Open Thread: Union with Christ/Real Presence of Christ
April 30, 2008 by iMonk
UPDATE: I’m still holding firm on the indulgence granted to those who want to convert me to their version of Christianity, but let me say two things: 1) The thread is a discussion of a question, not a discussion of my errant views of whatever you believe and 2) I can’t respond to all of these posts. I simply don’t have time. If I have misrepresented any of you personally, I will apologize. If you are upset that I don’t get your view of things, we’ll all just have to learn to live with it.
Here’s a key question in my own theological evolution. I’ll lift the usual moderation rule on seeking to convert others to your point of view if you will make a substantial contribution to the discussion.
All Christians are united with Christ by the sovereign, gracious work of God himself. All the benefits of salvation come to us because of union with Christ.
So how does union with Christ relate to your understanding of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper?
I won’t rehearse where the tension is for me, but if you tell me that Christ is “really present” in the eucharist at your church, I’d like you to distinguish how Christ’s person and benefits are available to you in the Eucharist in a way they are not available to me by virtue of union with Christ.
John H and Patrick: I want to be very clear that I never heard either of you say this, nor was I implying that you had. I apologize if I seemed to assign that statement to you rather than to myself.
I will be just as clear that I have heard many Christians, including Lutherans, say what I understand to be “the Eucharist is valid in our church and not at any other church that I know of.” You know some of them.
And to the guy who said I shouldn’t be bothered by a quantifiable, locally appearing God…….***crickets*** If that’s what the New Covenant tells you, then don’t let me disturb you. I’d be a Buddhist tomorrow if I thought that was Christianity.
To all the Lutherans getting angry at me because I am “deciding what is true” and I am “misunderstanding” etc.: I don’t hold to your position, and I won’t be argued into it. I didn’t start this open thread to convince myself of Lutheranism etc. I’m far closer to abandoning any form of organized Christianity than I am to moving to one of the denominational understandings.
John H and others have been working for a long time to get me over my issues with sacramentalism. I’m a tough case. To me, it goes deep into who God is and what belongs to all of those who belong to Christ. I’ll try to apologize when I misrepresent, but I don’t think any of you are going to be happy with where I am on this or where I will be when the thread runs out.
My interest is in how those who are sacramentalists interpret the New Testament on various things that are true for ALL of us, sacraments or not.
“I’d like you to distinguish how Christ’s person and benefits are available to you in the Eucharist in a way they are not available to me by virtue of union with Christ.”
This seems like a false dilemma (if I read you rightly). The sacraments effect, nurture and sustain one’s union with Christ.
Blessings!
Two brief comments that are somewhat off-topic but related to what various persons have said in this thread:
1. To say Zwingli preached that the LS is a “mere memorial” as if Christ isn’t present and active through the celebration is to terribly misunderstand him.
2. Meanwhile, Baptists have not univocally held to a “mere memorial” view of the LS. For example, Christopher Blackwood, a very early Baptist, wrote in his “A soul-searching catechism” (1653) that the ordinances are vehicula spiritus and that in the LS Christ is “present spiritually to the Faith of the receiver to increase by his Spirit the Union and Communion of the soul with Christ.”
Fr. Peter:
Right answer. Perfect. You win the M&Ms.
Chris S: I have a series of posts here at IM on the rich imagery of the LS that was once the heritage of Baptists. Look under “Baptists” in the categories and find the posts on the LS.
I may be too late to join in, and hope this makes at least a bit of sense…
I think there is union with Christ apart from the sacraments of a denomination, but perhaps not apart from the church which is human, fractured and denominational by nature.
Can we really have union with Christ through the universal church in the abstract? Do we really have union with Christ in isolation from other believers? Or do we have union through Christ through union with a particular local, real, gathering of believers?
We are to make peace with our brother prior to communion, and so we share communion with people with whom we share a bond through Christ.
While I like the generous Methodist call to Communion that recognizes our most basic unity through Christ, I can understand the Catholic exclusion of people who are not fully in fellowship with them.
An abstract communion that can be shared with an imagined universal church may not be a real communion at all. Even if it is a nice idea.
I think we can affirm Christ’s salvation and communion across denominational divides, and yet see it as something most appropriately performed among believers with whom we are at peace.
Michael,
you write:
“And to the guy who said I shouldn’t be bothered by a quantifiable, locally appearing God…….***crickets*** If that’s what the New Covenant tells you, then don’t let me disturb you. I’d be a Buddhist tomorrow if I thought that was Christianity.”
I’m not trying to be nasty here, But I need to ask you, Who is Jesus?
And did Jesus not appear locally? I don’t know what you mean by quantifiably, but if you mean in a tangible way, then I think he did that too. “In the beginning was the word…. and the word became flesh.” I’m not getting angry, believe me I’m not. I’m just asking here. Maybe I’m trying to convince you of my position. (you said you would allow that) But more I’m discussing.
Michael,
That’s a really good question. I’ve wondered about it on and off for some time.
To be sure, I’m on of those who believes that Jesus taught at the last Supper that, in receiving the Supper I receive the forgiveness provided by his shed blood (Mt 26.28). But the question is — in what way is the Supper necessary to receive Christ’s forgiveness? What does it “add” that I don’t or can’t receive elsewhere?
One possible answer, I suppose, is the “hard” Jn 6.53 answer, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves.”
But that doesn’t seem quite right — and even Martin Luther did not think that Jesus was speaking of the Supper in Jn 6.
So how does the Supper minister forgiveness to me in a way that, say, confession of my sins (1 Jn 1.9) does not?
I don’t know. But, nonetheless, every time I go to the altar, I believe I receive that body and blood which forgives my sins — my individual, particular sins. Jesus, “my body . . . given for YOU; this cup . . . poured out for YOU” (Lk 22.19-20). So I receive the Supper as specific and personal absolution given by Christ personally to me personally.
Maybe that sounds goofy; and maybe it isn’t strictly a “necessary” means of receiving forgiveness. But I guess I’ll take Christ’s forgivness just about every way he’s willing to offer it to me.
This is one Lutheran who wouldn’t advise anyone to become a Lutheran. The Lutheran “churches” are really sruggling within themselves on just what it means (anymore)to be a Lutheran.
Sometimes we try to move heaven and earth to get someone to believe as we do. On theological matters, it’s often best to just throw it out there and let God do the rest…one way or the other.
