SVS Paper

This is the paper I submitted for the 2013 Society of Vineyard Scholars Conference. It represents my first attempt to 'do something academic' since graduating six months ago, and is not necessarily representative of my personal position on the topic of the Lords Supper or the passage in question. At the time of writing the paper was accepted for presentation by SVS, where I presented it to positive reception (you can read my reflections on SVS2013 [and how God got me there!] HERE), and I reproduce it here for your interest.

This paper represents an attempt to provide theological justification for the practices of many Vineyard Churches regarding the Lord's Supper. It is entirely my own work, and in no way represents any church or movement. I am constantly re-assessing my view on how the mechanics of discernment work, particularly in relation to the crucial issue of the celebration of the Lords Supper. That said, I genuinely believe the approach in this paper to be a biblical, evangelical and orthodox contribution, and only make the statement I do about the 'open' nature of the table in the light of the Authority of Scripture, the Sovereignty of God, and the centrality of the proclamation of the Gospel. As with everything on this blog, and especially any attempt to write academically, I am very aware I could well be wrong, and so would love your comments!

Anyway, on with the show...

Note - in editing the paper for this blog post, the footnoting and formatting of the original were lost. I thus reproduce a bibliography at the bottom, rather than my original custom of footnoted page references.

If you want to be able to download/cite this paper, please read it over at academia.edu. Thanks!

________________

Gathering for the Lord’s Supper - the Table at the Center

Discernment and the Lord’s Table - A Kingdom-Lensed analysis of 1 Corinthians 11:17-33

I was influenced in my choice of title by Luke Geraty’s 2012 SVS Paper, “Towards a Vineyard Center-Set Ecclesiology: Is Church Discipline Appropriate?”, and my conceptual debt to his paper should be acknowledged. All good theology is done in the service of the Church, and there are few things more explicitly ‘church’, even in our contemporary culture, than that obscure and holy celebration of the Gospel, the Lord’s Supper. The great evangelical New Testament scholar, Howard Marshall, once said that “there is much to be said for the view that the Lord’s Supper was the central act in the normal Christian meeting week by week”. This observation came in a mid-80‘s paper titled ‘How far did the early Christians worship God?’, which I found helpful in my preparation and consideration of this central issue. Coming from a relatively strict Calvinistic Baptist background, with a reverence for the table such that a separate service is put on, I initially struggled with the relaxed approach of the Vineyard. Since then I have studied, prayed and reflected to the extent that I think, in an awareness of the validity of other approaches, it is a biblical, evangelical, and sensitive approach. All should be welcome at the table of the Lord, both because of what the table is, and who our Lord is. 

The Vineyard is a ‘low-church’ movement, but with a heritage traceable through Church history by virtue of where it fits in, with regard to the  Evangelical and Pentecostal streams of Church. Whilst we are low - and often don’t look much like some historical understandings/expressions of Church - we are a centered set with a defined statement of faith, and an underlying paradigm in Kingdom Theology. The Vineyard Statement of Faith goes into detail - on many issues central to Christian Faith, but is relatively brief on the ordinances of the Church. In fact, there is  serious simplicity to it; “...that Jesus Christ committed two ordinances to the Church: water baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Both are available to all believers”. 

The simplicity of our statement of faith on this issue arguably leaves it open to wide interpretation; indeed in conversation with one senior VCUKI leader, their attitude was ‘as long as its biblical, good!’. This is an admirable trajectory, but how can this attitude be practically and theologically reconciled with the idea of an open table, the values of the Kingdom of God, and the essence of what a Vineyard Church is? Furthermore, how can we celebrate and value the Lord’s Supper reverently and in God’s Presence when a senior voice in our movement has identified that “for many Christians the Lord’s Table doesn’t have that much significance”, and many un-churched people would not ‘get’ what on earth we are doing anyway? Because this state of affairs not how it should be. Central to an Evangelical understanding of ecclesiology, according to Paul Zahl in a collection of essays on Evangelical ecclesiology, is the notion that “the marks of the church are its preaching of the pure Word of God and the faithful administration of the two sacraments”. We can see that reflected in the Vineyard by our love for the Bible, and the fact that these two sacraments are enshrined as the ordinances in our statement of faith. Clearly, we are a church in this historic sense!

