John Wesley and Apostolic Succession

One of the "controversial" claims made by the Rev'd Dr Peterson at M11 was that only ordained clergy can/should consecrate the elements. This came up today in a conversation I had with a friend of mine who is a student at Neshota House Seminary. His argument goes something like this:

1) Wesley understood that the church, to be the church, must have the sacraments;
2) Wesley understood that to have the sacraments, the church must have ordained priests;
3) Wesley understood that to have priests, the church must have bishops in Apostolic Succession to ordain priests.
4) When the church would not send bishops, Wesley was faced with a dilemma: (a) don't have the sacraments; (b) allow lay-persons to consecrate the elements; (c) appoint Methodist "superintendents" to ordain clergy so their can be a priesthood to consecrate the elements.
5) Wesley chose (c) and engaged in theological/exegetical gymnastics in order to get around Apostolic Succession in order to provide a priesthood in America to celebrate the sacraments.

Follow?

6) The end result of Wesley's breaking of Apostolic Succession is the loss of a Methodist priesthood and ultimately a loss of a truly sacramental church.

Here is his final claim:

7) If Wesley would have been able to foresee the result of his circumventing of Apostolic Succession, he would not have done so.

His argument is quite interesting and could be discussed at a number of points (please feel free to do so). My questions regard his conclusion: Is #6 a fair critique? Did Wesley's move away from Apostolic Succession (in the Traditional Anglican/Catholic/Orthodox understanding) lead ultimately to the present state of sacraments in the Methodist churches? Do you think Wesley would have done things differently at this point if he had it to do over again? Why or why not?

"Worship & Sacraments: Q & A" with Brent Peterson

The last part of the previous video - this is where it gets fun!

Feel free to discuss in the comments.

Rev. Brent Peterson PhD on "Worship & The Sacraments"

Here's part one of the video I shot of Brent's M11 session (which actually picks up about half way through the formal part of his presentation - I was about 20 min. late due to a lunch meeting).

Any comments on this, other than unbridled support and agreement?!  Let's discuss.  There's already been some lively discussion over at NazNet.

As soon as it's finished uploading, I will post the Q & A, which is where he made some of his most provocative points (perhaps not too provocative to those who frequent this blog, but to some they would be).

Lord's Supper IOU

A friend of mine served a church in a rural area and was going to be gone on Christmas Eve. This created some problems, because for years this church had participated in a Christmas Eve Communion Service. With his absence, there were no ordained elders, district licensed pastors, or even local licensed pastors to stand in his place. Because of this, the churched struggled with what to do.

A. Not serve Communion

B. Serve communion but in violation of the manual and without the presence of clergy.

As he was sharing this, it got me thinking about our heritage. As a part of the camp meeting movement we inherited a lot of the frontier practices of early Methodism. We know that Wesley encouraged elders to celebrate the Lord’s Supper every Lord’s Day.

"Pastor, forgive me, I've sinned."

I preface by saying that parts of the penance/reconciliation/confessional practices are skewed in some bodies of faith, however I pose the discussion that there could be benefits to encourage a more one-on-one pastor/parishioner relationship and accessibility when it comes to accountability and sin. While we may not consider this a ‘sacrament’ initially, is it not a ‘means of grace’?

I’ve been to confession. I’ve experienced the preparation of taking a good examination of my thoughts, words, deeds, and faith practices. I’ve experienced the anxiety of having to make the car ride to the church thirty minutes before service starts and wait to see that dreaded light turn green so that I can go in and make a contrite confession of my shortcomings, mess ups, sins, and struggles. I’ve also experienced the freedom that comes from a called minister of God listening carefully, without judgment, and express his/her sorrow with me and encourage me to pray a prayer of repentance to our God and go and sin no more. I’ve heard the words, ‘You are absolved from you sins, go in peace and penance to our Lord and your brother and sisters in the faith’. I’ve been reminded that my shortcomings, mess ups, sins, and struggles not only effect me, but they also effect the body. I’ve participated in the ‘sacrament of reconciliation’ both face-to-face and even behind those funny little screens. And it was wonderful! But why?

Joseph's Baptism

Sunday was a major milestone not only in Joseph's life, and the life of our family, but in the life of Xenia Naz as well.  It may have been the first infant baptism ever at my church, and certainly the first one done like this.



I ended up tweaking a few things in the final version of the liturgy under the advisement of our assistant District Superintendent, who is presently serving as our interim pastor.  He was remarkably supportive of all this, and did a fantastic job "setting up" the baptism. (You can listen to his comments/explanation during the first 5-6 min of his sermon from Sunday - although I encourage you to listen to the whole thing - it is masterful....and he invokes Rob Staples, so bonus points for that!)

