The Eucharist: Handle with Care

My interest in understanding how Christians can share Holy Communion more openly led me to Jeffrey VanderWilt’s Communion with Non-Catholic Christians. VanderWilt is obviously writing from a Roman Catholic perspective, intending to convince Catholics of his views. Still, I find his second chapter, “Risks or Some Reasons for Caution in Eucharistic Sharing,” a good summary of reasons Christians of any stripe might be hesitant about sharing Communion in a church of another denomination or in an inter-denominational setting.

To be sure, this entire conversation will seem alien to those for whom “open Communion” has always been a given. I appreciate VanderWilt’s effort to dig into the issue theologically for the benefit of those who approach the issue from a different starting point. If this is not an issue for you, please come back later.

Here are the risks, as VanderWilt sees them:

1. Failing to agree in Eucharistic doctrine.
2. Failing to unite in the Church of Christ.
3. Failing to maintain the apostolic succession.
4. Expressing a “nonexistent” unity.
5. Indiscriminate reception of Holy Communion.

Although the terminology and the specifics are different, I expect most Christians who stumble over the possibility of Eucharistic sharing will have similar concerns. Let’s look at VanderWilt’s “risks” one by one.

1. Failing to Agree in Eucharistic Doctrine

VanderWilt writes,

Eucharistic sharing presumes that communicants hold a number of shared beliefs regarding the meaning, nature, and purpose of the Eucharist. May Catholics risk sharing Holy Communion with Christians who do not agree with us fully in their theology of the Eucharist? (53-54)

Let me assure you, Landmark Baptists face the same risk, although for them the danger is receiving Communion alongside people who believe that Communion actually does something, while for Catholics the concern is that their co-celebrants think it doesn’t.

VanderWilt’s emphasis on admitting what we cannot know about the mystery of Communion may be a healthy corrective for both. After all, the apostles in the upper room didn’t have much by way of a theology of the Eucharist, yet Jesus still deemed them worthy to receive.

To me, this is the least compelling reason for refusing to share Communion with other Christians. If we have to verify their Eucharistic theology is up to par, what are we going to do with young children or others who may not be able to express what they believe about the Lord’s Supper?

2. Failing to Unite in the Church of Christ

Since the Lord’s Supper is “a tangible sign of the visible and invisible reality of the Church” (VanderWilt, 54), questions of who is (or is not) a member of the Body of Christ are not out of bounds. There is certainly no New Testament precedent for sharing Communion with unbelievers. Meeks’ work on the sociological aspects of the Pauline churches would indicate it was assumed that only the baptized were admitted to the Table. Such is certainly the case by the end of the first century, as is seen in the Didache and other early documents.

The problem arises (for me, at least) when we try to define “church membership” strictly in terms of affiliation with an institution. Then, we run the risk of failing to appreciate how the Spirit of God is at work outside the boundaries of our own group. VanderWilt interprets the Vatican’s language about the Church of Christ “subsisting in” the Catholic Church in an evocative way:

A simple metaphor can help us think about the abundance and overflow of the Church of Christ. Sometimes at weddings, the wine steward will build a huge pyramid of champagne flutes. Once the champagne is uncorked, servers will pour whole bottles of champagne into the topmost glass. The champagne bubbles up and pours down the sides of the pyramid. Every glass is filled and overflowing into more glasses beneath it. The lowest tier of champagne glasses stand up to their hips in champagne.

This metaphor helps me envision the subsistence of the Church of God. The pyramid of champagne flutes is like the communion of local churches that comprise the Catholic Church. The champagne represents the infinite grace and mercy of God. Just as the entire pyramid of champagne glasses cannot hold all the champagne, no one communion of local churches on earth–even the Catholic Church–can contain all that grace. (73)

I’m willing to overlook the privileged place VanderWilt gives his own community of faith. Make your own tradition the purest repository of God’s revelation (What? You’ve never done that?) and the basic point is the same: the wind blows where it will, and cannot be confined by institutional boundaries.

Once again, there is certainly risk in sharing Communion with those who may not belong to Christ in the first place. As a Baptist, I resonate with the ideal of a “regenerate church membership.” But it is just that: an ideal. In the real world, there are always going to be uncertainties about such matters. What I know for sure, however, is that one’s church affiliation is not a sure guarantee that one is “in Christ,” nor is one’s membership in a church body different than mine a sure guarantee that one is out.

I’ll look at VanderWilt’s remaining risks next week.