
For me, this is one of the more personal blogs I have written. In fact, it has sat in my “drafts” folder for quite some time and even now I hesitate posting it. What makes it so personal is the fact that this has been an internal struggle of mine for a while and the decision I made was immensely difficult.
I have made a decision to fast from the Lord’s Supper (Communion, Eucharist, etc.) whenever I am in an environment where anyone is excluded from the Lord’s table.
It saddens me to the core when people are excluded from sharing a meal with Jesus. I crumble inside when the words “If you are a follower of Jesus you are invited to partake…” are spoken because the flip-side of that message is, “If you are not a follower of Jesus you are not welcome at Jesus’ table.” I explode internally when I see someone pass Jesus’ meal without taking it because a “table-keeper” said they couldn’t. Here is why I am sad, crumble, and explode:
Imagine our family shares a special dinner tradition. When Grandpa was alive (he died seven years ago) he always prepared a special dinner whenever he came over to visit and the family got together. Since his death, the family continues sharing this meal every time we get together (usually about 6 times a year). The tradition has become to remember Grandpa as we eat, each of us sharing stories and memories, remembering and honoring him, his life, and the love he gave to us and we shared with him. It is a wonderful time for our family—deeply personal and very meaningful.
But periodically, friends who are not part of our blood-family come over during these gatherings. We talk, laugh, play games and have a rewarding time of fellowship. But when it comes time for our traditional meal, we politely ask them to remain in the living room while we eat. So, awkwardly, they acquiesce and sit on the couch to watch us eat. Glasses chime, silverware clang, stories are told, memories shared, food eaten and wine sipped—by some, that is.
This analogy grips me and will not let go. It is absolutely absurd. Who does this? We do! Every time we share our daddy’s meal—sorry, the Lord’s Supper—together. And God has convicted me to the point where I can no longer sit at the table eating while others are expelled to the living room to watch. I just can’t do it anymore!
From what I know of Jesus, he would never exclude anyone from sharing a meal with him—especially active sinners. When he was here on earth, that is exactly who he was fond of sharing his table with. Have we forgotten that this is Jesus’ table and meal, not ours? Who am I to decide and control who gets to eat at Jesus’ table and who does not? I get this picture of Jesus sitting at a table with a feast spread before him, but erecting a human wall between Jesus’ feast and the “people” are some men (mostly) who decide who gets to eat and who gets to watch.
Going back to the analogy of our family, how much more beautiful to add a few more chairs at the table and invite those who are not “family” to come and share our intimate meal. Maybe as we share stories and memories, remembering and honoring him—his life, and the love he gave and we shared—they will get to know him and his love in the process. Perhaps as they are invited to belong they will be mesmerized by him and his love.
So that is why I am fasting from the Lord’s Supper whenever I am in an environment where anyone is excluded from the Lord’s table. I cannot eat at the table while others are left on the couch. I will politely excuse myself from the family table and go sit on the couch with our friends. For me, to sit at the table is to quietly nod in favor at what is taking place.
Since my decision to pass on the bread and the wine, our church has shared the Lord’s Supper twice. Both times—for the first time in my life!—I have handed the trays to my neighbor without partaking. Sitting there without the bread and the wine (juice) has been a deeply intimate and spiritual time for me. My mind wanders from being focused on God to feeling really awkward and self conscious. I feel the “imaginary” stares from those around me. I hear the chewing and swallowing and clacking of plastic cups. By personally choosing to remain on the “couch”, I am getting a sense of how it feels to be excluded from Jesus’ table. And oh how my shallow heart needs to feel it—I need to feel what it feels like to be among the excluded! I need to feel what they feel whenever they are forced to sit on the couch.
Here’s the ironic thing, while sitting on the couch I noticed something: Jesus steps up from the table, squeezes his way through the human-erected wall, and brings his spirit to those of us on the couch as well. Despite our best religious efforts to control his table, we can’t control him. Cool, huh?
For what it’s worth…



33 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 6, 2008 at 9:17 pm
mnmo
Do you have Scripture to back up these feelings? The analogy is great, but does not seal the deal for me, per se.
March 6, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Jeromy
The Gospels and Jesus’ ministry. My analogy is simply that. This whole decision stemmed from Jesus’ heart and table ministry with “sinners” as expressed in the Gospels. Something just doesn’t add up…
March 7, 2008 at 4:43 am
bajanpoet
OMG. *stunned silence*
I understand *exactly* what you mean, although I’ve never given it much thought before…. Thanks for making me think even more about, “Why do we do the things we do?” and “Jesus was a friend of sinners. Am I?”
I would like to link to this post from my own blog…. and share it at my own church, if I may. I know this will have an impact on us. This has really made me want to pray and ask God to help me be more inclusive of those who don’t yet know Him. Lord, help me to show your love more - esp to those who don’t know u. Lord, a meal is so intimate! How could we refuse to share Christ’s intimacy with those who REALLY NEED IT?