Personally, my goal is to try and let people know that God has taken this “religious project” upon Himself. That is why He has given us the sacraments…to take this stuff out of our hands. We naturally want to turn all this stuff into a big ‘ME’ project.
I think there is great freedom in handing it all back to God. And isn’t that why He died for us..to make us free?
That’s it for me. Thanks again for letting me play!
– Steve
Is church authority at the heart of this? Sacraments will definitely raise that issue. The word authority is typically linked to power rather than servanthood, and power typically leads to abuse (e.g. temple worshippers being forced to go through the money-changer racket). In light of that, I can see how any talk about sacraments can be linked to thoughts of dependency, oppression, constraint, limitation, or localization. (The reformation was supposed to take grace out of the hands of church leaders and put it soley in the hands of the laity, right?) If I said the opposite is true, that sacraments free rather than restrict, I would understand if you rolled your eyes and muttered, “yeah, right”.
I do believe, speaking from personal experience, that “Jesus Only” can quickly become “Just me and Jesus” pietism, which can be a very lonely place. An ecclesiology which permits a pastor (sinful and broken as he may be) to announce forgiveness and administer sacraments frees me from bondage to self, which is a far more abusive, power-hungry despot.
Also, sacraments are not the only means of grace. I also receive God’s grace anytime I read or hear God’s word. That should aleviate some concern about localization. It is not a choice of one versus the other; it is an invitation to both. The sacraments in my church are presented as “The gifts of God for the people of God”, not obligations. We also practice “close” communion, versus “closed” communion, which is a completely different discussion altogether.
Michael: as you point out, Fr Peter wins the prize for the best summary.
As for Lutherans saying that non-Lutheran celebrations of the Supper are invalid: I can’t think of any Lutherans who would go that far, and they are badly mistaken if they do. (After all, Luther was very clear that the true sacrament of the altar could be found in the Roman Catholic Church, despite the abuses surrounding it.)
There are two possible issues that can come up:
1. Where the Words of Institution are not used: Lutherans would say that this is not the Lord’s Supper, because the essence of the sacrament is Christ’s word to us in the Words of Institution. That’s not to say it can’t be a good and edifying act of remembrance, but the participants can have no assurance that the body and blood of Christ are present in the bread and wine. But then, the participants presumably wouldn’t believe that anyway!
2. Where the Words of Institution are used, but with what we would regards as an incorrect meaning: some would say that means the Supper is invalid. Personally I do not hold to that view, as I think the word of Christ overrules the mistaken intentions and misunderstandings of those who declare that word in the Supper. I do think it is possible for people to “have the experience but miss the meaning”.
Michael,
You write:
“John H and others have been working for a long time to get me over my issues with sacramentalism. I’m a tough case. To me, it goes deep into who God is and what belongs to all of those who belong to Christ. I’ll try to apologize when I misrepresent, but I don’t think any of you are going to be happy with where I am on this or where I will be when the thread runs out.”
I want to add to what I said in my last post. I’m discussing here. From my vantage point we approach the scriptures and God from very radically different positions. I don’t know that I expect you to be Lutheran when the discussion is done, though I certainly hope not Buddhist. But I think discussion is good in that it does challenge our notions, and either strengthens them or changes them. Sometimes we have assumptions that cloud our thinking and the only way to bring those assumptions to light is discussion with others who maybe don’t share our assumptions. but that God gives himself to me in the same body and blood that died on the cross, and rose from the dead, goes to the heart of what I believe about who Christ is, and what he has done for the world.
Just another passing thought as I read through all these very challenging views about union with Christ and the sacraments.
I’m no less convinced by the discussion that when by faith I receive Christ, I also receive through the Holy Spirit “every spiritual blessing in Christ” (Eph. 1:3, NASB). I don’t realize all those blessings at salvation, but I do receive them. There is no “blessing” held back from my union with Christ (being “in Christ”). My walk with Christ from that point on is not one of trying to find and get more blessings than I received at salvation, but rather of understanding and releasing the blessings into my life that are already all there in the person of the Holy Spirit. Sanctification is the means of allowing the spiritual blessings I have already received to find full expression in my life.
So where do the sacraments fit into that picture. Here’s what I’m thinking. “Spiritual blessings” are for the most part subjective. Sacraments objectify for us those blessings so that we can “see” the reality of what is unseen. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are visual sermons that continually objectify and visualize for us the reality of what we can only see with the “eyes of [our] heart” (Eph. 1:18-21). Baptism is a visual sermon of forgiveness, the “spiritual blessing” of the whole drama of salvation. The Lord’s Table is a visual sermon of redemption, the “spiritual bessing” of the whole drama of the atonement.
Do the sacraments add something altogether new that is missing in my spiritual life? In my biblical opinion, no. The act of any sacrament, which is in essence a “work,” does not create a new “spiritual blessing” for me that did not exist before, and that is not already mine “in Christ.” However, it does serve as what I would call a “window of grace.” The sacrament is not a grace in and of itself, but it opens the “eyes of my heart” to the grace of spiritual reality and truth that I do not otherwise see or fully comprehend. The sacraments pull back the curtains that keep me from seeing and receiving the light of the “unseen world.” I can see into the “heavenly realms” (Eph. 1:3) through the windows of baptism and the eucharist in a way that I cannot see without them. The sacraments are divinely-provided windows that allow grace to enter my spirit, sanctify me, and mature me “in Him” so I become more like Christ. The means of grace, for me, are still God’s Word, prayer, and fellowship, but the sacraments act as catalysts and lenses that activate and focus those means of grace.
Sacraments then, in my mind, are less than the “real presence” of Christ, but are more than “memorials” or even the “spiritual presence” of Christ. They are not “means of grace,” but they are real “windows of grace” that “open the eyes of my heart” just as Paul prayed for the Ephesians. They do not create any more union with Christ than I already have, but they reveal and review that union for me so the life of Christ can find more and more expression in my life as I am drawn to be more like Him and less like this world.
(Michael, if you consider this off topic and don’t post, I understand.)
To Rick Frueh,
I’m a bit puzzled about your comment about what the Early Church believed as not being important. They were the ones who learned either from Jesus directly or the apostles.
I’m not talking about the development of doctrine, because we have had more time, and energy to think about, and write about the Trinity. So, of course, we are more sophiscated about it.
But, if you ignore their beliefs, what is keeping you from changing the canon of the New Testament? What is keeping you from rejecting either the humanity of Jesus or His Divinity?
