Home Worship Planning Planning Resources Call to Ecclesial Responsibility

Call to Ecclesial Responsibility

Please note: The content of the following response paper has been adapted from an article originally published under the title of "Closing Ranks on Open Communion" as an exchange of views between Gary R. Shiplett and Michael G. Cartwright in Quarterly Review Vol. 8 (1988): 54-70. For the purposes of the current dialogue about "open Communion," only Cartwright's contribution has been reproduced here. Readers who are interested in reading Shiplett's contribution to the exchange are invited to consult the source cited above. Although my portion of the article was written almost fifteen years ago — and thus includes several references to liturgical materials associated with the pre-1989 Hymnal and Book of Worship of The United Methodist Church, I would contend that the substance of my argument remains relevant to the current debate among United Methodists about how to understand the relationship of the sacraments of baptism and Eucharist.

Among United Methodists, current understandings of "open Communion" are curiously lacking in genuine theological grounding. Yet how we specify the openness of our sacramental practice offers an important clue as to how we understand the marks of the church. The fact that openness in Communion practice is understood in widely divergent ways points not only to confusion about the sacrament itself, but also to confusion about the church's mission, unity, catholicity, and holiness. Our Communion practices also betray the presence of a problem with which Methodism has long struggled, namely the lack of a "fully grounded ecclesiology." As Albert Outler notes:

One of the most obvious of Methodism's paradoxes . . . is that we are the only major "church family" in Christian history that began as an evangelical sect within a sacramental church and then evolved into a quasi-sacramental church . . . without an adequate self-understanding for doing so.1

Outler's insightful analysis of this perennial problem of United Methodism suggests that ecclesiological confusion within our denomination will continue to elude resolution until we learn to see our mission within the scope of the wider "world Christian community" of which we are a part.

An instance of such confusion within United Methodism is the ambiguity that is created when nonbaptized people are (implicitly) invited or allowed to participate in the "Great Thanksgiving" of the church, the Eucharist. This confusion arises, in part, from a misunderstanding of the invitation that begins the liturgy of the Lord's Supper in the 1966 Book of Hmyns:

YYe that do truly and earnestly repent of your sins, and are in love and charity with your neighbors, and intend to lead a new life, following the commandments of God, and walking from henceforth in his holy ways: Draw near with faith, and take this holy Sacrament to your comfort, and make your humble confession to almighty God.
The Book of Hymns. Copyright © 1964, 1966 the United Methodist Publishing House

To whom is this invitation is directed? Many pastors would say that it is directed to "whoever feels led to respond." Such an interpretation fails, however, to take into account the fact that "repentance" has always had clearly specified meanings within the Christian churches. Not simply a matter of how one feels on a given Sunday morning, repentance originates in an initial profession of faith, which takes place in the setting of Christian baptism. As far back as the sermon of Peter on the day of Pentecost, the response of the church to those who, upon hearing the gospel, inquire, "What must we do?" has been, "Repent and be baptized" (see Acts 2:37-39).

The answer that the history of Christianity brings to the above question is that the invitation to the Lord's Supper is given to those people who constitute the body of Christ, the church. That is to say, all are invited to participate in the body and blood of Christ who have died to self and who have risen to new life in Christ through the sacrament of Christian baptism. Such specificity is further made explicit in the invitations to "The Peace" and "Offering" of the more recent liturgy for Holy Communion, We Gather Together: "Christ our Lord invites to his table all who love him and who desire to live in peace with one another. Therefore, let us stand and offer one another signs of reconciliation and love." Following the exchange of greetings such as "The peace of Christ be with you" and "and also with you," the gathered assembly is addressed by the presiding minister, "As forgiven and reconciled people, let us offer ourselves and our gifts to God." Such greetings should not be treated as mere formalities with no bearing on who is actually participating in the Eucharist; rather, they identify the gathered company as repenting and reconciled disciples of Christ and, therefore, describe the appropriate limits of inclusiveness within which the Lord's Supper is rightly celebrated.

