Eucharistic spirituality - a good resource
Book Review: Wesleyan Eucharistic Spirituality: Its Nature, Sources and Future. Lorna Lock-Nah Khoo. Adelaide: ATF Press, 2005.
The Rev Dr Lorna Khoo, in her book, Wesleyan Eucharistic Spirituality, calls attention to an often overlooked characteristic of Methodist heritage. The revivals of 18th century England that gave rise to Methodism were both eucharistic and evangelical in nature (p1). While the earlier Reformers vainly sought to encourage frequent communion (p53), the Methodists flocked to the table. John Wesley, a tireless chronicler of the revival, noted that Methodists sometimes numbered over one thousand at the parish churches (p.1). Khoo observes how the Anglican clergy were “overwhelmed” by the flood of Methodists seeking communion. In a letter to his bishop, the vicar of Devlin quotes some Methodists who walked ten miles in order to have communion, and that they wished it could be more often (p1)
This is a book about a particular form of spirituality. So it is well at the outset that Khoo defines spirituality as “an existential and experiential response to a ‘call’” that “requires the involvement of the person’s entire being: body, mind and spirit.” This call “is an invitation to move towards a goal of wholeness or Christian perfection.” Both the call and the goal “affect the whole of one’s life” and “will impact the formation of one’s character.” (p.xvii and chapter 5)
Based on this definition of spirituality, Khoo employs five heuristic questions: “Who calls?”, “What is the nature of the movement?”, “How is its goal of wholeness understood?”, “How is formation done?”, “How is perception affected by this?” (xvii)
More specifically, this 300 page book attempts to answer the question: “What was it that the early Methodists found in the sacrament that led them to crowd the communion tables by the thousands?” (p. xvi) As well Khoo, after reflecting on the rise and decline of eucharistic spirituality in western Methodism, considers the possibility of its reintroduction in non-western contexts, which may be more amenable to its core. “How can Wesleyan eucharistic spirituality be reintroduced to global Methodism?” (p. 227)
The answer to these questions lies in the exposition of a eucharistic spirituality which draws deeply from the Christian tradition as well as acknowledging the vitality of the Holy Spirit. As a published dissertation, the book offers clear evidence of scholarship (though the scholarly apparatus is fairly unobtrusive), as the author traces the practices, theology and sources of John and Charles Wesley’s eucharistic spirituality. Of special note is the place this book gives to the collection of 166 hymns which Charles Wesley wrote expressly for singing at communion, Hymns on the Lord’s Supper (HLS, also see appendix G). Many of these hymns, of which a mere fraction are in current use, are quoted liberally throughout the book as indicators of theology as well as practice.
John Wesley insisted on certain practices and standards regarding the eucharist. Among those practices, he required members of the Band Societies to commune weekly. Personal testimonies relating the experience of the Lord during communion were encouraged and the singing of hymns during communion became common. At the same time Wesley maintained the high church standards which meant that only ordained clergy could preside. He still insisted, according to Khoo, on three requirements for reception of communion: acknowledgement of one’s need, the willingness to change one’s life and a desire to receive all that God wants to give (p.45). And while he initially shared the sentiments of the Anglican Moralists and non-Jurors regarding worthiness for communion, he eventually relaxed these demands in favour of a more therapeutic understanding the communion. He allowed baptized children to receive communion (p43) and he held to a view of the Lord’s Supper as a “converting sacrament” (p48). The latter did not mean, according to Khoo, that Wesley practiced a “open” communion even for the unbaptised, as shown by arguments that the majority of early Methodists would have been baptized as infants. Nevertheless, “there remains the possibility” of a vivifying capacity in communion. And so she raises the question: “Could John Wesley have inadvertently laid a foundation which could be built upon by their followers in a different generation and culture facing a new missiological challenge?” (p.51)
Khoo then compares and contrasts the Wesleyan eucharistic theology with that of earlier reformers to highlight three theological positions. First, communion is an “encounter with the presence of Christ”. The Reformers established several positions in contrast to Roman Catholic transubstantiation, such as Luther’s consubstantiation, Calvin’s symbolic presence and Zwingli’s memorialist view. The Wesleyan view is that Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit, can truly be encountered at the table. In contrast to the influence of rationalism of his time, evidenced in the “bare Memorial only” Zwinglian position, which Dr Khoo asserts remains dominant today, Wesley upheld the mystery of Christ’s dynamic presence in communion. She notes that the Wesleys, by fixing on the time transcendent and personal elements of Christ’s presence avoided the problems of Luther’s consubstantiation, in which Christ’s physical presence is truly with the elements and Calvin’s concern to maintain the integrity of the transcendent risen Christ. They affirmed the importance of maintaining mystery in this. “Sure and real is the grace/ The manner is unknown …Thine to bless, ‘tis only ours/ To wonder and behold.”
