Category Archives: Sacraments

On the Authenticity of the Great Commission

Looking over the whole Lead thread on CWOB, this brief aside from Donald Schell jumped out at me:

I will note that ‘The Great Commission’ a poorly attested addition and arguably late addition to Matthew’s Gospel

Ok—let’s talk about this. I’ve seen this kind of thing in several places and it is begging for some informed discussion.

Basically, the bibles that we read from in church are “eclectic texts”. What does this mean? It means that they are translated from a base Greek text that has been compiled from literally thousands of manuscripts by hundreds of scholars who have been at work on this process for about a hundred and fifty years. The goal of this eclectic text is to recover the earliest possible form of the text; to read the books of the New Testament in the state in which they left the authors’ pens—or, at least, the best that we can do towards that.

Our evidence consists of three major bodies of Greek texts and two additional categories. We have three types of Greek biblical texts determined by style of writing and materials which is roughly correlated to age: papyri, uncials, and miniscules.

Papyri tend to be the oldest. That is, we have papyrus fragments of the New Testament that date anywhere from the 7th century (fairly late) to roughly the year 200 (the celebrated papyrus P46). The problem is that the papyri tend to be fragmentary meaning that we only have bits and pieces. P46, for instance, only has parts of the Pauline Letters. Most contain only a few verses. So—they’re old, but very spotty.

Uncials get their name from their letters—all uppercase. Many papyri (particularly the earlier ones) are written in these letters two but the key difference between the two is material: the uncial manuscripts were written on parchment (prepared skin) rather than papyrus (early fiber paper). As a result, the uncials preserved a heck of a lot better than the papyrus. Uncials containing large sections of the Bible were big projects and expensive to produce in Antiquity—we only get them after the legalization of Christianity. Thus, our best, most trustworthy, and most extensive witnesses to the NT text are the big early uncials. There’s a handful of them that are considered the primo references often referred to as the Great Uncials.

Then we have the miniscules. They’re called this because they’re written in lower case characters and they tend to be later than the uncials.

The two other categories are early translations from the Greek into other languages, and citations from the Church Fathers. The latter will become quite important in a moment so file that away…

A whole bunch of Germans (other people too—but mostly Germans) have dedicated their scholarly lives to going through all of the little bits and manuscripts and have sorted them based on the quality of their readings. The best manuscripts are those with the most careful and accurate scribes and that give us a faithful reproduction of the text. Because of their work, we can rank the various manuscripts and sources on how well they represent the earliest recoverable text by specific books. The best are referred to as the “First-Order Witnesses” and these are the places where we go when we want to see what a text said.

Basic procedure for assembling an eclectic text, therefore, is to start with the major first-order witness uncials, create the text where they agree, then supplement from any papyri that are earlier than the actual base uncials in question. Miniscules provide minor evidence.

Going back to original claim on the authenticity of Matthew 28:19 let’s be very clear: There are no first-order witnesses that omit any part of this verse as we are familiar with it. None. One of the major later unicals (D) adds in a “now” that also appears in early pre-Vulgate Latin versions and two uncials (B and D) have a slightly different form of the participle “baptizing”, but  nothing is missing. There are no surviving papyri of Matthew earlier than the Great Uncials that contain this verse. Remember, the papyri are fragmentary—we don’t have an old one that covers this section.

So—where is this claim coming from if there is no hint of it whatsoever in the actual manuscript evidence? A dude named Conybeare noticed that when the early Church Father Eusebius of Caesarea (died 340) cited this verse—and he did it a couple of times—that he consistently cited it in a different form: “Go ye therefore and make disciples of all the nations in my name”. No mention of baptism or of the Triune formula. The argument goes that since Eusebius was writing before the Great Uncials were written, and since Eusebius was relying on the great text-critical work of Origen, he may be referring to an earlier form of the text than the Great Uncials.