Thus, I would propose that the proper understanding of the openness of Communion practice in The United Methodist Church be subject to following two specifications: First, all baptized Christians, regardless of denomination are invited to the Lord's Table.2 Second, within this wider company, all those people who are willing to share in the reconciling peace of Christ at any given celebration of the Lord's Supper are welcome at the Lord's Table. Specifying the open character of Communion practice in these ways conforms with the language of the above-mentioned invitations in that: (a) the precise meaning of repentance has always been specified within the context of the sacrament of Christian baptism, and (b) the fact that we have any understanding of what reconciliation is, is the result of the sharing of forgiveness enacted in the passing of the peace preceding the Eucharist. In those congregations where persons who are not baptized are present for worship, the invitation should be clarified in whatever way is deemed appropriate, whether this is a notice in the bulletin, such as, "All baptized Christians are welcomed to this our Lord's Table," or simply in a verbal remark prior to the beginning of the Great Thanksgiving.

No doubt some United Methodists will claim that such a suggestion is too restricted. Others may view this position as smacking of "closed" or "close" Communion.3 The question such people should ask themselves is, what value is being protected by defining "openness" with no specifying reference? The fact that United Methodism is one of few (perhaps the only!) denominations in the world Christian community that allows such unspecified "openness" of Communion should give us pause. Those who might propose that there be no disciplines to restrict in any way the openness of Communion would, I submit, have to give some alternative description of the four marks of the church: one, holy, apostolic, and universal.

A full defense of the position I am outlining would need to discuss each of these traditional marks of the church. Here I can discuss only two: the apostolic or missional nature and the holiness that mark the Christian community. Simply put, the fulfillment of the mission of the church is described with respect to the world to which it is has been sent as a colony proclaiming good news of the reign of God. It is precisely in this sense that we can say that a principal task of the church, as an alternative community in the world, is evangelization. The church exists to help the world "see" God's reign as well as to see itself in light of that kingdom.

Currently, our denomination is focusing more and more attention on the urgent need to reappropriate the task of evangelism, to return it to the heart of the apostolate of United Methodism. With respect to the question of open Communion, my contention is that inviting nonprofessing or nonbaptized people to join in the sacramental celebrations of the church, we are also thereby conveying the message that being a part of the church does not necessarily require repentance. Further, such practice may convey the message that being a Christian can involve a range of individually specified commitments independent of a public profession of faith in Christian baptism. In short, any time the identification of the church becomes blurred by such unqualified openness, then a parallel shift in the focus of the mission of the church can also discerned.

A second consequence of such unspecified openness in the practice of Holy Communion among United Methodists is that such practice may send another message to those people who are already members of the church, but who may not understand fully what Christian discipleship means. Such people may be hearing, "It is OK that you are not obedient to the demands of the gospel." If such message comes across through our practice of Holy Communion, then both the holiness and the mission of the church are being undetermined. My contention is that without congregational practices of holiness within the life of the church, our evangelistic task will never take flight. Similarly, without vigilant efforts of evangelism — including practices that enable the unconverted to identify themselves as such — our church will never again succeed in "spreading scriptural holiness across the land." This interrelatedness holds among all four marks of the church: the tasks associated with one mark remind us of the other three.

Contemporary United Methodists would seem to care more about genteel tolerance than about being apostolic or holy. We would be embarrassed to be put in the situation of saying that not just anyone can join in the Great Thanksgiving of the church. Yet much of the embarrassment and awkward feelings pastors and laity have about limiting the openness of the Communion could be dealt with easily enough if we bothered to attend to those disciplines that have long been practiced by other denominations. For example, what can we do to help the person who is seeking Christ but who has not yet come to the point of professing faith? Such people could join the church at the Lord's Table and receive a blessing: "May the Blessing of God Almighty, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, be upon you, and may God's grace guide you into the way of salvation through Christ our Lord." The felt difference that such a practice might generate within our church need not be seen as elitist or exclusive; rather, such a blessing is simply appropriate to the situation of a person who has not yet come to faith.4 Moreover, the congregation needs to be called to awareness of those in its midst who have not yet professed faith lest it be tempted to forget its proper apostolic task toward those who remain unprofessing seekers.