Second, communion represents “divine initiative and grace”. Wesley not only included the Lord’s Supper in his list of the means of grace, he considered it to be the chief means. Far more than just a memorial to the atoning death of Jesus, one could, by the power of the Holy Spirit, receive grace in taking the bread and wine. Closely connected with this emphasis on receiving grace was the reclaiming of the “epiclesis”, the ancient prayer for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. While the Book of Common Prayer did not at that time include a full epiclesis, many of the hymns that would have been sung during communion, did invoke the power of the Holy Spirit.
Third, communion is a “healing sacrament”. Given the Wesley’s therapeutic understanding of salvation, as a process leading toward perfection, they viewed the Lord’s Supper as “the medicine of immortality” for those who sought healing from their current conditions and to become “perfected in love”. In line with this recognition of communion as the chief means of grace, it would be well to follow the work of R. I. Underwood, in Pastoral Care and the Means of Grace, and ask how Wesley Eucharistic Spirituality can be actualized as pastoral care today.
The chapter on “Sources of Wesleyan Eucharistic Theology and Spirituality” plunges into some of the significant roots that fostered the development of the Wesleyan position. Here Dr Khoo sifts through the books and other sources that influenced the Wesley brothers from their school days. Chiefly she examines their literary sources, - “the books read by the Wesleys” – the significant people in their lives, the impact of some of their experiences, and the general theological and spiritual trends of their day. Unfortunately, Khoo limits research primarily to ecclesial and literary sources to the neglect of the record of familial, informal and oral communications, so that we do not get a complete picture of how the Wesley brothers experienced and processed their own spiritual formation.
Gladly, Methodism outlasted the Wesleys. We discover, however, that this eucharistic spirituality did not faire well with the deaths of the Wesley brothers and the global spread of Methodist. Khoo suggests several reasons for this decline. Obviously, much of the ethos of the 18th century movement was due to the dynamic living presence of John Wesley. He held the movement together by example and precept. Related to that was the ongoing uncertainty regarding suitable qualifications for celebrating communion, and the perennial shortage of clergy. Probably more significant and longer lasting was simply the change in philosophical temperament. The “supernaturalism” that still characterized the periods of the Calvins and the Wesleys, eventually gave way to Enlightenment influence, with which the Zwinglian memorialist approach was far more congenial. In addition, the use of the “Hymns on the Lord’s Supper”, which shaped the mood and supplemented the theology of Wesleyan eucharistic practice, largely fell into disuse in the 19th century, especially in America, where, with a few exceptions, it remains in archival mothballs. Conversely, the Methodism that took root in America and was spread throughout the world, was characterized primarily by frontier evangelism. As with John Wesley’s “Sunday Service” prayer book, eucharistic practice was sidelined.
Despite these obstacles, Khoo is optimistic for the future of Wesleyan eucharistic spirituality. Many of the original causes of decline are no longer present. In most places, there are enough clergy to allow frequent communion. Clearly also, the philosophical mood has changed, especially in the non-western world. The rise of charismatic Christianity indicates an appreciation for the transcendent encounter at the table. She also affirms a new interest among Asians to reclaim old texts, such as the Wesleyan hymns in new ethnic garb, including some recent Asian hymn settings. Khoo’s book is excellent not only for Methodist pastors to reclaim a Wesleyan Eucharistic spirituality, but also for others in Christian ministry and seminary students preparing for the ministry. The question is, how can we stimulate a desire to reclaim this spirituality and actualize its practice beyond merely reforming the Sunday service.
