My eucharistic preference has always been for an open table, and I maintain that position, even though my current membership is with the Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod, a denomination known for excluding non-Lutherans from its Communion fellowship (though my current congregation actually maintains a mostly-open table).
My reasoning for this is simple. I believe in the universality of the Christian Church, and I will die defending its invisible unity long before I die defending my beloved Augsburg or Westminster Confessions. There’s no shortage of Christian sects in the world claiming to be the “True Church,” but Christ himself sets the bar shockingly low for being a “True Christian”:
- “And whoever in the name of a disciple gives to one of these little ones even a cup of cold water to drink, truly I say to you, he shall not lose his reward.” (Matthew 10:42)
- “But Jesus said to him, “Do not stop him, for whoever is not against you is for you.” (Luke 9:49)
No mentions of the saving power of perfect theology or of Apostolic Succession. This is why I was extremely moved by a post that PCA pastor and noted ecumenist Peter J. Leithart put up on his blog a few weeks ago entitled “Too catholic to be Catholic,” in which he writes:
Catholicism and Orthodoxy are impressive for their heritage, the seriousness of much of their theology, the seriousness with which they take Christian cultural engagement. Both, especially the Catholic church, are impressive for their sheer size. But when I attend Mass and am denied access to the table of my Lord Jesus together with my Catholic brothers, I can’t help wondering what really is the difference between Catholics and the Wisconsin Synod Lutherans or the Continental Reformed who practice closed communion. My Catholic friends take offense at this, but I can’t escape it: Size and history apart, how is Catholicism different from a gigantic sect? Doesn’t Orthodoxy come under the same Pauline condemnation as the fundamentalist Baptist churches who close their table to everyone outside? To become Catholic I would had to contract my ecclesial world. I would have to become less catholic – less catholic than Jesus is. Which is why I will continue to say: I’m too catholic to become Catholic.
He later followed this up with a couple other posts, along with a piece in First Things where he lays out his case for open Communion much more clearly. All are worth reading. Go ahead. I’ll wait.
Unfortunately, they inspired all the scorn you would expect from Catholic and Orthodox theologians (and even, sadly, from a stray Lutheran or two), who insist that the catholicity of the Christian faith subsists in the “True Church” and not in the mystical, invisible body united in Christ. In other words, one cannot be “catholic” if one is not Catholic. Or Orthodox. Or something.
Since I’m probably the absolute last person on the Internet to write about this, I’m not going to spend a lot of time arguing with specific points. However, there are several things that absolutely must be said about the Catholic-Orthodox-Prostetant infighting — so I’ll say them here:
- If there is one thing that the Old Testament’s long history tomes make clear, it’s that schism is God’s judgment upon sin. The nation of Israel split after the reign of Solomon, and neither side of the split is acquitted in the text. We see much the same thing happening in first 2,000 years of Christ’s Church. Nearly all of the schisms we’ve seen have been precipitated on arrogance, lust for power, and an astounding lack of charity.
- While I certainly have my own (muddled) theological and ecclesiological preferences (see the name of this blog), it would be supremely arrogant and theologically incorrect of me to draw the line around a narrower group than Christ himself names (see verses above).
- All of us living today inherited the ecclesiological chaos that exists. And while some still living today have added to it, none of us are truly to blame. While I think, in some sense, that God uses the present multitude of denominations to bear witness to how far-reaching his saving grace is, for the most part, our divisions are an instance of the children being punished for the sins of the fathers (Exodus 20:5). It is not the way the Church is supposed to be. We simply have to live with it, and (more importantly) do what we can in our own lifetimes to mend it.
- With that in mind, I’d say that there is little to be gained by jumping up and down and shouting, “But we’re the True Church!”
I hope that last remark doesn’t seem overly flippant. I mean no disrespect to my Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters; what I’m calling for is simply humility. Those of us who recite the Nicene Creed on Sunday mornings all agree that apostolicity is a mark of the Church; we simply disagree on how that apostolicity is manifested. Those who have the most problems with Leithart’s ideas here seem to be the ones whose churches claim Apostolic Succession, but the problem with this should be obvious. There are no less than three worldwide communions (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican) who can rightly (to one degree or another) claim Apostolic Succession. If it’s a mark of the True Church, it’s not particularly helpful in locating the True Church. And in any case, Jesus makes it clear that heritage is nothing:
And do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father’; for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham. (Matthew 3:9)
If having Abraham for your father is no guarantee of being in God’s grace, what does that say about having Peter for your father? The standard Catholic/Orthodox response to this is to insist that the Church has been preserved in a way that Israel wasn’t, but St. Paul disagrees:
You will say then, “Branches [Israel] were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. (Romans 11:19-22)
In other words, the Church is held to the same standards that Israel was. Our predecessors were grafted into the Covenant on the basis of grace, but all of us can and will be broken off again, if we don’t “continue in his kindness.”
This is why I call for humility. To continue in God’s kindness is to embrace those whom he embraces. To continue in God’s kindness is to walk in humility, depending on grace and not on heritage. To continue in God’s kindness is to accept that it’s our own sin that has torn apart the Body of Christ and stop saying to the hand or the eye “I don’t need you” (1 Corinthians 12:21). To continue in God’s kindness is to accept that we may be wrong, no matter how right we think we are.
