Is it my job to police the communion line?

 

The meme above has been bouncing around social media as a response to a recent vote (168 to 55, Abortion rights: US Catholic bishops face clash with Biden - BBC news) by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).  The USCCB is attempting to provoke a showdown with Catholic politicians with whom they disagree, in this case on the issue of the legality of abortion, by potentially denying them the Eucharist (i.e. Communion).  This move is opposed by the Vatican, and unlikely to ever be enacted and/or enforced, but it raises an important question that reverberates outside of the Catholic Church as well (as evidenced, in part, by the above response from a gay Anglican priest in Toronto, of course on social media everyone seems to have a 'dog in the fight').  As an ordained American Baptist pastor, is it my job to watch the communion line?  {prior to COVID we passed the elements down each aisle with ushers, since then we've been coming up front one family at a time to take them from the altar, a practice we will likely continue post-pandemic; so technically there is a 'line' now}

Some background for those of you unfamiliar with how communion works in your typical baptist church (whether or not they belong to a denomination).  For us, the ordinance (the fancy word we use when we need to use a fancy word) of communnion  is not a question of transubstantiation or consubstantiation.  In other words, it isn't a question of whether or not the bread and wine are tranformed into the body and blood of Christ, however one chooses to describe it (that was the heart of the argument that led to the Reformation, and eventually people killed and were killed over the issue during the Thirty Years War.  {See: What Every Christian Should Know About: Church History, part 3 at the bottom of the page}  For a quick primer on the various Christian views of communion: Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation, or Something Else? Roman Catholic vs. Protestant Views of the Lord’s Supper - Zondervan Academic blog.  

Most baptists would agree with Huldrych Zwingli that communion is a memorial, with some leaning toward the view of John Calvin that the ordinance does invoke the spiritual presence of Jesus, albiet in a way significantly short of that embraced by the Orthodox, Catholics, Anglicans, and Lutherans.  That being said, as an American Baptist minister, when I preside over communion (which we do once a month, typically on the 1st Sunday unless I'm not here, then it gets bumped to the 2nd) I normally say, "We here at 1st Baptist celebrate open communion, by that we mean that if you are a follower of Jesus Christ, you are free to join us if you choose."  Those words don't come from a book, or denominational HQ (that's not how things work when you're a 'low liturgy' baptist, each church/pastor decides many such for him/herself), they simply reflect what we believe, and when I remember to say them, they're an invitation to any visitors or relatively new people.  Morever, after I say the prayer (again, extemporaneously given) it has been my habit (learned from the independent baptist pastor, James Frank, who led my family church for 40 years) to simply close my eyes, bow my head, and spend the time until everyone is ready receiving the element(s) to pray.  The end result?  I don't know who is participating in any given week.  I don't know if a particular individual in my church skips communion on occasion, or regularly.  My thoughts on this matter mirror my thoughts about the offering.  When the plate is being passed (in the COVID era we just left it in the back, and that seems likely to continue) I don't look to see if anyone is putting something in or not.  The point with both is that the decision to participate (or give) is between that person and God.

As baptists we believe in the doctrine of the Priesthood of All Believers.  Long story short, my role as pastor doesn't set me apart from the congregation, we all partake of the same Holy Spirit, we all are held to the same standards of conduct and service.  Using Paul's analogy of the body of Christ, we are all a necessary part.  This has numerous implications, one of which is the elevation of one's own responsibility before God (not to the level that it negates collective church discipline when necessary), particularly in matters of conscience.

Which brings us back around to communion.  Paul, writing to the church at Corinth about the Lord's Supper said this, 

1 Corinthians 11:26-32 New International Version

26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31 But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment. 32 Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world.

The key phrases here are: "in an unworthy manner" (vs. 27), and "Everyone ought to examine themselves" (vs. 28).  Given these instructions, it seems to us (as baptists) that it isn't up to a church officer (be he/she a deacon, pastor, bishop, or any other title) to decide who is, or is not, worthy of participating in the Lord's Supper.  Those who do so 'in an unworthy manner', perhaps by doing so with irreverance or with unconfessed sin between him/her and God, will be judged by God himself, not by me.

