I Cor. 11:17-34, the Lord's Supper and Prescient WiFi

Some reflections on the Lord's Supper, while I'm working in the local Methodist cafe using their free "prescient WiFi" (I foresaw in advance this morning that I would be using their wifi for job searches and blogging.)  The UMC is NOT my first choice theologically, but they have a nice quiet cafe for computer work, so who am I to refuse? 

At ORRB family camp this summer the pastors talked about various ordinances of the church, including the Lord's Supper and the instructions from I Cor. 11.  One of the things I found really nutty about the Methodist application of this meal was that that pastor, prior to distribution of the elements, would give a fairly watery (and non-Scriptural) warning that the elements were only to be partaken by believing Christians or those considering becoming Christians.  This struck me as odd: so basically, someone could be in the audience of a Methodist church, could think, "Hmmm, that was a nice message, and that brief sermon about self-righteous moralism felt really good to me.  Maybe I'll try some communion!"  I can't see this without finding it problematic. 

Per the church discussion this summer, this faulty UMC view of communion is apparently something like a "half-way covenant", which allows for people merely thinking about becoming believers to eat the meal.  The point made from family camp was that believers should iron out the implications and decide for themselves prior to taking the elements.  The Apostle Paul lays out some stern warnings in I Cor. for the wrongful taking of the elements, and I think it ultimately detracts for the importance and symbolism of the meal to do it is such a frivolous manner.  But the UMC has a habit of cherry-picking what they want to believe from the Holy Spirit's words through the Apostle Paul (primarily from I Tim. 2, but that's another can o' worms...)

Another thought is on the usage of the word "sacrament".  I've discussed this one with Presbyterian Dad recently, and I'm not sure its an accurate label to refer to either of the ordinances (Baptism and the Lord's Supper) as sacraments, because by definition a sacrament implies that a measure of grace is ALWAYS imparted as part of the act.  I don't agree with this position for a number of reasons, but the primary objection would be on the grounds that, much like in the UMC, an ordinance like the Lord's Supper could be taken in a totally hollow, superficial manner - so how or why would grace be imparted in that situation, to an individual who's just sitting there and appreciating the taste of the elements without giving any genuine reflective thought to the meaning of those elements?  Likewise with baptism, particularly paedobaptism, I don't see how the term of "sacrament" would apply in situations where a Presbyterian infant is sprinkled with water, and then that child grows up and walks from the faith for the rest of their life.  Where, then, is the grace?  Was it wastefully imparted to one who was never elect in the first place?

The term "ordinance" refers more to instructions from Christ - he instructed his followers to baptize and to remember him through the elements of the Supper.  *IF* grace is imparted as part of this act, then praise the Lord.  But the blanket understanding of grace always being a part of these ordinances doesn't seem to work, especially in situations of individuals who don't partake in a deeper meditative understanding of what these ordinances represent.  And how can a toddler know what those baptismal waters of death really represent?

I Corinthians 11 and Why I am not a Methodist

I was recently at a Methodist church in town (not for worship, but rather for coffee at their poshly-decorated coffee nook/gift shop), and while there I took a look at some of their documents and doctrine, and more or less confirmed what I already knew about Methodism, and affirmed why I am NOT a Methodist.  It has less to do with their ordination of women (which, of course I have some I Tim. 2 issues with) or their Armenian traditions (which I have some Romans 8 issues with) but more over the Weslean tradition and Wesley's 25 articles. Per this one:

Article XVII—Of Baptism

Baptism is not only a sign of profession and mark of difference whereby Christians are distinguished from others that are not baptized; but it is also a sign of regeneration or the new birth. The Baptism of young children is to be retained in the Church.

I've yet to see from Scripture where baptism of children or infants is illustrated or instructed.  From the churches site, "Those that are baptized as children must make the choice to confirm their belief in Christ to continue as members of the church."  To continue as members?  I do not understand the strange idea of a half-sacrament.  Scripture seems to give a solid example of baptism of professing adults, not children.  How can baptism be done with the idea that a confirmation needs to follow separately?

The other article that caught my attention was sixteen, on the "sacraments":


Article XVI—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.

I've come to question recently the usage of the word "sacrament", since, by definition, it's held to be a means of divine grace, and when individuals partake of the Lord's Supper, or baptism, they may, or may not, be partaking in these ordinances with the right heart attitude (a non-believer could ask to be baptized - likewise a non-believer could take the elements of the Supper).  So in these situations, is grace ALWAYS understood to be imparted?  I can think of individuals who have walked from the faith but yet were baptized as infants.  Was grace still imparted in that infant baptism?  I would argue not - not just because I do not recognize infant baptism as a valid administation of the baptism ordinance, but because the implication becomes that grace was poured out and essentially WASTED.  I don't think that's right, and this also seems to clash with the reformed doctrine of limited atonement. 

Another thought:  per MW, the English word sacrament is from the Latin sacramentum, which means to make holy, or to consecrate.  Yet are the elements made holy?  Or is the meal, as an ordinance, one of remembrance?  It feels a little like treading into glorifying the meal and the components of the meal, more than the message of the meal, and understanding, per I Cor. 11, the propriety of worship and the proper observation of the meal and preparation of the heart.  This reminds me of another fault with this particular UM church, as on it's site, regarding the Lord's Supper, the warning was merely, "God offers this relationship to everyone, so all who desire to receive are welcome to participate."  All who desire to receive, regardless of genuine faith and repentance?  I was at a UM church long ago, and I recall how, as the elements were about to be distributed, the pastor gave the feeble warning of, "Only partake of these elements if you are a Christian, or thinking of becoming one..."  I'm sure that was right out of I Cor. 11.

There are other things, but those are some of the principle reasons I'm not a Methodist.  Another note from the site was about "If You Have Children", followed by instructions on where to put them for church (because, why would you want them with you during the worship service?  That's just silly to worship together as a family.)