“After Emmaus:
Communion, Repentance, Forgiueneſs and Proclamation"
[Disclaimer: this was the sermon I preached on the 19th of April 2015. The transcript below was said as is with some extemporaneous comments. However, the endnotes represent what I was really thinking when I wrote and delivered the sermon, though they remain unspoken. As can be seen, these notes would have been inappropriate during a sermon, so I did not say them during the sermon, but I included them here so I can start the process of healing. Like many of the Psalmists, I feel the need to express my bitterness over what I and my family has been through. EVEN AS CHRIST SHOWED HIS DISCIPLES THE PHYSICAL TRAUMA SUSTAINED BY HIS CRUCIFIXION, SO I SHOW THE PSYCHOLOGICAL TRAUMA I SUSTAINED. Please think of the endnotes as mine own Psalm LXIX. It is my desire that I can find it in my heart to forgive those who have wronged me: Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.]
LUKE xxiiij. 36-48 As they were talking about these things,
Jesus himself stood among them, and said to them, "Peace to you!" But
they were startled and frightened and thought they saw a spirit. And he said to
them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See
my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does
not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." And when he had said
this, he showed them his hands and his feet.
And while they still
disbelieved for joy and were marveling, he said to them, "Have you
anything here to eat?" They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took
it and ate before them.
Then he said to them,
"These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that
everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms
must be fulfilled." Then he opened their minds to understand the
Scriptures, and said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should
suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and
forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning
from Jerusalem.
“You are witnesses of
these things.”
+ + +
The Gospel lesson comes
immediately after the Emmaus incident, the narrative of which has become the
Scriptural basis of our Basic Pattern of Worship today, not only in the UMC,
but in every Christian denomination.
The Emmaus account can
be used today in preaching and teaching the Basic Pattern of Worship. As on the
first day of the week the two disciples were joined by the risen Christ, so in
the power of the Holy Spirit the risen and ascended Christ joins us when we
gather. As the disciples poured out to him their sorrow and in so doing opened
their hearts to what Jesus would say to them, so we pour out to him whatever is
on our hearts and thereby open ourselves to the Word. As Jesus "opened the
Scriptures" to them and caused their hearts to burn, so we hear the
Scriptures opened to us and out of the burning of our hearts praise God. As
they were faced with a decision and responded by inviting Jesus to stay with
them, we can do likewise. As they joined the risen Christ around the table, so
can we. As Jesus took, blessed, broke, and gave the bread just as the disciples
had seen him do three days previously, so in the name of the risen Christ we do
these four actions with the bread and cup. As he was "made known to them
in the breaking of the bread," so the risen and ascended Christ can be
known to us in Holy Communion. As he disappeared and sent the disciples into
the world with faith and joy, so he sends us forth into the world. And as those
disciples found Christ when they arrived at Jerusalem later that evening, so we
can find Christ with us wherever we go. (UMBOW)
The complete pattern of
Christian worship for the Lord's Day is Word and Table-the gospel is proclaimed
in both Word and sacrament. 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. (This Holy Mystery)
And yet, to this day,
few local churches here in the MEA holds weekly Communion. They see its
practice as alien—even antithetical—to genuine Methodism. It is thought that
constant—weekly to daily communion—is a practice confined to the Roman Catholic
Church that the United Methodist Church must not imitate, as they find it
legalistic. Despite that, it must be realized that constant communion should be
the norm for all Christian worship—and not just for Catholics and Methodists, for
two main reasons.
First, all commands of
Christ, including those given during the Supper before his crucifixion, are
understood to be obeyed at all times. Notwithstanding the differences of
understanding regarding the Eucharist between Luther, Calvin and Wesley, they
were unanimous in believing that the celebration of the Lord’s Supper must at
the very least be done weekly every Sunday worship.[i]
But most importantly, in
the Book of Acts, the direct disciples of Christ—especially the
apostles—interpreted the command to break bread in memory of him as a daily
duty.
Acts 2:42, 46-47 And
they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship
[koinonia], to the breaking of bread and the prayers. ... And every day, attending the temple together
and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and
generous hearts, praising God and having favour with all the people. And the
Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.
John Wesley, commenting
upon this text, writes, “So their daily Church communion consisted in these
four particulars: Hearing the word; Having all things common; Receiving the
Lord's Supper; Prayer.”
Notice that in the
Gospel lesson we read, Christ took great lengths to prove that his resurrection
was a physical reality. He exhibited
the trauma wounds of his execution, and he ate physical food in their presence.
This was specifically to counter the notion that salvation is primarily
spiritual, just as the old enemy of the apostles—the Gnostics—believed.