All in all, it was wonderful.  Immediately after the service, I found myself in several conversations, most of which were of the "so-we-actually-do-that?" variety...and not in an offended or concerned (heh) sense, but more arising from intrigue/fascination/curiosity.  The most thorough discussion I had was with a woman with a Catholic background who sings in my choir.  Her elementary-age daughter was baptized in the Catholic church, and I think she just genuinely wanted to know whether that baptism was valid...legit...sufficient.  I told her: absolutely.

Also, let the record show that my dad did a exceptional job officiating, especially in a "scripted" context that is a bit outside his comfort zone.  Events like this remind me and Gloria what a means of grace our family is.  And although I teased my dad a bit about dousing Joseph six times (correct me if I'm wrong: I think this was a "sextuple affusion"...?) instead of the traditional three, I have to agree with my friend Jeremy's comment: "Make that grace as visible as possible." Amen.

How would a ritual like this fly at your church?  What about the church you grew up in?

(If you'd like a .doc version of the liturgy so you can use/amend it, email me.)

D.I.Y. Communion

In my area I have noticed an interesting and somewhat disturbing trend of "Do It Yourself Communion." For example, a local non-denominational church posted in the local paper, "On the first Friday of every month, the _______ Church will be open from 9:00 a.m.--5:00 p.m. with prepackaged bread and juice available throughout that time. Whenever it is convenient for you feel free to pop in, and take Communion or take it with you, and take some home to your family as well."

(I have seen similar statements coming from Nazarene Churches as well, so please don't think I am picking on this particular church, their statement just reminded me of this practice. )

So here are my questions:

What would motivate us to serve communion this way?

What if anything about this statement should disturb us?

What does this statements say about the ecclesiology of the participating local church?

What does it say about their understanding of Communion?

What role does a sacramental versus an ordinance understanding play in "D.I.Y. Communion"?

How is this similar/dissimilar to home communion?

What would you tell a member of your congregation who proposed that your church participate in something similar?

I look forward to learning from your responses.

Brian

"Disposing" of the Elements

In an effort to keep my promise to add content more regularly and revitalize the conversation 'round these parts, I was looking back through old posts. I knew there were at least a few instances where I had an idea for what I thought would be a good topic to post about, and created a draft but never finished and published it.  This was one, but I hadn't even begun writing it - just had a title! (weird, I know.)

I think it's a good thing to bat around, though - certainly something we have had some discussion about at Xenia Naz: what to do with the elements - the cup in particular - after communion?

What Is A Sacrament Anyway?

Since the last General Assembly, we have talked here about collaborating to make some sacramental resolutions for the next General Assembly. Accordingly, I have been contemplating what resolutions we could make. This week I have encountered twice the claim that Nazarenes believe a sacrament is "an outward sign of an inward grace." This appeared in Dr. McGonigle's response in the new edition of Holiness Today, and in a curriculum piece I was examining for my youth group. I know this definition comes from the Book of Common Prayer, as Dr. McGonigle points out, but it is greatly shortened from what the BCP says. It leaves out what most of us would argue is the most important part, "and the means by which we receive the same."

I began looking to find out where the manual defines a sacrament. The Articles of Faith on Baptism and the Lord's Supper both affirm that the respective acts are indeed sacraments, but no where is there a definition of a sacrament. It occurred to me that perhaps this would be a great place to start for a group that calls themselves sacramental. How about a resolution to define what the Church of the Nazarene believes a sacrament is. I image a new article of faith to precede the articles on Baptism and The Lord's Supper, but perhaps that is not the best avenue. What do you all think? How do you define a sacrament?

"The Church of the Nazarene believes a sacrament to be an outward sign of an inward grace and the means by which we receive the same. Accordingly, a sacrament is both an act by which we remember, celebrate, memorialize, and proclaim the incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, and future return of our Lord Jesus Christ, and at the same time is the ordinary means by which God extends to the recipient the grace provided to the world in the life, death, resurrection and return of our Lord Jesus Christ. We believe in two sacraments, ordained by Christ himself: Baptism and The Lord's Supper."

Frequency of the Lord's Supper - I've been caught!

Folks, I need your help. Give me some good arguments for and against having communion at least once a month. The reason I've been given for NOT is because it's becoming too ritualistic. I need help to navigate this, and I know there are many of you who have great words of wisdom for me. ~Amy

A Pastor's Responsibility to Prepare

Twice yesterday, I came across accounts of pastors administering the sacraments. Each pastor seemed to have a different approach to his responsibility to prepare the one receiving the sacrament to receive the sacrament. Consider these two scenarios.