Lastly, Rev. Daniel and I probably disagree about a lot of things theologically speaking, but I certainly echo his final statement above, "What if somebody 'unworthy' receives it?"  "Uh, that would be everybody."  Our approach to the table is always an act of grace for known but Christ is worthy, our acceptance of the bread (body) and cup (blood) is always an act of grace for our sins doom us otherwise, no matter what we undertand the bread and wine to be.  At any given church service, at any kind of church, there are those who ought to abstain from participation until they confess their sins and repent, and there are those who are just going through the motions due to either unbelief or complacency.  In the end, seperating the 'sheep from goats' isn't my job, thanks be to God for that.

When Protestants and Catholics agreed: the sun revolves around the earth

Despite the mathematical proofs of the Greek mathematicians Pythagoras (580-500 BC) and Eratosthenes (276-194 BC), the later of whom calculated the earth's circumference within 2% by comparing the angles of shadows at different locations on the earth, it was still possible to find Early Church leaders hundreds of years later who rejected the notion of a spherical earth based upon references in the Scriptures to the "foundations of the earth, "corners of the earth", pillars of heaven", and the "waters above the firmament".  While the prevalence of those believing in a "flat earth" prior to Columbus is often over-stated by prideful modern people disdainful of the wisdom of the ancients, it is clearly true that some within the Church had theological reasons for doing so that had nothing to do with scientific observations.

Eventually the Church embraced the Ptolemaic system (Ptolemaeus AD 83-161) which continued to place the spherical earth at the center of the universe and posited ten concentric spheres which rotated around it containing the heavenly bodies.

"The geocentric model represented the best that science had to offer during the time when it was firmly held.  It was entirely consistent with both naked-eye observation and philosophy.  It was equally accepted and endorsed by both science and religion.  The problem is that while scientific conclusions are always tentative, the Christian Church - just as some did with the ancient cosmogony - decided to build an elaborate theological and scriptural defense of the geocentric model.  By failing to apply the lessons of the past, the church once again foolishly committed itself to a popular scientific theory supposedly based on the testimony of the Scriptures." (Gordon Glover, Beyond the Firmament: Understanding Science and the Theology of Creation)

In the 16th century, when Copernicus proposed that the earth and all the planetary bodies revolved around the sun, a theory which would soon be confirmed by observation's made by Galileo Galilei with the newly invented telescope, it became a theological issue rather than merely an astronomical one because the Church had previously decided that the Ptolemaic system had the support of Scripture.  Thus Copernicus and Galileo would eventually be condemned as heretics by the inquisition; a stain upon the reputation of the Church that remains to this day {Galileo was not officially rehabilitated by the Catholic Church until Pope John Paul II did so in 1992}.

Protestants might want to snicker at the following words of Pope Paul V in response to Galileo, but they might want to hold that thought.  "The first proposition, that the sun is the centre and does not revolve about the earth, is foolish, absurd, false in theology, and heretical, because expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.  The second proposition, that the earth is not the centre but revolves about the sun, is absurd, false in philosophy, and from a theological point of view at least, opposed to the true faith."

There were few issues of agreement between the leaders of Catholicism and Protestantism during the 16th and 17th centuries, the two sides couldn't even agree to present a united front against the ongoing threat of Ottoman invasions.  And yet, both sides had chosen to elevate the language of Scripture into the scientific realm, turning any contrary scientific observations and theories into challenges to Church authority and potentially heresy.

Martin Luther (1483-1546): "People give ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon.  Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best.  This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth." (Martin Luther, Table Talk)

Philipp Melanchthon (1497-1560): "The eyes are witnesses that the heavens revolve in the space of twenty-four hours.  But certain men, either from the love of novelty, or to make a display of ingenuity, have concluded that the earth moves; and they maintain that neither the eighth sphere nor the sun revolves...Now, it is a want of honesty and decency to assert such notions publicly, and the example is pernicious.  It is the part of a good mind to accept the truth as revealed by God and to acquiesce in it." (Philipp Melanchthon, Elements of Physics)

John Calvin: "We indeed are not ignorant, that the circuit of the heavens is finite, and that the earth, like a little globe, is placed in the center." (John Calvin, Commentary on Genesis)

With hind-sight, the words of these respected and often brilliant theologians seem both appallingly arrogant and exceedingly foolish, and yet they are a symptom of a larger problem that even those gifted by God to lead his Church can fall victim to: The Pride of Certainty.  I'm all for certainty in its proper place, without it we have only shifting sands and chaos.  We, as a Church, must be certain about the core tenants of our faith and the essence of the Gospel.  But what happens when we elevate other issues, other ideas and interpretations to the level of dogma and with disdain dismiss those who disagree with us as heretics?  In that case, not only does the Church suffer a lack of humility and grace, not only does it foster anger and divisions, but it also appears foolish to the Lost, to those with whom we are called to share the Gospel.

