Eastern Mennonite Seminary provides this reflection by former professor Daniel L. Garrett for use in public settings such as worship, Bible studies or Sunday school. Please give credit to the author when using this work.
Benjamin Franklin invented bifocals in 1784, the same year the Methodists invented a new church in America. Franklin was attempting to deal with two focal points in a single lens. Methodism has struggled with a dual focused view of church, alternating between classic ecclesial definition and evangelical movement. The capacity to see both elements in our ecclesial life defines the Methodist lens on Church. It requires a balancing act to hold both sides in tension at once. In doing so, we are better able to understand some of the dynamic tensions within our church and between Wesleyan and other ecclesial traditions. This dialectical way of doing church provides a method for understanding United Methodist doctrine, polity, and worship.
I want to use as a case study a course I taught at Eastern Mennonite Seminary in the spring of 2007: Sacramental Theology and Liturgical Practice. The dialogue between United Methodists and Anabaptists as they explored sacramental and non-sacramental understandings of Baptism and Eucharist helped to clarify students’ understandings of each tradition and the tensions between them and within them in practical church life.
A key question provided the starting point for the explorations into sacramental theology: Who is the prime actor in Baptism and Eucharist? For Wesleyans the primacy of God’s grace locates the power in both baptism and the Lords’ Supper in what God is doing to make these acts efficacious. In classical sacramental statement both Baptism and the Eucharist effect the very thing they point to. For Anabaptists, the preoccupation resides with the anthropological focus of the Radical Reformation, namely, human response to the Gospel.
In the thought of Catholicism and the Magisterial Reformation, the definitive characteristic of a sacrament was God’s initiative, but for Anabaptism it was the human response of faith and love. The nature of the human action with the sacrament, rather than the nature of the sacrament itself, stands at the center of Anabaptist interest. 1
Both understandings recognize the necessary connection between divine initiative and human response. The issues and controversies that have divided the traditions are more a matter of starting point and focus. Most controversies over sacramental practice result from entering the discussion from one side of the basic tension, and downplaying the essential balance between divine act and human response. To look at divine initiative and human response in dialectic tension, opens up needed dialogue and appreciation across old battle lines.
In the introductory class session, each student described their baptism and what they remembered about it. Typical of the practical ecumenism in the experience of most Americans, we found a wide variety and diversity in the churches in which students were baptized, and the age at which they were baptized. Catholic infants, Mennonite adolescents, United Methodist infants, adolescents, and adults, and adults in new evangelical churches had been initiated into the church in a variety of settings. Some reported “remembering” their baptism. Others describe something done without their consent or conscious understanding. Many described minimal preparation in a class prior to baptism as adolescents. I found it interesting that those baptized as adolescents or children at a so called “age of accountability” most often reported experiential remembrances around the mechanics of baptism, or the see-through potential of baptismal garments, rather than more profound reflections as “true believers.” Notwithstanding some typical adolescent concerns, there were also remembrances of deep feeling and meaning in the baptismal act itself.
Some Sacramental Basics
Since the issue of sacramentality itself was at issue in the makeup of the class, we began with a review of its basics, using Larry Stookey’s four-fold nature of how liturgical signs function. 2
- The value of creation itself as necessary medium of divine action is at the heart of sacramental understanding. The material world can and does become a medium for divine communication. Against all spiritualizing tendencies that would denigrate materiality, sacramental thought embraces creation as good gift and divine medium.
- Recognizing that the material world can be a means of revelation does not mean that it automatically becomes such. Any middle school science student knows that rainbows are the result of light refraction through water vapor. Hebrew faith sees divine promise in the rainbow.
- The location of the celebration of baptism and the Lord’s Supper within the faith community reminds us that these sign-acts do not force faith on the skeptical or unbelieving, but rather reinforce faith within the covenant community.
- At the heart of sacramentality is the belief that life itself is offered freely and abundantly, and hence sacramental acts are grace-filled gifts to be received. I like to ask United Methodists in this regard, whether they take or receive communion.
James F. White provides a basic definition of sacramentality:
By sacramentality we mean the concept that the outward and visible can convey the inward and spiritual. Physical matters and actions can become transparent vehicles of divine activity and presence. In short, sacraments can be God’s love made visible. 3
White also provides a review of some of the classic sacramental positions in Protestant thought. 4 By grouping them along classic sacramental and non-sacramental lines, one can begin to see clearly the outlines of the distinctions in ecclesial understanding and practice.
On the sacramental side:
- Luther: “it has seemed proper to restrict the name of sacrament to those promises which have signs attached to them.”
- Augsburg Confession 1530: Sacraments are “signs and testimonies of the will of God toward us,” and that they demand “faith, which believes the promises that are set forth and offered.”
- John Calvin: It is the Holy Spirit that “opens our hearts for the Word and sacraments to enter in.”It is the Spirit that makes sound and sight effective to our soul. Signs effect what they signify, they do not merely inform.
- Church of England: “Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or token of Christian men’s profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God’s good will towards us, by which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him. Articles of Religion (1563) XXV
- 1560 Scotch Confession of Faith: In an unusually strong statement beyond Zwinglianism, it insists “ we utterly damn the vanity of they that affirm Sacraments to be nothing else but naked and bare signs.” “Christ Jesus is so joined with us, that he becomes very nourishment and food of our souls.”
On the non-sacramental perspective:
- Ulrich Zwingli: A sacrament is nothing else than an initiatory ceremony or pledging. The sacraments are “signs or ceremonials … by which a man proves to the Church that he either aims to be, or is, a soldier of Christ, and which inform the whole Church rather than yourself of your faith.”
