Opening the Fences to Table Fellowship
Last week I offered a chapter from a book I'm currently writing, which I'm titling Eating with Jesus. In that chapter, I lay out the erection of fences at the Table. This week I offer a follow-up to that Table, in which I invite the reader to consider how we might take down fences. This chapter will follow a section that offers a series of reflections focusing on Jesus' own practice of Table fellowship and its possible meaning for us. I am planning on writing an additional chapter that will follow this one, in which I raise the question of the implications for the Table fellowship presented by COVID. Stay tuned.
*************
When we
read the Gospels, we discover that Jesus was known for sharing meals with many
different kinds of people. In fact, he was criticized for eating with the wrong
kind of people. Nevertheless, he maintained that pattern throughout his
ministry. Sometimes he was a guest and at other times he was the host. Even in
his post-resurrection appearances, we find him sharing meals suggesting perhaps
that the realm of God had already begun to take shape in fulfillment of his
promise the night before his execution. So, as he shared the Passover meal with
his disciples, he said to them: “For I tell you, I will not eat it again until
it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God” (Lk 22:14-16). Could the appearance
on the road to Emmaus mark such a moment? (Lk. 24:28-35)? Or more explicitly
when he appeared to his gathered disciples in the Upper Room, where the
disciples gave him a piece of broiled fish, which he ate in their presence? (Lk 24:36-43).
As we
consider our gatherings at the Table of the Lord, we must acknowledge that
while Jesus appears, from what we read in the Gospels, to practice an open
table, that is not true for the contemporary church nor has that been true
since at least the Second Century C.E. We looked earlier at the process by
which the fences were erected. Then we considered the stories of Jesus’ own
experiences at Table. Having done this, I would like us to consider whether
those fences should remain in place. If so, whom should they exclude?
If we
look across the Christian landscape, we must acknowledge that when it comes to
the Lord’s Table, the Church of Jesus Christ remains divided. Efforts have been
made to pursue full communion agreements, but there are still many places where
disagreements remain. Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches only allow members
of those communities to come to the Table and share in the communion meal. Most
Mainline Protestant churches open the Table to all baptized Christians but by
and large only allow clergy to preside at the Table who are ordained in that
tradition or are in full communion. Then there are the Free Churches which
follow a variety of practices. Then there is the Christian Church (Disciples of
Christ), which is both part of the Protestant Mainline and a Free Church
tradition. The Disciples have full communion relationships with the United
Church of Christ and the United Church of Canada, but not with the other
Mainline Protestant denominations. The process of creating full communion
partnerships, which usually involves allowing for a full exchange of ordained
ministries, is not easily attained. While
fences remain in place, there are openings to increased eucharistic fellowship
taking place, at least among Mainline Protestants. Eucharistic gatherings are
taking place that serve as reminders that the Lord’s Table has too often been a
symbol of division, whereas it is supposed to be a sign of unity.
We have
identified one particular fence to be baptism. The question that has always
bedeviled Christians concerns the recognition of each community’s baptism. Is
baptism as an infant sufficient or must it be baptism by immersion upon
profession of faith? While most Disciples congregations practice “open
membership,” which means accepting persons into membership upon profession of
faith, whatever their baptismal experience, in most cases Disciples
congregations practice believer’s baptism by immersion. On the other hand, many
Baptists, who share with the Disciples the practice of baptism by immersion upon
one’s profession of faith, do not recognize the validity of infant baptism. So,
if baptism is made the criterion of admission to the Table, whose definition of
baptism should we recognize?