S. John 6:53-54 So Jesus said to them, “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 you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal
life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
… this new life is
spread not only by purely mental acts like belief, but by bodily acts like baptism
and Holy Communion. … There is no good trying to be more spiritual than God.
God never meant man to be a purely spiritual creature. That is why He uses
material things like bread and wine to put the new life into us. We may think
this rather crude and unspiritual. God does not: He invented eating. He likes
matter. He invented it. (C. S. Lewis, “The Practical Conclusion,” Mere Christianity.)
That the words “Do
this...” is in the form of a command should make us realize that the only
options open to us are to obey or disobey. John Wesley wrote in Sermon 101: The Duty of Constant Communion,
“… if we consider THE LORD'S SUPPER AS A COMMAND OF CHRIST, no man can have any
pretence to Christian piety, who does not receive it (NOT ONCE A MONTH, BUT) AS
OFTEN AS HE CAN.” This is not a suggestion that can be voted upon in the
Committee on Worship or the Church Council—one might as well vote whether the
command to love one another should be only done once a year or once a month. It
is either “Do,” or “Do not”: “There is no try,” as Yoda would put it.[ii]
The concept of constant
communion is an official doctrine not
only of the UMC but of all major historical Protestant bodies. According to our
Book of Discipline, John Wesley’s sermons—including his sermon on the duty of
constant communion—are specifically included as one of the standards of UMC
doctrine, and is the official understanding of the Methodist Article of
Religion XIII. To subject this doctrine to a vote by either committee or
council is to tread dangerous ground. To vote against constant communion is to
discourage it, and is a vote against an official church doctrine.[iii]
Constant
communion is a necessary part of the act of repentance, the forgiveness of
sins, and the proclamation of Christ’s death, resurrection and second coming.
[i] Again,
all the early Protestant Reformers recommend the weekly celebration of Holy
Communion:
a) Martin
Luther (Lutheran) says, “In conclusion, since we have now the true
understanding and doctrine of the Sacrament [of Holy Communion], there is
indeed need of some admonition and exhortation, that men may not let so great a
treasure which is daily administered and distributed among
Christians pass by unheeded, that is, that those who would be Christians make
ready to receive this venerable Sacrament often. … it must be known that
such people as deprive themselves of, and withdraw from, the Sacrament so long
a time are not to be considered Christians. For Christ has not
instituted it to be treated as a show, but has commanded His Christians to eat
and drink it, and thereby remember Him,” (The Large Catechism, 39 &
42).
b) John
Calvin (Presbyterian) says, “That such was the practice of the Apostolic
Church, we are informed by Luke in the Acts, when he says that “they continued
steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread,
and in prayers” (Acts 2:42). Thus we ought always to provide that no
meeting of the Church is held without the word, prayer, the dispensation
of the Supper, and alms. We may gather from Paul that this was the
order observed by the Corinthians, and it is certain that this was the practice
many ages after. … Each week, at least, the table of the Lord ought to
have been spread for the company of Christians, and the promises
declared on which we might then spiritually feed,” (Institutes of the
Christian Religion, Book 4, Chap. 17, 44 & 46).
c)
John Wesley (Anglican/Methodist) says, “…it is the duty of every Christian to
receive the Lord’s Supper as often as he can. … if we consider the Lord’s
Supper as a command of Christ, no man can have any pretense to Christian piety,
who does not receive it (not once a month but) as often as
he can,” (The Duty of Constant Communion, 2.21., 1787) “I also
advise the Elders to administer the supper of the Lord on every Lord’s
day [i.e., EVERY SUNDAY],” (John Wesley, “Letter to Dr. Coke, Mr.
Asbury and our Brethren in North America”, Bristol, September 10, 1784, 4.).
[ii] In
other words, no ordained elder actually needs the permission of the laity to start weekly Eucharist, as the entire raison d'être of ordained elders is to
administer the sacrament of Holy Communion. If all they wanted is to preach,
then they need not even be ordained as elders: they can be lay preachers or
even ordained deacons. Wesley advised his ordained elders to administer the
Lord’s Supper every Sunday. In the UMC today, elders upon ordination promise to
be loyal to the UMC’s order, LITURGY, DOCTRINE and discipline. And right in the
centre of both the liturgy and doctrine of the UMC is the necessity of weekly
communion. So, technically speaking, an elder—whether commissioned or
ordained—who does NOT administer the Lord’s Supper at least weekly is breaking his ordination vows and is disobedient
to the order and discipline of the UMC. If he teaches that at least weekly
communion is not necessary or not a duty, he is disseminating doctrines
contrary to the established standards of doctrine of The United Methodist
Church. BOTH OF THESE ARE CHARGEABLE
OFFENSES (UM-BOD ¶ 2702.d, e). Furthermore, if he prevents another pastor from
fulfilling his ordination vow to be loyal to the UMC’s order, LITURGY, DOCTRINE
and discipline through the weekly administration of the Eucharist, he is guilty
of “behaviour that undermines the ministry of another pastor” (UM-BOD ¶
2702.f), which is another chargeable offense.
