Ex Opere Operato!

A casual observer might wonder why I have taken such a keen interest in the subject of baptism. It isn't just that there is a school of thought called "Federal Vision" doing the rounds in Anglican Evangelical circles, my interest predates this. I am a Charge Nurse who has worked in children's intensive care for over a decade and a half. I have lost count of the number of infants I've seen die; not I hasten to add because our death rates are higher than anyone else's - it's just that I've been on this scene a long time! Not surprisingly I've puzzled over the subject of infant salvation and the related topic of the role of infant baptism.... or is it related?

There was an incident recently where the parents wanted their dying child baptised into the RC church. "In Extremis" it is not unknown for healthcare professionals to baptise infants - ironically I had to describe to an RC colleague what she would need to do to perform the rite.

As I understand it, according to Canon Law 861, an RC baptism is only valid in such circumstances if the person performing the rite does so with the "requisite intention", ie does the healthcare professional intend what the Church intends by the act? This seems, at face value, to be a denial of the principle of ex opere operato. How can anyone have assurance that they know what your intentions are?

The link between the parents faith and their child's salvation is broken by the intrusion of a third party, in the form an individual or institution, or so it seems to me. I have always taken the view that 1 Corinthians 7 v14, which indicates that the children of believers are "holy", is sufficient ground for assurance.

I have been challenged that such a stance "denies the sign" to the infant, a curious accusation. Yet it strikes me that Baptism does not make the child holy to the Lord but the parents faith does - in fact the rite is not mentioned in the Corinthian passage at all. In this circumstance I would not "deny" the parents the sign if that's what they want - but the sign of Baptism does not alter the childs status in God's sight one iota.

I suppose this begs the question as to who exactly is the sign aimed at? Is it for the infant's benefit, the parents', the Church's or God's? (And if you want to hedge your bets and say 'all of the above' we will need to unpick them individually!)

The use of the term Covenant in this context can be a bit confusing. God makes promises to mankind which can be called covenantal, fair enough. But sometimes the word does not mean a unilateral promise but implies a degree of conditionality - "I will do this, if you will do that..." So when the rite of Baptism is said to be 'covenantal' it raises some confusion, in my mind at least, as to what we are saying. Are we saying the infant's salvation turns on the rite of Baptism being performed correctly?

When I hear the word 'covenant' used in the context of Baptism it could mean (a) simply that the promise of salvation is to 'you and your children' [fair enough] or (b) the promise of salvation is to 'you and your children' on condition of Baptism. I personally do not find the use of this word in this context very helpful when it's meaning is left 'hanging in the air' unexplained.

Would I Baptise an infant 'in extremis' if asked to do so? Yes, if the parents affirmed their faith in Jesus. But the rite simply acknowledges a status which already exists, it does not move the child into a covenantal relationship with God, that would not be my 'requisite intention', a la Canon Law 861. The 'sign' - in such circumstances - may be a comfort to the parents in their loss and a witness to their faith in Christ for the on-looking public.

The Baptism of CONSTANTINE THE GREAT.
While reading John Julius Norwich's history of "Byzantium" I stumbled across an account of Constantine's baptism which isn't entirely irrelevant to the musings I've indulged in on that topic in this 'blog'. Most readers will be aware that Constantine the Great is the emperor who made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire.

It might come as a surprise to learn that he was only baptised when he was on his deathbed in 337AD, twenty five years after his victory at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge when he is said to have seen the symbol of the Cross in the sky and told to "conquer with this sign".

I quote JJN;
Why - the question has been asked all through history - why did Constantine delay his baptism until he was on his deathbed? The most obvious answer - and the most likely - is Gibbon's:
"The sacrament of baptism was supposed to contain a full and absolute expiation of sin; and the soul was instantly restored to its original purity, and entitled to the promise of eternal salvation. Among the proselytes of Christianity, there were many who judged it imprudent to precipitate a salutary rite, which could not be repeated; to throw away an inestimable privilege, which could never be recovered."
There was indeed nothing unusual, in those early days of Christianity, in deferring baptism until the last possible moment; forty three years later, we shall find the devout Theodosius the Great doing much the same.