In the standard Vineyard philosophy of what ‘Church’ is, Alexander Ventner observes “five marks or characteristics of an authentic Church of Jesus Christ”, amongst which is that relevant to the discussion at hand: “Where the ordinances (sacraments) of Christ are properly administered (baptism and communion)”. This represents only a minor expansion on the Statement of faith; we could observe that a Vineyard Church will make the Lord’s Supper “available to all believers” and that it will be “properly administered”. This, however, whilst being a biblical and arguably evangelically orthodox pair of statements, does not provide us with a practical outworking. To my knowledge, the most thorough treatment from a Vineyard theologian is that of an appendix on the topic by Derek Morphew, in the 2006 and onwards revised edition of his “Breakthrough”. In that appendix, Morphew opens with an affirming yet innovative statement, that bears full reproduction;

“The way we break bread reflects the following:

• It reflects the Vineyard, a young movement able to innovate with models, plus our commitment to relevance over tradition.
• It reflects our commitment to the authority of scripture - linked to my own journey”

Morphew is helpful in identifying that we can innovate in the way that we celebrate the Lords Supper, but that under the authority of scripture (echoing the central Vineyard idea of being doers of the Word) we must commit to doing so. We understand what we are as ‘church’, it is thus essential to practically realize a biblically-based practice of ‘discerning the body’. 

The fact that we stand in the line of history, in a specific understanding of ‘church’ - is helpful for working towards an ecclesiology, and helps guard against falling into the equal and opposite errors of rigid dogmatism and flaky pseudo-spirituality. We tread a path of holding apparent opposites in tension, seeking to honour the intent of our founders whilst looking forward in the leading of the Spirit. But, in order to do both of those, and to remain ‘church’, we must gather at the table. Otherwise, we are in blatant disregard of the injunction to “proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes”. The heart of the Lord’s Supper is essentially Gospel proclamation, with Sutton Vineyard’s own Jason Clarke centring this roundly with his observation that “there is a direct connection when we do this to his death and resurrection”. The easter event is the crux of the kingdom, and it is here we can actually see what it means to be the now and the not yet people of God, the Church. In his BST commentary on 1 Corinthians, David Prior observes this trajectory; “there is an anticipatory element in every celebration of the Lord’s Supper. It looks back to his death; it looks forward to his return”. Every participant/celebrant at the Table is caught there, between death and resurrection.

All these observations in place then, we must turn to the matter at hand: who can take the Lord’s Supper, and what that will look like in an explicitly Vineyard Church context? How can we discern who can take it, and what form will that taking assume? Can a Vineyard Church operate an open table? The answers to these questions are arguable beyond the scope of a single paper, but herein hopefully some progress can be made.

The Vineyard Statement of Faith makes it very clear that the Lord’s Supper is “available to all believers”, but makes no mention of the process of knowing who these people are. Is it those who are committed, regular members of the Church? Is it those that tithe? Is it those that excercise their gifts, spiritual and secular, in the service of the Church? Former National Director Todd Hunter wrote that “conversion includes unashamedly teaching people a new vocabulary, telling them new stories, and letting them experiment with the distinctive practices of a particular community” (My emphasis added). Should we thus allow those on a journey towards Jesus to partake of his Table? We can end up chasing a variety of loose ends here, so it is appropriate to turn to Paul, and his letter correcting misunderstanding in Corinth. 

Paul writes to a Church divided, even as they gather; “I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse”. What should be the purpose of coming together? For the better - the better being the Worship of God, the proclamation of the Gospel, and the fellowship*

 and encouragement of the Church. Paul directly reproaches the abuse and misuse of the ordinance in the Corinthian Church.