Thus, one Father may have recourse to an earlier form. However, nobody else writes it that way and, by way of counter-example, we have Tertullian (died 220 or so) citing the usual form of the verse in his treatise On Baptism (Ch. 13).

The problem with this argument is that there is no way that it can be disproven. We can establish that Tertullian writing around the year 200 in North Africa knew the standard text but that doesn’t rule out Conybeare’s suggestion.

The big problem, as I see it, is that Conybeare’s suggestion (also forwarded by Kirsopp Lake and other contemporaries) rests entirely on a textual paradigm of citation. That is, the assumption is that Eusebius is looking up every passage and copying it word-for-word from an older and possibly unique text that also happens to be better than all of the surviving ones. Rather than, say, writing it from memory in the form he likes it best…

I’ve noted in my other research that Eusebius’s version of the Beatitudes actually was different from the received version—he flips Matt 5:4 and 5. So does Origen, the Great Uncial D, and some of the Latin, Syriac, and Boharic translations. Note that—here there was a material change and it leaves a number of footprints in the tradition…

Furthermore, the Eusebius theory fits handily into a philosophical construct favored by certain modern folks. That is, some people believe that the Church only gradually came to think of a Trinity and therefore they view any mention of the Trinity with suspicion and call it a late addition to the text whether there’s any textual warrant for it or not.

The claim, again, is this:

I will note that ‘The Great Commission’ a poorly attested addition and arguably late addition to Matthew’s Gospel

The evidence is this:

  • The verse appears as received in all of the first-order witness that contain it.
  • One Church Father, Eusebius writing in the early 300s, writes it differently
  • Other earlier Church Fathers don’t write it differently
  • In other cases where Eusebius was looking at a genuinely different text we see signs of that change in other text traditions

On the strength of the actual evidence, then, we’ve got to conclude that, contra the starting claim, the Great Commission in its familiar form is very well attested textually and there is only one hint read through a particular philosophical construct to the contrary.

QED: Not buyin’ it.

The Difference

So—what’s the difference between the Last Supper and when Jesus fed 5,000 not counting women and children on the mountainside? It’s all the same basic meal practice, right?

Wrong.

The difference? All thirteen attendees of the Last Supper died for their faith—except (tradition tells us) St. John who died in exile. No word on the fates of the 5000+…

 

CWOB and the Diocese of Connecticut

This resolution passed at the convention of the Diocese of Connecticut:

Resolution #10: year-long Dialogue on Communion of the Unbaptized PASSED AS AMENDED

This resolution was much debated as well. It started with an amendment to change “open communion” to “communion of the unbaptized” for clarification. which passed.

Final language: RESOLVED:  That the 227th Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut declares a year for theological and catechetical reflection, dialogue, discussion, conversation and listening among parishes of this diocese on “Communion of the Unbaptized” [welcoming all, baptized or not, to Holy Communion]; and be it further,
RESOLVED:  That the laity make their voices heard to the bishop and clergy as they explore this sacrament.

Couple of things here…

First, I’m wary of the words “dialogue” and “conversation” in the Episcopal Church. This generally seems to be shorthand for: “We know better than you on this topic and we’re going to have a ‘dialogue’ until you see the error of your ways and agree with me at which point our dialogue will be done.” I will be very interested to see what form this “dialogue” takes. What sort of theological and catechetical material will be used to guide the reflection?

Who really will get to have a voice at the table?

…And that brings me to my second thing…

What the heck does that last line mean? Let’s take another look at it: “That the laity make their voices heard to the bishop and clergy as they explore this sacrament.” What is the rhetorical purpose and the political valence of this sentence?

Two options immediately present themselves.