I guess there is a certain logic to this approach to baptism if one starts with an overly sacramental view of the ordinance. No doubt a Roman emperor might anticipate having to engage in some realpolitik which may not sit easily with a Christian conscience. Constantine was guilty of many sins not least the murder of his wife and son; so, given this understanding of baptism, it might indeed be "prudent" to defer it.

The problem with Constantine's baptism is that it seems to be a crude attempt to manipulate God Himself. It is as if Constantine is placing his faith in the rite rather than in God. But more than that Constantine seems to believe that only those sins committed prior to baptism are covered and after that 'you are on your own!' Saved by grace but kept by works sort of thinking!

Of course it is not for me to say whether Constantine is saved or not ("The Lord knows those who are his!") but I do think that it is worth noting those points where 'alarm bells' start ringing. Am I accusing anyone of following Constantine's baptismal logic? No, I am not aiming this at those fellow believers who hold to Covenantal Theology (eg LG). I do wonder how easily it sits with those who hold to Federal Vision theology though.

I accept that I will be accused of attempting an 'argument from absurdity' - that I have selected some very extreme and untypical examples to critique - but my purpose is not to project these views onto anyone in particular but to offer them up as interesting discussion points. Well...... at least I find them interesting!

John the Baptistic (2).
I am grateful to have been reminded that Adult Baptism is not without some controversy. Back in 1979 I joined a pioneering charismatic church in Bradford which had very clear views on adult baptism. (Incidentally isn't it curious how such churches could be quite legalistic?)

They took the view that only Baptism by "full immersion" was valid. It was suggested that the "Baptism of the Holy Spirit" (that's another story!) might be hindered by disobeying God's ordinance. I remember querying this with one of the elders; "what if you don't quite immerse [the candidate] completely? What if you stumble at the key moment and don't quite immerse them, you know.... a bit of their head is still showing... would their baptism be invalid?" I don't recall ever getting a satisfactory answer beyond a withering "stupid boy" look! which I took to mean "I'd make sure I did it right!" So I'm still unclear what they ever meant by 'valid'.

It did make me think that, maybe unwittingly, this particular church had an overly sacramental view of the ordinance.... by which I mean, not performing the ritual correctly could materially affect one's relationship with God! It struck me then to be a denial of God's grace, and I still consider it to be a denial of God's grace now. I note that the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith states "Immersion, that is to say, the dipping of the believer in water, is essential for the due administration of this ordinance" (Ch 29, part 4). This seems to me to be way too prescriptive. Why and in what way is this mode essential? "Essential" is a very strong word to apply, particularly if they actually meant pertaining to the essence of Baptism! It strikes me as ridiculous to dogmatize about the mode of Baptism. Don't get me wrong, my instinct is toward "full immersion" because that fits the symbolism (of burial & resurrection) better but my greater instinct is not to make a ritual a barrier to fellowship with a believer who takes a different view!

Incidentally I recall William Taylor, the rector of St Helen's Bishopsgate, making exactly the same point about "full immersion" during a Sunday morning sermon and how legalism on this point can be a sign that we are more Galatian than Christian!

Since 1979 and my encounter with the Bradford elder I mentioned I have been fairly agnostic on the mode of Baptism. The question really is 'what is the essence of Baptism'? It is all well and good to agree to differ on secondary issues - but what happens when one party sees it as a primary issue?

"From Life's First Cry"; a liturgical introduction to infant baptism.

For reasons which become apparent as this series of 'blog' articles unfolds I have decided to start towards the back of Lee Gatiss' booklet "From Life's First Cry: John Owen on infant baptism and infant salvation".

In Appendix 3 is a suggested liturgical introduction to a baptismal service for infants which includes the following paragraph "God said to Abraham in Genesis 17 that the promises he signed and sealed through circumcision were for Abraham and also for his children - that he would be their God and they would be his people. Hence the children of believers were circumcised as babies under the Old Covenant". The next paragraph starts "this privilege has never expressly been taken away from our little ones..." etc.

