Supper Reservations

One of the biggest questions and controversies that I have had to face as a pastor has surrounded the proper ‘fencing’ of the table of the Lord’s Supper. This past Christmas Eve I decided that the appropriate way for us to celebrate Christmas as a congregation was to celebrate the traditional Christ Mass with a communion service. As soon as the service was advertised controversy erupted within my church. Some were concerned that by celebrating on a night when people from so many other churches would be gracing our pews that they might feel awkward about whether they were able to participate freely around our church’s table; others were concerned that we would be placing the nominal or unchurched in an awkward position where they would have to chose between abstaining (and drawing attention to their abstinence) or “sinning” by participating in an unworthy manner. At the heart of the matter was how we deal with non-disciples, or even doctrinally different disciples at the table of the Lord.

The difficult thing in dealing with this criticism however is that nowhere in the Scripture is this fencing of the table advocated by the apostles. The best proof-text that a pastor will often hear against the open table is in 1 Cor. 11:27-29 where Paul critiques those who celebrate in an “unworthy manner.” But as Ben Witherington III in his book Making a Meal of It, I think rightly points out, “No one is worthy of partaking of the Lord's Supper; it's not a matter of personal worth.”  And the instructions about recognizing the body are more likely about acknowledging the communal nature of the meal in the context of the individualistic abuses of the Corinthian fellowship. Rather, Witherington traces the tradition of fencing the table back to the end of first century in an examination of the extra-canonical document the didache.

In the didache, in contrast to the canonical instructions we have on the Lord’s Supper, we have an emphatic exhortation to the church to fence the table: “But let no one eat or drink from your thanksgiving meal unless they have been baptized in the name of the Lord. For also the Lord has said "Do not give what is holy to the dogs."” Witherington hypothesizes that this allusion to Matthew 7:6 could be in response to the troubles that are mentioned in Jude 12 with the false teachers who seem to be infiltrating and corrupting the fellowship. Either way it is clear that this prohibition against a truly open table is a post-canonical development; and if it is post-canonical in nature why are we so careful still today to make sure that only the qualified participate in the meal of Christ?

In the first century we learn from history that, “these meals were not closely policed. There were no bouncers with guest lists. In this regard they were nothing like some of the closed and by-invitation-only meals of associations, secret societies, or the mystery religions.” Witherington tells us that “Christianity was an evangelistic religion, and so this meant risk for the Christian community because they were open to having guests and strangers attend their meetings.” If this is the way the early church practiced the agape feast of which the Eucharist seems to have been a part, why can we not still do that today?

John Wesley was famous (or infamous) for believing that the table of the Lord could be a place where even the most unregenerate sinner could meet Christ and become a recipient of his grace. He believed that the Spirit would do the fencing so that the celebrant didn’t have to. As Witherington says, “The minister is not called upon to fence the table, but rather to call the family of faith to dinner.” I think that in presuming that we can decide who is worthy and who is unworthy of this meal we wrongly assume the role of the host – it is Christ who invites, Christ who hosts and Christ who feeds us this meal. The disciples on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24 didn’t understand or perceive Jesus until he broke the bread; is it not at least possible that someone else might meet Jesus there, at the table, in our worship service? I know that this sounds radical, but is it not the more ‘biblical’ understanding of the meal? If pressured on the matter I would have to say that the only biblical requirements are a repentant heart and a desire to respond to the invitation of Christ. That does put a responsibility on the celebrant (I use this ‘high-church’ word to describe the officiant because I think that it more adequately encompasses the role of the pastor serving – after all it is Christ who hosts and Christ who serves and feeds his church, not the pastor) to rightly explain what the table is about so that those who come, come with an understanding of what they are doing – but I do not believe that we have the right to exclude someone from something that Jesus himself has invited them to.

Perhaps it’s time that we in the church, put aside our reservations over the supper and instead encourage whoever is present to make supper reservations with Jesus. Perhaps it’s time we allow the Holy Spirit the freedom to do his own job as the gatekeeper of the table. And perhaps it’s time we got out of Jesus’ way and allowed him to meet whomever he wants in the breaking of the bread. It seems to me that it’s in this very meal that Jesus just may open people’s eyes to who he really is.

They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together and saying, “It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon.” Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread.

Luke 24:33-35 (TNIV)