Unfortunately,
the reason why most elders do not administer the Eucharist as often as they
should is because the laity do NOT encourage them to do so, and in fact
DISCOURAGE them from fulfilling their ordination vows. Worship committees and
local church councils deign to vote upon the execution of what they are already
obliged to accept. Think about it—if a
committee/council votes “No” against weekly Eucharist, they have just gone
against the standards of doctrine of the UMC, as well as the authoritative contemporary statement of
UMC’s understanding of Holy Communion. In fact, it is a challenge to the
Episcopal polity of the UMC, making the local congregation the final arbiter of
doctrine and practice. As such, many elders are more afraid of mere human
authority than they are of God. They are not afraid of disobeying Christ, but
they fear the council chairperson or the a committee head or a financial
secretary more.
So, in the end, it is the laity’s fault why
elders are SO afraid to do their duty. They dare usurp the authority
to vote against what is Christ’s command. Elders are so afraid to offend their
congregants by making the worship service too long that they deliberately
ignore their vow to be LOYAL to the LITURGY AND DOCTRINE of the UMC and have
the Lord’s Supper only once a month. The trauma of being rejected by the local
church and transferred continually because of it affects not only the pastors
but their families who often become the pastor’s worst enemies when they
persuade their clergy dads/moms to compromise their integrity just so they do
not get transferred yet again. The
laity, aware of this, constantly pit clergy spouses and their children against
pastors just so they can manipulate the clergy to do their bidding. And the
clergy under their control are set to destroy those of the clergy who do desire
to REALLY be loyal to the UMC.
And if a
pastor, keeping his integrity refuses to compromise the UMC’s stand and does
what he should do by administering weekly the Eucharist, it is the laity who
destroy his passion for the sacraments by having him ordained as a deacon which
has no inherent sacramental authority. What greater insult can be added to this
injury, that one whose passion is the Lord’s Supper cannot now celebrate as
often as he can because he is not allowed to by his rector and restricted by
the very nature of his ordination to deacon? All because the majority of the
laity do not want long “boring” church services so as not be late for Sunday
golf and malling!!!
[iii] Plainly
put, the qualitative measure of a
genuine church is the presence of people of faith (no matter how few), the
preaching of the pure Word of God (i.e., the Holy Scriptures) and the
dispensation of the Sacraments, particularly Holy Communion. To be blunt, most
of the Sunday worship services in most local churches (including St. John UMC)
are NOT complete worship services, and technically no visible church of Christ
is present except when the Lord’s Supper is celebrated. This is because it is THROUGH the Eucharist that we become the Body of
Christ (1 Corinthians 10:17). Fire needs three things to exist: a) fuel, b)
heat, and c) oxygen. Without even just one of these three things, and NO fire
is present. In the same way, for a Church to exist, it need three things: a)
people of faith [fuel], b) the proclamation of Holy Scripture [heat], and c)
the Sacraments [oxygen]. Even if there are people of faith where the Holy
Scripture is proclaimed, in the absence of the Eucharist, NO CHURCH IS PRESENT,
and at best what happened was merely a prayer meeting. THIS is what Methodist
Article of Religion 13 meant and still means today.
Unfortunately,
all the laity ever think about is quantitative
measures of a “church”—how many members, how many participants, how many
attended, how many activities, how many and how much. What these laity do NOT
understand is that a “church” may have
several thousand members and attendees, and have so many church activities and
programs—but if that group is consistently missing at least one mark of the
visible church, IT IS NOT A CHURCH. It will not matter if they report to
Christ, “'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in
your name, and do many signs and wonders in your name?'” Then Christ will tell
them, “I never knew you; depart from me, you violators of the Law! If you loved
me, you would have kept my commandments.”
You see,
what makes a church is not how many members are being “saved” each time, if by
being saved they were led through an unbiblical prayer and then get entertained
every Sunday by the choir/band. What
makes a Church, even if they have only a membership of two, is the faith its
members REALLY have (not feeling—faith does not mean “feeling blessed”), the
Holy Scriptures proclaimed without interpretation and without change, and the
Sacraments duly administered EVERY TIME the members meet. Here is the true
Church, not some counterfeit that places quantity over quality.
