Music.
I'm Pastor Luke. I'm Pastor Cameron.
And this is the Uncut Podcast where we have uncut and honest conversations about faith,
life, and ministry. Today we're kind of picking up where we left off last week.
So we're going to continue our conversation on sacraments and the theology behind them
and their purpose and place in kind of Christian theology and practice inside the church.
Tom Bilyeu Denominationalism. If you're watching this on YouTube and you go back and look at our last video on, I think
it was, we started with liturgy and church calendar and we moved into the sacraments.
And someone essentially just says, are you guys Catholic or something?
As if only Catholics talk about the sacraments or have a sense of their importance or value.
But, well, I mean, I'll be honest, like that was, that was me at one point, I grew up outside of,
outside of a highly structured denomination. It was technically a denomination, even though we
kind of said we weren't a denomination, we were essentially a denomination. But it was very much
like the, like, we just do what the Bible says, like, and, you know, and I'm not bashing it by any means I grew up and grew as
a very healthy Christian outside in this theological denomination I grew up in, but I did it was like, Oh, I had a
very anemic understanding that there I thought there was what.
My church did, and then Catholics, right? I like and so when I went and I began to interact, I was like,
Oh, there's other Protestants that...
Catholics aren't the only ones that baptize babies. Like, that was like, I was like, I'm an Asian. I grew up in to baptize babies.
Right. Those. Yeah.
So I was like, what? So, you know, I can, I can sympathize a little bit, but that is like.
Maybe, you know, I don't know, maybe not everybody knows that. It's like,
Yeah, I grew up the opposite way. I didn't grow up Catholic, but I grew up in a denomination that,
that when I say grew up like seventh grade on, grew up in a denomination that regularly
practiced at least, you know, communion and baptism as sacraments.
They did baptize babies and, you know, obviously adults, usually by sprinkling.
So not by immersion. you want to really get... Yeah, you really want to get someone reformed, who's reformed,
you know, all riled up about baptism, say, well, in my Methodist church, we baptize babies by
sprinkling. Like, well, you're doubly a heretic, the reformed person says. So...
Yeah. We're gonna like half dunk them like an Oreo. Right.
Right. I don't... Actually, I don't know if that... Do reformed people do that or do they just pour?
No, I guess that's still sprinkling.
Yeah, I think most Reformed people are full immersion, or at least I would say like the
evangelical Reformed people, because I think in a sense, like even the Presbyterian church
would be considered a Reformed theological tradition.
But I don't think that they have a really strong sacramental theology in terms of sprinkling versus immersion.
Versus immersion, yeah. But yeah, so the conversation, maybe it seems like it exists more in the realm of...
Is this Catholic or Protestant or whatever, but it's really just a, I think, a conversation that any,
Christian would need to have, or at least an opinion.
It is that broad. I mean, I think maybe what we're running up against is in like,
and you and I might have more of a perspective on is because you and I, I know, have both
attended and pastored in different denominational pockets. And not everybody does that. Not
everybody, or even as an attender, right? Like if you've grown up attending a Baptist church,
and now you attend maybe a different Baptist church, and if you were to leave that church,
you'd go to a different Baptist church. Like, there's a certain continuity that might be there.
You kind of gravitate towards certain churches. But like I, you know, grew up in a very non-denom church,
attended an Anglican church for a fair little stint, went to some other non-denom stuff,
went to like some hipster churches in the city, went to a very reformed church for a while.
Was part of a very charismatic little small house church thing for a bit.
Bit, like, then kind of bouncing around a little bit more than maybe, maybe not
everyone's experience has had that much exposure.
It's not, I'm not sure this is a question I've ever even asked you ever talked
about, but like, what would you on that whole, that whole spectrum, where would
village your previous church that you were serving at, where would they fall in like that.
They were, we were Evangelical Free Church of America, EFCA, was the denomination which we belonged to.
EFCA is, the best way I kind of know how to describe that denomination as a whole, is
where I would say probably most non-denoms end up in anyways.
Like if you were to go to, well, I shouldn't say that I suppose.
I was in a church plant of the EFCA. And so church plants tend to be the kind of younger.
Kind of edge, the direction that a denomination might be going, but not representative of the
previous well-established churches of that denomination. So we would go to, I would say
they were the established churches of the EFCA were maybe a little bit more conservative in
practice and maybe held some more conservative or made a bigger deal out of certain eschatological
opinions, pre-millennial and all that. But as far as the church plants that we were and that I was
interacting with the other church planters, really wouldn't see anything significantly different
between conduit and there, except for the one thing that made us very distinctly E-free
was congregationalism. We had to be a congregational church in polity, or in the way that we churched
and organized the power structure was. We had to have at least one congregational meeting a year,
in which the congregation voted on substantial things relating to the church. So like every year we would, it was always a little nerve-wracking, but
Every year we would have a congregational meeting.
And they would vote to approve people on the board and things like that.
We kind of had a bit of a hybrid model.
And then they also voted as to whether or not me and the other pastor kept our jobs for the next year.
It's like that, that was how that check and balance went a little bit.
So that was always kind of an interesting, I don't think anybody ever voted against us
remaining in the position. So you guys had like a membership structure as well,
like what makes you a part of the congregation in order to vote?
Yep, we had like a membership covenant that you needed to sign, and that would mean that
you were agreeing to abide by our bylaws and constitution, that you were in agreement with
our statement of faith.
And once you were a member of the church, you were eligible to be nominated by the board,
to be part of the board, and then we would have to bring that nominee before the congregation.
Congregation. I can't remember if the congregation had to vote affirmative or had to just not vote.