March 7, 2008 at 8:28 am
Jeromy
Thank you for stopping by and sharing your thoughts and prayer. I am glad that this post got you thinking and praying…it has me for a long time! Well said: “Lord, a meal is so intimate! How could we refuse to share Christ’s intimacy with those who REALLY NEED IT?”
Feel free to link and share away…
By the way, I really think that this theology stems from our medieval Catholic roots. They would say you need to belong to the Catholic church to dine with Jesus. Though we have softened it some, we still basically hold to the same theology: You need to be a part of the Christian church (have a relationship with Jesus) to dine with Jesus. So we are a BIT more inclusive than our Catholic siblings, but still pretty exclusive with Jesus’ meal.
March 7, 2008 at 10:53 am
ana
I was looking online this morning for a local church that I might go to this Sunday. (It’s been about 10 years since I’ve been.) On each site that I visited I checked out the “What We Believe” page. Almost all of them made some sort of comment that said, basically, “If you are baptized you can join us in the Lord’s supper.” I immediately thought of this post. There were a couple of churches that I found that said “Everyone welcome.”
March 7, 2008 at 11:04 am
Raquel
what’s sad about this post, to me, is that it seems like your relationship with Christ has less priority than your hand-in-glove approach to non-believers. Who is your focus?
Who is your priority?
I encourage you to rethink your decision. If the Holy Spirit leads someone to partake in the blood and the body, amen! But it’s not up to us… it’s up to Him. Jesus wants us to put HIM first. Over and over in the Bible, Jesus puts God first.
I’m, personally, way more worried about God’s opinion than mans.
March 7, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Jeromy
~Anna~
Yea, it is very common. There is a term some use where they say “we practice open communion.” This term varies in its meaning from church-to-church. To some it means just that…we are open for everyone to partake; for others it means we are open to people from other Christian faiths to partake.
Out of curiosity, how many churches did you check out that did not welcome everyone?
March 7, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Jeromy
~Raquel~
It is because of Jesus that I have made this incredibly personal decision (so much so that I hesitated posting it). Besides the four people who actually read this post
, only Jesus and I know what I have decided and there is not one single “non-believer” that will ever notice, much less care. It is intimately between Jesus and me. It is because Jesus is my focus and priority that I have decided to fast. To me, this is a deeply personal act of putting Jesus first rather than a tradition that I believe breaks Jesus’ heart—not the tradition of communion, but our tradition of exclusion.
This post was about a personal decision and conviction that I feel the Lord has led me to. You may not agree and that’s OK…it really is. You need to follow his leading and conviction in your own life…as you are doing!
Well said: “But it’s not up to us…it’s up to Him.” I couldn’t agree more
March 7, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Steve Grove
I understand you come from the point of there being nothing sacred or profane. I am curious as to what holiness means to you, and how it is played out in life.
When I lead communion I give a warning to those who attend the service, and let people choose for themselves. The warning is found in 1 Corinthians 11:23-32, esp verses 27ff. Those who don’t recognize that Jesus’ death is the payment for their personal sin have a hard time doing communion”to proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.” How do you apply these verses that warn about judgement and discipline?
March 7, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Jeromy
To me, holiness is allowing God to restore me and embracing the light burden of Jesus. It is also trying to follow my daddy’s leading and guidance in my life. It is not legalism.
I do not want to argue Bible verses with you, but the passage you brought up is a terrific example of pulling certain verses out of context and reading them through the lens of our own traditions. Verses 23-32 have a context around them, namely verses 17-22 and 33-34—all of which point to the fact that there were people abusing the meal of the Lord’s supper. Paul opens with, “In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm then good.” He then goes on to share how there were some who were gorging on food while others didn’t get anything, “one person remains hungry and another gets drunk.” Then in the end of the ENTIRE passage, Paul says these words: “So then, my brothers and sisters, when you gather to eat, you should all eat together. Those who are hungry should eat something at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.” It seems very clear to me that the intent of Paul’s words are addressing the divisions and abuses of those eating at Jesus’ table then it is decreeing that “non-believers” cannot participate.
I believe that someone who is not aware of God’s love for them can participate in a “worthy” manner. I see nothing within verses 23-32 that prohibits anyone from the table, especially when read within its context.
March 7, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Steve Grove
The commands in this passage are not just about the meal. It is a command to do “in rememberance”. If you see unworthy as only being a glutton and greedy, that’s fine. I said I don’t judge anyone, but read that passage because they need to examine themselves. What are they doing at communion if it is not to God?
Are you saying calling something sin the same as being legalistic? You don’t mention sin in your definition of holiness. The Old Testamnet was written with the laws for one purpose - to show the holiness of God and that we can’t attain to it. What do you do about sin?