Firstly a general observation; it is interesting that circumcision here is placed in the context of the Abrahamic Covenant rather than the Mosaic Covenant which is generally where the New Testament writers and their antagonists placed it. Surely the logic of this Abrahamic association is for a continuation of circumcision into the NT era and yet there clearly is some sort of discontinuity over circumcision as the NT era dawns.

Secondly; it seems a bit of a stretch to assert that it was "believers" who had their children circumcised under the Old Covenant. One immediately thinks of the pharisees who were assiduous about all matters of the law and undoubtedly had their children circumcised - surely they and their predecessors wouldn't be described as "believers". Conversely Timothy was raised in a Godly household and wasn't circumcised!

Thirdly, isn't it the case that people may have their child circumcised for more cultural reasons than as an expression of faith? If we are to assume a covenantal relationship exists between God and the circumcised/baptised why limit the sacrament to "believers" anyway? The logic of the sacrament is that the baptised have a covenantal claim to have their children baptised whether they believe or not.

Fourthly; it strikes me that this liturgy blurs the distinction between the Abrahamic Covenant and the "Old Covenant" - it simply assumes that they are the one and the same when clearly they are not, Gal 3 draws a clear distinction.

In fairness I should add that when Lee introduces this liturgy he writes that this suggested format "no doubt has its shortcomings", and that it is not a formula he would use unthinkingly in every circumstance.

JOHN THE BAPTISTIC.

Our midweek Bible study group has been looking at the Gospel of John and I got to thinking about the baptism performed by John the Baptist and the controversy it provoked among the religious authorities of his day.

In John chapter one a delegation arrives to quiz John about his ministry and they specifically challenge him about his authority to baptise. John is calling upon the Covenant people of God (Israel) to repent and turn around. Clearly this rite had some End Time significance because they question his identity - if he is not 'the Christ', 'the prophet' or 'Elijah' on what basis can he baptise people. By what right could someone set themselves up to offer a sacrament to a people already circumcised?

At this point John points beyond the symbolism of what he is doing to the one who is to come after him; he can get people wet but the One he is heralding will 'baptise with the Holy Spirit.' Clearly something new is about to happen.

It strikes me that there is some considerable controversy about baptism within Anglican Evangelical circles. The issue is not about the baptism of believers - no one in this debate has an issue with this - the issue is about the baptism of the infants of believers and what significance this 'sign' or 'seal' has.

For those of us who are sceptical but accepting of infant baptism we will find ourselves challenged with the accusation that "believers' baptism" really arises from the modern day concepts of consent and self-autonomy, and consequently has little to do with a Gospel of Grace where faith is seen as a gift of God. This compromise with the spirit of the age is called "baptistic".

Readers of this 'blog' will already know that I have puzzled over the issue of infant baptism - and indeed puzzled over the passion felt by Paedobaptists that goes beyond a simple difference of opinion. I recently heard reported that one noted speaker said that not to baptise infants was actually to disobey God.... and would use Reformed Theology as his basis for this assertion. Indeed another proponent of Paedobaptism has argued that one cannot be 'Baptistic' and a 'Reformed' Christian because these are a theological contradiction!

To try and help unravel some of the theology about Baptism I thought that I might start a little series of discussions here looking at Lee Gatiss' booklet "From Life's First Cry: John Owen on infant baptism and infant salvation" published by The Latimer Trust. Lee was a curate here at St Helen's Bishopsgate until 2009 when he moved on to pursue an academic career in Cambridge. I think that his booklet puts forward a case in favour of infant baptism and that this provides a useful foil to help move this discussion forward in a constructive way.

It goes without saying I take a different view on these matters so watch this space.

Baptism Service for Harry C & Lucy G this morning.

William Taylor led a baptismal service at church this morning for two infants. The nice thing about St Helen's Bishopsgate is that although there are differing views on baptism within the church family these are not the cause of any friction between us.

Some people feel that baptism is an initiation rite into the covenant akin to the Old Testament practice of circumcision. Others see no such link. This goes back to something I wrote last Friday about continuity/ discontinuity between the Old and New Covenants. Some folk think there is a lot of continuity and others (like me) think there is less, I'm at one point on the spectrum and others are further along from me.