Against you. I can't remember exactly how we had that structured, but it was a default yes,
as long as nobody raised any significant concerns about the person's character or
qualification to be on the board. I can't remember exactly how we had that structured,
but that was... And then the board did the month-to-month, week-to-week kind of
steering of the church by and large. So that was kind of our church structure. And the board,
subset of the board was the elders. Right. And so you had to be on the board and then you could
come and be established an elder through a multi-year process if you wanted to. So that was
a, so like you've got like an eldership structure inside of a board structure inside of a congregational
structure. The only thing that was absolutely necessary for us as far as the denomination was
concerned was the congregational structure.
Were there like are there denominational officials? We had like a what do we call them?
Superintendent or regional director. Overseer, superintendent, bishop, something like that.
Yeah, something like that.
Yeah, so we had something like that. But it was still I think the history of the denomination came out of Europe.
It was very Swedish, I think, in kind of its roots.
And there was a lot of controversy when it kind of formed as a denomination of.
The state having been very synonymous with the church and anyone, essentially there being some
conflict over anyone being able to receive communion actually as a fact.
Pete Oh, very good segue. Yeah, so there was a there was concern because like the state if you were.
You had to the state had say over membership
Essentially of the church and so you were having people who were only coming to church,
every so often and maybe not demonstrating what the
denomination believed to be marks or signs of being an actual Christian and they were having to,
to administer communion because the state said so.
And so they wanted to be a free church. Essentially, that's where the free part
of the denomination comes from,
being free, independent from not only the state, but also from a harsh overseeing structure
that would determine a whole lot of things.
So.
In the establishing of that denomination, they very much wanted each congregation to be ruled
by the congregations, hence the congregationalism, and then generally overseen by the denomination,
in not so much in a kind of controlling way, but in a accountability way. So it was a,
hey, like, you can't be teaching that, that's not inside of the lines of what we've said is
is appropriate for denomination, we will like excommunicate you from the denomination if you continue to do that. And there,
were some other things too, we had like a yearly meeting, and they would like vote on things as a denomination and all that
like so you so I think I technically could have gone to that and I think voted on like that while I was part of the
denomination, they they made a change in the belief statement,
They changed it from being pre-millennial to glorious return of Christ.
So they had at one point very held strongly to a pre-millennial coming of Christ.
And then they found that as time went on, that that became less of a significant theological hill to die on.
And what they found is that like a growing amount of pastors inside of their denomination,
not becoming ordained and becoming officially a part of the denomination.
Because they couldn't agree with the statement. Because they couldn't agree with that one line of the statement. And they're like, well,
We have a significant population of pastors who are pastoring our churches who are not,
ordained inside of her denomination because of this one line, and so they voted to change it. That's interesting.
Yeah. So that's a quick history of that denomination. But as far as like, outward-looking
practice and everything, I would say that probably most non-denominational churches,
maybe on a slightly more conservative, like if you were to go right in the middle, non-denom,
and then go slightly conservative, that would kind of place E-free. And most churches that would
kind of fit that general spectrum would feel really comfortable in a denomination like that.
Jonathan Yeah. Yeah. Interesting.
Yeah. Yeah, it brings me back to all kinds of thoughts and feelings about United Methodism and
kind of where I was discipled early and grew up and now, you know, United Methodism, if you follow
all the news at all, or if you care at all,
it's kind of like the implosion that's generally been happening over the last 50, 60 years,
is finally like seeing it actually fall out.
It's almost a mirror of what happened with the Anglican Church.
And the piece in the Presbyterian Church. In the Presbyterian Church, like it's just,
each one of those have kind of gone through this.
They avoided it as much as they could to the point of their avoidance being really unhealthy
and creating a lot of unhealthy culture and distrust of the episcopacy and the council
of bishops and all of that.
I, oh geez, I don't know, Sherry asked me the other night, well I guess it was a while ago,
like what would you have done if you were still in United Methodism?
I was like, listen, I got my own problems. I, I. I got my own real problems outside of fictitional ones.
Right, I don't, I don't gotta rehearse what I would do for a problem that I don't have to be a part of anymore.
So like, I'm not even gonna go, I'm not even gonna go there.
But yeah, suffice it to say, their, uh, you know, most denominations, I think, end up being a response to
something that they didn't like in the previous one.
Well, and, and non-denominationalism. That's right.
That's well, it is, it does become a little bit of the pot calling the kettle
black because a denominational, someone who's very strong in particularly a
historic mainline denomination would say like, well, just, you guys just go start
new churches, new denominations all the time, blah, blah, blah.
But then like all of these big mainline denominations have had a, essentially a split now and had to have had to create the
conservatives have left the denomination and essentially created a new independent denomination that was by and
large similar, except for it's going to continue to hold some
Orthodox and conservative theological tenants while the other denomination is free to do whatever, rather than
continuing to have that internal fight, they have decided to just simply make separate houses.
Correct. Yeah. So that's the story for most denominations that split.
Yeah.
So, but yeah, communion and sacraments has definitely been like, it's not what denominations are currently splitting over.
No, historically, it's probably one of the bigger ones. Yeah, like that's been...
Have people been killed over baptism? I'm sure they have. Like with the Paedo-Baptists? I'm sure they have.
Or not the Anabaptists, like their persecution. I'm sure they have. I don't, you know, like I'm
not a super well-read church historian or Christian historian, but I'm certain that,
people have gotten up in arms about it enough to declare people heretics or enemies of the church
or whatever the case might be. But both baptism... When we talk about sacraments, we're talking
about... I don't know. I'm talking about... I don't know what you're talking about. I'm talking about
baptism and communion. If you're a Catholic person and you're hearing this, you might...
I think there's seven. There's seven sacraments, some of which not everyone is...
Is able to take, right? The priesthood.
Right. Is holy. Holy orders. Holy, yeah, holy orders, yeah.
Is a sacrament of the church for Roman Catholics.
So I, when you hear me say sacraments on the podcast, it's talking about baptism or communion.
Yeah, you're not talking about foot washing.
Not talking about foot washing, talking about, you know, marriage or holy matrimony or holy orders or anything like that.