1) A pastor has a young college student attending his church. That college student is a self-proclaimed atheist. The student has been in attendance at several communion services, but has never received because of his atheism. This particular service, however, the student came to the altar to receive communion. Before serving him, the pastor asked him a question, "Has something about your atheism changed?" The student convincingly answered affirmatively and for the first time received the sacrament as a follower of Christ. Later the pastor and the student got together to discuss this perceived change.

2) A pastor has felt the need to encourage his people to experience the sacrament of baptism. So he prepares a beautiful worship service that will conclude with a baptism service. He includes videos of people talking about baptism and preaches a sermon discussing the sacrament. At the close of the sermon, instead of the traditional "altar call," there is a baptism call. Many people stood up, came forward, and right there and then got baptized.

These two pastors seem to take very different approaches to "preparing" their people to rightfully receive the sacraments. So my question is this: (1) What is a pastor's responsibility to the church and to the people to prepare candidates for receiving the sacraments' (2) What do you do to prepare your parishioners or how does your pastor prepare you/your congregation to receive the sacraments?

The Real Presence: survey says...

I know what I hope the answer to this question is. And I'm pretty sure I know what the answer should be as well. But I want to know what you think, fair reader - both your own conviction and what you observe in the practices of your own church(es):
Do Nazarenes believe in the "real presence" of Christ in the Lord's Supper?

I unfailingly attempt to defend that we do...but then sometimes I wonder...

The Church of the Nazarene's 13th Article of Faith puts it thus:

XIII. The Lord’s Supper

17. We believe that the Memorial and Communion Supper instituted by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is essentially a New Testament sacrament, declarative of His sacrificial death, through the merits of which believers have life and salvation and promise of all spiritual blessings in Christ. It is distinctively for those who are prepared for reverent appreciation of its significance, and by it they show forth the Lord’s death till He come again. It being the Communion feast, only those who have faith in Christ and love for the saints should be called to participate therein.

To appeal to another authority, John Wesley's adaptation for Methodist use of 25 of the Anglican 39 Articles states:

Article 16—Of the Sacraments

Sacraments ordained of Christ are not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they are certain signs of grace, and God's good will toward us, by which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm, our faith in him. There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. [...]

The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about; but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect or operation; but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves condemnation, as St. Paul saith.

Article 18—Of the Lord's Supper

The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death; insomuch that, to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ; and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine in the Supper of our Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith...

So, whaddaya'll think?

Robert Jenson on the Sacraments

"Recently, a priest in England tried to celebrate the Supper by television. Each little group was to have its bread and wine, to be blessed by the man on the tube. The metaphysical divide of our epoch is between those who will regard such an event as an interesting experiment or even a "breakthrough," and those who, like myself, will regard it as a joke in pitiably bad taste."
(Visible Words: The Interpretation and Practice of Christian Sacraments, Fortress Press, 1978, p. 17)
Another quote, just for fun...a few pages earlier, he writes: "If the church had begun in a northern climate, doubtless its sacramental drink, if it had one, would be beer." (p. 9)
Of course, one would expect as much from a Lutheran.

Report from the Front Lines

I guess I am attempting this first blog mostly to earn the right to have my name in the prestigious list to the right (contributors). I've enjoyed reading the stuff I've found here, and I truly appreciate Brannon's efforts to make this a place where ideas can be exchanged about an area which is a passion of mine. I am a pastor in a Nazarene Church in the South. This is my 3rd church and I truly love the Church of the Nazarene. I have pastored in three different regions, with three very distinct groups of people inhabiting each Church. The Church I am in right now is largely white-collar, and we have an ever-increasing contingent of students and grad students from Baylor University attending. I have truly loved sharing with this Church my passion for worship, the Sacraments and the Christian calendar. I’ll share two interesting accounts very briefly, then try to sum up my rambling and get out as painlessly as possible.

Insights on Wesley

"For Wesley, there was no contradiction between sacramental and evangelical religion, as these terms were later formulated. He was both a Catholic sacramentalist - if by that is signified a deep attachment and devotion to the given forms through which God has promised to convey His grace and in which the believer is confirmed in faith and his life sanctified - and a revivalist who saw in the Supper a means not only of sanctification but of preaching unto conversion and justification. Without denying any of the richness of his Anglican eucharistic heritage, he broadened it to include new elements. This is paralleled by the fact that he adhered to the Anglican liturgy while at the same time adding characterist Methodist features, notably hymns and extempore prayer. The Catholic and Protestant features were present also in doctrine, and, as with baptism, Wesley strove for a genuine via media between the extremes of both positions..."

from John R. Parris, John Wesley's Doctrine of the Sacraments. London: The Epworth Press, 1963, pgs 95-96.