“And to the guy who said I shouldn’t be bothered by a quantifiable, locally appearing God…….***crickets*** If that’s what the New Covenant tells you, then don’t let me disturb you. I’d be a Buddhist tomorrow if I thought that was Christianity.”
Seriously? In my understanding of Christianity, the one God of all Creation came in all his fulness to Earth, incarnated in one quantifiable, locally appearing body.
How is your understanding different from that?
Bror and Brian: Do you guys really believe I am only talking about the physical body of Jesus? Pre-ascension? I’m sure you are aware I am talking about Jesus as mediated by the Holy Spirit.
I mean, if you want to say that Jesus is at your church but not at my church because you have the physical presence and we don’t….ok.
If Father Peter has the right answer can we still play? If so here are my two bits.
Maybe the differences in the our understanding of the sacraments are just differences in our perceptions of what the “Union with Christ” means. We Catholics expect frequent reception of the Eucharist will bring us in greater sanctifying union with Christ, depending on the state of our souls and our trust in Him. I expect that Christ is always within my heart, as long as I avoid grave sin. It is my understanding that another worthy reception of Him in the host and blood is like blowing a glowing ember into flame. He was already there but each new sacrament enlarges the fire.
Further I believe that frequent confession, another sacrament, opens my heart up to receive the Eucharist more worthily (through grace) and more perfectly suppress my own will in favor of his will (again through His gift). We Catholics see our Christian lives as a life long process of ongoing conversion and renewal.
Of course, it doesn’t really matter what I think. When I converted I accepted on faith the dogma of the Church before I understood it in it’s entirety ( not that I think I’ll ever fully understand it all) and if there is ruling dogma on any subject there is ruling dogma on this one. The institution of the Eucharist is considered a mystery in the Catholic Church. Meaning that we only fully understand what He has revealed and do not expect to grasp it all. The doctrine of the Eucharist is crucial because it not only unites ourselves with God but also with our fellow Christians in a literal body of Christ.
Here’s the part that gets in the way. The Church holds that the reception of the Eucharist is the ordinary normative form of union with Christ and that the Eucharist is only valid among Churchs with direct Apostolic succession among other things. Thus any “union with Christ” outside of these Churches is extraordinary and in a form known only to God. I believe this is what the Pope refers to when speaking or writing about “special graces” in other Christian communities.
Michael,
Good at least we are agreed on the incarnation, I hope.
I didn’t say we have him and you don’t. And I don’t believe we Lutherans are the only ones who have a valid sacrament (Though I do believe we have the right understanding of it. And I’m not sure or any other church body going by another name that has it in the same way we do.) Like John H says, Luther was pretty adimant that the Catholics also had it. But he is not so clear on those who deny the Body and Blood is present. Most Lutherans I know think two things of a Church Body that doesn’t confess the Bodily presence. One, they don’t have the body and blood of Jesus in their sacrament. This is partly because we beleive that if they did they would be eating and drinking judgment on themselves for not discerning the body. And two, they might possibly be makeing a mockery of it, unwittingly to be sure, but still dangerouse. I hesitate to go with John H here on the word trumps understanding. Though I understand him here, and have had the same thoughts at times. It is the word of Jesus that makes it the sacrament and not my faith. But I don’t think an actor playing a priest has the sacrament because he says the words. I think there is an aspect that the public confession, and common understanding of the gathered body, may nullify it. In isn’t some magic formula we are talking about here that works despite context. (this is all hazy to me) But when it comes to baptism, we don’t believe Mormon’s have a valid baptism because their concept of the trinity is invalid. I think the same goes on some level for the words of institution. (I’m just trying to be honest with you as to what we believe and why.)
I am trying to digest your words “the Jesus mediated by the Holy Spirit.” One the Holy Spirit too is God and could very well mediate the physical body of Jesus should He want to. All things are possible for God. But in my understanding it is the Holy Spirit that proceeds from the Father and the Son, not the other way around. The Holy Spirit creates faith, But it is Jesus who gives Himself in the Sacrament of the Altar. And it is precisely His ascension, which we celebrate today, that allows him to do this. For in His ascension He reclaimed, in His Body, the full use of His divine powers. Therefore he is present in both his human and divinde natures everywhere. As God is omnipresent, so he, being God, is everywhere.
Michael,
You still haven’t really addressed my question. You know what “access” mediated by the Holy Spirit looks like–it looks like the relationship you have with your wife when she’s in another city and you can only talk with her on the phone. This sort of relationship is, I assume, rather unsatisfying.
So why is it suddenly different when you start talking about Christ. You want more contact with your wife than Christ? Come on.
The difference between the two is that your relationship with your wife is exclusive? Well, yes, but you don’t kiss her because it’s exclusive do you? So I ask again, what would be lacking from your relationship with your wife if it was mediated by the Holy Spirit (as it is) and not by your body? Why is there nothing lacking in your relationship with Christ if it lacks what your relationship with your wife would be lacking if you never touched physically?
That said, no one believes Christ is limited to the Sacrament.
I realize that this is an important topic to many by the impassioned comments on this blog, but the comments are really over the top. I am tired of people who proclaim that my (take your pick) denomination/mode of baptism/communion/union with christ/experience of the holy spirit/version of the bible/understanding of the scriptures/understanding of truth – is better than yours.
If you want to know why young people today are being turned off of organized religion, denominationalism and the church, then just reread some of the comments posted above.
As for me, I cherish my union with Christ, which has been deepened through many different experiences. My table and fellowship is open to all those who have also expressed a union with Christ, no matter what their background.
I know that there is such divergent Christian thought about so many topics that I can’t possibly get it all right. But I can try to earnestly follow Christ with all my “heart, soul, mind, and strength.”
When we get to Heaven someone may point at me and say to Christ, “He believed incorrectly about topic X”. Christ will say something like, “I died for him, and he has chosen to follow me as best as he knows how. He belongs to me. Why did you exclude him from my table/my church’s membership? He is welcome at my table and in my church.”
Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened and I will refresh you. (Matt 11:28) The bread that I will give for the life of the world is My flesh. (John 6:51) Take and eat, this is My body, which is given for you. Do this in memory of Me. (Matt 26:26; 1 Cor 11:24) He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me and I abide in him. (John 6:56) These words that I have addressed to you are spirit and life. (John 6:63)
A ‘Devout Exhortation to Receive Holy Communion’ that was quoted by Thomas a’ Kempis at the start of Book IV ‘On the Blessed Sacrament’ in his book ‘The Imitation of Christ.’ Sort of says it all I guess.