Having begun with an assessment of the problem of United Methodist ecclesiology, I want to conclude by alluding to the potential ecumenical vocation of United Methodism. As Albert Outler has noted, "Methodism has within it the makings of a new pneumatological ecclesiology with immense import for the world Christian community" (page 35). I believe that Outler is correct in emphasizing one of the unique things that United Methodists bring to the world Christian community: the Spirit-led dimension of our church's self-understanding. At our best, we United Methodists understand that being the church involves disciplines of faithful living. But at our worst, we fail to recognize that the Spirit guides us away from the pluralism of incoherent practices to an ordered sacramental life focused on disciplines of repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation.5

I am suggesting, then, that United Methodism will not live up to its potential as a church with an ecumenical vocation unless we bring order to our sacramental practices, one feature of which is (currently) a nonspecific invitation to the Lord's Table. Even non-Christians intuitively understand that the celebration is not for everyone, but only for those who in fact do profess faith in Christ. Tragically, many people who are baptized stay away from the Lord's Table because they do not feel worthy. I am suggesting that part of the problem in these cases lies in the fact that — in word and practice — we fail to make clear to the as-yet-unconverted world who should and who should not participate in this meal of the church, often in failing to offer repentance and reconciliation as specified activities or disciplines. In so doing, we also fail to make clear to our own membership that this Holy Meal is where the church is most fully what has been called to be — one, holy, apostolic, and universal.

Please note: Gary Shiplett's contribution to the "Exchange on Open Communion" consisted of a historical discussion of sacramental discipline in the life and writings of John Wesley and the relevance of Wesley's practice for contemporary United Methodist sacramental discipline. Shiplett argued against what he described as the "undisciplined practice of 'open' Communion," but advocated continued focus on the Lord's Supper as both a converting and confirming ordinance.

Response to Mr. Shiplett

by Michael G. Cartwright

I am grateful to Mr. Shiplett for his careful summary of the historical background of this question about which he and I share a common concern. In my own essay, I tried to think systematically about the question of sacramental discipline from the perspective of how United Methodism should understand itself ecclesiologic ally. Shiplett's study of the Wesleyan background of this question provides a nice complement to my own effort and, not surprisingly, I find myself in large part in fundamental agreement with Shiplett. I hope that through our two different studies we have dispelled certain historic misconceptions about the question of "open" Communion.

By way of response, I want to suggest two points at which we need to think more clearly about this issue as a church. First, I think we need to be more precise in our use of language. In Shiplett's article, at several points, the language of "unbeliever" is used in contrast to "believer" in combination with "unconverted." Although I am convinced that in fact there are people who do not yet believe in Christ, I am also concerned that we be careful not to apply such language to those people who have been baptized. (Of course, it is possible to consider a person who has been baptized and later actually renounced following Christ, an "unbeliever" by his or her own acknowledged renunciation — what has historically been called "apostasy" — but as far as I know, such people are not referred to in the present discussion of open Communion.)

Thus, I would propose — in line with what I take to be Shiplett's own pastoral practice — that we make a pastoral distinction between those people who are neither baptized nor profess faith and those people who are baptized and who may or may not have attained that "degree" of faith to which John Wesley alluded as "full assurance" of salvation. The former are appropriately denominated "unbelievers." The later, however, are those who, like Wesley before Aldersgate, may or may not have discovered in the sacrament the grace that is both converting and confirming.

