25:15.600 What opportunities lie before you as you 356 00:25:15.630 --> 00:25:21.080 face a potential onslaught of but we've never done it that way before. 357 00:25:21.520 --> 00:25:26.050 Second, to Anglicans, I have to pose what might be more difficult questions, perhaps 358 00:25:26.080 --> 00:25:31.020 theoretically, but that get to the root of our explication of First Corinthians. 359 00:25:31.050 --> 00:25:33.160 I'm not usually one to engage in what a 360 00:25:33.190 --> 00:25:37.810 baptism, but there comes a corollary question related to baptism. 361 00:25:37.840 --> 00:25:39.960 What is it the baptism actually does for a 362 00:25:39.990 --> 00:25:44.220 Christian if we allow that it has some power to forgive and save? 363 00:25:44.250 --> 00:25:48.660 Might we also concede that the Eucharist has, as well as Wesley thought? 364 00:25:48.680 --> 00:25:50.280 Which is to say that if we are able to 365 00:25:50.310 --> 00:25:54.240 undo faulty exeges as the first Corinthians eleven and now twelve which 366 00:25:54.240 --> 00:25:58.180 has traditionally been held as a reason that partakers of the Eucharist at least 367 00:25:58.210 --> 00:26:01.810 need to be baptized what is left but praying for the power of 368 00:26:01.840 --> 00:26:06.540 the Holy Spirit to use the Eucharist as both the grace bearing impetus for union 369 00:26:06.570 --> 00:26:12.220 with Christ and the opportunity for that union itself? 370 00:26:12.250 --> 00:26:15.200 Or as Charles Hefling says, quote, an 371 00:26:15.230 --> 00:26:19.380 opentable invitation could constitute an acknowledgement that those who accept the 372 00:26:19.410 --> 00:26:24.780 invitation may well be cooperating with the pervenient operation of grace in 373 00:26:24.810 --> 00:26:31.620 response to a drawing on which the Church may not presume to set boundaries. 374 00:26:31.650 --> 00:26:34.260 But here we have practical considerations as well. 375 00:26:34.280 --> 00:26:38.020 The Anglican Church has long supported communing with other Protestant groups, 376 00:26:38.040 --> 00:26:41.780 the history of which I don't have time to mention here, but when was the last time 377 00:26:41.810 --> 00:26:46.810 an unbaptized person attended a Eucharistic service at an Anglican church? 378 00:26:46.840 --> 00:26:53.180 And, well, maybe we could just stop there and was at the very least invited to come 379 00:26:53.210 --> 00:26:59.180 forward with hand over heart to show desire to participate? 380 00:26:59.210 --> 00:27:05.090 How many priests are actually telling folks how to do that? 381 00:27:05.120 --> 00:27:10.700 How do we make our liturgies instructive, even leading folks toward baptism, 382 00:27:10.730 --> 00:27:15.570 as we would hope and truly taking the missional question seriously? 383 00:27:15.600 --> 00:27:17.560 What are we to say to those who sense the 384 00:27:17.590 --> 00:27:21.620 Spirit and feel drawn to participate but are turned away. 385 00:27:21.650 --> 00:27:25.780 See, in practice, I don't actually know a priest who would do that. 386 00:27:25.810 --> 00:27:28.180 So why are we not thinking more thoroughly 387 00:27:28.210 --> 00:27:32.980 about the theological justifications for allowing it? 388 00:27:33.010 --> 00:27:38.780 In a short essay on Jensen's sacramental theology, jeffrey Wainwright points to the 389 00:27:38.810 --> 00:27:42.420 connection between Wesley and Sacramento Humidity and Jensen's radical 390 00:27:42.450 --> 00:27:47.500 Christological presence in and with the Eucharist as the truest evidence for what 391 00:27:47.530 --> 00:27:53.200 John and Charles together expressed doctrinally in Hymns on the Lord Supper, a 392 00:27:53.230 --> 00:27:57.460 volume to which, no doubt some of you were surprised, I haven't yet referred. 393 00:27:57.490 --> 00:28:00.460 There resides of this gem him 81 394 00:28:00.490 --> 00:28:05.810 that I think encapsulates the possible marriage between Jensen and Wesley's on 395 00:28:05.840 --> 00:28:09.140 why I believe opentable communion is not a thing that should worry us. 396 00:28:09.170 --> 00:28:14.380 And I'll use this as my concluding remarks. 397 00:28:14.410 --> 00:28:19.330 The final verse he bids us drink and eat imperishable food. 398 00:28:19.360 --> 00:28:22.560 He gives his flesh to be our meat he bids 399 00:28:22.590 --> 00:28:27.290 us drink his blood whatever the Almighty can to pardon 400 00:28:27.320 --> 00:28:32.050 sinners, give the fullness of our God made man. 401 00:28:32.080 --> 00:28:36.960 We here with Christ receive. Thank you so much.