(Loosely based on the sermon preached on the 7th of October, 2012)
World
Communion Sunday was a Presbyterian idea in the 1930s when the world neared
another global war and the churches seemed more divided than united.
World
Communion Sunday grew out of the Division of Stewardship at Shadyside
[Presbyterian Church]. It was their attempt to bring churches together in a
service of Christian unity—in which everyone might receive both inspiration and
information, and above all, to know how important the Church of Jesus Christ
is, and how each congregation is interconnected one with another. [John A.
Dalles, “Presbyterian Origins: World Wide Communion Sunday,” Wekiva
Presbyterian Church website, reprinted from 7 October 2002 Presbyterian
Outlook, accessed 7 October 2012, http://www.wekivapresbyterian.org/articles/presbyterian_origins.htm.]
From
the beginning, it was planned so that other denominations could make use of it
and, after a few years, the idea spread beyond the Presbyterian Church. [“World
Communion Sunday”, National Council of Churches website, accessed 07 October
2012, http://www.ncccusa.org/unity/worldcommunionsunday.html]
Of
course, the Methodist Church , and later the United Methodist
Church
World
Communion Sunday calls the church to be the catholic inclusive church. [2008
UMC BOD, ¶ 263.3]
Holy
Communion expresses our oneness in the body of Christ, anticipates Jesus’
invitation to feast at the heavenly banquet, and calls us to strive for the
visible unity of the church. … United Methodists remain open to greater
Christian unity through the work of the Holy Spirit in response to Jesus’
prayer that “they may all be one” (John 17:21). [“Holy Communion and the Unity
of the Church”, This Holy Mystery: A United Methodist Understanding of Holy
Communion]
Church
unity that transcends denominational differences is the main idea of World
Communion Sunday. Doctrinal and liturgical differences cannot destroy that
unity which is inherent in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper.
I
ask not, therefore, of him with whom I would unite in love, Are you of my
church, of my congregation Do you receive the same form of church government,
and allow the same church officers, with me Do you join in the same form of
prayer wherein I worship God I inquire not, Do you receive the supper of the
Lord in the same posture and manner that I do nor whether, in the
administration of baptism, you agree with me in admitting sureties for the
baptized, in the manner of administering it; or the age of those to whom it
should be administered. Nay, I ask not of you (as clear as I am in my own
mind), whether you allow baptism and the Lord's supper at all. Let all these
things stand by: we will talk of them, if need be, at a more convenient season,
my only question at present is this, "Is thine heart right, as my heart is
with thy heart". [John Wesley, Catholic Spirit]
Thus, the
celebration of Holy Communion is not based on any organic or denominational
unity, or even on the local unity of a local church. On the other hand, the
unity of the local church, the unity of a denomination, and even
inter-denominational unity is based upon the grace of God found in the
Eucharist. In short, the celebration of Holy Communion is not based on Church
unity, rather, Church unity is based on Holy Communion.
The reason
why I emphasize this point is because some have opposed the idea of a weekly,
Sunday celebration of the Eucharist because the church is not yet united and of
one mind. Thus, I was told that before a weekly Eucharist can be implemented
the church must first prioritize on “mending heartaches and differences as a
result of division of [sic] the UMC”. In other words, the church must first be
united before they can even consider a weekly Eucharist.
For me,
this kind of reasoning is like putting the cart before the horse, like saying
that we must be saved from sin first before accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and
Savior. In other words, the people who say that church unity is the condition
for celebrating the Lord’s Supper think that grace is the reward for human
effort. On the other hand, we know that grace is a free gift, given so that we
can do what God requires of us.
Take
church unity: what Holy Communion is supposed
to do IS to mend the heartaches and differences that are the result of
division. When we read 1 Corinthians 10:17, it says that, “Because there is
one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the
one bread.” We do not unite to partake of one bread—WE ARE UNITED BECAUSE
WE PARTAKE OF THE ONE BREAD! We do not unite ourselves to come to the Lord’s
Table, it is the Lord’s Table that unites us.
So this is my objection to those naysayers who oppose a
weekly Eucharist: they are telling me that the church should unite by her
own human effort before the church avails of the grace of God that is supposed
to unite the church. In short—works salvation.