How are we united with Christ? Just reading Colossians, we discover.
1. “Ye are complete in Him” 2:10a
2. “Ye are circumcised…by the circumcision of Christ.” 2:11
3. “Buried with Him in baptism, ye are risen with Him.” 2:12
4. “And you…hath He quickened with Him…” 2:13b
5. “For ye are dead and your life is hid with Christ in God.” 3:3
6. “When Christ, who is our life,shall appear, then shall ye also appear with Him in glory.” 3:4
7. “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly…” 3:16
From baptism through the Second Coming we are in Christ and He in us, according to Paul.
How does this relate to the Lord’s Supper? Can it be neglected without damaging the relationship with Christ?
First of all, communication with Christ is a necessity for a vibrant Christian life. Whether that be through prayer, through teaching, reading, and hearing the Word, through praise, through acts of charity, or through communion, all build up not only the individual, but the body of Christ. It is not an either/or situation, but both/and.
The question is not how we try to explain the mystery of the Lord’s Supper (which is ultimately unexplainable), but whether we obey Christ by participating in it, invite others to share in table fellowship with us and Christ to build up the body.
Christ gives us the same honor he gave His disciples of sharing with Him the Passover meal. If we are united with Him, how can we pass up the opportunity to break bread and commune with Him or exclude others from the same experience?
Michael Bell,
Quite frankly I haven’t heard anyone here say you or anyone else won’t be in heaven, where all sins will beforgiven even sins of the mind.
But that doesn’t mean false doctrine should be tolerated, or doctrinal divisions should be glossed over here in the church militant. God has given us his word. If we love him with all our heart and with all our mind we will take that quite seriously. And those that are teaching things contrary to the word of God should be told as much, warned, marked, rebuked and avoided, it really is the only charitable thing to do. It is infact what the New Testament tells us to do in many places. It may not be nice by worldly standards, it may not be politically correct, it may even come off as unloving. But we don’t get to choose what parts of the Bible to believe, and what parts to ignore.
If I was to take what you said to heart, I would have no choice but set aside my ordination, forsake all my Lutheran distinctives, and swim either the Tiber or the Bosphurous. If doctrine doesn’t matter, than none of us had any reason to break with Rome, or Constantinople for that matter. Nor do we have any reason to split from a creedal Church chanting the mantra “only the Bible.”
I’d much rather be open about our differences and discuss them candidly. No one is served by anything less.
Refocusing on union with Christ:
Michael, I wish more Christians (including me) had your focus on “union with Christ.”
There’s a beautiful 40 year old live oak in my backyard. I hung a cypress swing from it as an anniversary gift to my wife when we moved in 10 years ago. I painstakingly arrange my favorite flowers around it every spring because it is a sacred place for me. I experience the presence of God in creation, and the blessings he has given me every time I see that tree. It always draws me to prayer and union with Christ. But, I would never bow down and worship that tree.
The Eucharist makes me keep his commandment to first love God, and then love my neighbor. When I’m present at mass I don’t feel a special way about God or understand his Word perfectly; but it’s the only time I have a “blessed assurance” that I’m actually doing His will, which is to worship and serve Him. I attribute my ability to do that second part about loving my neighbor (union with His body) to a Real grace I receive from communion. A little part of me dies and is replaced by Him every time; and that is a Real union with Christ to me.
The way figure it, if he could miraculously appear in the womb of a little peasant girl in Nazareth so long ago; who am I to say he can’t appear in the hands of the recovering alcoholic/chain smoking priest at my neighborhood parish?
Bror,
When my pastor retires…do you want the job?
I think you guys are on the same page.
You’d have to move to California and live fairly near the beach.
Sorry, you’ll have to supply your own suntan lotion.
– Steve
Steve,
I don’t think Stotero (sure i misspelled his name) wants me down there given my dad’s history in that district.
-Bror
Michael you said: “All Christians are united with Christ by the sovereign, gracious work of God himself. All the benefits of salvation come to us because of union with Christ.”
Just for the fun of it Michael, if you believe this, especially the part the says “all the benefits” then, from all appearances you are still a monergist? AKA a Calvinist. I know you don’t like the term but this Christocentric view of the benefits of salvation is the most important distinctive of that branch of Christianity.
How? Consider, do your “benefits” of union with Christ also include effectual grace? Is that one of the bbenefits you are speaking of? If so, then it follows that Christ died in a way for the elect (to give them the benefit of effectual grace) in a way he did not for the non-elect (who never receive effectual grace). This is not some generic grace from the Father but comes from union with Christ just like all the other benefits.
peace be with you
John
Bror,
We are in a different Synod. But we don’t give a hoot what those yahoos think anyway.
They (the Synod) can’t stand the guy we have now and that’s the way we like it. But when he retires…we are in big trouble.
I’ll bet your Dad was a real bulldog for Christ, too!
Grace and Peace, Bror,
– steve
You said you lifted the normal rules and this one IS a bit long, but I hope helpful because I come from the background through many others. If it is too long, then I apologize in advance and accept any verbal flogging I may receive for such. My hope is GREATER riches of the Gospel to all, TRULY. If it sounds otherwise or I have mistakenly spoken poorly leading to otherwise, then chalk that up to my apish mind.
If I might add because my own journey was from SB > PCA/reformed > but quickly learned I’m Lutheran though I still belong officially in PCA. Sometimes those having come from a background can speak the language in a way that may be helpful. What I’ll do is go through it the way I did, that way I’m not saying “your wrong” “I’m right”, which is in a word the “law” route. Luther spoke that we should convince of the sacraments in such a way that “they” see the Gospel and are compelled by the Good News not by the opinion or route of the law which obscures the Gospel in the sacraments that one is trying to “get” someone to see. In other words if we go the route of “law” then the Gospel is obscured and the whole argument becomes a “my law unto the sacraments is better than your law unto the sacraments”. That understanding is EXACTLY what one is trying to GET away from but rather serve the food. I labor that up front because THAT was the BIGGEST hurdle for me coming from a full blown non-sacramental view (SB) and then ALSO as a reformed person that uses the term “sacramental” but doesn’t really mean the same thing as Luther did. Side Note: PLEASE don’t hear the denominational references as a “my team” versus “your team”, I simply reference them for brevity because we all know in a “nut shell” what each understands and sets forth as doctrine. So instead of writing a fully page or two explaining say SB or Calvin’s doctrine on the sacraments, I just reference the term “SB” and “reformed” and “Luther” and etc… Hopefully, that disarms personal attack in reality or by the readers perception. Anyway, back to that being the BIGGEST thing. Why? Because if we come at it from what is often termed “the opinion of the law” the argument, whether it explicitly means to or not, degrades at a minimum implicitly into “My law on the sacraments” (i.e. understanding/doctrine/teaching/etc…) is better than “Your law on the sacraments/ordinances” (i.e. understanding/doctrine/teaching/etc…) AND THAT MEANS either explicitly or implicitly; “Ergo, more pleasing to God”. Hopefully, that’s clear.