Consider, then, how the lesson of these futile attempts to deny that the earth revolves around the sun might be applied to the Church in our world today.  Let us take great care to distinguish between the Truth revealed to us by God's Word, a Truth that never changes and has no fear of knowledge and fact, and the interpretations and theories of men, however brilliant we might think them to be.

Sermon Video: "Persuade me to be a Christian"? - Acts 26:17-32

As his defense before Agrippa continues, Paul explains that God gave him the mission of leading people from the darkness of rebellion and sin, to the light of forgiveness and sanctification by faith.  Paul was opposed for this effort, because it included the Gentiles, even though it was a continuation of what God had previously spoken through the prophets and Moses.  Having said this, Paul confronts Agrippa with the key question, "do you believe the prophets?"  While Festus think that Paul is out of his mind, Agrippa knows the validity of the words of the prophets and interprets Paul's question as an invitation to become a Christian, which he declines.  Agrippa's response raises important questions.  How does someone become a Christian?  Is it an intellectual, emotional, or spiritual pursuit, or some of all three?  Can a person be persuaded, making it partly a matter of human freewill, or is it solely a matter of the will of God?  In the end, Paul proclaims that he will continue to hold out hope, and pray, that not only Agrippa, but everyone listening to his words will accept the gift of God's grace in Christ Jesus.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Why must I as a Christian love all people?

The following quote from John Calvin (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 7, section 6) illustrates our duty as disciples of Jesus Christ.  In light of the anger and vitriol on social media by Christian who should not be acting in that way, this reminder of what our Lord requires from us is certainly needed.  Brotherly Kindness is not optional.

Moreover, that we may not weary in well-doing (as would otherwise forthwith and infallibly be the case), we must add the other quality in the Apostle’s enumeration, “Charity suffiereth long, and is kind, is not easily provoked,” (1 Cor. 13:4). The Lord enjoins us to do good to all without exception, though the greater part, if estimated by their own merit, are most unworthy of it. But Scripture subjoins a most excellent reason, when it tells us that we are not to look to what men in themselves deserve, but to attend to the image of God, which exists in all, and to which we owe all honour and love. But in those who are of the household of faith, the same rule is to be more carefully observed, inasmuch as that image is renewed and restored in them by the Spirit of Christ. Therefore, whoever be the man that is presented to you as needing your assistance, you have no ground for declining to give it to him. Say he is a stranger. The Lord has given him a mark which ought 
to be familiar to you: for which reason he forbids you to despise your own flesh (Gal. 6:10). Say he is mean and of no consideration. The Lord points him out as one whom he has distinguished by the lustre of his own image (Isaiah 58:7). Say that you are bound to him by no ties of duty. The Lord has substituted him as it were into his own place, that in him you may recognize the many great obligations under which the Lord has laid you to himself. Say that he is unworthy of your least exertion on his account; but the image of God, by which he is recommended to you, is worthy of yourself and all your exertions. But if he not only merits no good, but has provoked you by injury and mischief, still this is no good reason why you should not embrace him in love, and visit him with offices of love. He has deserved very differently from me, you will say. But what has the Lord deserved? Whatever injury he has done you, when he enjoins you to forgive him, he certainly means that it should be imputed to himself. In this way only we attain to what is not to say difficult but altogether against nature, to love those that hate us, render good for evil, and blessing for cursing, remembering that we are not to reflect on the wickedness of men, but look to the image of God in them, an image which, covering and obliterating their faults, should by its beauty and dignity allure us to love and embrace them. - John Calvin.