The Lord’s Supper as Worshipping God, experiencing his presence, is an idea that should hold a particular place in any Vineyard practice and ecclesiology. After all, the Vineyard emphasizes the present power of the Holy Spirit in a real way. In communion, at the Lords Table, when we celebrate the Lord’s Supper, “God is present to us”, and we engage in a “physical enactment of the presence of God”. Because it is a meal, there are food elements, and these are shared and broken. Derek Morphew expands this out to explain the linkage to the presence of God; “when we break bread we are receiving blessing, grace, and the coming of the kingdom. We are that blessed community who knows the visitation of the Messiah”. We proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes because he is alive with us, present with us. The Lord’s Supper is a profound and powerful act of worship in the presence of God. 

The Lord’s Supper is also a powerful proclamation of the Gospel, a prophetic act, and linked to what God is saying. This is both inherent to the text in verse 26, a verse both history-echoing and future-hoping. This ties directly to the core theological impetus of the Vineyard - the kingdom of God. Reginald Fuller, in the Oxford Companion to the Bible, refers to the meals that Jesus celebrated with his disciples as “foretastes of the kingdom of God, which was frequently depicted as a banquet”, echoing the fact that we are not yet experiencing the fullness of the kingdom of God, and yet at the same time are aware of its abundance; a banquet. The multi-faceted nature of the event is, perhaps, a wonderful picture of the multi-faceted nature of Gods Kingdom.

The Lord’s Supper, though, is first and foremost a powerful foreshadowing of the future. It is a time-bound re-enactment of a historical event and a time-bound pre-enactment of what will ultimately happen. Earlier in this paper the marks of the Church were examined from an evangelical perspective - but the issue here focuses on one of the classical Catholic marks of the Church; unity. Fuller emphasizes this with the observation that this event has “ecclesial significance... by partaking of the one loaf the believers become one body”. This, perhaps, is what Paul is focusing on when he states that “anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgement on himself”. This statement comes after the injunction to examine oneself. There is an echo here of Jesus’ words about logs and specks, in the order of examination/judgement. 

It is fundamentally important to remember that this is the Lord’s Supper. This distinction is key, one that Paul makes throughout his treatment in 1 Corinthians, and one that Bert Waggonner makes forcefully; “when we come to the Lords Table it is the Lord’s Table and he is the host. Its the Lords Table. It belongs to him. Its something he set up. Designed for his people”. Waggonner’s emphasis is helpful in making this point. Whilst it is a supper, a literal meal, Leon Morris is right in observing that “its purpose is not to satisfy physical hunger”, a simple point but directly related to the situation in Corinth, but linked to our context by the continued action of eating. That provision of food is for other aspects of the Church, linked as it is to Jesus’ radical vision of hospitality and generosity, for example as seen a banquet in Luke 14:13**.

So who can take this meal? Who are the people of God? Who is entering the Kingdom by the King’s table? Among many observations, Morphew’s bold assertion is welcome; “this meal is for the poor in spirit and the lost who need to be healed. Every time we participate in it we should re-experience that Jesus came to seek and to save the lost”. This re-experience is vital in helping us to remember that Jesus did not come for the righteous, but for sinners. This core Gospel concept opens up the Lords’ Supper, the Lord’s own Table, to those who are coming to him as well as those who have come already. This distinction is important. But what do these two groups, these two types of people orbiting the centre, have in common?

David Prior seems to recognize - specifically in the pastoral question of how to approach the Table - that “there are many who hold back from partaking because they do not feel worthy”. This is in my limited experience a sentiment echoed by many who do not yet know Jesus, and indeed a sentiment utilized in the New Testament when encountering Gods extravagant Grace±. It is an accurate assessment of reality, touching on the heart of Grace. We are not worthy. Which is why it is absolutely imperative that we re-orient ourselves around Jesus, focused on him, and acknowledging that it is his table, his body, and his Grace that we - and any who would come - share in. This notion of worthiness is key, we note with Leon Morris that “there is, of course, a sense in which we all partake unworthily, for none can ever be fully worthy”. The worthiness we bring to the table is only “in faith and with a due performance of all that is fitting”.