People do not seem to get the idea that we do not need to
deserve grace in order to receive grace. To view human effort—even efforts
to unite a church—as a necessary prerequisite for the regular availing of the
means of grace is to put good works before the reception of grace through
faith. They who say that the church should make efforts to be first united
before they can consider a weekly Eucharist are the real legalists, for
they make the result of human effort as the prerequisite for receiving grace
from the means of grace. This is even worse than the “legalism” of the Roman
Catholic Church.
I thus believe that infrequent celebration and reception of
Holy Communion is the spiritual cause of disunity in the Church today. There are many other causes of
the schisms that happened in the Methodist
Church
This is why World Communion Sunday is important: denominational
and/or inter-denominational unity is not the prerequisite for meeting together
at the Lord’s Table. All that is truly necessary is that we are all
believers in Jesus Christ. John Wesley once said,
… although a difference in opinions or modes of worship may
prevent an entire external union, yet need it prevent our union in affection. Though
we cannot think alike, may we not love alike? May we not be of one heart,
though we are not of one opinion? Without all doubt, we may. Herein all
the children of God may unite, notwithstanding these smaller differences. [Catholic
Spirit, emphases added]
Thus the
existing “heartaches and differences as a result of division in the UMC” are
not sufficient reason to discourage the practice of weekly, Sunday Eucharist.
For if we can unite with other denominations with whom the UMC has doctrinal
and liturgical differences on World Communion Sunday, surely members of the
same local church can unite at the Lord’s Table whatever their disagreements.
In fact, I am of the opinion that by the grace of God conveyed by the
Sacrament of Holy Communion may actually heal those existing “heartaches and
differences as a result of division in the UMC”. Hence, the need for a
weekly, Sunday Communion wherein the whole congregation may partake regularly
until God’s grace has his desired effect—church unity.
***
The
Gospel reading for the 7th of October, 2012, is S. Mark 10:2-16,
from which I quote verses 2—9,
Mark
10:2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, “Is it lawful for a man to
put away his wife?” tempting him. 3 And he answered and said unto them, “What
did Moses command you?” 4 And they said, “Moses suffered to write a bill of
divorcement, and to put her away.”
5 And
Jesus answered and said unto them, “For the hardness of your heart he wrote you
this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and
female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to
his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain,
but one flesh.”
9
“What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”[1]
As this
lection is assigned for World Communion Sunday, I sought to relate this
Scripture with the Sunday celebration during my sermon. Happily, others before
me have already suggested the relationship: in Bishop Ole Borgen’s “Conclusion”
in his book John Wesley on the Sacraments: A Definitive Sudy of John Wesley’s
Theology of Worship, he uses language reminiscent of Mark 6:9,
There
is, therefore, no need to set, for instance, the Word and preaching in
opposition to the sacraments. Wesley
demanded both. The distinction between
‘evangelicalism’ and ‘sacramentalism’ must never be applied to Wesley. For him these two aspects were one, and later
Methodism has paid dearly for tearing apart what God has united. [Ole E. Borgen , John Wesley on the Sacraments
(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1972), p. 282.]
This UMC
bishop implies that the relationship between the Word of God and the Sacrament
of Holy Communion as akin to a marriage which should not be divorced from one
another. This is even more strongly suggested in the official UMC position on
the Eucharist, This Holy Mystery:
The
complete pattern of Christian worship for the Lord’s Day is Word and Table—the
gospel is proclaimed in both Word and sacrament [of Holy Communion]. Word and Table are not in
competition; rather they complement each other so as to constitute a whole
service of worship. Their separation diminishes the fullness of life in the
Spirit offered to us through faith in Jesus Christ. … Congregations of
The United Methodist Church are encouraged to move toward a richer sacramental
life, including weekly celebration of the Lord’s Supper at the services on
the Lord’s Day, as advocated by the general orders of Sunday worship
in The United Methodist Hymnal and The United Methodist Book of Worship.
[“The Basic Pattern of Worship: A Service of Word and Table (Principle &
Practice)”, Resolution 8014. This Holy Mystery: A United Methodist
Understanding of Holy Communion, readopted by the 2012 General Conference
for inclusion in the 2012 United Methodist Book Of Resolutions, emphases
and underscore added][2]
In other
words, the official UMC position is that Sunday worship should consist of both
the Proclamation of the Word AND the administration of the Lord’s Supper. The
resolution in question DEFINITELY SAYS THAT THE EUCHARIST SHOULD BE
ADMINISTERED EVERY SUNDAY. Why anyone would pretend that it does not is
beyond me. Therefore, the practice of holding Holy Communion only once a month
with the remaining Sundays merely services of the Word is liturgical
adultery.