One of
the questions we face going forward concerns whether full communion is
attainable as a goal. What if we need to find partial or provisional forms of
communion that involve mutual recognition and mutual reception while
recognizing that there will be areas where we cannot achieve full agreement? As
theologian Veli-Matti Kärkkänen, an Evangelical Lutheran Church of America
minister, notes “Flexible structures and processes with partial communion as
the goal would much better fit the diverse and globalized church than rigid and
fixed agendas. Partial communion as the goal is based on the conviction that
diversity in itself is not the problem; exclusivity is.”[1]
If we
can begin the conversation about taking down fences, beginning with those that
separate Christian traditions/communions, we might want to start with the
question of whether or not we recognize each other’s traditions as church. In
other words, we start with ecclesiology. That means asking what makes church,
church. What is required when it comes to being church? That is a question too
large to take up here, but perhaps we might start with Jesus’ response to
Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” Jesus
tells Peter that it is on his confession of faith that the church is founded
(Mt. 16:15-18). If the church is founded on the presence of Jesus, then should
not Jesus’ promise that “where to or three are gathered in my name, I am there
among them,” serve as the foundation of what it means to be church. So far, we
do not see sacraments listed as defining elements, it is simply the presence of
Jesus. We might ask then when and where is Jesus present. Again, this is a
larger question than we can ascertain here. However, I believe that we could
affirm this summary given by Jürgen Moltmann: “To sum up, according to the view
of the New Testament churches, the exalted one is present where he desires to
be present. He desires to be present where he promises his presence according
to his own assurance: in the apostolate, in baptism, in the Lord’s supper, and
in the fellowship of the brethren. This is a Real Presence in the Spirit
through identification, and an identification on the basis of promise.”[2]
That leads back to how we understand baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
I have
argued that Baptism should not be a prerequisite to admission to the Table. I
argue this based on my reading of the New Testament, where no such prerequisite
is to be found. However, that does not mean I dismiss the importance and value
of Baptism. While we do not see Jesus baptizing anyone, it’s clear from Acts
and the Pauline letters that Baptism is a central element in the life of the
church. It is the means or expression by which we identify ourselves with
Christ, such that in baptism we die and are resurrected with Jesus and then put
on Christ so that we become Abraham’s offspring (Rom. 6:1-4; Gal. 3:27-29).
Depending on our tradition, baptism could precede the reception of the
Eucharist, or it might follow it. If one is baptized in infancy, then the first
communion is likely to follow baptism. If one is baptized on profession of
faith, it’s quite possible that one would receive communion before baptism,
which has become increasingly common among Disciples churches.
I do
not know the practice among most Baptist churches, whether Baptism precedes
Communion or not. I do know that in the past two decades, many if not most
Disciples of Christ congregations have invited the children to partake of
communion no matter their baptismal status. One reason for that is due to the practice
of open membership, in which people are invited into membership who were
baptized in infancy. Therefore, congregations may have children present who
were baptized as infants as well as children who have yet to be baptized. If
baptism is a prerequisite, as it had been in most Disciples churches until
recently, those children baptized as infants would have the right to take
communion, while the children born into the congregation would be barred from
partaking because they had not yet been baptized. To rectify this situation,
many congregations have turned to Jesus’ words of welcome to children, telling
his disciples not to hinder the children from coming to him for to them belongs
God’s realm (Matt 19:13-14; Mk 10:13-16; Lk 18:15-17).
When it
comes to deciding who can come to the Table, it’s likely that at least on a
local level, decisions will reflect practical concerns. What happens in one
local congregation might be different from another, even among the strictest of
traditions. Although full communion agreements have been made allowing not only
full access to the Table but a full exchangeability of clergy. Nevertheless,
these arrangements cover only a portion of the larger Christian community. So,
we have a long way to go before even baptized Christians are willing to welcome
other baptized Christians to their Tables.
If we
look at our gatherings at the Table of the Lord from an eschatological point of
view, how might that affect the way we look at each other? Will there be
separate Tables in God’s realm? Or will the gathering at the Messianic Table
described in Revelation 19 be more inclusive than is currently true of our
gatherings at the Lord’s Table? As we ponder these questions, we must ask
whether the brokenness and divisions that exist reflect God’s ultimate purposes
for God’s people. The Baptismal, Eucharist, and Ministry document
reminds us that “Insofar as Christians cannot unite in full fellowship around
the same table to eat the same loaf and drink from the same cup, their
missionary witness is weakened at both the individual and corporate levels.”[3]
When we
think about the fences that exist, we need to recognize that unity does not
require uniformity. There is and there will be for the foreseeable future
diversity of practice. What happens at a Disciples of Christ Table might look
different from what happens at an Episcopal Table. However, that diversity does
not preclude opening our Tables to one another. The question then becomes how
open should we be as we anticipate sharing a meal at the Messianic banquet. Who
might be there that we might not expect?
