Reforming Communion among United Methodists

I want to alert you all to an excellent discussion going on through some Methodist blogs. First is Andrew Thompson's article Recommit to Communion as a means of healing Grace.

Shane Raynor over at Wesley Report responds to Andrew here, agreeing that we should move towards weekly celebration of the blessed sacrament, but undecided (or disagreeing) that we need to "rethink the Open Table."

For my two cents, I think the meaning of "Open Table" in The United Methodist Church is already a muddled thing. Open to whom? To Christians of other denominations? Certainly. What about to unbaptized believers in Christ? Ummm... Or to adherents of other religions altogether? Or atheists? Appeals to Wesley's words about some experiencing "conversion" at the table are somewhat misleading, since virtually everyone he worked with in 18th Century England were in fact baptized (Wesley's point is that, then as now, not all baptized individuals were truly converted in heart).

The ancient discipline of the Church catholic, dating back at least to the Didache , is that only the baptized may recieve Communion. This is the practice of Lutheran and Anglican "open table" churches: all baptized Christians are invited to recieve. Other Lutherans, along with Roman Catholics, the Orthodox, and some Baptists and others only allow members of their own church to recieve at the Table.

If we United Methodists insist on using the language of "open Communion" or "open table" at all, I'm of the opinion that we ought to understand "open Communion" in the Anglican fashion - open to all baptized Christians. This has always been the orthodox position of the universal Church and, if we consider the power of the sacrament, it actually makes good sense pastorally as well.

St. Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 11 precisely in an attempt to exercise eucharistic discipline - something that is not even possible if we accepted "utterly open communion." Eucharistic discipline is also a primary reason for reserving sacramental authority to the ordained, by the way. In 1 Cor. 11, Paul attempts to "discipline" the chaotic eucharistic practice precisely (as he says in the passage) for the well-being of the church members. The sacrament is so powerful, it can actually be spiritually dangerous to those uncommitted to Christ or if it is mis-used (Paul even suggests that it might kill people). Maybe we should back up and ask ourselves just what DO we believe about the power of the Lord's Supper.

With regards to unbaptized individuals who desire to recieve Holy Communion, I like what Bishop Willimon says: Why is it that they do not also desire to recieve baptism? Have we even taught them about the relationship between the sacraments?

Old Stanley does it again

Stanley Hauerwas gives us a provacative and thoughtful quote:

The title of your lecture is intriguing: "Why No One Wants to Die in America." What does that mean?

It means that we live in a society that's in deep death denial. Assuming that most Christians live like other people, thinking they can get out of life alive. It's not going to happen. People care more about who their doctor is today than who their priest or minister is. Most Christians live lives of practical atheism. ... Atheism isn't explicitly a denial of God, it's to live in a way that God does not matter.

(from a 2007 interview)

How do the Christians you know face death? And does it strengthen our witness to the world?

The Lord is Risen Indeed! Alleluia!

"They appeared in glory [on the mountain] and were speaking of his Exodus, which Jesus was about to accomplish in Jerusalem." Luke 9:31

I've had an exceptionally full Holy Week this year. It has been nice. Here is a collect from the Easter Vigil Last night, where we read the great stories of the covenant history (including the deliverance through the Red Sea), and renewed our baptismal vows:

O God, whose wonderful deeds of old shine forth even to our own day, you once delivered by the power of your mighty arm your chosen people from slavery under Pharaoh, to be a sign for us of the salvation of all nations by the water of Baptism: Grant that all the peoples of the earth may be numbered among the offspring of Abraham, and rejoice in the inheritance of Israel; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

NY Archbishop defends pope

According to a USA Today article (quoted below), Archbishop Timothy Dolan, who has locked horns with the press in the past about a percieved anti-Catholic bias in New York Times reporting, defended Pope Benedict XVI's handling of the clergy abuse scandal at the end of Palm Sunday's mass:

"Anytime this horror, this vicious sin, this nauseating crime is reported, as it needs to be, victims and their families are wounded again, the vast majority of faithful priests bow their heads in shame anew and sincere Catholics like you experience another dose of shock, sorrow and even anger," Dolan said.

He added, "What deepens the sadness now is the unrelenting insinuations against the Holy Father himself, as certain sources seem almost frenzied to implicate the man."
Earlier, several protesters had gathered outside the Gothic-style cathedral, which sits on Fifth Avenue opposite Rockefeller Center. "Honk if Pope should resign," said one sign, which attracted only an occasional toot from drivers.

It did seem to me, reading headlines and listening to sound-bites over the last 2 weeks or so, that there was quite a bit of innuendo going on in how reporters were framing their discussion of new allegations of sex abuse by Catholic priests over the past few decades. Because some of the abuse cases emerged in Germany, where the pope was an archbishop 30 years ago, some of the headlines pointed an accusatory finger at the pope. So much so that after reading an early and sensational headline, I actually expected the article to report that Ratzinger himself had been the abusing priest. Not so.

In fact, in recent years Pope Benedict has indeed been addressing this issue head-on in a way that the hierarchy has not done before, which make calls for his resignation seem counter-productive if such calls are borne from a desire to strengthen and reform the Church (and I suspect some of them really are not).

Certainly the leadership of the Catholic Church deserves some criticism. It has at times been overly defensive and secretive in the face of scandal-reporting, especially in the desire to handle these problems "in house." And I personally believe that the Roman Church's requirement of celibacy for nearly all clergy has contributed to this sex-related problem (albiet, in an indirect way). Nevertheless, the press has an obligation to treat the Catholic Church and the pope with as much fairness as they would treat Buddhism and the Dalai Lama. This may be difficult for many reporters who themselves may have grown up Catholic and may have (or think they have) some familiarity with the Church - as well as some emotional associations with it. So bravo to the USA Today for publishing this "other side" of the story.