Whose Table Is It
Anyway?
John 13:31-35/Acts 11:1-18
I must confess that as the years roll by I am increasingly
mystified as to how it is that the Eucharist, or Holy Communion, has come to be
restricted in various traditions. Some, like the Roman Catholic Church, insist
that for one to participate in the Eucharist one must first be baptized and
also be a Roman Catholic. The Episcopal and Anglican traditions require
baptism, but not membership in particular branch of Christianity. Some
protestant churches offer “open communion,” which can mean anyone present may
receive (many UCC churches), or, like the Anglicans, anyone who has been
baptized. Finally, there are Christian denominations, like the Quakers and the Salvation
Army for instance, who do not offer baptism or communion at all.
Enter once again Maggie Ross whom I mentioned last week
about this time. Ross observes, correctly, that Eucharistic prayers often state
that “Christ died for the sins of the whole world…”
Not some of the world, or a lot of the world, and surely not
just a particular group of people, but the whole world – like the whole world
God holds in God’s hands as we teach even our youngest Christians to sing.
From such an understanding of the Christ event one might
conclude, as Ross does, that the table and the elements of Holy Communion ought
to be available to the whole world for which Jesus lived, died and rose again. She
goes on to suggest that we might then use baptism more like we use Holy Orders,
ordination, today – those called to a special or specific ministry within the community
of the faithful would be baptized. Further she suggests that those in Holy
Orders be those people who are raised up out of the baptized by the community
of the faithful – that is called to Holy Orders by the community. To make her
point she says that those volunteering or seeking Holy Orders ought to be
considered with some suspicion!
Indeed, no one less than John Wesley, however, believed that
communion was a "means of grace". Therefore, it shouldn't be withheld
from anyone--believers or non-believers. The idea here is that if someone wants
to come to communion, we should not prevent them. It may very well be the means
that leads to their salvation! Clearly that's not something we would want to
withhold. And there can be found among early writings of the church that
suggest there were times and places where participation in the Eucharist is
what would lead people to become baptized members of the community of faith.
The texts in Acts and John this week, though not at all
addressing this particular line of thinking, can point us in the direction of
truly open communion. The 13th chapter of John, and several
successive chapters, describe the Last Supper with no mention of bread and wine
whatsoever. Jesus washes feet, and issues a new commandment to love one another
“as I have loved you.” Jesus is portrayed as always meeting people where they
are and as who they are with no requirements to sit at table with him, listen
to him, be healed by him. Whenever his disciples try to keep certain people
away from him – children, blind men, gentile women, etc – he rebukes the
impulse to restrict access to him every single time. That is, to love one
another as he loved us – all of us – seems to require full access without
restriction of any kind. Or, as the controlling metaphor of John’s description
of the Last Supper suggests, we are to wash all kinds of feet, not just some
feet, not just our feet and our friend’s feet, but all kinds and conditions of
feet!
Then in the 11th chapter of Acts is this
incredible story about Peter having a vision, and having the vision confirmed
in real life experience, about breaking down the barriers that would separate
insiders from outsiders, clean from unclean, gentile and Jew – keeping in mind
that the earliest believers were circumcised Jews. His vision, repeated three
times, includes a voice that says to him, “What God has made clean, you must
not profane.” Is it that much of a stretch to suggest that restricting access
to the Lord’s table in any way is a sort of designating “others” as profane?
It is not “our” table. It is not “the Church’s table.” It is
not the property of an exclusive cult. It is the Lord’s table – the same Lord
who lived, died and rose again for the sins of the whole world. Or, as our
Baptismal Covenant and I like to say, for “…all people.” All means all after
all.
I admit, I grew up in Chicago influenced by people like Mike
Royko who titled a collection of his opinion pieces for the Chicago Daily News,
I May Be Wrong, But I Doubt It. I
admit to be wrong more often than Royko did, but I still find myself drawn to
John Wesley’s and Maggie Ross’s views on access to the Lord’s Table. I recall
sitting in the front pew of Trinity Church, Wall Street. Upon returning to my seat
after receiving the Body and Blood of Christ, a man off the street sat down
next to me, and with a huge grin on his face turned to me and said, “I just had
the Body and Blood of Christ, and I’m Jewish!” It was a moment of grace and
great joy for someone Jesus surely would have – and just had - welcomed to his
table. I just looked at him and said, “Me too,” and now two of us were smiling
for we had both been included in a moment of grace, and if just for one brief
shining moment we were united within the household of Christ’s infinite love
for all people. And that’s all I have to say about that!
No comments:
Post a Comment