To continue in God’s kindness is to welcome all whom Christ claims as his own to Christ’s table.
The Western Branch of American Reform Presbylutheranism 
Hi, thanks for the link – though I’m sorry you regarded my post as “scornful”, as it certainly wasn’t intended to be (though certainly I disagree with Pr Leithart on some fairly fundamental points in his argument).
I’m probably not the best person to engage with every aspect of your argument, but just to pick up one point:
Those of us who recite the Nicene Creed on Sunday mornings all agree that apostolicity is a mark of the Church; we simply disagree on how that apostolicity is manifested. Those who have the most problems with Leithart’s ideas here seem to be the ones whose churches claim Apostolic Succession, but the problem with this should be obvious. There are no less than three worldwide communions (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican) who can rightly (to one degree or another) claim Apostolic Succession. If it’s a mark of the True Church, it’s not particularly helpful in locating the True Church. And in any case, Jesus makes it clear that heritage is nothing.
Well, therein lies the problem. Like many proposals that present themselves as a reasonable compromise, respecting the integrities of all involved, what this really amounts to is saying: “Catholics and Orthodox: abandon your ecclesiology and embrace mine”. Which is a perfectly respectable argument to make; but not quite the argument you claim to be making.
Similarly the “we all agree on apostolicity, we simply disagree on how it’s manifested” reminds me of debates over the Supper in which Reformed Christians (in particular) say to Lutherans, Catholics and others: “we all agree that Christ is present, we simply disagree on how”. Lutherans and Catholics reply: “But your understanding of the real presence amounts to an outright denial of what we mean by the term”.
Of course, we need to keep talking and to seek reconciliation on all possible areas of real or apparent disagreement. But we can’t seek shortcuts of the “well, we all believe the same thing really” type.
Welcome John, and you’re certainly welcome for the link, though I doubt it will get you much traffic — this is the first real post on this blog, and I was planning to write at least a few more and get things in order before I “went public” with it. Honestly, I was shocked that this post got read at all. Ha ha.
I agree, of course, that we can’t simply throw doctrinal disagreements out the window as though they don’t mean anything, but at the same time I don’t agree that they should prevent us from feasting together on the body of our Lord, as long as we both name him in truth. Lutherans are quick to cite the condemnations of “divisions among you” in 1 Corinthians 11, but it seems to me that this passage is argument against divisions, not open Communion.
As Leithart says in his ‘First Things’ editorial, if Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, then Presbyterians and Baptists are receiving him, whether they know it or not, so in closing our tables to them, we aren’t protecting them from much of anything. (Of course, Catholics and Orthodox Christians wouldn’t agree that Protestant Eucharists have the Real Presence, but that’s another can of worms altogether.)
The real question we need to answer is, who’s putting the cart before the horse here? If Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, and Christ prays for unity in the Church, aren’t we denying both by closing Communion off to other true Christians?
And I do apologize for my use of the word “scornful” — now that you mention it, I agree it was a tad excessive. Sometimes my rhetoric gets the best of me. 🙂
Your ecclesiology is certainly more attractive than the ecclesiology of the traditional Churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, etc.). One doesn’t have to unchurch or unChristianize anyone. But it’s quite different from the ecclesiology that we find throughout Church history, which suggests that almost all generations of the Church have failed to interpret Mt 10.42 and Lk 9.49 the way that you do. Already in AD 150 St Justin Martyr could write This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, expressing the teaching that has guided the Church’s practice throughout her history. I think it is reasonable to take St Justin’s words as giving us the teaching that had been handed down from the Apostles.
As I say, your ecclesiology is more attractive, but I should be nervous to accept a teaching so much at variance with the teaching and practice of the historic Church.
You make a fair point, Chris, and I’m aware that my approach here is somewhat at odds with the Church Fathers. I often wonder whether the uniquely Protestant idea of denominationalism is so popular merely because it’s comfortable: it allows us to avoid the unpleasant possibility that “my group” is the only true church — or, worse, that we’re one of a thousand damned heresies. Still, in a world with such a divided Church, what choice do we have? (After all, Justin’s united church is long gone, whether we like it or not.) I’m willing to entertain the notion that we should work on doctrinal agreement before opening our tables up to one another, but either way, we can’t just sit here and let our wounds fester (regardless of whether our separations stem from pride and corruption or from sincerely held theological convictions).
I’m curious as to what you would do with Christ’s words in Luke 9:49. In context, he’s referring to a man who casts out demons without an apostolic ordination and he clearly rebukes the disciples for hindering the man’s activities. How do we reconcile that with an ecclesiology that teaches that Apostolic Succession is the be-all and end-all of legitimacy?
After all, Justin’s united church is long gone, whether we like it or not.