The Rev Dr Lorna Khoo, in her book, Wesleyan Eucharistic Spirituality, calls attention to an often overlooked characteristic of Methodist heritage. The revivals of 18th century England that gave rise to Methodism were both eucharistic and evangelical in nature (p1). While the earlier Reformers vainly sought to encourage frequent communion (p53), the Methodists flocked to the table. John Wesley, a tireless chronicler of the revival, noted that Methodists sometimes numbered over one thousand at the parish churches (p.1). Khoo observes how the Anglican clergy were “overwhelmed” by the flood of Methodists seeking communion. In a letter to his bishop, the vicar of Devlin quotes some Methodists who walked ten miles in order to have communion, and that they wished it could be more often (p1)
This is a book about a particular form of spirituality. So it is well at the outset that Khoo defines spirituality as “an existential and experiential response to a ‘call’” that “requires the involvement of the person’s entire being: body, mind and spirit.” This call “is an invitation to move towards a goal of wholeness or Christian perfection.” Both the call and the goal “affect the whole of one’s life” and “will impact the formation of one’s character.” (p.xvii and chapter 5)
Based on this definition of spirituality, Khoo employs five heuristic questions: “Who calls?”, “What is the nature of the movement?”, “How is its goal of wholeness understood?”, “How is formation done?”, “How is perception affected by this?” (xvii)
More specifically, this 300 page book attempts to answer the question: “What was it that the early Methodists found in the sacrament that led them to crowd the communion tables by the thousands?” (p. xvi) As well Khoo, after reflecting on the rise and decline of eucharistic spirituality in western Methodism, considers the possibility of its reintroduction in non-western contexts, which may be more amenable to its core. “How can Wesleyan eucharistic spirituality be reintroduced to global Methodism?” (p. 227)
The answer to these questions lies in the exposition of a eucharistic spirituality which draws deeply from the Christian tradition as well as acknowledging the vitality of the Holy Spirit. As a published dissertation, the book offers clear evidence of scholarship (though the scholarly apparatus is fairly unobtrusive), as the author traces the practices, theology and sources of John and Charles Wesley’s eucharistic spirituality. Of special note is the place this book gives to the collection of 166 hymns which Charles Wesley wrote expressly for singing at communion, Hymns on the Lord’s Supper (HLS, also see appendix G). Many of these hymns, of which a mere fraction are in current use, are quoted liberally throughout the book as indicators of theology as well as practice.
John Wesley insisted on certain practices and standards regarding the eucharist. Among those practices, he required members of the Band Societies to commune weekly. Personal testimonies relating the experience of the Lord during communion were encouraged and the singing of hymns during communion became common. At the same time Wesley maintained the high church standards which meant that only ordained clergy could preside. He still insisted, according to Khoo, on three requirements for reception of communion: acknowledgement of one’s need, the willingness to change one’s life and a desire to receive all that God wants to give (p.45). And while he initially shared the sentiments of the Anglican Moralists and non-Jurors regarding worthiness for communion, he eventually relaxed these demands in favour of a more therapeutic understanding the communion. He allowed baptized children to receive communion (p43) and he held to a view of the Lord’s Supper as a “converting sacrament” (p48). The latter did not mean, according to Khoo, that Wesley practiced a “open” communion even for the unbaptised, as shown by arguments that the majority of early Methodists would have been baptized as infants. Nevertheless, “there remains the possibility” of a vivifying capacity in communion. And so she raises the question: “Could John Wesley have inadvertently laid a foundation which could be built upon by their followers in a different generation and culture facing a new missiological challenge?” (p.51)
Khoo then compares and contrasts the Wesleyan eucharistic theology with that of earlier reformers to highlight three theological positions. First, communion is an “encounter with the presence of Christ”. The Reformers established several positions in contrast to Roman Catholic transubstantiation, such as Luther’s consubstantiation, Calvin’s symbolic presence and Zwingli’s memorialist view. The Wesleyan view is that Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit, can truly be encountered at the table. In contrast to the influence of rationalism of his time, evidenced in the “bare Memorial only” Zwinglian position, which Dr Khoo asserts remains dominant today, Wesley upheld the mystery of Christ’s dynamic presence in communion. She notes that the Wesleys, by fixing on the time transcendent and personal elements of Christ’s presence avoided the problems of Luther’s consubstantiation, in which Christ’s physical presence is truly with the elements and Calvin’s concern to maintain the integrity of the transcendent risen Christ. They affirmed the importance of maintaining mystery in this. “Sure and real is the grace/ The manner is unknown …Thine to bless, ‘tis only ours/ To wonder and behold.”