So by analogy a lavish four star meal with wine is prepared on a Sunday in a SB church, and a lavish four star meal with wine is prepared on a Sunday in a PCA church, and a lavish four star meal with wine is prepared on a Sunday in a Lutheran church, etc… It’s all a four star meal (or five whatever is your highest counting stars for meals) prepared at each church. Per paragraph one; we should not argue thus,
“ERGO, our Lutheran four star meal is more pleasing to the Chef than is your SB four star meal or your PCA four star meal is that we/as if we prepared them.” (opinion of the law)
Nor do we argue:
“ERGO, our Lutheran four star meal is more pleasing to the Chef than is your SB four star meal or your PCA four star meal is as if the same Chef is more pleased with HIS meal HE prepared at one church or the other.” (opinion of the law)
When we go the route of the opinion of the law we will NEVER see the Gospel and we hide the very Gospel IN the sacrament we are trying to convey. In other words once your hearer hears it as an opinion of the law, you’ve already LOST the Gospel to him/her in the discussion.
The situation is such that the SACRAMENT is in fact the Sacrament, truly Christ’s body and blood, baptism truly God’s work alone WHETHER OR NOT THE RECEIPIENT BELIEVES/TRUSTS THAT TO BE SO OR NOT, WHETHER OR NOT FAITH EXISTS IN THE RECEIPIENT OR THE PASTOR OR THE ENTIRE CHURCH IN WHICH IT OCCURS. The Sacraments are God’s Sacraments and are UTTERLY objective. E.g. a rose is still objectively exactly what it is, a rose, even if the ENTIRE WORLD does not believe it so and denies it to the death. Thus, Luther could POWERFULLY say that you can receive the body and blood of Jesus Christ from the steaming claw of the devil (perhaps he had the Pope in mind at the time). “No”, you say? That’s exactly how he was given to us on the cross, by the hand of wicked men Gentile and Jew (and us by extension) and by ultimate extension the devil himself. Christ for you is UTTERLY objective or NO Gospel may be had. Or in Luther’s words, “…the ENTIRE Gospel is outside of you”. That’s just another way of saying the same thing.
So the sacraments of baptism or real body and blood of Christ is there in a SB, Reformed or Lutheran church objectively (assuming the institutional words are biblical and last I heard they are still in all these denominations and others). The REAL objective benefit is there, the Gospel FOR YOU, it comes to you and is thus truly GOOD NEWS TO YOU, as opposed to just good news over there to Bob which is not really Good News TO me. I’m approaching by way of the Gospel and steering utterly away from the opinion of the law.
So, what’s up? Let’s take two extremes just to show, SB/Bap. Vs. Lutheran. For the Lord’s supper both objectively HAVE the body and blood of Christ, really. Yet in one church/denomination (and it can vary even within a denomination as to an individual, e.g. a Lutheran could really be a practicing Baptist and vice versa). The body and blood of Jesus is really in, with and under the elements even in the SB church, the utter absolute gift of Christ is there. But DUE TO the predominant doctrine on the supper the hearer, the believer, is prevented of feasting truly on Christ as Gospel because of it only being a memorial meal. Using our four star meal analogy in a sense it is like this: Both have four star meals prepared by them by the Divine Chef in the institutional words “…this is…” and then the elements are there that have it objectively ‘in, with and under’. HOWEVER, when the mind of the hearer is REDIRECTED by denying Christ is really there and then RE-directed to his/her internal memory and powers of imagination (because none of us were there that day of the crucifixion some 2000+ years ago in a land half way around the world), he/she is redirected to “gin up”, that is works of the mind, to feel something, have something, think something. That’s very different from being told, “So you don’t feel, think or otherwise you have Christ really…TO BAD He’s right here in this Bread and in this Wine truly in body and blood, FOR YOU, the same body and blood given for you (the FOR YOU is crucial to the Gospel, I cannot emphasize nor repeat that enough) ANYWAY, your sins ARE IN FACT NOT THEORY forgiven.”
Same thing with the sacrament of baptism if it’s a work of man it is nothing and utterly vain, even a blaspheme (if that were actually in fact true), if it is a work of God objectively it is everything regardless of faith being there or not. That’s why I often ask, “If man X at 30 was baptized, admits openly he denies Christ later”, did the Baptist see a baptism according to the doctrine? I say that to make a point about utter absolute objectivity and not to pick on some one. If the Word of Gospel can be denied openly and still be objective, then why not the font? It is the glory of God that men DO INDEED come to faith from death, utter death in sin and trespasses to God, called into being. It is also the glory, fame, of God that men deny this even when it is PUT DIRECTLY ON THEM IN BAPTISM AND THE SUPPER. For ultimately men deny the utterly FREE grace of God for the vanity of their good works and thus prove the point, men are absolutely dead in sins and trespass to God WHO is glorious and famous AS THE REAL GOD JUST BECAUSE His love, as displayed openly in Christ crucified, is utterly selfless in its seeking. That means His glory rises as selfless love when men trust nakedly and passively and only in it, AND when men who by fallen nature are merit mongers deny to trust in it. Either way His glory, His true glory and fame as revealing Who the REAL God IS – is revealed by its acceptance and rejection either way. The true fame and glory of the TRUE God, ‘so this is what God is really like’, is openly revealed, made famous as in revelation, His glory is revealed by the naked passive truster AND by the merit monger by the merit monger or helpless ‘doer his way to heaven’ by the later’s very rejection based upon what he is and seeks, merit. The merit monger or ‘doer’ yields glory to the REAL God by his/her very rejection of the REAL God, that is the altruistic Lover AND that is why Jesus is the face of God and the fullness of His revelation particularly at the Cross. I labor that because that goes ALL the way back to one’s grasp of the sacraments as utter Gospel or some form of law. To the “doer” he/she thinks the movement of the sacraments is from earth to heaven, thus gaining the favor of God, or better bewitching God. But the receiver, the passive worthless sinner, RECEIVES objectively the gifts of God as GIFTS and as gifts FROM God they must be utterly and absolutely objective; that is baptism and the supper or “…the Gospel is ENTIRELY outside of us” PERIOD.