Just because I see more discontinuity it would be a terrible misrepresentation to imply that children are not important to me or that the children of believers are not precious to God. In 1 Corinthians 7 v14 the children of believers are described as 'holy'; but please note that they are holy already on account of having a believing parent, baptism is not to be misconstrued as adding a dash extra holiness to this. Baptism is a very public ceremony to welcome these infants into the local church family; actually when you think about it is the public aspect that makes it special otherwise if it was purely a sacramental thing then one could do it entirely privately. The reality is it is a church family, community event and not a private rite.

St Helen's also has believers' baptism by full immersion. This practice is treated with scepticism by some churches. The important thing is that here at St Helen's we can come together in peace and unity despite differences on secondary matters because we aim to keep the Gospel of Jesus Christ central in our church life.

William was very careful to point out that baptising these infants does not make them Christian - that is something that only God can do. Faith is a gift from God, so the sign of baptism cannot, somehow, bring about the thing signified. That is God's prerogative.

"Federal Vision" (aka Auburn Avenue Theology).

Until last Summer I had never even heard of "Federal Vision" and since then I have done a bit of a crash course to get up to speed as it has become a hot topic within some churches and organisations I know of. (St Helen's is not directly affected I hasten to add!). Trawling the internet is a bit of a minefield - you find skilful proponents of "Fed Vis" and passionate critics, along with 'the good, the bad and the ugly' voices in between. In a nutshell "Federal Vision" seeks to reaffirm the importance of the sacraments within the life of the church and indeed to reform our view of the Church itself. In support of these ideas they look to the Westminster Confession and Book 4 of John Calvin's "Institutes of Christian Religion" among other worthy sources, so at first glance it would be unfair to say that these people are outside the Reformed faith or that they are heretics. The most visible practice of the movement is a passionate belief in infant baptism for reasons which will become clear below.

Reading "The Baptized Body", by Peter J Leithart, has shaken me and caused me to review what it is I believe. I thought that we, the Reformed church, were all singing from the same hymn sheet. Have I so badly read the Bible that I have imposed on it my own pre-suppositions? An issue for me is, have I misidentified myself as a 'Reformed' christian? To be a 5 point Calvinist seemingly isn't enough. Can I still at least say I'm reformed with a small 'r'? But then again John Calvin didn't actually write 'The 5 Points'; they were written by his successors and dedicated to him. Nonetheless I feel a bit of an orphan.

I am not an academic theologian but I consider myself to be a reasonably well read layman who has a clear idea about what the Gospel of Jesus Christ is about; and even if I do not know how to winkle out every nuance hidden within the curlicues of academic vocabulary I am sufficiently concerned to make this modest attempt. It may be that in writing on this topic I am making a right charlie of myself and merely displaying my ignorance for all of blog world to see - but I would far rather run that risk than say nothing.

Not knowing where to start - or frankly which source to trust - I figured the best place to begin was with some of the literature written by Peter J Leithart who is a leading proponent of "Fed Vis". This movement arose within reformed circles in the Presbyterian Church of the USA but has made significant inroads into the reformed scene in the UK. And when I say significant this is not mere hyperbole.

Peter Leithart's seminal book is "The Baptized Body". He asserts that when the word baptism is used in the New Testament it normally means the sacrament of water Baptism. I will have to consider the texts carefully again but if he is correct then the rite does achieve some remarkable things for the recipient. In Leithart's view water Baptism is a 'radical life transforming event'. But I always thought that the word "baptism" has a range of meanings or at least it could be used as a metaphor. Could not the word be legitimately translated as "immersed" rather than being transliterated from the Greek without neccesarily doing an injustice to the text? Is it so unfair, as Leithart suggests, to treat the word "baptism" as shorthand for the process of conversion which culminates in a public, symbolic identification with Christ's death and resurrection (a rite of passage if you like) and official welcome into the local church community? Leithart thinks this is playing fast and loose with the plain meaning of the text; put simply 'the sign effects what it signifies'. I do find that hard to swallow because it does seem to set these texts at odds with many others that seem to impute the benefits of salvation to the believer by the sheer grace of God alone without the agency of the sacraments. I will have to think on these things some more, but I am still inclined to view baptism as a testimony to regeneration rather than a regenerative act in itself!