Christianity was no more unified in Justin’s day than it is in our day, nor than it had been in New Testament times. That is to say, there have always been multiple competing groups claiming to be authentic Christianity. There is no “golden age” of an undivided Church. That is why the New Testament epistles are full of warnings against false teachers and less-than-orthodox versions of Christianity. The claim of being the “one true Church” (such as Catholicism and Orthodoxy both make) is not a nostalgic look back at an undivided Church that never existed; rather, it is the claim that among the competing Christian groups that have always existed, there is one Church that has maintained both historical continuity with the Apostles and the authentic Tradition from the Apostles. But that faithful Church (if it exists) never existed by itself in idyllic unity; it was always one Christian group among many. That is why St Paul had to write For there must be heresies among you, that those among you who are genuine may be made manifest. (1 Co 11.19)
what you would do with Christ’s words in Luke 9:49
Lk 9.49 certainly suggests that it is possible for someone outside the visible fellowship of the Apostles to confess Christ and do good works in his name. But that does not mean that the visible fellowship of the Apostles does not exist, or is not important. After all, Acts 2.42 is in the Bible too. Lk 9.49 tells us that when someone outside our fellowship proclaims the truth and does good, the truth is still true and goodness is still good, even though that person is not “one of us.” But Lk 9.49 does not tell us that the visible Church is unimportant or that the “invisible Church” is the real Church.
And it certainly does not tell us that having multiple Church bodies, all teaching different, discordant, and incompatible doctrines, are all part of one “divided Church,” and that the members of all of those Church bodies, who all believe and teach different things, ought to be partaking of one sacrament together, purporting to manifest a unity which does not in fact exist. St Paul says For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread; but how can we be “one body” if we do not confess one faith?
an ecclesiology that teaches that Apostolic Succession is the be-all and end-all of legitimacy?
None of the traditional Churches teaches that apostolic succession is the “be-all and end-all” of legitimacy. They teach that apostolic succession is necessary, but not sufficient, to recognize the authentic Church.
Read St Irenaeus of Lyons on apostolic succession; he’s one of the earliest Christian writers to discuss it in detail. He clearly sets forth apostolic succession not as a guarantee all by itself of Christian authenticity, but as one of a matrix of factors that give evidence of the Church’s authenticity. The founding of a Church by one or more Apostles, the succession of approved teachers, adherence to the apostolic Scriptures, adherence to the Church’s rule of faith, and agreement in teaching with all of the other apostolic Churches in the world all work together to establish a Church’s authenticity, as St Irenaeus explains it.
Well Chris, I’ve been on the Internet long enough to see Protestants and Orthodox/Catholic believers go around and around on this one. I’m not sure what I can say that won’t have us talking past each other here. You believe in a visible, unified Church. I don’t. (You can argue that Justin Martyr’s Church was no more divided than the modern Church if you want, but the catastrophic divisions of the Great Schism and the Protestant Reformation would beg to differ.) When the Church Fathers disagree with my Lord, I’ll side with my Lord every time — and he says that “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” (Matthew 18:20) He doesn’t make any exceptions.
As I say in this post, I really don’t understand what “One True Church” theology gets us. As both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches acknowledge that salvation can and does happen outside of the True Church, what exactly does being the True Church mean, besides bragging rights?
I’m not sure what I can say that won’t have us talking past each other here.
We simply disagree. That’s not “talking past each other” as long as we understand one another.
When the Church Fathers disagree with my Lord …
They don’t. That is why they are saints and Fathers, and you and I aren’t.
where two or three are gathered together in my name …
What that means depends very much on how much is packed into the phrase “in my name.” To gather “in his name,” to pray “in his name,” and to preach the Gospel “in his name” is to lay claim to his authority and to claim to speak for him. It takes more than simply saying his name to actually be</b gathered in his name.
In particular, it is necessary to be part of the same Church that he founded, not a denomination which human beings have founded. It is not enough to be part of an “invisible Church” (a term and a concept completely unknown in the New Testament) made up of those who say that they believe in Jesus. You need to receive the Gospel, which Jesus committed to his Church, from that self-same Church to which he gave it. The Church is not an abstraction, it is a concrete community; and the Gospel is not an abstract system, but a concrete, living reality which is given to us, in and through the concrete community which is the Church.
The Augsburg Confession expresses this quite well when it says that we may obtain this faith, the ministry of teaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments was instituted. For through the Word and Sacraments, as through instruments, the Holy Ghost is given, who works faith; where and when it pleases God, in them that hear the Gospel (AC V). Saving faith is given to us only through the Word and Sacraments, that is, through the public ministry of the Church. And since we receive the Gospel and saving faith only through the ministry of the Church, it is then critical that we know where the true Church is to be found.
what exactly does being the True Church mean, besides bragging rights?
It means that the means of grace — Word and Sacrament — are to be found, objectively and reliably, only within the visible Church. When we say that salvation may occur outside the canonical boundaries of the visible Church, we are only saying that God is free to use other means to bring about salvation, not that we are free to seek salvation by other means than he has appointed. The Orthodox have a saying: God is not bound by the sacraments — his covenanted mysteries — but we are. The way to salvation which God offers us is through his objective means of grace within his visible Church. That is the way that is to be relied upon. He may (and does) save people through other means, but his promises are attached to his covenanted means of grace alone.
Pingback: Yet Another Rant From Yet Another Protestant. « The Western Branch of American Reform Presbylutheranism