Yeah. So, well, and if you're, I mean, it's conceivable that somebody's listening to this
and they're going like sacraments, I call those things ordinances.
What's the difference, Pastor Luke? There's not.
The spelling. The spelling. The spelling is different. Everything else is the same. Well, some people.
Or could be the same. Could be the same. I think historically...
People who have not called sacraments sacraments, but preferred to call them ordinances.
Have a part of the reasoning being that sacraments is a word that's extra biblical. It's not a word
that's in the Bible necessarily. Signs and symbols is in the Bible, but that's what
sacraments is referring to. I think it's coming out of a Latin word.
Sacramentum. sacramentum and all of that. But usually someone who's referring to baptism and communion,
and calling it an ordinance is usually trying to leave behind some of the theology associated with,
sacramental thinking. So there's a potential theological difference there, but by and large,
we're referring to essentially the same thing. Well, I'd like to, like, you know, both of them
are pretty big discussions in their own right, baptism and communion. I think we talked a little
bit more about communion last week. And so to continue kind of on in that conversation.
You know how in our very first episode we asked the question, what is biblical?
I guess the question that I would ask in regards to the sacraments...
Don't do it. Is communion biblical?
Are you asking me or are you asking the… Church history. Yeah.
Well, you know… I mean, I'm asking you, I guess, because, you know, I know church history's answer. Yes, I do too.
But I am certainly not proposing that we have special insight or anything like that, or
that we're asking questions that no one has ever asked or answered before.
I'm just simply posing the question as a matter of our conversation is that it's a little
bit rhetorical because when you, for instance, you read the New Testament, we don't, we don't,
necessarily see communion talked about or practiced in the same way that we
kind of understand it or talk about it now. Not in the same way.
Paul does talk about it in Corinthians. Right. Well and the other thing about it is that we're not given, at least in my reading of Scripture, we're
not given a whole lot in the way of, here's what this means.
And so a lot of the theology that has been written and proclaimed around things like,
I don't know, I'm talking about communion or the Eucharist in particular.
Stick with that one. Yes.
Because I think baptism is a lot more clear. Yeah, I think there's more teachings on that.
There's more teaching on baptism. I was immediately going to certain passages.
I was like, ooh, we should talk about communion, keeping on track.
So yeah, the occurrences of communion or Eucharist or the Lord's Supper or breaking of bread or X, Y, or Z.
In the biblical text is not really voluminous or comprehensive in the way that it like.
It meets out the theology. Well, yeah.
A lot of that comes in the church era, not the New Testament era.
As early believers began to, and the church began to say, how do we practice this?
They began to create like regular, what's, holy cow, I lost the word, liturgy.
Regular liturgy, a way of worship in which to practice these things.
So to kind of answer your question, like I've mentioned a couple, like I joked earlier, foot washing.
And one of the reasons I joke about that is, I think I mentioned maybe an episode or two
back is I did encounter a denomination that believed there were three sacraments, baptism,
communion, and foot washing.
And that would be a... They would fall underneath a big minority of...
That's not something that... Historically the church has not considered foot-washing a sacrament.
But if I just ignore church history, and I look at really the same text in John, and.
Look at foot washing, Christ does say, do likewise. Right. Right. Like, and so all that,
I'm not making, I'm not necessarily making an argument that foot washing should be a sacrament.
But what I'm saying is that I think that, well, foot washing actually makes a textually,
as far as a biblical thing that Christ has told us to do, like, is the argument much weaker than actually even the argument for communion out of the Bible?
Does that point make sense? It makes sense, yeah. I think that if I were to answer that from a very like.
Basic view is that, you know, if the whole of sacramental theology was built upon John 13,
then I would say that yes, it has the same, you know, Jesus, they're celebrating the Passover
meal and the breaking of bread and all of that. And what we kind of where we see is the genesis of
of the communion practice in the early church.
Foot washing goes along with that. As I have done for you, you are to do for others, type of thing.
So if all of sacramental theology around communion was built off of John 13, then I would say,
yeah, that's a pretty strong argument.
But it's really clear that the church carries on sacramental theology past John 13,
even to some of the New Testament epistles.
And then into church history as well, you know. history as well, you know?
And from the standpoint of like the...
From the standpoint of like historical theological succession tracing back into those moments,
it's like, at what point would the church have had a conversation about like, okay,
is foot washing a sacrament or not? Right?
Right. Well, and we don't have, like in the New Testament, we have moments where Paul,
addresses communion. He doesn't do anything similar with foot washing. And so that, you know,
know, that point, but then also we just know just historically that while foot washing
may have been a practice, it's not been considered to be on par with communion in any...church
is not considered that. Right.
And so... I think part of it is in what in generally we believe that the basis of sacraments are.
If it is a means, if a sacrament, if the working definition of a sacrament is a means of the grace of God,
you know, a means by which we receive God's grace.
There is a little bit of like, I don't know, maybe I'm like splitting theological hairs here,
but it seems like in, so in communion we have the elements.
We have bread and wine or juice or the cup or whatever.
In baptism, we have the water.
I guess in foot washing, we have the water as well. And the towel.
And the towel, right?
But for me, it seems a little bit more like, it seems more of like a horizontal relationship,
person to person, rather than a means of God's grace coming down.
In the way in which Jesus doesn't explicitly tie.
Doesn't tie the gospel as directly to foot washing as he does necessarily communion,
right? Because communion, he's got the whole dialogue, this is my blood, this is my body,
poured out and broken for the new covenant that I'm making. He doesn't do that with foot washing,
right? He says, as I am being a servant, you must also be a servant unto one another.
Right. As I have loved... And he says the same thing about...
But same phraseology for other things.
Right, and that's not to say that that has zero connection to the gospel, but it is not as directly lined up.
And tied to the gospel the same way communion is.