There are some helpful correctives in the book. When we come to Christ we are called to be part of the church community and not just live our lives in splendid spiritual isolation. We also need to be aware of the dangers of an inward looking, pietistic form of spirituality. Both these stress "me" and "my walk with God" to the exclusion of our relationships with other believers. A distinction is drawn between the personal and the individual in the Fed Vis lexicon - personal is good: individual bad, an issue that will pop up again in this essay. Leithart makes a fair point about infants being able to form trusting relationships and that there isn't some magical age of responsibility; but that argument really scores against Arminianism rather than believers' baptism as such because faith is a gift of God at whatever age.

Here I want to draw attention to the problem of language and why Federal Visionists(?), Federal Visionaries(?), Federal Visionistas(?) often find themselves 'talking past' people like me... and indeed start to arouse concern. Fed Visers are very intelligent and articulate people who use language with precision - usually borne out of academic rigour - but the words used mean something signifcantly different to the men and women in the pew, or at least the evangelical in the pew. For example the word "Reformed" is used of this theology but something much more sacramental is meant by it than I would hitherto have thought possible. I accept this is probably sheer ignorance on my part.

That aside I am troubled by several aspects of the book, which I read genuinely in good faith. A lot of the words with which we are familiar on the evangelical scene seem to be radically redefined by "Fed Vis" eg, "regeneration", "sanctification" and even "justification" are to be applied to anyone who happens to be Water Baptised regardless of whether they are ultimately saved. "Baptism" texts can be advanced which seem to imply these amazing benefits - but, of course, for Leithart that almost invariably means literal water Baptism and invariably fall short, in the final analysis, of actual salvation. I can't help feeling that this 'radical life transforming event' is not so life transforming after all! Within this new lexicon it is possible to be justified, adopted, sanctified and regenerate and yet ultimately remain unsaved.

The crux of the sacrament is to induct the recipient into civic society. This is a fundamental reorientation away from the Gospel which saves sinners through individual repentance and faith in Christ to a Gospel which seeks social and cultural change through the agency of the Church as a formal institution. In this context it is easy to see why infants can, indeed must, be regenerated and encultured into the Church by means of Baptism. The concept of believers' baptism is treated with some scepticism on the basis that the notion of choice is an illusion derived from our modern worldly mindset. The "baptistic" approach of believers' baptism, is viewed by Fed Vis as deeply suspect and compromised by worldly pre-suppositions rather than being truly Biblical. Maybe I missed a step in the argument somewhere but (as I said earlier) I've always viewed faith as a gift from God. None of these criticisms 'hit home' and I wonder if he really has Arminianism in his sights rather than the target he claims.

Please note that not all paedo-baptists are Fed Vis! There is a spectrum of thought within the church community as to how much continuity or discontinuity exists between the Old and the New Covenant. I tend toward the discontinuity end of the spectrum but others see much more continuity ie, water baptism is the new sign of the covenant taking over from the OT sign of circumcision. Water baptism is, for them, an appropriate sign used to include infants within the covenant people of God; personally I'm not convinced but I do not regard this theology as "beyond the pale" by any means. Maybe this was where John Calvin was positioned. The question is how much further down this Covenantal spectrum is Fed Vis and at what point do we consider it to have crossed the line? Or put another way, do the proponents of FV regard us, sotto voce, as too far up the line?

