Christ Invites to His Table all Who Love Him

Earlier this month, Andrew Thompson published a column on the UM Reporter site titled "GEN-X RISING: Recommit to Communion as means of healing grace"  I've included a link to it so you can read the article in it's entirety, because I'm going to pull out what I think are salient points and discuss them.  So, here goes:

1) "We should recognize where we’ve grown lax in how we approach the means of grace. And for the sake of our faithfulness to God and God’s calling on us, we ought to be willing to repent and recommit where necessary."

I'm assuming that Andrew is asserting that the church as a whole has become lax in how we view the means of grace because, unless he's a mind reader, there's no way for him to know how I or anyone else see this.  And, I have to disagree with him.  While I don't have access to the pulse of the whole Methodist Church, what I do have access to (my church, district and conference) doesn't lead me to that conclusion.  I think, as a whole, the church appreciates the gravity of all means of grace.  And, while I do believe there are places we might need to recommit ourselves, this isn't one of them.  The call to "repent" of this supposed laxity smacks of a Calvinist bent on Andrew's part and I'm not going there.

2)I'm not pulling a quote for the next point, I'm going to paraphrase because it's kind of long and there's a longer one at the end I want to address.  Basically, he talks about the importance of Holy Communion, how it was Jesus' last meeting with all the apostles and what he told them.  He also talks about Wesley's view of communion, how it is the chief means of grace that brings us closer to God and how it's observance is a Christian duty.  In this, we're in complete agreement.  It doesn't last, though.

3) "At too many of our churches, the Lord’s Supper is either neglected or treated as an onerous add-on to regular worship. Instead of seeing it as a source of healing grace, our congregations see it as an inconvenient extra 15 minutes that keeps them from the meal they really want to celebrate: the Sunday buffet at a local restaurant.

There is also a distressingly casual approach to the sacrament that is widespread in Methodism as well. The “open table” ethic in the UMC has come to mean that anyone present is invited to come forward and receive—regardless of whether they’ve been baptized or even understand Holy Communion’s significance."

In the first paragraph of this point, I can't really say "yea or nay".  What I can say is that I haven't found this to be true in my experience.  I've never taken communion in a Methodist service and felt that the congregation felt inconvienced or hindered.  And, I've taken it in anything from a small country church to an 8000 seat arena during a youth rally.  What disturbs me is the statement about the open table ethic, the intimation that the means of grace may not be open to all.  Andrew's idea becomes more clear in the next point.

4) "Such abuses call for a form of repentance. First, we should recognize how important this gift really is. As a chief means of grace, it is of the utmost importance that we approach it with reverence and an appropriate understanding. Pastors can help in this regard, by regular preaching and teaching on the sacrament as well as insisting on at least monthly observance in their churches.

Reforming the so-called “open table” will require more effort. The weakness of reasons given for its continued practice don’t seem to dampen the desire for some Methodists to define themselves by what they don’t stand for. But make no mistake: Wesley’s use of the phrase “converting ordinance” to describe the Eucharist did not refer to its use as an evangelization tool for the unbaptized. It was rather meant to refer to the sacrament’s ability to quicken the faith of Christians who were caught in the malaise of sin.
Christ does want all to meet him at his Supper. But that Supper takes place in the church, and the manner of inclusion into it goes by a specific name: Baptism. Recognizing the profound meaning of coming to commune with Christ through the baptismal call would help us understand both sacraments more fully."

I've already said how I feel about the "repentance" idea.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not against repentance.  I just don't think it's applicable in this instance.  But, to me, the entire gist of Andrew's idea of moving to a "closed" method says that grace is something that has to earned.  Which is completely contrary to the concept of grace, which is "unmerited divine assistance given humans for their regeneration or sanctification" according to Merriam-Webster.  The key word in that is "unmerited".  The thought that you must first be baptized doesn't seem to fit with that.  I cannot, in good faith, agree with anything that denies grace to anyone in need of it.  My view is that it's not our business what someone else's motives, mindset or anything else are when it comes to grace (or the means of grace). All we can do is present opportunities for it. What others do with these opportunities is between themselves and God.