But the whole reason I bring that all up is just to say that having a,
I feel like having a discussion about communion or baptism, the sacraments, and saying,
let's only think about what the Bible says and not talk at all about church history and church
practice is to really undercut the entire conversation, I think. It's to unnecessarily
put us back at square one and to ignore people who were much closer to the original texts,
and their immediate understanding and interpretation of those texts.
Yeah.
And so, like, I've began, I, you know, I came out of a tradition that was like, just the Bible.
And not tradition. And my journey of faith has been like, well, no, like, I think we should
learn from tradition, not be bound by it, but I think we should learn from it. And so, when we
come to, and maybe this is not the point that you were trying to make, but I think if we're asking
if is communion biblical? And we're asking that question with the idea of excluding tradition.
I think we undercut the... I think we undercut our conversation and most of the place in which
we come to stand on, because like you said, the texts on communion are fairly sparse,
like not absent.
We see that it exists, we just don't have a good understanding of what it actually means.
Right. So, I don't know. What do you think about that? Do you agree or do you feel differently
about the role of tradition and church history in that?
Well, I mean, you know, I think, yeah, you cut, I think you cut theological belief off at the knees,
to say that church history is unimportant.
It's not primary. No one's saying it's primary. Right. Well, some people are.
Some people would say it's primary. Not you and I. No one in this room is saying it's primary.
For the same way that we use beliefs in apostolic secession to have faith in the canon.
It would be the same for me, same thing. Like, okay, why do I trust the Bible?
Well, I trust the Bible. There are many reasons.
One of those reasons is the history of apostolic succession, knowing that it's historical connection
to the people that were proximate to Jesus and their accounts of him, right?
Me a sense of like, it gives me a peek into the most raw and probably pure form of theological
relevance that you know, you can have, that there can be.
That for me still does not answer a lot of the questions that I have about them.
You know, like I got asked a question once, if you had to say what sacrament was more
important, what would you say?
And it's really an impossible question to answer. they function a little bit differently in the life of a believer, I think.
They still both represent a means by which we receive or experience the grace and presence,
of Jesus, the grace and presence of God.
If it were a question that you needed to answer based completely on the textual evidence,
I think you would have to say that, well, baptism is certainly more.
In the New Testament than communion is, or at least we have kind of a better grasp theologically
on what baptism is based on what is said both from Jesus and primarily Paul.
But it's not really even a question. You can't even answer.
It's like, well, what is more important? They're both important.
I'm not going to give up either of them.
But there's also a certain amount of what I think becomes difficult for 21st century
peoples, and maybe this is not just us, but all peoples, is that there is the necessity
of embracing a fair bit of mystery when it comes to sacramental life.
And we are not generally comfortable with that.
It's particularly not post-enlightenment. All right comfortable with that. No, so after the,
1700s or so we kind of all of all of,
The Western world at least kind of is skewed anything that could not be Logically or rationally or scientifically scientifically explained and so things like how?
Does a piece of bread and a cup of wine or juice or whatever you are.
If you're a good Baptist, you only take it with wine, right?
Or with juice, I should say. Yeah. How do those two things really.
Like transmit, communicate?
Right. What is? The presence and means of, how are they means of God's grace?
I can make bread in my kitchen.
Why is it now something special? because it's on the altar
and we're proclaiming words of institution over them.
And there is a bit of mystery wrapped up how God works by His grace.
Or by His presence to administer grace through those really practical, tangible,
in-your-mouth type of means. Exactly. And yeah, and so we are just, we live in a culture that
loves an explanation for everything, right? And we love to have everything systematized.
I'm not, I don't want to bash systematic theology because I think systematic theology
has a lot of gifts for the church. But I think one of the downsides of it is that systematic
theology is not good at making room for mystery or complexity in it. Like, we want a system
of how God operates, and then everything must fit inside of that system. And I think sometimes
that can lead to pushing and ignoring mystery or simplifying things so that they fit into
a box and that's not always the best thing. I always get that feeling when I read books on the
trinity. Yeah. I'm like bro you made that up. You made that up. Like we're reading the same text,
you're stretching it here to make it fit your thesis. Oh yeah the amount of times that someone
pulls a like a singular passage like one verse out of psalm and makes a giant theological
implication out of it just makes me mad. Just can we just all say we don't get it.
Right. I don't get it.
Faith seeking understanding, not obtaining understanding. That's a famous quote is
faith seeking understanding. I think sometimes we've taken that quote and wanted it to say
faith obtaining understanding. And we seek understanding, we don't necessarily guarantee that we obtain it.
So if we were to trace some of the biblical evidence for communion.
Yeah. Okay. Let's start there.
Where, like, I think we would both start, I would start in the last days of Jesus' life. Mm-hmm.
He meets with his disciples in an upper room. Yes.
In fact, he gives them direction to go into Jerusalem and to prepare the Passover meal.
Mm-hmm.
Which is an interesting caveat. Well, I was about to say, I was like, you know, I was thinking, I was like, is there
anywhere else you could start? I think you could start with Passover.
Could start with Passover.
Well, even you could even start with,
There is no forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood post-Cain.
Well, you could, but there's not, there's also not, there's not ample enough evidence in the
Gospels that what Jesus and his disciples were eating that night was the Passover.
I mean, if you take the text at its face value, Jesus sends them in to prepare the Passover meal,
But as far as I know, none of the gospels say, and as they sat down to eat the Passover meal,
Jesus took the bread.
Right. Interesting. So when was Passover? Was it on Good Friday, the day he was being crucified?
I don't know. Do we know? I don't know. I've always, like that is a new thing. I have always assumed that it was a
Passover meal that they were having.
I mean, I think that's the easy assumption because of what Jesus says. I mean, that would
be the most logical inference that we can make is that he sends them into Jerusalem to prepare
for the Passover meal. But we know what the Passover generally included or did from Old
Testament texts, the historical narratives. But we don't see any of those other elements
in the gospel accounts of this Passover celebration.