The first is a simple and straight-forward wish that all orders of ministry will have an opportunity to have a say in the matter. Well, yeah—isn’t this kind of the point of our whole process? Isn’t this how our polity is different from the COE and other Anglican churches? Perhaps I’ve been in church circles too long but this seems a little too much like wide-eyed naivete; I’m feeling something a little disingenuous here…

The second is a sneaking suspicion that the appeal to “the laity” is an attempt to stack the deck. I truly believe that the current argument around CWOB is neither a theological nor a sacramental argument. Instead, it’s an issue of identity that rests primarily upon an emotional appeal. That is, I think it’s less about theology and a lot more about how we perceive ourselves and shape the face we offer to the world; CWOB advocates intend it as a message that we are open, inclusive, and welcoming. I have no problem with framing ourselves this way–but CWOB is not the way to do it!!

Are the folks behind this line thinking that the laity will be swayed more by this sort of an emotional appeal than a theological one?

I wouldn’t be a bit surprised to see more resolutions like this popping up a conventions going forward . This will be a very important resolution and “dialogue” to follow over the coming year.

Canadian Bishops on CWOB

I’ve been away from the computer for a while or, at least not in the blogging Anglican circles. I was alerted to an interesting news item by a friend of the blog. Looking back on the various sites that I frequent, I find it interesting that none of them has made mention of the recent meeting of the Canadian House of Bishops. At their just concluded meeting they “unanimously reaffirmed that the sacrament of the holy Eucharist is to be given only to those baptized in the Christian faith.”

Read more about it here.

Needless to say, I applaud the bishops for their decision. There is a logic to our sacramental rites that moves from Baptism to Eucharist. If anything, this was greatly enhanced by the 1979 Prayer Book. The new elevation of Baptism is an innovation, but I think a positive one. Any movement to degrade the position of Baptism is a clear step away from both the logic and theology of the Christian Church throughout the ages, and a big step away from the direction our prayer book leads.

I can only hope the American House of Bishops will issue a similar statement.

CWOB Posts: A Post-Mortem

My presentation for the Society of Catholic Priests on Communion without Baptism (CWOB) went up on the Episcopal Cafe last week. Due to its length, it was broken up into three parts:

The goal was to provoke thought about the issue and I think we did. Jim tells me that as of today, the pieces have a received a total of 5,800 page views. (How many of those were unique I don’t know,  but it’s still a lot of pondering…)

I think we reached a record on number of comments as well. Over the course of the series we had 138 comments. Editorial conflation of some edits drops the true number to 134.

What’s significant is that of these 134 comments, there were only 25 total commenters. Of these 25, 8 were responsible for 74% of the comments (100).  Within these, there were some clear “identities”.

  • 28 were from a couple who chooses to play the role of “village atheist” on the site
  • 34 were supporting the piece and were advocating for the traditional order of things (16 of these were my own comments)
  • 24 were defending the communing of the unbaptized from the “liberal establishment”
  • 14 were from a fellow contributor who seems to agree more with the traditional position but who was playing the role of “gadfly”

So—the comments display sustained argument within a small group with set convictions. While there was much discussion, I think there was little true give-and-take. I’m not about to change my position and neither were my interlocutors. On the whole, then, we may well have produced more heat than light in the comments.