March 7, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Jeromy
Do you think Jesus would exclude anyone from sharing and enjoying a meal with him?
Holiness is allowing God to restore me. Restoration from sin is definitely part of it. Recognizing that he is my daddy and that he loves me regardless of anything I do is another.
March 7, 2008 at 2:14 pm
nator
Jesus shared this meal with the person who betrayed him and the person who denied him three times. Sinners all.
March 7, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Jeromy
Indeed he did…[slowly nodding]…indeed he did.
March 7, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Steve Grove
This is more than just a meal. The early church did this in secret, because it was a special time, a special rememberance, way before the church became “Catholic”.
Think of this analogy: You take your wife out for an anniversary dinner. Your hockey buddies want to come, and you feel like they will be offended if you say it is something special for just you and your wife, (who share an intimate relationship). So, your wife being the patient and understanding lady says, “Sure, come along. Our anniversary can be celebrated any day. What’s a few more people. We don’t need this time together for just you and me to remember what we mean to each other.”
It was the Passover meal Jesus and his followers were sharing (were the sinners at this meal too?). Something that Jews and Gentiles did all the time together, eating ham and eggs… oh wait… that’s (slowiy nodding) not what they did. It was to remember something specific that God did in their lives, their history.
And Judas went and ate another 32 comunion suppers with Jesus… wait, no he didn’t. He judged himself, as did Jesus, for it would be better not to be born than to be Judas. And he betrayed Judas before the meal… no wait, that was after the meal too.
I have never said I judge anyone in communion. Sin is a serious issue with God, so we are asked to examine ourselves. The disciples were sinners and without the Holy Spirit that we know of. I am just surprised that you view communion as any other meal and pot luck that the church body does together. It is easy to see jesus ate with sinners and the people around Him. He also pulled His disciples in close around Him at times for specific teaching. Did you notice most of the crowd teaching was in parables while He was much plainer in the “Holy Huddle”? Why is it wrong to get together for a time with just our brothers and sisters in Christ?
March 7, 2008 at 3:56 pm
nator
But again, they were Jesus’ disciples and he KNEW they were sinners and he shared this sacred meal with them. Otherwise he could have excused Judas and Peter, since he had already told them what they were about to do. I guess what He should have done is present them with the law, ask them if they were a good person, get them saved and then have dinner. But that isn’t what He did.
March 7, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Raquel
“A tradition of exclusion..”
Maybe that’s where we don’t agree. Once upon a time, I happened upon an Irish Catholic church and I went up to take communion and I was asked if I was Catholic. “Well… I’m a Christian…” I said, hopefully, and honestly not knowing better. The priest asked me not to partake.
To me that’s obvious silliness. However, to swing the pendulum FAR over because some individuals are so caught up in red tape that they can’t move…
March 7, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Jeromy
~ Steve ~
Do you think Jesus would exclude anyone from sharing and enjoying a meal with him?
What do we have to loose if we invite and allow all to the table with Jesus? Do you think Jesus is going to be mad? Can they not begin to experience the love and grace of Jesus by dining with him BEFORE they “believe”?
All Jesus said was this:
“While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
Then he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins…”
Again, this is my own personal conviction based on what I know of Jesus’ heart for sinners. I never said you judged people in communion. As I see it, if we are worried about God judging people (”Christian” and “non-Christian alike) because they take communion in an “unworthy” manner, then I suggest we leave that to him—He alone knows the heart. Who are we to decide who is allowed to share Jesus’ meal and who doesn’t? Let’s trust him and his “judgment” as we extend grace to our co-humans. Who knows, we just might be surprised with who HE decides to eat with. Perhaps that is what we are afraid of.
But we obviously view God and Jesus very differently. Cool—when we see him face to face we’ll find out we were both mistaken on a whole mess of stuff.
March 7, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Jeromy
~ Raquel ~
I am not trying to swing any pendulum. I am trying to follow Jesus and his example. He was madly in love with active sinners and he ate with them. Has he changed his mind?
March 7, 2008 at 7:52 pm
ron
Jeromy. I like your thought. I might institute it myself. Of course the church I attend now, realizes that Judas was allowed in. And if he was allowed in, who could we possibly exclude?
March 7, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Jeromy
Ron ~ Well said: “…Judas was allowed in. And if he was allowed in, who could we possibly exclude?” I believe this is a prime example of Jesus’ heart to embrace, not exclude.
March 7, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Steve Grove
I don’t think Jesus would exclude anyone from sharing a meal with Him, from the lowliest sinner, to the holiest Pharisee, to the closest disciples.