Other than the fact that they're sitting at a table eating a meal with two elements that would not have been,
that would have been at the table for any meal in the ancient Near East.
You know, there was no, now like, That's maybe.
Like a pretty, maybe I'm being a little cheeky. A little minimalist.
Yeah, a little cheeky about all that because, you know, because all other things point to the fact,
that it probably was the Passover,
even when you begin to consider the theological implications of the,
or what the theology of the Passover was, the theology of, you know, Jesus being the lamb
that was slain before the foundations of the world.
And like, you know, so I think that like people who say it was the Passover meal stand on probably
pretty good, solid foundation. However.
Right, well, cause the symbology is still there because Jesus did say prepare for Passover.
Like Passover was happening, whether or not it was specifically tied to that meal.
Passover was happening. That's the reason he was in Jerusalem.
That's the reason he was in Jerusalem.
Well, I think that at least still continues to carry at least significant overtones of understanding
atonement. If you want to say like that maybe weakens the argument for its direct correlation
to communion, fine, but I think the atonement stuff's still there.
So maybe we begin to say that, all right, well, then is communion.
The Christian way of celebrating Passover? Well, no.
So it doesn't hold the same theological themes. No, because we're not celebrating Passover.
Right, we're not. But the reason that we're not celebrating Passover is because we're not Jewish.
Right. Right? Yes. We celebrate what Christ did for us on the cross, but if the institution of communion was done by
Jesus in the theological tradition of Passover, then we are...
I mean, it would make sense to me that the common thread of God's atonement for sin,
right, runs from Passover through Jesus in the words of institution when he breaks bread in,
the cup and gives it to his disciples, and then through the New Testament church,
which was both Greek and Jew. So it feels to me like the celebration of communion
and follows the thread of salvation through Passover.
And so that's why I asked the question, is like, well, it feels a little bit like,
not a Christian Passover in the actual, like the historical sense,
but a Christian Passover in the theological sense.
That the same theological themes have not stopped. Passing over of judgment, sacrifice, atonement.
Because the sacrifice has been made, blood has been spilled.
Death of the firstborn. Death of the firstborn. Freedom and new life afterwards, right?
Like that's, boom.
We preached the Bible. Yeah. Yeah. So, all right, so yeah, like maybe.
You don't have to go back there, but like, you know, you're welcome to,
like you can start it at least the last supper. Well, I mean, to be perfectly honest with you,
like I think that if you,
if you wanna create a more robust position of theological belief on communion,
the New Testament is not full of it, but the old is, if you're saying that it's connected with,
if you're saying that like there is a unbreakable link between communion at the end stage
and Passover at the beginning stage.
So what we do on the first Sunday of every month and what God instituted in the Old Testament
in the Passover and, you know, Day of Atonement and all of that.
I think I agree with that. Yeah. I think that's there.
I think we're not aware of it because we're Gentiles, we're not Jewish, and so the...
Well, we don't ever talk about communion outside of the New Testament.
Right. That's where the implications for Gentiles starts.
In order to talk about the Old Testament implications, like it requires a little bit
more, not to say that that has zero meaning for the Christian who's Gentile, but it does require
us to understand the historical context of what it meant to the Israelite Jewish people, and then
and how that then is fulfilled and then expanded in the Last Supper.
Like we have to, we can't, it's not enough to simply, if you were to get up and do communion
and we were to, you were to present and you were to talk about Exodus
and the Passover and the lamb on the doors,
and to talk about that, and then to say nothing of Christ,
you would have not talked about communion.
Correct. Right? It requires us to, it's a two step of what it was and what it now is because of communion in Christ.
You have to go back and then come forward to the cross every single time.
The more perfect covenant made by his blood.
Right, yeah. And so I think sometimes we don't always go back because well, we know we're just gonna end up
at the cross anyways. So sometimes we shortcut it that way. Yeah.
But we lose then I think it's theological ground. It's really strong theological anchoring.
Yeah. Well, and the anchoring of, you know, it's interesting cause like as I'm thinking about this,
I'm like, yeah, like that really,
it provides even just a greater anchor for the gospel period, right?
If we have this greater understanding like, if I go up to someone who's never interacted with Christianity before and I just say,
Christ died for your sins on the cross.
That is a pretty weird statement, if you haven't at first also believed the presupposition that,
there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood.
Or that I need forgiveness at all. Or that I need forgiveness at all. That the heart is endlessly wicked and deceitful and
who can discern it except for God. That we have all gone astray. That we, there's a way of living
in righteousness and a way of living in folly and we have chose folly over and over again, right?
All that is Old Testament theology. Without that, Christ does not make sense.
Right. Right. And we were talking the other day,
in a couple of meetings about how Jesus in his appearance on the road to Emmaus,
in post in Luke chapter 24, how Jesus in his post-resurrection appearances,
or post-resurrection, pre-ascension appearances.
Connects the work of his resurrection into new life with all that was said about him in the law,
in the prophets, and the Psalms,
that the truth of not Jesus as the person, but as the Christ, the truth of the Christ,
the Savior, the Messiah, the one who has come to take away the sins of the world, be atoning sacrifice for our sins,
is that theological theme is traced all the way back into the first breaths of Scripture that we have.
Yeah.
So we agree. We agree. Yep, the Old Testament is important to the theology of the New Testament and the gospel
as a whole and to how we understand communion.
So that we see Jesus, let's just assume it was the Passover meal.
See Jesus institute or not institute, but talk about the breaking of the body and the shedding of blood.
In fact, we can just pick a…we've been talking about John chapter 13.
It's one of the longer institutions of it, isn't it? Yeah, but it also really talks about more about his, more about the foot washing than
it does about the meal.
