From the Margins: Opening the Eucharistic Table to All

Jesus was in the habit of sharing table fellowship with people living on the margins of society. He was criticized for eating with sinners and tax collectors, but even his closest followers largely hailed from the margins of Jewish society. While first-century cultural practices differ from contemporary practices, it is possible to extrapolate from Jesus’ teachings and practices to suggest that Jesus would embrace a fully open eucharistic table. If this is true then how should the twenty-first-century church of Jesus Christ practice table fellowship, including fellowship at the eucharistic table?  

In this paper, I will argue that while Christian communities began erecting fences around the eucharistic table at least as early as the second century CE, admitting only those who had been fully instructed in the faith and baptized, an approach that might have been justified in the early days of the fledgling church, the situation for the contemporary church is very different. In an age of extreme polarization offering true hospitality in the spirit of Jesus, as well as Abraham and Sarah, is needed. In addressing our current religious and cultural divisions from an Open and Relational perspective, it is appropriate that we re-envision the church’s eucharistic theology and practices. While in most Protestant congregations no one is prevented from sharing the eucharistic elements, the invitations given often express certain limitations, whether baptism or Christian beliefs. In this paper, I argue that following Jesus, as well as Abraham and Sarah, who entertained persons who appear to have been angels in disguise, we might find ourselves doing the same, if we fully open the table to any who would come. If we do this then we allow Christ’s table to be a sacred space where the grace of God is made available to everyone, such that no one is truly a stranger at that table. In doing this we can also acknowledge that the risen Christ is the one who presides at the table and that the Holy Spirit is at work, creating opportunities for divine encounters that can be moments of healing grace.

In contemplating opening the eucharistic table to everyone, we must acknowledge the different fences the church has erected over time. These include denominational and theological differences, baptism (whether the lack of or different forms), the rite of confirmation, as well as race, marital status (divorce), and sexual orientation. In addition, it has been assumed that at the very minimum, one must profess faith in Jesus before being admitted to the table. This last restriction, if enforced, marginalizes children too young to make a faith profession, as well as those who lack the mental capacities to make a choice. It also precludes persons from outside the Christian faith from gathering with the community around Christ’s table.

Speaking from an Open and Relational perspective, the late Disciple Process theologian Clark Williamson writes: “In the Lord’s supper we share in God’s gracious gift to us, and practice the open hospitality of Jesus, welcoming the stranger. It is self-contradictory to allow such forms of discrimination to rule our social, political, and economic arrangements in the ‘the world’ or in the church.”[i] While I acknowledge that Jesus’ dinner partners likely were Jews and not Gentiles, the gospels record that Jesus dined with a cross-section of society, including many who were living on the margins of society (sinners and tax collectors). Even if we limit our conversation to the Last Supper, among those gathered at the table was Peter, who will deny Jesus within a few hours, and Judas, who will betray him. Jesus did not exclude either of them from his table, which raises the question of whom Jesus would choose to dine with.

If we take into consideration the evidence from the gospels, the book of Acts, and the letters of Paul and James, it is possible to envision a fully open table where believers and nonbelievers; Christians and non-Christians; gather at the eucharistic table, thereby opening themselves up to divine encounters that transform their relationships with each other. This is especially true in an age where division and polarization, often religiously inspired, mark our daily lives.

While the question of admittance to the table often focuses on intra-Christian relationships, I would argue that from an Open and Relational perspective, a perspective that affirms the premise that God is love (1 Jn. 4:6), acting in accord with this divine love, it would be appropriate to extend the invitation to the table, as representatives of Jesus, to those outside the Christian faith. Recognizing that the eucharist is a sacred act of worship that binds the participants to Christ and one another, it is understandable why churches have admitted only Christians to the Table. However, if we recognize that God is present at every meal, whether in church or not, then might we envision every meal, especially meals that cross political, cultural, ethnic, or religious lines, to be sacred moments where God’s grace and love can be transformative of relationships? Knowing that many Jews invite non-Jews to share with them Passover meals, meals that are deemed sacred to Jews and the meal in which the Christian eucharistic sacrament is rooted, and Muslims invite non-Muslims to share in breaking the Ramadan fast at Iftar meals, again being sacred meals, might we consider the value of opening Christ’s table to others who might answer the invitation to dine at that table. In doing so, the church allows the Holy Spirit to work in the lives of all who gather, overcoming marginalization. As the author of Hebrews reminds us: “Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing that some have entertained angels without knowing it.” (Heb. 13:2 NRSVue). By offering unhindered hospitality at Christ’s table, persons operating from an Open and Relational perspective help create a less violent and more welcoming world.    

[i] Clark M. Williamson, Way of Blessing, Way of Life: A Christian Theology, (St. Louis: Chalice Press, 1999), p. 289.