Some,
like the Pharisees of old, will counter: “Then why has it become the
‘tradition’ of the UMC to hold only to a monthly celebration of the Eucharist?”
The answer, like Christ’s to the Pharisees, is this: the later Methodists’
“hardness of heart” is the reason why the original Methodist principle of
constant communion was forgotten and then now rejected by modern Methodists.
For many Methodists (especially here in the Manila Episcopal Area) are
unfaithful to their doctrinal and liturgical heritage both as Methodists and as
Protestants. Rather than see the sacraments as true means of receiving God’s
grace, many have come to see them merely as empty rituals which has no real
bearing on one’s spiritual life. They see the call for a weekly Eucharist as
being “legalistic”. They do not see anything wrong with divorcing the
Proclamation of the Word with the Sacrament of the Lord’s Table.
Like all
those in favor of divorce, it is nigh impossible to convince them why such a
divorce is wrong. They accuse you of judging them, even though one is merely
telling them the official UMC position. And when you tell them that the
Scriptures show that weekly communion was the most minimum frequency of
celebration in the New Testament church (Acts 20:7), and that daily
communion was the actual norm (Acts 2:42, 46-47), they look at you with
a blank face, uncomprehending.[3]
They cannot see that the primary purpose of Sunday worship in New Testament
times was the celebration of Holy Communion (Acts 20:7). And so I get so frustrated,
but I should not be. The thing is, when Jesus Christ in S. John chapter 6 also
preached about the necessity of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, few if
any understood his teaching and he lost many of his disciples after that (John
6:66).
Also,
this reminds me of another supper in one of Christ’s parables:
Luke
14:15 And when one of them that sat at meat with Jesus heard these things, he
said unto Jesus, “Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God
18 "And they all with one accord began to make excuse. The first said unto him, ‘I
have bought a piece of ground, and I must needs go and see it: I pray thee have
me excused.’ 19 And another said, ‘I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to
prove them: I pray thee have me excused.’ 20 And another said, I have married a
wife, and therefore I cannot come.
When I
introduced a bi-monthly celebration of the Eucharist last month, it provoked
reactions from people who gave excuses as to why there should not be such a
bi-monthly Eucharist. Their excuses, like the one about the church must “mend
heartaches and differences that resulted from the division of [sic] the UMC”,
struck me as to much like the excuses in the parable that I decided to pursue
the same course of action as that “certain man” that prepared a supper for his
ungrateful guests:
Luke
14:21 “So that servant came, and shewed his lord these things. Then the master
of the house being angry said to his servant, ‘Go out quickly into the streets
and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the
halt, and the blind.’ 22 And the servant said, ‘Lord, it is done as thou hast
commanded, and yet there is room.’ 23 And the lord said unto the servant, ‘Go
out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may
be filled.’
24
“‘For I say unto you, That none of those people which were invited shall
taste of my supper.’”
So these
people in the main church do not want even a bi-monthly celebration of the
Lord’s Supper; very well, I shall not force them anymore. I will go back
instead to the mission church where they welcome such a weekly celebration. I
thank also my administrative pastor for ruling that every midweek worship
service shall henceforth be Eucharistic. It is still insufficient to offer the
means for God’s grace only to the few who attend midweek and mission worship,
but it cannot be helped. I will no longer offer the option of a weekly
Eucharist to a main, Sunday worship service in the local church I am currently
assigned, seeing that (like the Pharisees of old) they are wise in their own
conceits.
Come, sinners, to the Gospel feast;
Let every soul be Jesus’ guest.
Ye need not one be left behind,
For God hath bid all humankind.
Sent by my Lord, on you I call;
The invitation is to all.
Come, all the world! Come, sinner, thou!
All things in Christ are ready now.
Come, and partake the Gospel feast;
Be saved from sin; in Jesus rest;
O taste the goodness of your God,
And eat His flesh, and drink His blood!
Do not begin to make excuse,
Ah! do not you His grace refuse.
Come thou, this moment, at His call,
And live for Him Who died for all.
“Have me excused,” why will ye say?
Why will ye for damnation pray?
Have you excused—from joy and peace!
Have you excused—from happiness:
Excused from coming to a feast!
Excused from being Jesus’ guest!
From knowing now your sins forgiven,
From tasting here the joys of Heaven.