Maybe John's not the greatest example here. It is interesting though that in John chapter 13, he says it was just before the Passover,
feast. Oh, interesting. So perhaps. But where are you? Oh, I actually went to Luke 22. Yeah. Verse
7 says, actually then came the day of the unleavened bread on which the Passover lamb had to be
sacrificed. So Jesus said, go make preparations for us to eat the Passover. Yeah.
Parrot.
And then verse 14, then the hour came Jesus and his apostles were climbing at the table. So I usually desire to eat this
Passover with you. Okay, so Jesus answers the question already is the Passover. Passover meal according to Luke. Okay.
Well, Luke could be wrong. All right, yeah.
And so he, verse 17, Luke 22, after taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, take this
and divide it among you for I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until
the kingdom of God comes.
Then he took the bread, gave thanks, and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, This is my
body given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.
In the same way, after the supper, he took the cup, saying, This cup is the new covenant
in my blood, which is poured out for you.
But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine at the table." So that's, you know, Luke's account is a little bit, probably, I would guess, would
be the account that most people have heard the least.
Really? In, at least in like the liturgical life around communion.
I think the ones that we, or at least maybe the phraseology that I'm most familiar with, I think is out of Matthew.
Um, go to it here. I should have these things marked.
26. Yeah. On the first day of the feast of the unleavened bread, the disciples came to Jesus.
Where do you want us to make preparations for Passover?
Then, down in verse 26, Matthew 26, 26. While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks, and broke it, and gave it to
a disciple, saying, Take and eat.
This is my body. the cup, gave thanks, and offered it to them, saying, Drink from it, all of you. This is
my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for the many for the forgiveness of sins.
I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now until on the day when
I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom." It's pretty short.
Then they sung a hymn. Then they sung a hymn.
It's an argument for hymns, Cameron. It's not, by the way. And that logic, verse 30, it says,
when they had sung a hymn, they went to the Mount of Olives.
It would also be argument for climbing a mountain. Post service. Yeah.
But that's really all we get in terms of explanation. you know, whatever we get in the book of Acts.
You know, I'm feeling a little ill-equipped at this point to fully explore a theology of
communion in the book of Acts. But, you know, I was reading earlier today, because I think I
kind of knew that we were going to talk about this. Yeah. In Corinthians.
Yep. First Corinthians. 1 Corinthians. Yep. And 10 as well. So we have Paul's letter to the Corinthians and he has some,
spots in there about communion or the Lord's supper. So 1 Corinthians 10, verse 14,
Therefore, my dear friends, flee from idolatry.
I speak to sensible people. Judge for yourselves what I say.
Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ?
And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?
Because there is one loaf, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.
A couple points that I would make about this particular portion of what Paul says about
communion, or that I find interesting, I guess, not points. I'm not sure I preach right now.
One is that this is one of those places where we hear.
Paul talk about communion sort of in the same way that he talks about baptism.
RL – Participation. PT – Participation in the life of Christ.
RL – Yep. Union. PT – Union. Unity with Christ.
So in baptism, we are united with Christ in his death so that we can be united with him
like this in his resurrection, Romans chapter 6.
First Corinthians 11 or 10, I should say, when we give thanks because of, or we take
from the cup in participation in the blood of Jesus Christ, and we take of the bread
in participation in the body of Christ.
Now are those, what do those things mean?
What are we alluding to when we say, well, we're participating in the blood of Christ,
we're participating in the broken body, breaking of Christ?
Well, so this leads me to kind of ask a question I've had sitting in my back pocket, because you've
said it a couple times, and I don't know that everyone is familiar with it, but I think this
passage is maybe one of the stronger passages actually for the basis of what you're saying.
Cameron, what do you mean when you say it's a means of grace?
It's a way in which God… I know it's like I was like, and it's because you've said it a couple times.
You've like, commune, like, I believe that communion is a means of grace.
I agree with you.
Out of the two of us, you're probably the one with a little bit better.
I would be, I'd be hard pressed to give a clear explanation as to why I think that,
or exactly what I mean.
I think I'm a little vague on what I mean by that. I mean, to give like maybe what would be a pretty like,
sterile definition, I guess it would be a practical way in which God transmits his grace in Jesus Christ to us.
So like it becomes a tangible expression of a spiritual reality.
Yeah, so the participation. Participation is a way in which we experience.
Something that we physically experience that represents a deeper spiritual reality.
That we experience in the physical world.
But that is linked with the mysterious transmission of the grace of God through Jesus Christ.
And I think that right there is probably this significant difference between.
That's what we mean when we call it a sacrament versus just calling it maybe an ordinance,
at least in my mind, that right there, that distinctive, that it's not just a thing that we do
because we were told to do it, and it's a place of just remembering that Jesus did this,
but that there's also something that Christ is actively doing.
In that moment. in that moment that we are participating in some way in this, in a physical and spiritual sense.
Not that I know how, I leave all of that a mystery. But simply say it seems that there
is a spiritual dynamic going on at the table, because that's how Paul talks. And there we go.
Oh, so for me, I think that's a key, key point in a growing understanding of,
we're not just taking juice and bread.
We are participating in something and we're participating specifically in Christ.
Yes. In a very real sense.
In communion, shedding of his blood, breaking of his body, which extends to us what?
What does the participation in the breaking of Jesus' body shedding of his blood extend to us.
I mean, like, yeah, I mean, the guy, it essentially extends to us what was accomplished by Jesus
on the cross, right, which is the ability for us to be reconciled to God through forgiveness and faith.
You know, the significant, like, these are deep realities, realities that I'm not even
like, I even like inwardly tremble a little bit to even like try to talk about.
You know, so like maybe the question again between what we celebrate on Good Friday and
what we celebrate on Easter Sunday, like we participate in the body and blood of Christ on Good Friday.
We participate in the resurrection of Jesus Christ on Easter Sunday because through the
the blood and through the body we are forgiven.