The essence of the argument goes much further beyond infant Baptism because it turns on our understanding of "the Body of Christ. Leithart says our concept of "The Body of Christ" should be taken literally to mean just that, it is not a metaphor. If I read him correctly he seems to be saying that the Church is an incarnation of Christ in the world today - to say otherwise is to be guilty of Nestorianism no less! Hence the 'federal' tag ('federal' being a Latin derivative alternatively translated as 'covenantal' in English). The body of believers are in a federal/covenantal union with Christ. I don't have a huge problem with this provided we take care to distinguish between the Body and the Head. I cannot help but feel that Leithart sees the Church as sharing in the Headship/Dominion of Christ. Here it is useful to say that "Fed Vis" is firmly 'Post-Millennial' in its philosophy, which means that, in its opinion, Jesus will return after a glorious millennial Church age during which the world's culture, economics and politics will have been transformed through the agency of the Church. (A-millennialists interpret the 1,000 year reign of Revelation ch. 20 as a present reality we call "the Kingdom of God" which will find its complete fulfillment when Christ returns. Pre-millennialists see Christ as returning beforehand to inaugurate his kingdom in the modern land of Israel).

The discussion within Evangelicalism about Christ and Culture in recent years has been a helpful way of thinking Christianly about how we interact with the world around us and as a way of proclaiming the Gospel meaningfully in a variety of settings. But the "Fed Vis" position seems to be that redeeming culture is the principal mission of the Church, which is a step up from classic "post-millennialism". The classic Post-Millennialists I've met would say that culture will be transformed coincidentally as people come to faith in Christ; I don't have a problem with this conceptually because they recognise that "the heart of the matter is the matter of the heart!" You cannot change anything until the human heart is changed! However I worry that Fed Vis sees our primary mission as changing people's presuppositions as an end in itself, if so then they have started to lose sight of the grace of God and its ability to change the human heart; "not by might nor by power, but by my spirit" says the Lord Almighty. The danger in my view is that the Fed Vis version of post-millennialism will substitute mere formalism for spiritual reality as people are enculturated into Christianity and their confidence is focused on the institutions of the Church.

Perhaps the profoundest difference I have with Leithart is his view on assurance. I just cannot see how Baptism, or the Church minister's "absolution"(!) for that matter, offers objective assurance of anything. Indeed I would argue that the danger here is of placing our faith in people or institutions or rites rather than in Christ alone. Maybe Leithart would deny this on the basis that the Church is Christ, but I'm not convinced. Assurance can only be assurance when the focus is taken away from ourselves or our particular group and placed in Christ exclusively. I have assurance precisely because I have trusted Jesus and have no confidence in myself or any one or any thing else to see me right. I think Leithart would say that this is an unhealthy, disembodied, spiritualised, pietistic kind of belief. I think he is wrong.

I have to say that if Leithart is correct in his theology then my understanding of grace is actually wide of the mark, for the following reason: God would have instituted certain rites and religious practices, not as "a means of grace" - as if it were funnelled by the sacraments - but as grace itself! Not merely would these rites be crucial to our faith but faith itself would actually be more about sharing in the life of the Church community as expressed through the sacraments and less about who we have come to put our trust in. When Jesus promised the thief next to him on the cross "today you will be with me in paradise" the thief had had no opportunity to be water Baptised (ie in Leithart's theology = adopted, sanctified, justified, regenerated etc) did he? I cannot help but conclude that Federal Vision has moved from the concept of "by faith alone through grace alone in Christ alone".... it's not that they neccesarily deny any of those beliefs per se, it is that they deny the 'alones' by making something critical of the sacraments.

I can understand why one Fed Viser I heard of described himself as a "Reformed Catholic". And, at least, that also leaves the door open for me to call myself a Reformed Protestant; I'm not an orphan after all!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

post-script: Monday 16th March 2009. I've been reading chapter 11 of the Westminster Confession (about Justification) and frankly it is difficult to square it with Leithart's take on the subject: Leithart says as much himself. Justification is about 'effective calling' in the W Conf (Rom 8 v30 etc) and for Leithart it is about the possibility of new life.

It seems to me that the contrast is between "Justification (in this strong Rom 8v30 sense) by Faith" versus "Justification (in the diluted Leithart sense) by Faithfulness"! Unless I've got completely the wrong end of the stick (and I am open to being put right!); this is no mere academic discussion, this is about the soul of the Evangelical/Reformed faith no less.

I'll have to make this a topic for a future 'blog' I think.