The proclamation element of the Lord’s Supper is arguably often lost, though at least one UK Vineyard

 references and explains the Gospel, as well as its implications for the Lords Supper, prior to celebrating it. Naturally, given the size of our movement, and its breadth, this is not necessarily normative. This is an evangelical concern, naturally, and Leon Morris observes that “the solemn observance of Holy Communion is a vivid proclamation of the Lord’s death”. Lest we become mired in death, Paul is quick to denote that this is “until he comes”, putting anticipation and hope at the heart of proclamation. This tension of memory and hope is firmly rooted in the Vineyard DNA (specifically our open-ness to the Kingdom of God breaking in, held in tension with the reality that it has not yet done so fully), and echoes the way that the Church calendar moves in continual cycle.

The biblical focus on proclamation is arguably an explicitly Vineyard evangelical concern, as well. Morphew concludes his brief study of the issue with the statement that “We must proclaim, or lift up, or focus on, or make much of, the Lord’s death”. This is at the centre of the Gospel, and the point in History at which the Kingdom of God most clearly broke in. When we say we are a Centered-Set movement, with Jesus at the centre, our trajectory (and, we hope, the trajectory of all those we come into contact with) will be towards him. The Vineyard is not mine, or yours - or Wimber’s, or Morphew’s - just as the Lord’s Supper is not owned by any one Christian tradition, no matter how biblical. It - and we - are under the rule of God, and the authority of his word.

It is at this point,  the acknowledgement of other traditions, that it is appropriate to briefly consider a possible objection to the direction taken in this paper. Given that there is a departure from some historic norms in the proposal that people moving towards Jesus rather than explicitly members of the Church take the Lord’s Supper, it is clear that this is going to be a bone of contention. How can a Vineyard Church claim to be biblical if so many churches in history have decided something contrary to this? The scriptural reasons outlined throughout go some way to answering this challenge, but a brief example from Church History will serve to demonstrate the orthodoxy of our approach. John Calvin, who stands firmly in the stream of Orthodox Evangelical Christianity, writes concerning the sacraments in the 16th and 17th Chapters of the 4th book of his Institutes. Throughout Calvin’s discussion is the assumption that, for better or for worse, those who do not know (or are not in) Christ will likely take the bread and the wine. Calvin, however, states that “the reception of the sacraments by the wicked is no evidence against their importance”. They are not less important, less real, merely because someone ‘wicked’ has partaken. Reformation-era language aside, the implicit point is clear. Calvin goes into great detail regarding the reality of the importance and power of the Lord’s Supper, stressing that “to say that Christ may be received without faith is as inappropriate as to say that a seed may germinate in fire”. Calvin is clearly distinct from a superstitious view of what the sacrament is, emphasizing the faith element of it. Without definitively claiming Calvin’s position in support of my own, it is reasonable to argue that we are not flying entirely in the face of Church History.

I return to our question, who can take the Lord’s Supper? If we accept a Vineyard Center-Set approach to Church, and maintain our open-ness to the supernatural transforming power of the Holy Spirit, then we must agree with C.K. Barrett that “the decision is God’s”. The proper place for discernment is in the form of words, the gathering of the body, and the open-ness of the way we do Church. We must remember that it is Jesus’ table - not ours. The place for discernment, in the instance before the Lord’s Supper is separated, is with the individual. To ‘discern the body‘ is not to work out who the Church is - for that rests with God - but instead the role of the individual in understanding the previously-discussed importance of the meal in which he or she is taking part. In terms of welcoming people to God’s table, we can observe with Barrett that “Paul does not require that a man be morally faultless before he takes part in the meal; he does require that he should be applying moral scrutiny to his life and behaviour”. And is this not what the Gospel does? In celebrating the Lord’s Death, proclaiming the good news that flows from it, we are in essence applying God’s scrutiny to the life of the Church. It is individuals that come to the table of the Lord - and at that table that we are, in a very real sense, ‘church’. 