Sinners my gracious Lord receives,
Harlots, and publicans, and thieves;
Drunkards, and all ye hellish crew,
I have a message now to you.
The worst unto My supper press,
Monsters of daring wickedness,
Tell them My grace for all is free.
They cannot be too bad for Me.
Of
course, my vows as a licensed and commissioned pastor of the UMC demands that I
offer the sacrament more than once a month, but am I absolved of responsibility
now, as I was forced to stop encouraging the principle of constant, weekly,
Sunday communion? Am I clear of their blood?
James
4:17 Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it,
sins.
Am I now
sinning because I know that I ought to administer the sacrament of Holy
Communion every Sunday and yet I do not do it? Is the opposition of some enough
excuse for me not to attempt it again? Shall I disobey God’s higher authority
just so as not to offend mere human, local authority?
ICXC:
Nolite dare sanctum canibus, neque mittatis margaritas vestras ante porcos, ne
forte conculcent eas pedibus suis et conversi disrumpant vos.
Spes: Amen. Veni Domine
Iesu.
[1] I
digress now, seeing the same question posed by those in favor of affiliate
autonomy as to whether it is disciplinary or not. I usually respond that, No,
it is not. Their answer, echoing that of the legalistic Pharisees, is that
“Then why is there a provision for seeking affiliated autonomy in the Book Of
Discipline?” My answer then is this: That provision was put there because of
the “hardness of heart” of many Methodists ever since John Wesley’s time. But
it was never like that in the beginning with the Wesleys, both of whom saw
separation from one’s parent denomination as a sin. The Wesley brothers opposed
moves against the Methodists leaving the Church of England. But the American
Revolution made the separation of the American Methodists a reality. Later,
they refused to submit even to Wesley, and as soon as John Wesley died, the
American Methodists rejected the liturgy he prepared for their use. But from
the very beginning, the Wesley brothers saw both baptismal and ordination vows
as just as binding as marriage vows, if not more so. Therefore, anyone who
separates from the UMC except for doctrinal disagreement is, IMO, committing
ecclesiastical adultery.
See the Rev. Dcn. Gilamrtin Guerrero’s take on this
here, http://eatpraysleep.blogspot.com/2012/10/instructions-for-life-together-family.html,
where he proposes the following:
D. If the relationship of God to his people and of
Christ to his Church is compared to that of a husband to his wife, I propose
the following:
1.
Just as a person is to be faithful to
his/her own spouse, so should a person be loyal to the denomination and local
church that one belongs to.
2.
Just as a person can be friends with
other men and women, a believer may be friends with other believers and other
denominations and local churches. There are certain occasions where one can
attend services (weddings, funerals, other special occasions) at another local
church, or of a local church of another denomination, while still retaining
loyalty to one’s own denomination and local church.
3.
A person who willfully tries to be a
“member” of two local churches (that is, regularly attending both), either
within the same denomination, or from differing denominations (e.g., two local
UM churches; or one local UM church in the morning and a “mall church” in the
afternoon) is like a person who commits adultery. The reasons for unfaithfulness
to one’s spouse and church are the same: to be still seen as loyal to one’s
wife/church while having ones owns “needs met” with the other woman/church
(whether it is better preaching, music, etc.)
4.
A person who willfully commits division
and schism within one’s local church or denomination is as guilty as one who
commits divorce. The reasons for divorcing one’s spouse and church are the
same: when one finds “an unseemly thing” in one’s spouse/church, (whether it is
bad preaching, bad music, ill feelings towards one fellow member or the pastor,
etc.), one creates division and schism instead of helping to remedy the
situation.
5.
Just as Jesus allowed divorce only on the
grounds of unfaithfulness, the only reason can one separate from one’s local
church or denomination is when this church has become unfaithful to God and the
Scriptures in its doctrine and practice. (However, Hosea the Prophet remained
loyal to Gomer, his adulterous wife.)
Just as the relationship of Christ to his Church is
represented by the marriage of husband and wife, so is our relationship with
our local church and denomination!
[2] “Resolutions
shall be considered official expressions of The United Methodist Church for
twelve years following their adoption, after which time they shall be deemed to
have expired unless readopted.” (The Book of Discipline 2008, ¶ 510.2a)
[3] Is it
any wonder, then, that some (thankfully, not all) of these who discourage
constant, weekly communion are promoters of affiliated autonomy?