Communion.

Charlie Skrine led the service this morning and when it came to communion invited "everyone who trusts and loves the Lord" to share in it.

Today Helen & I helped with communion at church. We had a strategy worked out; one starts with one row and the other takes the next one from the opposite aisle... that way we then pick up the bread & wine the other has launched. Sounds simple doesn't it? Not so in reality!

Row 1: this is Helen's row but I'm stood too far forward so the lady next to me thinks I'm about to pass the bread to her! Ooops quick step back. Sorry luv.

Row 2: Bread Away! Pause... now launch wine, not forgetting a tissue to wipe the cup. So far so good. Helen collects at the far end.

Waiting for row 1 to finish; bread done phew! But wait for wine.... come on, come on! Oh no the wine's stalled!

Row 3: Helen has relaunched bread followed by wine. But I'm still stuck by row 1! Bread & Wine both zip along row 3 in lightening speed as I am picking up belated wine from the first row.

Row 4: Collecting the proceeds from 1 and having dashed to row 3 to receive the bread & wine I'm like Manuel juggling plates and glasses and simultaneously launch them on Rows 4 & 5. The tissues, the tissues! Don't forget the tissues.

Of course there are no stallers on either row so Helen has to shuffle all four items to rows 6 & 7: Oh no!... stallers in both rows! So we have bread & wine stalled on one and wine only stalled on the other but the bread has zipped along again! So I'm holding one bread but daren't move to row 8 for fear of missing something! The wine's stalled because Helen has run out of tissue paper. This comedy of errors continues as we work towards the back.

All the other servers have finished and are offering to help. Oh no, please don't complicate things any more than they already are!

Finished. Phew.

Charlie Skrine winds up the service.

Helen & I both realised later that in all the kerfuffle we never actually took communion today! I don't believe the Lord Jesus thinks any the less of us for it though!

"Look on the bright side," I said to Helen, "we won't be asked to help again!"

Central Focus.

Thursday night is our Bible study night. There are about a dozen groups which meet centrally at St Helen's in the heart of London. We have a meal together and then have an hour or so studying a Bible passage. Isn't it interesting that so much of our church family activity starts with a meal?

This year we have been looking at 1 Corinthians which is a letter the apostle Paul wrote to a newly founded church in Greece during the first century. It was a port city with a racey reputation.

The thing which has struck me so far this year is how Corinthian we all are! The church at Corinth had a firm grasp of the liberty they had come in to now that they were in Christ, but they were so fixated on their 'rights' that they had lost sight of the fact that Jesus requires us to be prepared to forgo those 'rights' for the sake of our brother & sisters. Love is about putting the other person first.

As it happens last Thursday we were looking at 1 Cor 11 v17-34 which is about the shambles the Corinthian church made of the Lord's Supper! He reminds them that this meal is a means by which a disparate group of people come together to share a meal in remembrance of the Lord Jesus' death on the cross. These people from all social classes and racial groups are meant to come together for them to express their unity together as "the body of Christ" around a common meal - all these individuals come together to be one. Not unlike baptism when an individual publically proclaims their faith in Christ and is welcomed into the local church. Both sacraments are centred on the historical reality of the cross and are not about little "me".

We are called into a community defined as a people purely by the fact that we belong to Christ. So Paul takes a dim view of the factionalism and selfishness these Corinthian believers indulge in. Paul has to remind them, in all their self indulgence, that communion is about proclaiming together the Lord's death until he returns because they seem to have forgotten its true purpose - it should be approached with our minds and hearts engaged it is not primarily a sensory experience!

It's a timely reminder because we are having the Lord's Supper this Sunday.

The Corinthians were a fractious lot and we are not immune to being the same. Christians are not perfected beings but a 'work in progress'; we say and do stupid, selfish, insensitive things.... things which do not reflect well on the Lord we claim to follow. It would be great never to make a mistake but sadly that isn't realistic. The key is to make sure we judge ourselves aright - we need to have that capacity for critical self reflection which Paul urges. If we do that then we can remove the barriers in our communion with each other.