A few thoughts on what I did see in the comments…

  1. Lack of Engagement. I didn’t see much engagement with the issues I was raising in the main body of the text. In particular, I think my main contribution to the debate was the notion of purpose, that “Discipleship, communal transformation into the Mind of Christ and love of God, is the fundamental pattern in the sacramental economy.” That’s not to say there was no engagement—Sara Miles and Donald Schell did address this topic albeit insufficiently to my mind. Far and away, though the conversation continually  returned to the notion of “inclusion”. Note this and note it well. What I take from this finding is that the center of the discussion about CWOB is not around sacramental theology. This is fundamentally not a debate about theology. If we continue to argue it as if it were a theological debate, we will go unheard and the majority of the church can and will be persuaded that CWOB is a good idea.
  2. The Proper Place of Inclusion.  I believe that most of the people arguing for CWOB believe that they are doing so for the right reasons, and I think that this movement is driven far more by identity issues than theology issues.  The Episcopal Church is branding itself as the welcoming church, the inclusive church. As this concept filters through the body, practices that appear to be unwelcoming or uninclusive are viewed by more and more as anti-Episcopal. I think that most people in our pews want to be nice and make people feel welcome. Too, they want to believe that their parish is the kind of place that makes people feel welcome and included (whether unbaptized people ever show up or not). One of the brief one-off comments encapsulates this view perfectly: “Perhaps giving communion to the unbaptized is the community welcoming the stranger?” This is the view that has and is taking root. Now—we don’t want to argue against inclusion for two reasons: 1) it really is part of the full Gospel message—that’s what the movement of grace to the gentiles is all about; 2) no argument is going to be won from a rhetorical perspective by being “anti-inclusion” or “anti-welcoming.” It’s just not going to fly (especially since it’s not what we really mean either). So—the discussion needs to be re-framed somehow. If, in a discussion around the topic of CWOB, you find yourself being portrayed as the “anti-” side in an argument for or against inclusion or welcoming, you got to take a step back and re-frame the debate. How—well, that’s the question, isn’t it? My current strategy is to move from Communion to Baptism. We are very inclusive when it comes to Baptism. We do want to welcome and include people at the altar and the way that we do that is by not only welcoming them to the altar but welcoming them to the font (first). Additional re-framing thoughts are welcome.
  3. What You Call It Matters. I noticed a new tack I hadn’t seen before in the comments: referring to Communion Before Baptism. I find this term very unhelpful because it elides away a major problem. One of the central problems of CWOB is that it does not take place within a communal sacramental framework that leads through Baptism to Discipleship. The use of “before” instead of “without” implies that Baptism will follow. And I simply don’t believe that the implication is true. I would be somewhat less concerned if I believed that follow-through were occurring and that those who communed out of ignorance or through misguided hospitality were directed from there to Baptism and discipleship—but that follow-through is fundamentally not on the radar for most places doing CWOB. And this may be one of the big differences between a place like St Gregory of Nyssa and other parishes. My sense is that St Gregory’s does do a better job at follow-through and, as a result, Donald Schell can point to people like Sara Miles who did come to discipleship through this process. But St Gregory’s is not the norm for places that offer CWOB.

Those are my thoughts—what are yours?

Discernment or Death: The Interpretation of 1 Cor 11:27-34

In the discussion of the Communion without Baptism, at some point the discussion inevitably turns to—or at least towards—1 Cor 11:27-34:

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some of died. But if we have judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world. So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another–if any one is hungry, let him eat at home–lest you come together to be condemned. (RSV)

What exactly is Paul saying here? I think sometimes th first section is pulled out of context—but. Paul is connecting unworthy reception of the Eucharist to becoming ill and dying and to waiting for one another.

What I haven’t seen recently in the debate is a sufficient unpacking of this cluster of thoughts. What’s the connection between reception and death? Paul is being allusive here. Is he alluding to a supernatural punishment for those who eat and drink unworthily? Is he alluding to a social problem in the community where some are sick and weak from lack of food and Paul is complaining that the social & ecclesial dimensions of the Eucharistic feeding are being lost?

How do you read what’s going on here?

On the Eucharistic Fast

Here’s a piece, lightly excerpted, written for a different context, but which may be of interest here…

What is the Eucharistic Fast?

The Historical Practice

The Eucharistic fast, stated most simply, is the practice of not receiving food or drink before the reception of the Sacrament. Exactly how long this fast should be is a matter of discussion and of personal piety relating to changes within broader catholic custom.