So, the sacraments are really still sacraments in our example SB, reformed or Lutheran churches, but the church’s, denomination’s or even individual doctrine in spite of may hide or prevent the GIFT, Gospel, to be efficacious to one. NOT, and this is crucial, due to some failure to fulfill some “law”, faith as a law or work, but by the very nature of not believing that is TRUSTING in them to BE what they are said to be. And THIS unbelief is generated from a doctrine, a “hath God really said”, and that “hath God really said” is nothing more than the devil’s original perversion ever so subtle on the Word of God. All it takes to turn an objective Gift (Gospel), a sacrament, into a law ‘to do’ is just to tweak the doctrine a bit, the devil’s word twisting some of the Word of God to mean something else and thus speak something else to us calling God a liar. It takes the utter objective gift of a father to a child for their child, from the child and turns it into a lie, a conditional, “Your dad will only love you if…”
Therefore, hopefully that at least points in the thought direction of the Gospel and why the Sacraments are the sacraments. It is like this: there is a world of differences, in fact two separate religions in saying, “Christ has died FOR YOU specifically” which causes faith and saying “IF YOU believe” in our modern understanding. Faith is not a condition by the vehicle by which the GREAT water and meal are received just as that, LIFE ETERNAL.
Maybe this will help, there I cannot recall if it was Sasse or Chemitz who said that if you get the sacraments wrong you will get the entire Scriptures wrong. They were correct.
E.g. How one gets the sacrament of baptism effects one’s ENTIRE grasp of the Book of Acts. Whether it is Gospel that could bear you up in suffering or “l”aw and no avail to you. It, the sacraments, are NO small matter or secondary thing to the faith.
Example the book of ACTS:
1. If one’s view is that baptism is based upon faith and man’s profession/confession one will read and understand Acts thus; All the events recorded in Acts where baptism and the Spirit are will flow upside down. IF you confess/profess/believe, that is some how have/get the Holy Spirit first, THEN you may be baptized. The whole of the baptistic doctrine derives from this upside down look at Acts. From this is derived the idea that only those who could, Adults, profess/confess their faith received baptism. So, the Holy Spirit is gotten some “other way” and by the reasoning faculties of man. How you see the Sacrament affects the Scriptures and hence ALL of Acts becomes “l”aw. “Lo, here is christ, there is christ…” Jesus warned to be aware of.
2. It is just a tiny step from #1 having turned everything upside down to ENTIRELY divorce the Spirit from the Sacrament, because in #1 baptism is made small and insignificant, a reward for a work or badge of faith – to full blown Pentecostalism. Pentecostalism is the next logical step. So that in #1 the way one views the sacrament affects Acts, the smaller the sacrament becomes, then the next step is to seek out the Spirit elsewhere in a ‘signs and wonders’ ministry (which Jesus cursed as deception by the way). Since the sacrament does not bring the Spirit per #1, Pentecostalism merely carries out the next logical step from Baptist doctrine. So the Pentecostal view of the sacrament, we might call it a non-view toward it, or Gnostic view, affects their understanding of the Book of Acts. And so yet another “l”aw view arises whereby they look to Acts for guidance and develop another ‘hamster wheel’ to heaven as they seek out the experience of signs and wonders. Again and worse than #1, “Lo, here is christ, there is christ…” Jesus warned.
3. The sacrament is TRUE Gospel view, Luther. It brings the Holy Spirit not because it is a man’s work but God’s and His promise to BE THERE where His “name IS”. This too, for the true faith, affects how one understands Acts. Rather than IF you get the Holy Spirit somehow otherwise, THEN you may have baptism, rather than seeing that as what Acts is communicating to us (law). Rather than seeing signs and wonders as that as what Acts is communicating to us (law). We see baptism BRINGING the Spirit. The reason the Holy Spirit is seen in and around baptism in Acts; just like when Jesus was baptized the Spirit descended like a DOVE, just like Noah when the DOVE brought back the olive branch of the peace from God’s wrath resting on the Ark, a type of the Cross and Christ; just like the Spirit hovered over the ‘waters of the deep’ in Genesis…the reason we are SHOWN this in the book of Acts, the Holy Spirit is with the baptismal waters OBJECTIVELY, is so that we will see that God is EXACTLY where He said He’d be for us, in the waters of baptism, where HIS NAME is given, where among the other Trinity name is given is the NAME of Jesus, Joshua, that is “He will save His people from their sin”, Jesus literally mean “Yaweh saves”. Far from Acts showing an “IF/THEN” works scenario or a “signs and wonders” to look for, it is showing that BAPTISM is where the Holy Spirit comes for us, and the Spirit bears witness NOT of the Spirit but of Christ FOR us. You see that is Gospel because one does not have to GIN up their profession/confession of faith, “do I really believe whereby I may receive the badge of baptism” (works – the devil’s religion using things from the Word of God upside down), nor, “I must have this signs and wonders experience” (works – the devil’s religion using things from the Word of God upside down). But rather, GOSPEL, BE baptized for the forgiveness of your sins, RECEIVE the SPIRIT, RECEIVE CHRIST – FREELY, by no works what so ever. The devil’s greatest trick to protestants is to tell us ‘you are not saved by works’, so you are not “Roman Catholic”, he lost that battle with some and had to re-tool/strategize, but then he points to the gifts of God like baptism and calls them ‘works’ by a doctrine like “believers baptism”, rather than gifts so he can guide/trick you back to some new works. The devil is concerned DEEPLY with doctrine.
Sasse/Chemitz, which ever it was – was 100% correct, if you go wrong with the sacraments you will go wrong elsewhere in the Scriptures, the way one understands one, yields the other. Are they Gospel/gift passively received or “l”aw?
Blessings,
Larry
Larry: I wasn’t moderating this afternoon, but that post is simply too long. Please write shorter or I can’t publish them. Put them on your blog and link them. I’m quite serious.
There are three aspects to Pauline soteriology–justification by faith, union with Christ, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Don’t you think that when you say that “all the benefits of salvation come to us through union with Christ,” you are omitting the other two ways of describing “salvation”?