The Discernment of the Body, the process by which the Lord welcomes us to his table, is a process that we, by faith, engage with in two ways. The first way that the Body is Discerned, and participants made known, is by the proclamation of the Gospel and the meaning of the sacrament, before the liturgy is said and the elements served. The second way is a genuine belief that, because this is very definitely the table of the King, that God’s Holy Character will not allow his Table to be damaged or infringed upon. If we believe in a Sovereign God - and the Kingdom of God demands that we do, as we await his coming rule and reign even as we partner with Jesus in ushering that in - then we can confidently welcome his people, in the Gospel, to his table. 

In the Vineyard, we love the Presence of God. In the Vineyard, we love to be people of the book, doers of the word. We are evangelicals, and we are pentecostals, and we love to proclaim the goodness of God and experience the coming of the Kingdom. In order to do these things - especially in trying to do honour to the charge of being doers of the word - we need to demonstrate that our practice and worship echoes what the Bible says. In the area of the Lord’s supper, a central concern of the Church historic, an open yet reverent table can be a powerful statement of a Vineyard way of being Church, without abandoning the legacy of Church history. When we come to the table, we come to the table of the Lord. When we come to the table, we come as sinners in need of Grace - because Jesus came for sinners in need of Grace. When we gather at the table, we are genuinely and biblically experiencing a Kingdom event - looking back and looking forward.                              

______________

Words - 3,900

Footnotes...

* “the loveless abuse of the Love-feast (Agape) in Corinth was a blatant denial of the fellowship which this common meal was intended to express, for when each selfishly ate his own supper it became morally imposible to eat the Lord’s supper.” Geoffrey B. Wilson, “1 Corinthians”, (Banner of Truth, London, 1971)

** “but when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed because they cannot repay you. You will repaid at the resurrection of the just” (this echoes an interesting emphasis on meals in Jesus’ ministry. An example of a popular exploration of this is Tim Chester’s “A Meal with Jesus” [Re:Lit/IVP, 2011])

± For example, Luke 15:19, John 1:27, Luke 7:6

Bibliography

I. Howard Marshall, “How far did the early Christians worship God?” (Churchman 099/3 1985, accessed http://www.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_099_3_Marshall.pdf)

Vineyard Churches UK & Ireland, “Statement of Faith”, also Appendix III in Derek Morphew, “Breakthrough”

Bert Waggonner, Podcast 3rd June 2012, http://vineyardpodcast.com/bert-waggoner-june-3rd-2012

Paul F.M.Zahl, “Low-Church and Proud”, in “Evangelical Ecclesiology: Reality or Illusion?”, ed. John G. Stackhouse Jr., (Grand Rapids, Baker Academic, 2003)

Alexander Ventner, “Doing Church: Building from the Bottom Up”, (Cape Town, Vineyard International Publishing, 2000)

Derek Morphew, “Breakthrough”, (Cape Town, Vineyard International Publishing, 2006)

Jason Clark, “Eucharist: Being Re-Membered”, Sutton Podcast, https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/eucharist-being-re-membered/id74320867?i=88438725

ibid, “Eucharist/Communion Service”, Sutton Podcast, https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/eucharist-being-re-membered/id74320867?i=88438725

David Prior, “The Message of 1 Corinthians”, (Nottingham, IVP, 1985)

Todd Hunter, quoted in Appendix 1, of Bill Jackson, “The Quest for the Radical Middle”, (Vineyard International Publishing, Cape Town, 1999)

Reginald H. Fuller, in ed. Coogan and Metzger, “The Oxford Companion to the Bible”, (OUP, Oxford, 1993), 

Leon Morris, “1 Corinthians”, (IVP, Leicester, 1985)

John Calvin, “The Institutes of the Christian Religion”, (Knoxville, Westminster John Knox, 2006)

C.K. Barrett, “The First Epistle to the Corinthians”, (London, A&C Black, 1987)