When the practice began in the Church is lost in the mists of the first few Christian centuries. Tertullian, writing around 200, appears to make an oblique reference to the practice in To his Wife 2.5. We can say with certainty, however, that by the fourth century, the reception of the Eucharist fasting was widespread. In his Letter 54, St Augustine writes to Januarius to clarify how different practices of liturgy and piety should be followed; in his discussion of Maundy Thursday practices mentions that the Eucharistic fast is a custom of the universal church (Ep. 54.6.8). A confirmation of this practice is found in canon 41 of the Council of Carthage from 419 which appears to be replicating decrees from earlier councils held in 393 and 397:

That the Sacraments of the Altar are not to be celebrated except by those who are fasting, except on the one anniversary of the celebration of the Lord’s Supper; for if the commemoration of some of the dead, whether bishops or others, is to be made in the afternoon, let it be only with prayers, if those who officiate have already breakfasted.

As a result, the custom of the Churches both East and West from as early as we can determine was to receive the Eucharist fasting, defined, in this case, as neither eating nor drinking from the preceding midnight after Mass. The eastern churches still follow this custom, but with differences in practice on exactly when the fast begins; some start at midnight, some start at Vespers or at sundown on the day before.

Pope Pius XII

In the liturgical revisions that led up to the Second Vatican Council, though, changes were made in the legislation of the Roman Catholic observation of this practice. In 1953, Pope Pius XII penned the Apostolic Constitution Dominus Christus that revisited the practice of the Eucharistic fast. The constitution is marked by both a reverence for the tradition and a realization that the practice could jeopardize frequent reception of the Eucharist given the structuring of time in the modern world. Indeed, the first canon confirms the traditional practice altering only the status of water:

I. The law of the Eucharistic fast from midnight continues in force for all of those who do not come under the special conditions which We are going to set forth in this Apostolic Letter. In the future it shall be a general and common principle for all, both priests and faithful, that natural water does not break the Eucharistic fast.

The second through the fifth rules allow non-alcoholic beverages if necessary, but prevents priests from drinking one hour before beginning a Mass. Not until the sixth rule is there a significant change; in this rule, evening masses on days of obligation (or any day in mission territories) are allowed and in regard to those only, the priest and faithful are required to abstain from food and alcohol for three hours and from other beverages for one hour.

In 1957, Pius XII returned to the topic again at the insistence of the bishops. In the Motu Proprio Sacram Communionem, he extended the new rules to all Masses:

2. Priests and faithful, before Holy Mass or Holy Communion respectively, must abstain for three hours from solid foods and alcoholic liquids, for one hour from non- alcoholic liquids. Water does not break the fast.

3. From now on, the fast must be observed for the period of time indicated in Number Two, even by those who celebrate or receive Holy Communion at midnight or in the first hours of the day.

4. The infirm, even if not bedridden, may take nonalcoholic liquids and that which is really and properly medicine, either in liquid or solid form, before Mass or Holy Communion without any time limit.

We strongly exhort priests and faithful who are able to do so to observe the old and venerable form of the Eucharistic fast before Mass and Holy Communion. All those who will make use of these concessions must compensate for the good received by becoming shining examples of a Christian life and principally with works of penance and charity.

Once again, the former fast is upheld as an ideal, but the changes are promulgated for the sake of continuing Eucharistic devotion in the new post-war world and economy.

The Second Vatican Council

In the broad changes across the liturgical board that occurred in Vatican II, three changes in quick succession altered the custom of the Eucharistic fast. In January of 1964, the means of calculating the fasting period was equalized—for both clergy and laity the fast was to be calculated according to when they would receive the Eucharist within the Mass. In November of the same year, Pope Paul VI announced a concession:

In view of the difficulties in many places regarding the Eucharistic fast, Pope Paul VI, acceding to the requests of the bishops, grants that the fast from solid food is shortened to one hour before communion in the case of both priests and faithful. The concession also covers use of alcoholic beverages, but with proper moderation being observed. (Documents of the Liturgy, 272, 2117)

Finally, the instruction Immensae caritatis from 1973 on reception in special circumstances allowed a fast of a quarter-hour for the sick and those who are in the act of ministering to them.

Why Follow the Eucharistic Fast?

