The other day, I wrote about a peculiar debate within the Anglican Church about the permissible ingredients in communion. Now apart from the fact that none of the Gospel writers have offered us an ingredients list or recipe for the elements,
it seems a strange thing to be getting worked up about. We are at a stage in history where there are serious disputes about Christian ethics tearing the Church of England apart. Personally, I believe that these divisions are preceded by a bigger issue, the willingness to tolerate departure from the Gospel and serious questions about orthodoxy.
Yet, the Church of England and its Evangelical wing are busy debating ingredients for bread. At the same time, ironically, the same people who say we must have specific types of bread, not even the actual bread type used by Jesus, are the same people who come to baptism and say a bit of water sprinkled on an infant’s head will do. This ignores the point that the word is to do with being immersed, that it involved those professing repentance and faith in the NT and that a sizable body of water such as a river was required. Why is the hyper literal legalism for communion dropped when it doesn’t work for your theology of baptism.
Most importantly though, we have a situation where the emphasis on ingredients distracts us from where the priority is. Communion is an act of remembrance, it is meant to be what we call “a means of grace”, making God’s grace in Christ visible and tangible to encourage our assurance. The hyper literalistic legalism here denies access to this means of grace and so goes against its very purpose.
In fact, the stand out disturbing perception is that it seems some are so concerned to defend a minute element of their believed orthodoxy that they came across as unconcerned and unmoved towards the needs of others that prompted the concern. In fact my own engagement with someone on social media was responded to with irritation, laughing emojis and a flippant sarcastic tone. Yet, I engage with the subject as someone with close relatives who are affected directly through allergies and Coeliacs. There was no concern about how to include people in the Lord’s Supper who want to be for all the right reasons.
Given the recent pushing of a twisted view of concupiscence that also adds to God’s Word, there is the added risk, that people are barred from the Lord’s Supper either due to a medical condition or due to a choice to resist temptation so that the impression is given that their illness or battle with addiction is viewed as sin.
Now, I think we can see clearly the silliness of such nit picking, or as Jesus would call it “gnat swallowing.” However, whilst it is tempting to point fingers at our Anglican friends, I believe it is important to remember that we can all have a tendency towards this.
What things have we made of first importance that should not be in our own churches? In the process, what crucial matters have we neglected?
Faithroots 