Although United Methodists may well continue to think of the Lord's Supper as a converting ordinance for those "seeking full assurance" of faith (here I am deliberately staying close to the Wesleyan language!), it does not make sense to imply that those who are baptized (whether infants, children, or adults) are unbelievers. I think that such a distinction coheres more closely with the Wesleyan awareness that there are, in fact, "degrees of faith" among those who are professing followers of Christ; those who had not yet experienced the full assurance of salvation were called "seekers" in Wesley writings. Although I acknowledge that this suggested distinction does not accord with certain assumptions about the "converting ordinance," I would contend that it offers clarification by way of taking into account the simple fact that there is a difference between people who can place themselves (or be located by their congregation fellowship) in the eucharistic narrative of the death and resurrection of Christ (the baptized) and people who cannot do so because they do not yet follow Jesus (unbelievers).

The issue, then, as I see it, has as much to do with how we United Methodists characterize the significance of baptism as it does with how we understand what is taking place in the Eucharist. If we really do think that not much of anything is happening in baptism, then, likely as not, we will treat the Lord's Supper as if nothing is happening. But if that is the case, then it is not at all clear how we can even talk about who should participate in the Lord's Supper, because we will have already determined that is does not matter and that the sacrament has no authoritative meaning except whatever individualized meanings people may want to assign to the experience.

Finally, I think that this discussion would be skewed away from the heart of the matter if I did not remind readers of what we know already: that the Lord's Supper is the Resurrection Feast. Precisely in the context of this meal, those who have died with Christ in the sacrament of baptism are reminded that their discipleship — "the way of the cross" — can be accomplished only by virtue of the victory that has already been won at the cross and in the Resurrection. Thus, it is right that the church should be careful to invite only those peoples who seek to live out the life of discipleship, precisely because the church is called to live out the new reality proclaimed in the Resurrection — a reality that is uniquely depicted for Christian disciples in the eucharistic anamnesis (the remembrance of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus). True, this new reality of God's grace will be complete only when we gather for the anticipated messianic banquet at the consummation of the Kingdom; but until that time, it is "meet and right and a joyful thing" that God's own should "proclaim the Lord's death until he comes."

The church can dare to be disciplined in its sacramental celebration only because the Lord's Supper is a Resurrection Meal, which at one and the same time looks backward with thanksgiving at what God has done and forward in the hope that God's continuing sanctification can be accomplished in us and in all creation. For it is only because Christians do believe that something more is at work in history than our own individual appropriations of God's grace that we can have hope of being transformed. My contention, in conclusion, is that we may be missing an even more crucial sense of the Eucharist as the "converting ordinance" by failing to consider that which the Eucharist empowers diverse disciples to become — the body of Christ. Such a transformation is "converting" indeed! But the real mystery is that it happens to the church!

Notes

1Albert C. Outler, "Methodism in the World Community," in Dig or Die, edited by James S. Udy and Eric G. Clancey (Sidney, Australia: World Methodist Historical Society, 1981), page 31.

2United Methodists rightly invite baptized members of other denominations to participate in its celebrations of the Lord's Supper. To refer to someone as an "unbaptized Christian" (as one occasionally hears or reads) makes no sense theologically.

3This terminology refers specifically to those varieties of Baptist churches that restrict participation in the ordinance of the Lord's Supper to (a) members of a single congregation, or (b) members of a particular denominational "association," or (c) people who have received a particular form of baptism; for example, immersion.

4Obviously, I am in favor of a kind of restored "catechumenate" within United Methodist congregational life. For a description of what that practice might look like, I refer interested readers to Robert Webber's article, "Evangelism and Ethics," The Christian Century 103:27 (Sept. 24, 1986): 806-808.

5Other incoherent sacramental practices that one might mention in this context are "come-and-go Communion," where it is assumed that the gathering of the church has no real significance for the enactment of the church's Eucharist, and the indiscriminate baptism of infants, particularly where neither parent has professed faith in Christ. In such instances, to ask what we think we are doing may be the first step toward a more coherent ecclesiology for United Methodism.

Contact Us for Help

View staff by program area to ask for additional assistance.

Related


Subscribe

* indicates required

Please confirm that you want to receive email from us.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. For information about our privacy practices, please read our Privacy Policy page.

We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By clicking below to subscribe, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing. Learn more about Mailchimp's privacy practices here.