- Quakers: Worship was “offered in the inward and immediate moving and drawing of his [God’s] own Spirit. Therefore, outward and visible forms were not desirable but distractions from true worship.
- 18th Century Enlightenment: The belief that material objects and actions have any supernatural power of themselves was repugnant to religion based on reason alone.
For better or worse, a large segment of Protestantism has remained in the orbit of the Enlightenment in its sacramental life. Sacraments are seen largely in a moralistic framework, reminding us of the past work of Christ but rarely seen as a present encounter with him today.
Reviewing both sides we can see within the sacramental tradition recognition of the necessity for faith [the human response side]. And to be sure, the Anabaptist tradition knows a God of grace [divine initiative] who calls for response in a divine-human synergy. The Anabaptist focus on that response leads to less definitional precision around the sacraments themselves, in favor of articulating the nature of the human response called for in baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
Foundational Ecumenical Perspectives
The seminal work of the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches in Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry provides the most basic resource for ecumenical dialogue on the sacraments. 5 It offers the single most comprehensive discussion of the ecumenical consensus with the provided benefit of identifying major questions still at issue. We explored the Baptism and Eucharist sections of the document.
The ecumenical dialogue group Bridgefolk also provided valuable resources from the discussions between Roman Catholics and Mennonites. Articles and Papers from those dialogues were available to class participants. 6
Denominational Resources
The basic resources expressive of Anabaptist thought were:
- Gerald Schlabach, editor. On Baptism: Mennonite-Catholic Theological Colloquium, 2001-2002. The Bridgefolk Series, Pandora Press, 2002
- Dale Stoffer, The Lord’s Supper: Believers’ Church Perspectives. Herald Press, 1997.
- John D. Rempel, The Lord’s Supper in Anabaptism: A Study in the Christology of Balthasar Hubmaier, Pilgram Marpeck, and Dirk Philips. Herald Press,1993.
- John Howard Yoder, Body Politics: Five Practices of the Christian Community Before the Watching World. Discipleship Resources, 1992.
United Methodist resources included:
- James F. White, Sacraments as God’s Self Giving. Abingdon Press, 1983.
- Don E. Saliers, Worship and Spirituality. OSL Publications, 2005
- Gayle Carlton Felton, By Water and the Spirit: Making Connections for Identity and Ministry. Discipleship Resources, 1997
- Gayle Carlton Felton, This Holy Mystery: A United Methodist Understanding of Holy Communion. Discipleship Resources, 2005.
Course Dynamics
The major course materials were introduced by the instructor through PowerPoint summaries and discussions in class. At every point the basic divine initiative – human response dialectic was embraced. This procedure proved invaluable particularly as the constellation of questions that have emerged in the tradition could be clarified by locating their primary focus in either the human response or the divine initiative side of the equation. Participants made class presentations on resources out of their own church traditions. This exercise helped clarify positions in the dialogue. The course concluded with discussion of the liturgical practices associated with the sacraments through videos, guided demonstrations on presiding, and review of sacramental liturgies. Throughout the course students prepared learning logs from each class session summarizing major points of learning and practical connections in their own ecclesial settings. Final papers were prepared by each student on the meaning of Baptism and Eucharist. This exercise was of particular interest to United Methodist students as they anticipated eventual ordination papers on the sacraments.
Some Pedagogical Values
Several things emerged from this teaching experience that can provide guidance for future efforts in the formation of United Methodist clergy:
- United Methodist studies in ecumenical dialogue provide a valuable context for student understanding of the place of Methodism in the larger community.
- The incorporation of student experience provides a valuable resource in how theologies are shaped and clarified.
- Understanding non-sacramental approaches to Baptism and the Eucharist prepares United Methodist students to engage the tensions within United Methodist congregational practice, and in ecumenical dialogue with the Free Church traditions.
- Practical guidance in sacramental practice reinforces theological understanding.
Conclusion
Benjamin Franklin provided practical help for those of us who alternate between myopia and presbyopia. In ecclesial terms, when we take seriously the challenges of radical discipleship we run the risk of diminished focus on a transcendent/immanent God whose sovereignty and gracious working in us is the source and goal of all things. But a clear view of the divine initiative and freedom must not lose sight of the gracious calling that finds its completion in a responsive humanity. The near focus can lose sight of the overarching grace. The far vision can obscure the present and practical demand of taking up the work. Sharpening our acuity on both sides leads to the clearest and most balanced view. When things come into focus in a dialogical course, an Anabaptist student can report, “I’ve always felt that something more than our own serious discipleship was at stake when we gather at the Lord’s Table, and now I can name it.” And a United Methodist student can say, “I now see what the issue is with ‘believer baptists’ and it increases my appreciation for them and my own “remembrance” of my baptism as an infant.
It is a beautiful thing when Menno and John can shake hands, seeing each other more clearly. “Thanks, Mr. Franklin!”
Endnotes
1. John D. Rempel, The Lord’s Supper in Anabaptism: A Study in the Christology of Balthasar Hubmaier, Pilgram Marpeck, and Dirk Philips (Herald Press,1993), p. 26.
2. Laurence Hull Stookey, Baptism: Christ’s Act in the Church (Abingdon, 1982), pp. 21-23.
3. James F. White, The Sacraments in Protestant Practice and Faith (Abingdon Press, 1999), p. 13.
4. Ibid, pp. 17-23.
5. Faith and Order Paper 111. Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (World Council of Church,1984).
6. The Bridgefolk dialogue group can be accessed online at http://www.bridgefolk.net.