Sermon Video: Resisting the Love of God - Luke 13:34-35

Much has been written, any many a debate and/or argument had, over the issue of how the will of God fits together with the freewill of humanity.  Is God entirely sovereign, and human choice simply an illusion, or has God chosen to allow human choices to truly matter?  In regards to salvation, in particular, what is the key factor, the call of God or the response of man?  Does it have to be an either/or question or can it be a both/and?
This is, of course, a complex topic, involving many Scripture passages, as well as the overall theme of God's Word, and one where you can find references in the Bible that seem to support both God's sovereignty and man's responsibility.  In the end, we won't be able to "solve" this question in this life, but because it is one that the Scriptures dwell upon, so must we.
Here in Luke, Jesus laments the rebellion of Jerusalem and expresses his desire to protect them from themselves, "but you were not willing!"  Regardless of how the rebellion of man fits into your understanding of the issue of God's will and human freewill, the consequences of that rebellion are the same: desolation.  Without God, man is doomed, without redemption, our terminal spiritual sickness will indeed become spiritual death.  Our response, again regardless of how we view the issue, is the same, we must share the Gospel, we must do everything we can to show the Lost the love of Christ and their need for forgiveness.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

What of those who stumble and fall?

I have known too many Christians in who, as Paul called it, “shipwrecked” their faith.  Mostly men, but a few women, who destroyed their witness and tarnished their good deeds through a huge error later on in life, usually the sin of lust.  Coming to terms with this isn’t easy.  These are people that took a wonderful gift, God’s amazing grace through Jesus, and seemingly squandered it by making everything they did or said in the past seem like a waste.  Those of you who know me are probably thinking of some of the same individuals, if you don’t know me, you are likely to know some people yourself that fit this description.  Instead of asking questions about theology, and getting into a Calvinist vs. Arminian debate, let me instead share the words of the Biblical commentator from the 18^th century, Matthew Henry.

                The occasion for Matthew Henry’s quote is his commentary on 2 Chronicles 16, the end of King Asa’s life.  Asa had been a tremendous man of God, full of piety, zeal, and faith, but he stumbled badly at the end, committing sin when his trust in God faltered, and refusing to repent when God sent a prophet to correct him.  The text doesn’t tell us that Asa reconciled with God before he died, when last it speaks of him he is still refusing to seek God’s face.  What do we say of such a man, do we applaud his earlier victories won through faith, or do we focus upon the disappointing ending of an otherwise exemplary life?  As someone who conducts funerals, this question is certainly practical for me, but it also speaks to the pain that my heart feels for brothers and sisters in Christ who have drifted away, or sometimes sprinted away, from their faith.

                Henry’s charitable, and also I think in keeping with God’s abundant grace, view of such lives was this, “The eminent piety and usefulness of good men ought to be remembered to their praise, though they have had their blemishes.  Let their faults be buried in their graves, while their services are remembered over their graves.”  We won’t have an answer to our wondering about people who end poorly, but focusing upon that which was good in their life and letting God deal with that which was bad, seems like the right way to go to me.

More Grace?

An interesting question was raised at last night's Bible study (Hebrew 11).  We were talking about how all of the saints of the Old Covenant had lived by faith, as we do today, and that our faith is a response to the grace of God.  If God did not offer us grace, we would not be able to respond in faith {What would we respond to without God's offer of forgiveness?}.  The question was asked, if some people don't respond, why doesn't God just give them more grace until they do?  The question gets to the heart of the relationship between a holy omnipotent God and his fallen freewill creation.
How much grace is enough?  Do we have the right to ask God for more grace? {Grace being an undeserved gift, it seems rather cheeky of us to ask God for more, but when those who refuse God's call are our own relatives or friends our desperation is certainly understandable}
I'm not a full T.U.L.I.P. Calvinist (you can look it up if you want) because I don't believe in Irresistible Grace (or Limited Atonement).  When reading the Bible I see a lot of people to whom God holds out his hands in hope only to see them refuse to accept him.  As God says of his chosen people in Isaiah, "All day long I have held out my hands to an obstinate people" (Isaiah 65:2a).  Time and time again the Lord pleads with his people to repent and return to him.  He sends them prophets to warn them, he shows them miracles as proof, he tries tough love by judging their sins; often to no avail.  It seems clear that God wants everyone to repent and be saved but it blocked by our willful rebellion which refuses to admit our own wrongs or seek help from above.
In the end, God will decide who receives one chance at salvation, and who receives many.  It is not for me to say that anyone is beyond redemption or that it is too late for anyone on this side of the grave.  I simply know that God wants us to receive Jesus Christ, to be cleansed of our sins, and to once again have fellowship with our heavenly father.  Peter wrote about God's patience (he would certainly know having needed it on many occasions), "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness.  He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." (II Peter 3:9).
Any Bible study that leads us to contemplate the depth of God's love and mercy is time well spent.