Our sin is...we are put to death, like our sin is put to death, and we are raised to,
new life in Christ by the same spirit that raised him from the dead.
And so a little bit of the understanding of, again, the sacraments is it is, again, a full
retelling in many ways, a full retelling of the gospel, which there again is the benefit of liturgy.
It gives an opportunity to retell the gospel in the midst of the means of grace of the
gospel in the moment of celebration.
It adds a, I'm enjoying and liking this conversation because it, for me, it gives at least me the
space to sit here to retread this theologically so that.
Next time we do communion, like I am fresh again inside of the meaning and the fullness of what's happening.
I think sometimes we can, this is life, right? We get caught up into life and what should not be mundane and ordinary becomes mundane
and ordinary.
And so this, like the fact that we are invited by Christ to participate in the cross and
in his body and that's something we get to do on a Sunday morning.
I think it's huge.
Which is why doing it every Sunday morning does not cheapen it or make it less special.
Because our frequency of participating in Christ, like one cannot participate in Christ
enough. Yes, I only desire to participate in the work of Christ that has won for me salvation and forgiveness of sins.
First Sunday of the month, I'm good, the rest of it. I don't want it to become too familiar to me.
Because then it becomes... Yeah, we've gone down that rabbit hole before.
But also, it merits to say that we don't go as far as Catholics would say, and say that
We don't have the continuation of that theology where we're denying people Christ.
Or someone has to be saved in order to...
In order to be saved, one must be able to take communion, or have taken communion. Or the reverse.
Or you have to be saved in order to take communion.
Yeah. Well, that's a topic that we got to talk about. I want to, like, that's a bigger topic, I feel like.
Because at least my impression is that historically the church has made that distinction.
I think in some cases they have. Not all. Not all. Not all.
Yeah, we talked last week in the podcast about the didache, which was extra biblical teaching
surrounding the practices and history of the church in its earliest form.
And one section of the didache essentially withheld the sacraments, particularly the
the Eucharist in this case, from those who had not explicitly expressed, I don't remember
the exact language, but who had not, essentially who are not yet Christian.
Right.
Right. Or not yet baptized Christians. Should we pull it up?
Yeah, I think I can grab it really quick. I was reading it earlier today.
Because I think there is a fine line there of like, I don't think either of us would say that,
someone who is not professing Christ in any manner.
Communion would be for them, I don't think. So this will be Didache 810, the ninth, well actually the ninth section in Didache.
Concerning the broken bread, we give ye, we give thee thanks our Father for the life and
knowledge which thou didst make known to us through Jesus thy servant.
To thee be glory for ever, as this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains, but
was brought together and became one.
So let thy church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into thy kingdom, for
thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever.
But let none eat or drink of your Eucharist except those who have been baptized in the Lord's name.
Concerning this also did the Lord say, give not that which is holy to dogs.",
So they connected the words of Jesus, don't give what is holy to the dogs.
Ritch Yes, which is its own very unique passage.
Ken Right. So at least that idea was at least existing within the early church.
We know that.
I think that when we,
this is a really tricky one for me. It is. It's really tricky.
Because I think if we have a primary theology of communion as a participation in the death of Christ,
the broken body and the shedding of the blood, then I would lean towards the,
yeah, you need to probably profess faith in that work work in order for it to be, like, in order to participate in it.
You know, or to...in order to participate in communion, you should profess faith in the,
you know, the work of Jesus Christ for the death of Jesus Christ for your salvation.
You should be Christian.
Christian. Yep.
If we lean towards maybe a different way, which would say that the elements that are at the table.
Are means by which God extends his grace and forgiveness to all those present, then I would lean towards like,
I would lean towards like, well, God's grace and forgiveness is present and offered to all, you know,
while we were still sinners, right.
Christ died for us. So the sacrifice of Jesus and the offering of what he did and all that's theologically bound up in that was,
particularly for sinners, not those who had expressed faith in Jesus.
There was no faith in Jesus before, you get what I'm saying, right?
Car before the horse, chicken or the egg.
And so if in the act and practice of breaking the bread, sharing the cup, we are proclaiming
the offering of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, then isn't it in a very real way
a proclamation or an invitation to come and believe,
to come and receive the gift of God that is given to us in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of our sins.
And.
I know it would be many people's testimony that the gospel was proclaimed to them many,
many, many times before they accepted, internalized.
And so, you know, from a practical standpoint as pastors, what are we to do?
Or we just say, okay, listen to the proclamation of the gospel, but if you are not ready to
receive it and internalize it, do not take the elements.
Why?
Do we like, does the person speak judgment upon themselves by doing so?
Like we're not saved through communion.
So are we condemned by through it? Which we talked about last episode that as it goes on in 1 Corinthians.
Yeah, I love the opportunity to talk about that sometimes. It's an extraordinarily misunderstood passage.
I got in a big argument with a seminary friend in a seminary classroom about that passage
and just completely ignoring the context of it.
But anyway, so if it doesn't save us, which we all agree that it doesn't,
communion does not save us. Yep.
Can it condemn us?
By taking it, can we condemn it? Or is it just not good, wise practice to take it? It seems like,
it's either a, well, it condemns you if you take it and you have not believed,
or it's not a big deal. I'm having a hard time understanding how it can be somewhere in the
middle like, well, it's not advisable that you take communion if you haven't believed.
Right.
But you can if you want, I guess. Mm-hmm.
Doesn't feel to me like that's historically the church's position.
No, I don't think so.
So I don't know. That's not really an answer. No, I mean, I think to go back to that 1 Corinthians 10 passage, it does,
does it not say, does it not make mention about participation in the body?
Or am I conflating with what we just read? Because there is one loaf, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.
Right. So there, in that unique, in that passage alone, I feel like it carries maybe two of the poles.