Having discussed what it is, we now consider what it means. The first step is to state what it is not; the Eucharistic fast is not a penitential fast. In a penitential fast—as during Lent—we deprive the body of food as we remind the soul to abstain from sin; we deny the body in order to more perfectly discipline our members according to Christ’s will; we abstain from the pleasures of food and satiety as an act of contrition for sins committed, vices indulged, and virtues forgone.

But none of these are the purpose of the Eucharistic fast. Indeed, this penitential fasting is, by long-standing Church law, not permitted on Sundays, all of which are celebratory feasts of the Resurrection.

Now we turn to what the fast is. The proper purpose is proved by Augustine in the aforementioned Letter 54. He reminds Januarius:

…for from that time [of the earliest Church] it pleased the Holy Spirit to appoint, for the honour of so great a sacrament, that the body of the Lord should take the precedence of all other food entering the mouth of a Christian; and it is for this reason that the custom referred to is universally observed. (Ep. 54.6)

According to Augustine, this practice makes literally true what we believe to be spiritually true. The Eucharist is the first and greatest sustenance for Christians; it is to be preferred above all other means of nourishment, physical and spiritual. Through the Eucharistic fast our priorities are demonstrated physically as the Eucharist becomes the first food of the day for us. In Augustine’s context of daily Eucharist, then, the practice presented a great symbol to the Church: for the faithful, their “daily bread,” the first food that passed their lips each morning, was their spiritually-first and greatest meal, the very bread of angels. The Eucharistic fast, therefore, was a practice that honored the place of the Eucharist in the life of faith and promoted the proper ordering of Christian priorities: the intimate union between Christ and his faithful in the Eucharist should hold pride of place in our hearts and in our days.

In today’s Episcopal context it is very rare to find a parish that offers daily morning Masses where this symbol may be enacted. Even though our culture and its structuring of time prevents us from honoring the Eucharist in this way, the fast still provides an opportunity for recollecting that the Eucharist is our primary means of nourishment as Christians. Even when evening Masses are held and a full day’s fast is untenable, an afternoon’s abstinence can call to mind the importance and pre-eminence of the Sacrament; recollecting the bread of angels to be had that evening, a mid-afternoon snack may be deferred as we prefer the “bread that satisfies” over a nutritionally and theologically transient bag of pretzels or can of soda.

Best Practices for the Eucharistic Fast

Given the history and theology of the Eucharistic fast, we may note a few points. First, present Catholic Custom obliges us to fast for one hour before reception of the Sacrament. This represents a minimum rule enacted for the sake of maximal participation in the Eucharist—that all who are called to the supper of the Lamb may come. Second, in honor of the sacrament, however, a more robust practice may be recommended. Pius XII’s Dominus Christus seems to hit the best note given our cultural situation. That is, whenever possible and medically appropriate, the traditional fast ought to be kept. In the case of evening Eucharists, the three hour rule seems reasonable. This method gives pride of place to the traditional practice, yet understands the scheduling issues with which our patristic forebearers did not have to contend. Third, the fast is maintained for the glory of and preparation for the Eucharist. It should never be a legalistic or pharisaical tool to put down others. Like many worthy Anglican practices, no one should be compelled to follow it, but all should be invited to understand and participate in it.

On Auricular Confession in the Anglican Churches

This is a snippet from a forthcoming article that M and I wrote; feel free to pile on any other thoughts on Confession:

The Anglican Exhortation and its understanding of confession and reconciliation stand squarely within the tradition of Omnis utriusque sexus and the Augsburg Confession. Two Exhortations stand before the Eucharistic liturgy in the 1549 book. The first exhorts the congregation to search their souls and gauge their readiness before receiving the Eucharist. The second is to be used when the congregation is negligent to come and receive. Indeed, its very purpose is to encourage congregants to come and receive and to do anything necessary that would enable them to come. It states in part:

And yf there bee any of you, whose conscience is troubled and greved in any thing, lackyng comforte or counsaill, let him come to me, or to some other dyscrete and learned priest, taught in the law of God, and confesse and open his synne and griefe secretly, that he may receive suche ghostly counsaill, advyse, and comfort, that his conscience maye be releved, and that of us (as of the ministers of GOD and of the churche) he may receive comfort and absolucion, to the satisfaccion of his mynde, and avoyding of all scruple and doubtfulnes: requiryng suche as shalbe satisfied with a generall confession, not to be offended with them that doe use, to their further satisfiyng, the auriculer and secret confession to the Priest: nor those also whiche thinke nedefull or convenient, for the quietnes of their awne consciences, particuliarly to open their sinnes to the Priest: to bee offended with them that are satisfied, with their humble confession to GOD, and the generall confession to the churche. But in all thinges to folowe and kepe the rule of charitie, and every man to be satisfied with his owne conscience, not judgyng other mennes myndes or consciences; where as he hath no warrant of Goddes word to the same.[i]

Following both Omnis utriusque sexus and the Augsburg Confession, this exhortation connects the rite of reconciliation directly to purification for the reception of the Eucharist. Unlike Omnis utriusque sexus and in line with certain Reformation understandings, it considers a general confession and absolution sufficient for the church’s role in purification.[ii] Further, in line with Reformation teaching, aural confession is recommended in the case of the disquieted conscience. The definitive statement, then, is that none must undergo the rite, but it is available for those souls who require it for the quieting of the conscience.


[i] 1549 Book of Common Prayer. Online: http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1549/ Communion_1549.htm. Accessed Nov 28th, 2007.

[ii] Despite their insistences to the contrary, the Lutheran churches moved to general confessions rather than retaining individual examination and confession. While it has been revived in certain times and places, the practice of private absolution has fallen into disuse in Lutheran circles.

The Costs of Communion

One of the Fathers asked Abba John the Dwarf, ‘What is a monk?’ He said, ‘He is toil. The monk toils at all he does. That is what a monk is.’

Then Jesus said to all, “If any would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake, he will save it.” (Luke 9:23-24; compare Matthew 16:24-28 and Mark 8:34-9:1)

“He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it.” (Matthew 10:37-39; compare Luke 14:26-27)

I must draw your attention to two things. First, the comments by BSnyder at the end of this thread are very much worth reading. BSnyder taps into something important and muchly overlooked it seems to me. Receiving the Eucharist isn’t just about whether or not a visitor’s feelings get hurt which seems to be one of the major lenses for this conversation; rather it’s about binding yourself to the life of God which may have dramatic and even negative consequences for your health and well-being. Of the first thirteen who partook of the first Lord’s Supper in that Jerusalem upper room, tradition informs us that only one died of old age. The others, without exception, suffered a violent death for their expression of faith.

There are consequences to this faith.

Second, Christopher has written a very engaging post on this topic which again addresses the broader implications and, like BSnyder’s comments, connects reception of the sacrament to the realities of our existence and our spiritual travails:

Can CWOB at its best be practice of assurance in the same way as Baptism done? What does it mean to nibble at the edges and never take the plunge? Or to eat frequently and be drawn into a leap of trust? Can I fall back on Communion in the same way I can always fall back on Baptism when the Tempter whispers lies that I am other than God’s in Christ? To my mind, CWOB precisely because of the nature of Holy Communion to be ongoing may imply rather the very thing the likes of Maurice and Ramsey after found troubling in certain positions on Baptism, that somehow we can fall out of God’s irrevocable adoption. The singular nature of Baptism, on the other hand. In darkest night, I do not cry out, “I am communed.” I rebuke, “I am baptized.”

God’s give-away of grace, I trust will not be spurned by those who receive Communion and never come back. I need not protect God’s grace, but I do need to take care that others understand that grace and its power and implications for their lives. God’s works through God’s means. While CWOB implies a high Presence of Christ in Communion, does it properly warn of God’s wrestling grace?

Read and ponder as you consider CWOB and what it means for us.