Second, communion represents “divine initiative and grace”. Wesley not only included the Lord’s Supper in his list of the means of grace, he considered it to be the chief means. Far more than just a memorial to the atoning death of Jesus, one could, by the power of the Holy Spirit, receive grace in taking the bread and wine. Closely connected with this emphasis on receiving grace was the reclaiming of the “epiclesis”, the ancient prayer for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. While the Book of Common Prayer did not at that time include a full epiclesis, many of the hymns that would have been sung during communion, did invoke the power of the Holy Spirit.
Third, communion is a “healing sacrament”. Given the Wesley’s therapeutic understanding of salvation, as a process leading toward perfection, they viewed the Lord’s Supper as “the medicine of immortality” for those who sought healing from their current conditions and to become “perfected in love”. In line with this recognition of communion as the chief means of grace, it would be well to follow the work of R. I. Underwood, in Pastoral Care and the Means of Grace, and ask how Wesley Eucharistic Spirituality can be actualized as pastoral care today.
The chapter on “Sources of Wesleyan Eucharistic Theology and Spirituality” plunges into some of the significant roots that fostered the development of the Wesleyan position. Here Dr Khoo sifts through the books and other sources that influenced the Wesley brothers from their school days. Chiefly she examines their literary sources, - “the books read by the Wesleys” – the significant people in their lives, the impact of some of their experiences, and the general theological and spiritual trends of their day. Unfortunately, Khoo limits research primarily to ecclesial and literary sources to the neglect of the record of familial, informal and oral communications, so that we do not get a complete picture of how the Wesley brothers experienced and processed their own spiritual formation.
Gladly, Methodism outlasted the Wesleys. We discover, however, that this eucharistic spirituality did not faire well with the deaths of the Wesley brothers and the global spread of Methodist. Khoo suggests several reasons for this decline. Obviously, much of the ethos of the 18th century movement was due to the dynamic living presence of John Wesley. He held the movement together by example and precept. Related to that was the ongoing uncertainty regarding suitable qualifications for celebrating communion, and the perennial shortage of clergy. Probably more significant and longer lasting was simply the change in philosophical temperament. The “supernaturalism” that still characterized the periods of the Calvins and the Wesleys, eventually gave way to Enlightenment influence, with which the Zwinglian memorialist approach was far more congenial. In addition, the use of the “Hymns on the Lord’s Supper”, which shaped the mood and supplemented the theology of Wesleyan eucharistic practice, largely fell into disuse in the 19th century, especially in America, where, with a few exceptions, it remains in archival mothballs. Conversely, the Methodism that took root in America and was spread throughout the world, was characterized primarily by frontier evangelism. As with John Wesley’s “Sunday Service” prayer book, eucharistic practice was sidelined.
Despite these obstacles, Khoo is optimistic for the future of Wesleyan eucharistic spirituality. Many of the original causes of decline are no longer present. In most places, there are enough clergy to allow frequent communion. Clearly also, the philosophical mood has changed, especially in the non-western world. The rise of charismatic Christianity indicates an appreciation for the transcendent encounter at the table. She also affirms a new interest among Asians to reclaim old texts, such as the Wesleyan hymns in new ethnic garb, including some recent Asian hymn settings. Khoo’s book is excellent not only for Methodist pastors to reclaim a Wesleyan Eucharistic spirituality, but also for others in Christian ministry and seminary students preparing for the ministry. The question is, how can we stimulate a desire to reclaim this spirituality and actualize its practice beyond merely reforming the Sunday service.
Comments