It's about participating in the thing that Christ is doing.
But then it is also a participation in the community that is now formed because of what Christ has done.
Okay.
So there is a, I feel like that might give, I think that's another peg in the.
Potential, like, the thought that it is for those who are confessing Christ, because,
if you're not confessing Christ, you're not part of the body of Christ either.
And so if you would sit outside of that, like, is that for you? I mean, it is in a sense of like,
it is for you, because we want you to be part of it.
To be the gateway into the body. It is the gateway for it, right? And I think what we're really,
Maybe what we're really kind of running up against is like, is it the church's job to gatekeep?
Yeah.
And how much, and how even feasible is it? I was thinking about this.
I was thinking about this earlier today,
because there are churches out there, right, that have like, you know,
well, in order to take communion, you must be baptized first,
and then you also have to take this class, and you must do this, da, da, da, da, right?
Right? And you've got to be in good standing membership, sign the membership book and sign in for your attendance at church. Like for some people, that might all sound very strange, but that is normal for some churches in practice. Like, and one of the reasons for doing all of that is what fencing or guarding the table, ensuring that believers are taking the communion. But the thing is, is even with doing all of that, you're not going to get.
You are still going to have people who are not Christian, who do not know Christ.
And so the question becomes, is like, are we practicing the exercise of trying to sort out
the wheat and the tares, the wheat and the weeds, when perhaps maybe we should be a little bit more,
generous where we put that line? I think that's where we're kind of coming to, is like,
Like, you know, I wouldn't encourage someone who has no to little interest in Jesus to take communion.
But someone who is like, figuring out faith, who's like, in there, like, because like,
in all of this becomes so much cleaner if we have a moment of salvation theology, where
we believe someone becomes saved at a certain time on the clock, on a certain date, when
they pray a prayer.
And I think while that is some people's experience, that is not everyone's experience.
And I think some people are even more willing to say, well, that was a bit more of a process
than even it maybe felt.
But if that's the case, well, that becomes even harder to delineate when the line, when
And someone has crossed the line of being in the book of life or not.
And so how do you do that? I think that maybe even more clearly puts not so much the theological question, it's
just the application of the theological questions of where do we draw that line.
I don't know. Me neither. Neither.
I hope you weren't listening to this podcast for answers. I don't know.
I think from.
I guess in a real candid way, I'm more interested as a pastor,
I would be more interested in the.
The extending of God's extending of the table. Yes, then the guarding of the table. I agree.
I agree. I don't hate to disagree with the diddy. Okay, but I don't think that that passage about dogs is not about community is not about communion. I don't think that's well applied. And I don't think that the Corinthians 11 passage.
It is talking about the condemnation of believers who are taking communion in such a way as to snub other people in the church
or deny other people in the church communion.
Yeah, the opportunity, like they literally eat up all the elements before the rest of them get there.
They are in their own way fencing the table and being condemned for it.
And so I don't necessarily see Paul particularly concerned with denying the table from those who are seeking Christ.
As much as Paul is even maybe more angry at people who know Christ but are dishonoring Christ.
Right. What about kids?
Let the little ones come to me. Yeah.
If we take that seriously, right? Yeah, I mean, I think so. What about from a theological standpoint?
Well, then it becomes the arbitrary decider of the age of discernment,
which nobody has a real answer for. No.
And, you know, there's a there is a sense in which, well, and that would make, you know,
You could say that oh, okay first communion you get it age, whatever I don't know what it is. You could say that it's a 10, but then you have,
Grown adults who have Significant mental imitation limitations. Yeah saying well, they don't really understand it. So,
Again, we must guard against it just because someone has greater mystery than us does not mean right that they can't participate, correct
And similarly, and also I would say for children that they're in a way they are participating in their parents faith,
which is like a,
That's another theological. It's very pedo-baptist of you. Yeah, I know.
I'm gonna let you take that that standpoint next week when we talk about baptism. Oh gosh. Yeah, I don't know
I was thinking about that, but I was just like, I'm gonna regret saying this.
But like, a kid is coming to church, not out of their own choice and not necessarily out
of their own faith, they're coming out of their parents' faith.
So like, their even participation in a gathering of the saints is out of the faith of their,
parents as their parents train them up in the way in which they should go.
And so I don't think that it is an ex, I don't think it's overextending that understanding
to say that that is how children can participate in Christ through the communion table.
Yep. I would agree.
Well, we should probably end it there before we get open up more cans of worms. We can do that.
But I hope that this conversation, like, I hope that we're modeling a way of doing theology that is healthy, but also is demonstrating maybe some vulnerability
and some leaning into the mystery.
I think it would have been easy for either you or I to like...
Find a systematic theology or a theologian that we just like and just say that one just come and represent
someone's someone else's stand and just what they've written down a hundred percent and and and just
Trumpet that and then say here I stand thus far. It will not move. Yeah, like.
But that's not that's not in the way in which we've we've chosen to to practice theology at this moment here
And so it's a really disingenuous way I think to go about your faith. Yeah, I think it would I think it would soothe,
some of the anxiety of us coming up to these questions and saying oh, this is really hard to answer because then we could just,
quote someone And and so I am I'm not unsympathetic to that stance,
but I do think that,
You know, I think I hope that people listening understand that our Our genuineness in this is a desire to demonstrate good theology and biblical submission to Christ.
And I mean that biblically. But it's also a desire to not just simply pull someone else's answers out and trumpet
those as our own. All right.
As always, if you have questions or things that you want us to tackle at some point,
we have a mailbag that you can text 716-201-0507.
I've finally, however many episodes this in. You memorized it?
I've memorized it now.
Can also answer the questions or ask questions in the comments if you're on YouTube.
Leave us a rate and a comment on whatever format that you're watching it on,
listening to it. Really helpful for us to get more exposure for it. And we will see
See you next week when we talk about baptism.