Being “saved” is more than just being united with Christ, it is also about being indwelt with the Holy Spirit–the “downpayment” of our eschatological salvation. (Perhaps this bleeds into the discussion of the Jesus-centered Christianity. In a lot of ways our faith is not Christocentric, it is about a relationship with a Trinitarian God.)
To me, the Lord’s Supper is a big part of the “union with Christ” part of being “saved,” (although I see “spiritual presence” in the elements rather than transubstantiation or consubstantiation).
Michael Bell: Yes and amen.
John Hendryx: I am not a Calvinist. Do you think that a non-Calvinist can believe in union with Christ? Or not be a heretic?
Do you think Jesus believes it is important that I be a Calvinist? I don’t.
Matthew with the wife question: I’m sorry that my responses are unsatisfying. My apologies.
Why are we talking about ME anyway?
Why anyone tries to persuade someone to their version of theology is really amazing to me. State your view till the cows come home, but why would you ever NAME someone and QUESTION them about a theological persuasion that is beyond the “mere Christianity” boundary?
What compels all this? I am used to class discussions and discussions around the table, but I really can’t get the motive behind some of this. Does it really bother you that I don’t see things as you do? What does it matter?
We have a good question, and there is so much good discussion to be had without making another person’s CONVICTIONS the focus.
I appreciate all of you who are passionate, and it’s not my job to lecture or judge you, but I really struggle with the way these discussions become “press conferences.” If my boundaries are clearly drawn- “this is who I am”- then is it wrong to say that discussion should explore the question, but not another person’s commitments?
I see all through the scripture this concept that Christ is in us. An example is Colossians 1:27. Additionally, Romans 6 and Galatians 2:20 and other passages help us understand that when we became followers of Jesus we were literally incorporated into Christ’s body. We died with Christ on the cross; we were buried with Christ; we were raised up with Christ.
I see communion as a reminder of that.
Michael,
I feel as though I can relate to you so well sometimes. I have been working for years to answer some of these questions myself. When I was younger, I was prone to arguing over any subject that came up. As I have grown older(and maybe wiser), I have been less and less willing to argue over a great deal of things. I like the analogy I got from one of my professors in college. He talked about three circles of issues in Christianity. The first and innermost circle is the doctrine of salvation, specifically what is necessary for eternal life. The second circle encompasses those doctrines that are important, but which it is still possible to have eternal life even with flaws in thinking. Things like baptism and speaking in tongues would fall in this category. This is where I feel the Lord’s Supper belongs as well. The third circle are the maturity issues, like eating meat sacrificed to idols and so forth. They are things that we have to be careful not to offend a brother or sister with, but also have no bearing on the truth of the gospel when it all boils down. Ultimately, I have become very wary and reluctant to expend any significant energy on any arguments outside the first circle. I am more than happy to have discussions and consider different points of view. I take those views back to Scripture and prayer and trust that God will show me what I need to know.
By the way, I want to thank you for some of the books that you have recommended along the way. I bought a couple of the Worthington books, about the Last Supper and about Baptism and enjoyed them very much. They gave me a lot to chew on so to speak.
Michael: I don’t say this to justify the “press conference” tendency you describe, quite the opposite. But perhaps part of the answer as to the “motives” of those showing such passion on this question is that, for Lutherans, the Lord’s Supper (which, as we understand it, is the Lord’s body and blood under the bread and wine) is “mere Christianity”. (Indeed, it was for C.S. Lewis as well, if you read Mere Christianity.)
But as I’ve already said (and have said at more length on my own blog), that is “mere Christianity” conceived not as a bounded set containing all that is agreed upon by all Christians (with anyone outside the set being a defective Christian or even a non-Christian), but “mere Christianity” conceived as the centre of a set whose centre is well-defined but whose boundaries are somewhat fuzzy.
However, if you keep in mind this thought: “Those crazy Lutherans actually think the Lord’s Supper is part of the irreducible core of ‘mere Christianity’, for some impenetrable Germanic reason of their own”
, then that will probably help you understand where some of your more impassioned commenters are coming from…
For clarity’s sake, I am a 30 year old Catholic (lifelong Baptist), husband, and father of 4 who, together with my wife, received the sacraments of Eucharist and Confirmation this Easter…
CS Lewis said that the most Holy thing that would ever be presented to our senses (aside from the people we meet every day) is the Blessed Sacrament. Look at the Mass. What’s going on? At the most literal level, a bunch of Christ’s Sheep are eating and drinking. These are among the most intimate of human acts. We can’t wrap our minds around this stuff, but it is undeniably real.
Just as a man could be legitimately married but locked behind bars interminably, so can we truly be united with Christ without any corporeal union with him whatsoever. But try to describe the urge that humans have to kiss in a moment of passion. Try to explore the history of the Vampire and the spiritual implications of such a monster’s evolution. Some sort of spiritual/carnal realities, dynamics beyond the scope of our minds, are at play here… and apparently Christ affirmed them in his institution of what led early Christians to be called cannibals!
Consider St. Dismas of Calvary. Crucified at Christ’s right, he merely called out to the Lord and was assured of his place in heaven.
It is right that we grapple with these issues. It is right that we test these things. It is also write that we heed Hebrews 13.17.
Is Union with Christ separate from membership in a local congregation? It seems that this is part of the question. Not what is the sacrament, but what is the church? From my perspective, we don’t distinguish between the universal/invisible church and the local-denominational/visible one. One is exists by the grace of God. The other is a human attempt to create a social setting where the former can be nurtured.
As for me, the sacrament is not only about union with Christ, but OUR union with Christ. Especially when we receive the sacrament by intinction, and the congregation lines up down the middle aisle to receive the bread and wine, I see this diverse collection of people each coming to receive the sustenance of God’s grace. I sit there and pray for each person as their partake. In doing so, I feel a greater sense of connection and union to people.
So, I think, these are important questions because they are forcing us to make clearer distinctions about the nature of the church and Christ’s life in it.
I haven’t read all the comments yet, but like very much the comment by Alan at on 30 Apr 2008 at 10:33 pm. including his, “So, if you have an understanding of our union with God as growing and progressive then there’s really no disconnect with the idea that a Sacrament like the Eucharist or the Lord’s Supper could be a conduit for increasing or deepening that union.”