March 10, 2008 at 11:17 am
Adam Sauer
Jeromy - here’s a couple of things:
1) Isn’t communion a time of thanksgiving and remembrance? If you are allowing anyone to partake then what are they remembering and what are they giving thanks for?
2) Jesus himself says that in communion, the cup is the “new covenant.” If this is the case, what covenant would the non-believer be partaking in? They haven’t partnered with God in living their life? They have no understanding of the covenant of God?
3) You stated that when Jesus allowed the disciples to share this meal with Him that He wasn’t excluding sinners? But wasn’t he? Someone referred to Him allowing Peter to eat at the table even though He knew that Peter would betray Him… well does that mean He isn’t a believer? Doesn’t Peter proclaim Jesus as Messiah in Matthew 16? So techinically, Peter was a beliver who just stumbled at one point in his walk. But he was still a believer.
March 10, 2008 at 11:56 am
Jeromy
To me, there is no better way to honor, and remember, and give thanks then to carry on Jesus’ expressed heart towards sinners. I fear we have remembered his “name” but neglected his “spirit” in the process. Perhaps as we invite them to the table, this act of inclusion will allow them to begin to experience Jesus in a new way so they can begin to remember and give thanks. From what I see in Jesus, he would not exclude them.
I am not sure if WE even really begin to understand God’s covenant and its possible implications either. God’s covenant seems to be more about his choosing then our choosing, and with Jesus’ ministry, he definitely chose a whole bunch of people that the established religion rejected. Would he do the same in this case as well?
Judas was also served. I see Jesus teaching and creating a new meal-celebration with his disciples so when they gather after his death they can eat of his broken body and drink of his blood of forgiveness. If Jesus gave his body and blood for all, why can’t we do the same with their symbolic elements?
To me, it comes back to this question: Would Jesus exclude anyone from sharing a meal with him? If not a common meal, how much less so a meal of such great importance for him and for us. This is the heart.
I fear I have not much more to offer than what I have already written, both in the post and in the comments.
March 12, 2008 at 6:37 am
Gene
I couldn’t agree more. Thank you, Jeromy.
March 20, 2008 at 8:28 am
Steve Grove
forgiveness without repentance
baptism without discipline
communion without confession
absolution without responsibility
“Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate” (The Cost Of Discipleship, Dietrich Bonhoeffer)
March 20, 2008 at 8:39 am
Jeromy
Grace being a free gift . . . hard to believe, isn’t it? Even harder, I’ve experienced, to receive because I really want to do something to earn or pay for it.
I couldn’t agree with Bonhoeffer more.
March 20, 2008 at 9:19 am
Jeromy
Steve, curious to understand what you meant by “baptism without discipline.”
May 15, 2008 at 6:06 am
Communion Sunday « A Mending Shift
[...] So I, too, dined. (click if you don’t know the back-story…
[...]
May 15, 2008 at 6:42 am
kathyescobar
oh jeromy, this was POWERFUL! beautiful story, beautiful statement. yeah, i’m pretty sure we can try to squeeze jesus out and exclude others but he just creeps back in, amen for that!
May 15, 2008 at 6:59 am
Jeromy
I love the connection you made. When we exclude others, we are squeezing out Jesus. Hmmm. Perhaps what we do to others, we do to him. (sounds awfully familiar to the words of a certain Nazarene).
May 16, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Davida
jeromy, thanks for your comment to me on tracy’s blog.
i’ve been wandering around a bit, jumping from blog to blog, reading up on some interesting topics. i think i get where you are coming from in this post, however, i see steve’s points of view as well. the bread and the wine are a symbol of christ being our passover - our salvation and redemption, freeing us from bondage. if someone is not a believer, why would they want to participate? it would be kinda wierd. and although i see him as someone who is inclusive, He kinda did exclude some people from his last supper. he only invited his disciples. he didn’t go to the crowds (which he could have done). he had them go to the room that was prepared for them. it was something intimate and full of meaning to them. i think that intimacy and meaning is something he definately wants us to include people in on and to share with them. maybe by sharing the lord’s supper this can be facilitated, but like you said, it is more about the spirit of things and whether or not we are open to people and ok with where they are (yet not simply leave them there).
your heart for jesus and people is evident. i appreciate that.
thanks for letting me share my thoughts.
May 16, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Jeromy
You’re welcome, thanks for sharing them. Your heart is evident as well. Someone who is not a follower of Jesus may not want to participate, which is their decision to make…we shouldn’t force it on them. But nor do I believe that we should exclude them. I don’t think it is our place to do so.
Why didn’t Jesus have other people there? Don’t know. Perhaps they were all with their families celebrating the Passover meal. Perhaps more than just the 12 were there (it only says “disciples”). But some who betrayed him and denied him were there and he served them. Again, what I see of Jesus and his ministry and heart, I really don’t think he would turn people away from sharing his meal. I could be wrong.