While I
am suggesting that we consider the Table of the Lord to be a place of radical
hospitality mirroring Jesus’ practice of Table fellowship, I need to
acknowledge that we do not have evidence that Jesus ate with Gentiles. His
dinner partners came from a wide variety of backgrounds, but as far as we can
tell they were Jews. In addition, the early Christians struggled with how open
to be in their own dining practices, as seen in Paul’s rebuke of Peter while at
Antioch for withdrawing from Table fellowship at Antioch when confronted by
more conservative Jewish Christians (Gal. 2:11-14). Then there is the story of
Jesus’ encounter with the Syro-Phoenician woman, in which the woman confronted
Jesus with his own ethnocentricity (Mk. 7:24-30). While the conversation
between the woman and Jesus included matters of eating, and while Jesus
provided healing to her daughter, he didn’t invite her to join him for
dinner. All that said, we still do not
see Jesus explicitly setting up fences to Table fellowship.
If we
can agree that children should be welcomed at the Table, as well as persons
with physical and intellectual disabilities, and persons from different
Christian traditions, what about people whose religious backgrounds are
different from ours? Is it appropriate to invite a Jew or a Hindu to the Table?
If so, how do we not water down the particularity of the Christian message and
experience? That is the question we must face. It’s not just a matter of
hospitality. It’s a recognition that when we come to the Lord’s Table, we come
not only to eat with each other but we come to eat with Jesus. While we value
hospitality to the religious other, might too open an invitation, with no
boundaries undercut the message that Jesus is host at the Table?[4] These are important questions to be
considered as we seek to remove unnecessary fences to fellowship at the Table
of Jesus. I find this word from Mary Sue Dreier, a professor of mission at
Luther Seminary, to be especially poignant:
The Lord’s Supper offers Christ, directly and simply. This meal is the Lord’s Supper in every way—Christ is the host, Christ is the meal, Christ is “all in all.” Our job is to set the table and extend Christ’s invitation, not to serve as gatekeepers. Put simply, in Käsemann’s words, it is not meant to be a “barricade against the world God wants to bring home.” That always includes each of us.[5]
If Christ is the host, does he need us to serve as
gatekeepers at his Table?
[1]
Veli-Matti Kärkkänen, “Sacraments and (Dis)Unity: A Constructive Ecumenical
Proposal Toward Healing the Divisions and Facilitating Mutual Recognition,” in Come,
Let Us Eat Together: Sacraments and Christian Unity, (Downer’s Grove, IL:
IVP Academic, 2018), pp. 234-235.
[2]
Jürgen Moltmann, The Church in the Power of the Spirit. Margaret Kohl,
trans., (New York, NY: Harper & Row Publishers, 1977), p. 125.
[3]
Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry. Faith and Order Commission, World
Council of Churches, (1982), p. 25.
[4]
On the risks and challenges of inviting persons of non-Christian faiths to the
Table, see Marianne Moyaert, “Religious Pluralism and Eucharistic Hospitality,”
Liturgy, 31:3, (April 2016): 46-56,
[5]
Mary Sue Dreier, “Guests of the Crucified: No Place for Gatekeepers,” Word
and World (1979): 76-77.
Image Attribution: Hofman, Randy. All Are Welcome in the Kingdom of God, from Art in the Christian Tradition, a project of the Vanderbilt Divinity Library, Nashville, TN. https://diglib.library.vanderbilt.edu/act-imagelink.pl?RC=56685 [retrieved August 30, 2023]. Original source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/jillianaphotography/1236022574/.
Comments