I was brought up Catholic but have not been attending for a number of years for various reasons. So I pray, read, study, work and blog. And I do know and “feel” that I am united to Jesus but I know I can grow in that union. I am still not perfect or I would not continue to do the things I do not want to do. But sometimes I miss gathering with other Christians and participating in Eucharist.
Take care, Michael. I appreciate your blog site very much.
Joanie D.
I have a question that maybe could be clarified on this post:
At what point did the eucharist/communion/LS become the principal means of worship in the early/Catholic church?
It seems as if the LS is the pinnacle of daily worship in Catholic and some Lutheran churches. While I definitely think there is something sacred/holy/spiritual about the LS, I have a difficult time understandning how it came to be The Main Way to receive grace and spiritual nourishment.
The Epistles mention it in a few places briefly and The Last Supper institutes it with the phrase “Do this in remembrance of me”…..but otherwise it seems to be a part of worship, but not THE way to worship.
When it did it move to the forefront in the history of the church? It seems to have grown from a community act of worship into the point of division between denominations, the measuring stick of exclusivity, if you will.
Any insight on this?
oops….the name should be Terri..not terri321…just in case anyone cares who I really am!
Clarification request: is there an assumption that it is not the Holy Spirit working through word and sacrament? Maybe we’re all batting around strawmen in this discussion.
Montanists fell into heresy when they believed the Holy Spirit works outside the boundaries of the apostles’ teaching. Regardless of ones view of the sacraments – or if you believe there are any at all – the objective cannot be trumped by the subjective. If not, don’t get in a tizzy the next time someone on TBN gets a “word from the Lord”.
Spiritual union needs context, and at a minimum, God’s word is that context. (I believe sacraments are another part, which truly is that kiss from a journeying spouse.) Pentecostalism had terrifying consequences on my spiritual life, because it lacked this context. The Holy Spirit uses this context, these means, to draw us to Christ, to bring Christ to us – to keep us at the foot of the cross.
“Not what I feel or do can give me peace with God; not all my prayers and sighs and tears can bear my awful load” – Horatius Bonar.
I have a fully sacramental worldview and accept completely that the Holy Spirit works through matter.
I would challenge anyone to produce a text that says the Holy Spirit limits or localizes this sacramentalism to one group of Christians.
Michael,
For us Lutherans it is not that the Holy spirit limits or localizes the sacraments to one group of Christians. But rather, that some christian groups exclude themselves, wittingly or unwittingly from them. This would happen if they taught something contrary to scripture concerning the sacraments.
As far as why i would try to persuade you of my position? does it really matter to me that much what you believe? Yes especially since you teach others to believe it. of course you are trying to persuade me also, of your positin that it doesn’t matter.
But I second John H. for us Lutherans it does matter, our Christology, and, therefore, our soteriology are intimately bound up with our understanding of the Lord’s Supper. It is for this reason that when Luther and Zwingli met to debate the Lord’s Supper, the debate quickly switched to a debate over Christology, and barely touched on the Lord’s Supper. The Sacraments matter dearly to us, it is how God interacts with us here in time. We believe that we are saved by our baptism. We believe that if Christ isn’t truly and physically present in the Lord’s Supper, then it wasn’t God who died for us, but a mere man, and that doesn’t accomplish much for us. And we believe that without these blessed gifts from God, we have no real grace, no tangible assurance of the forgiveness of our sins, and are left to our own devices, our own works. And that would be a horrible position to be in.
Terri321,
In Acts Chapter 2 “the breaking of bread” which the disciples seeming ly did every day, is code if you will, for the lords supper. so it seems it became the pinnacle very early on. Like with in days of Pentecost.
Terri:
At what point did the eucharist/communion/LS become the principal means of worship in the early/Catholic church?
Three pointers to when this might have happened:
a. In 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 Paul seems to be drawing no distinction between when the Corinthian Christians “come together” and when they “come together … to eat the Lord’s Supper”.
b. Acts 20:7, “On the first day of the week, when we met to break bread…” suggests a weekly practice of the Lord’s Supper.
c. Acts 2:42, “They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.”
All these strongly indicate that the regular, at least weekly celebration of the Lord’s Supper was the norm in the early church.
I don’t think there is any text or correct doctrine “that says the Holy Spirit limits or localizes this sacramentalism to one group of Christians.” God is not bound by the sacraments.
From my view, the way to be sure of the sacramentalism (for 5 of the 7 sacraments), is if a priest that received authority from the apostles is present.
[And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.” John 20:22-23]
Is this in response to my question, or someone elses?
“I would challenge anyone to produce a text that says the Holy Spirit limits or localizes this sacramentalism to one group of Christians.”
You won’t. That’s all based upon the notion that there is only “one true church.” We’re told there was only “one true church” until 1054.
The reality was a good bit messier than that, but fleshing out those details compromises the claims to power of certain institutions.
I was amused reading a Chrysostom homily berating some Constantinopolitans for attending the liturgies of a rival Nicene sect not in communion with Rome, given that Chrysostom himself was previously a presbyter in Antioch under Meletius, who was the bishop of a Nicene sect outside of valid apostolic succession.
I find it further amusing that “excommunicate” Meletius (since reconciled and made a saint) was one of the bishops presiding over the Council of Constantinople in 381, and that said council at the time was rejected by Rome as schismatic. The ultimate amusement was that it was that very council that added the words “one catholic and apostolic Church” to the Creed.
“At what point did the eucharist/communion/LS become the principal means of worship in the early/Catholic church?”
The primary reason early Christians began meeting on Sunday in the first place was to observe the Eucharist/communion/LS.
In 1 Corinthians 11:20-21, Paul says that when the Corinthians came togehter, it was not “The Lord’s Supper” that they ate (although this was their intent). However, Paul invalidates their eucharist not based upon the Corinthians’ improper theology, but upon their improper ethics.
The Corinthians saw the Lord’s Supper as a time to emphasize class distinctions and “shame those who have nothing.” Jesus intended the Lord’s Supper to model the eschatological banquet, a place where tax collectors and sinners are welcome to eat with the Scribes and the Pharisees. Thus the Corinthians were corrupting the rite’s original intent, and Paul says they were “partaking in an unworthy manner” and thus incurring God’s judgment.
Perhaps the 1 Corinthians passage is relevant if there are elitist denominations out there who see the way they do the Lord’s Supper as a way of distinguishing between those who are “truly united to Christ” and those who are kidding themselves because their theology is errant. They may not be “shaming the poor” with the way they do it, but are they “shaming the Baptists”?