HALF A LOAF:
THE LARC STUDY DAY
ON THE EUCHARIST
by Robert M. Price
The ecumenical movement is no longer new. The
predominant mood, therefore, at the recent LARC (Lutheran, Anglican,
Roman Catholic) Study Day on the Eucharist (October 27-28, 1987) was not
the freshness of discovery nor the first glow of interchurch solidarity.
These were taken for granted, itself a pleasant enough condition. No,
the prevailing feeling seemed to be one of wearied patience. All present
agreed on the Real Presence of Christ in the eucharist, even on the
once-controversial “sacrifice” language. All agreed we are really one
Church. The note of frustration sounded by speaker John Westerhoff of
Duke Divinity School and by several others was that with all that
agreement—still we cannot practice full intercommunion. Thus the
weariness. But also patience: all present had some understanding of the
remaining theological obstacles, and all had the depth of perception to
see that theology does matter. It cannot simply be swept aside when
judged inconvenient.
I teach theology; I certainly think theology
matters. Yet I must admit that on this particular crucial matter I am
tempted to sweep aside what I perceive as a tangle of constructing
theological cobwebs. Can it be more obvious that the eucharist is the
sign and ritual of Christian unity, whatever theoretical beliefs about
it we may hold? Is the meaning of the eucharist to share in Christ,
or to share in the doctrine of Real Presence, or of papal
authority, or whatever? We theologians set aside the command of God for
the sake of our traditions when we bar one another from the Lord's Table
because we believe in the eucharistic Christ but not in certain theories
about the eucharistic Christ. Which is more important? Perhaps it is
time to cut the Gordian Knot, as did colonial Baptist Roger Williams who
had become so choosy as to bar all but his own wife from sharing
Communion with him, but then came to his senses, and finally welcomed
all to partake, trusting in God to uphold his servants (Romans 14:4).
A more theologically patient perspective was that
of John Westerhoff who suggested that the eschatological dimension of
the eucharist (see Mark 14:25; 1 Corinthians 11:26) might point the way
out of the dilemma. New Testament eschatology is cast in a dialectic of
"already/not yet.” The Kingdom of God has been inaugurated in Christ,
yet it waits for final, future fulfillment. Even so, the eucharist
already celebrates (and creates) a unity between Christians, within each
church, but it also anticipates the final unity of Christians in the
Church Universal. Westerhoff aptly suggested a few special occasions on
which we might practice interchurch communion. Only a few
occasions because full intercommunion must await the future realization
of full ecumenical unity, but at least a few to serve as signs of
that coming unity.
One of these occasions would be "pre-conciliar"
ecumenical gatherings like the LARC conference itself. It may be no
surprise to learn that we had no such intercommunion, but truly
startling was the omission of any eucharistic celebration, even a
concurrent celebration by all three church contingents individually. Not
even to do this much was to hide and ignore the sad fact of our
fragmentation.
Westerhoff was only one of five major speakers. The
others were Michael McDaniel, Lutheran Bishop of North Carolina, Joseph
Gossman, Roman Catholic Bishop of Raleigh, Robert W. Estill, Episcopal
Bishop of North Carolina, and B. Sidney Sanders, Episcopal Bishop of
East Carolina. Each had been asked to speak on the respective strengths
and weaknesses of his Church's understanding/practice of the eucharist.
I believe two especially interesting points emerged from this exchange.
First, both Bishops Estill and Sanders bemoaned the
inward-turning of our eucharistic devotion. Despite the clear statements
of the Book of Common Prayer that the eucharistic encounter is an
empowerment for service, many in our churches see it as a cozy
withdrawal from the harsh reality of a world that Christ has sent us to
serve. Bishop McDaniel raised a storm of controversy by suggesting that
such assertions come perilously close to implying, albeit unwittingly,
that the eucharist is merely a means to a more important end, namely
social reform. Some missed the bishop's subtle distinction and tarred
McDaniel with accusations of indifference toward the poor. Of course
this was not his point, and the misunderstanding was finally resolved in
one of the conference's several: moments of joking and laughter.
Second, Lutherans and Episcopalians alike welcomed
the restoration of the eucharist to the central role in weekly worship
while regretting the fact that so many of our churches cling stubbornly
to Morning Prayer as the principal Sunday service at least twice a
month. But Bishop Gossmann noted that Roman Catholics, who have nothing
but eucharistic services, are now longing for more variety. Of
course, this is exactly the lament of those in our church who do not
want the eucharist every week! Though it may seem inconceivable to the
rest of us, they warn of eucharistic monotony, and the Roman Catholic
experience would seem to prove this to be no idle fear. In our move to
the weekly eucharist, we had. better give serious thought to how we may
avoid this danger.