Rethinking Holy Communion_________________________

Daniel G. Topalski

I. Introduction: the authentic and legitimate landmarksfor examinationIn this paper I would like to offer a brief criticalexamination of the Eucharistic theology and practice inthe contemporary Evangelical Methodist Episcopal Churchin Bulgaria, which is a part of the United MethodistChurch. On the one hand, this critical examinationshould be carried out in the light of the Methodisttradition presented in the writings of John and CharlesWesley and the praxis of early Methodism. On the otherhand, it is necessary to put the Eucharistic practice oftoday’s Methodist Church in Bulgaria in the largerframework provided by the multi-sided United MethodistChurch which materialized its attempts to recover therich Wesleyan understanding of Holy Communion inofficial liturgical texts and theological statements.These two dimensions of comparison (past and present)will provide the necessary basis for a constructiveanswer to the question how valuable the recovery of a deeperEucharistic theology and practice can be for the revitalization of theMethodist Church in Bulgaria. Furthermore, the both dimensionsreveal a great number of advantages for the meaningfuldialogue between “two similar spiritual paths”1:Methodism and Orthodoxy, which may bear good fruits inthe predominantly Orthodox context in which BulgarianMethodism lives. In some areas of our Methodist worldthe conversations with Orthodoxy may be accepted as an1 See James H. Charlesworth, “Two Similar spiritual Paths: Methodism and Orthodoxy”, inOrthodox and Wesleyan Scriptural Understanding and Practice, S T Kimbrough, Jr., ed.(Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2005), p. 107 - 129

1

eccentric adventure in the past times of the Church, butfor us, if we take seriously our theological task andmission, it is an absolute necessity.

There is no doubt that the rediscovery of the richWesleyan understanding of Holy Communion is only a partof one more general task which continues to urgeBulgarian Methodists for further honest and deeptheological efforts. This task is to rediscover and rebuildthe Methodist identity again, at the same time while werestore the old Methodist congregations and Churchbuildings and establish many new ones. In this quest foridentity some important questions arise in order to makethe task more difficult. What is the real face of Methodism, whichwe are trying to introduce or reintroduce in our new and old Methodistcongregations? Is the Bulgarian Methodism from pre-communist times theone which we are searching for? Has that version of Methodism enoughauthentic Methodist characteristics? And if we chose to searchfor examples in the contemporary Methodism, what ouropportunities in the midst of the great diversity of viewpoints in today’sMethodism are? All these questions can be generalized insuch a way: what are our authentic and legitimate landmarks as UnitedMethodists in Bulgaria in our quest for identity (including the importantquestion about Eucharistic theology and practice)? Two of thelandmarks were explicitly pointed out above – thetheology and practice of early Methodism and thespecific United Methodist modern interpretation of thatheritage. The third landmark is implicit – the contextin which we live and serve as United Methodists righthere and now.

The United Methodist landmark is so important for usnot only because we belong to UMC. This landmarkprovides for us more specific, particular ecclesial contextwhich differs from the situation during the Wesley’s

2

times when the Methodist societies existed as ecclessiolaein the big ecclesia (the established Church of England)with its beliefs and practices which were on Mr.Wesley’s hand for use, excerpts and different kinds ofadaptations.

If we apply these landmarks to our particularproblem, the tasks of the central part of this essay maybe formulated as follows: 1) to suggest a criticalexamination of contemporary Bulgarian Methodistunderstanding and practice of Holy Communion in thelight of early Methodist theology and practice of theEucharist and its modern ecclesial (United Methodist)interpretation; and 2) to show the importance of thecreative recovery of the Wesleyan Eucharistic theologyand practice for revitalization of Bulgarian MethodistChurch and its ecumenical potential in the dialoguewith Orthodoxy in particular Bulgarian context.

II. Rethinking Holy CommunionThe title of this section of my essay coincides with thetitle of the whole paper. It is fair to specify herethat the aim of this rethinking of the Eucharist inWesleyan spirit is not simply to repeat the thoughts ofJohn Wesley about this central sacrament of the Churchand to imitate his Eucharistic practice. The aim is tofind the basic theological ideas which stand behind thethoughts and practice and can provide the possibility totheologize about the Holy Communion in Wesleyan spiritright here (Bulgaria) and now (XXI century). First ofall, we have to identify the problem very carefully inorder to be able to recommend the right steps for itssolution.

3

1. Reduction of the meaning of Holy Communion to an (individual) actof remembrance in contemporary UMC in Bulgaria – reasons andconsequences for the ecclesiology and praxis It is hard to say that there is a common understandingof the term “sacrament” in Bulgarian United MethodistChurch. There is some awareness that the Holy Communionis not simply a ritual of the Church or, at least, it isa special ritual established by Christ himself andbecause of this it is more important than others.Usually our congregations celebrate the Eucharist in ahurry as an appendix to the main part of worship service– the proclamation of the Word. These haste andnegligence concerning the celebration of the Lord’sSupper, which is often evident in the attitude of bothclergy and laity, are indicative that there is a deepmisunderstanding of the meaning and importance of theEucharist for the spiritual life of the Church as bodyof Christ and every particular Christian as a member ofthis body.

For many Bulgarian Methodists the Holy Communioncontinues to be a very important event in which theyparticipate with great seriousness but often they cannotexplain why the sacrament is so important for them andfor the common Church life. The predominant part of ourChurch members reduces the meaning of the Eucharist toan act of remembrance of Christ’s sufferings and deathon the cross. Many presume that there is something morethan simple memorial aspect in the Eucharist, but theycannot name clearly this additional (not central) thing.In this point we don’t see any significant differencebetween the Methodist understanding of Holy Communionand anemic memorialism in theology and practice of otherProtestant (or more preferred name “Evangelical”)

4

churches represented in Bulgaria. The availability ofofficial Word and Table liturgy for Bulgarian UnitedMethodists makes no big difference. The popularevangelism continues to shape our understanding of theEucharist more than Wesleyan theology. In Bulgariantranslation the invocation of the Holy Spirit(epiclesis) is missing and the central part of thecelebration is an act of remembrance. Despite of thesacramental renaissance in the United Methodist Church,which includes the official recovery of the GreatEucharistic Prayer (The Great Thanksgiving), BulgarianMethodism prefers to keep the evangelical heritage morethan the Wesleyan one.

In his written opinion about the benefits from ThisHoly Mystery: A United Methodist Understanding of Holy Communion,William McDonald makes some important observationcompletely applicable to our situation in Bulgaria:

In assuming the conventionalities of American Protestantism,Methodists have forgotten how our Eucharistic theology makes usunique… Four old Protestant ghosts linger in our sanctuaries: thepreference for the spiritual over the embodied; the inward andpersonal over the outward and corporate; preaching as theexclusive, most “effective”, means of grace; and fear of allthings Roman Catholic. This last ghost haunts the minds of thosewho think that added emphasis on the Eucharist is “too highchurch”, when, in fact, it is a reclaiming of Wesley’sevangelical catholicity.2

Bulgarian Methodist Church was established byAmerican Methodist missionaries in the middle of the XIXcentury. According to the right conclusion of This HolyMystery, “during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries the

2 William Macdonald, “Will This Holy Mystery Serve United Methodist Church Well?”, inQuarterly Review, Volume 25, Number 3, Fall 2005, pp. 304, 306.

5

rich Wesleyan understandings of Eucharist were largelylost, and the sacrament became understood only as amemorial of the death of Christ.”3 It becomes evidentthat the Methodist Church in Bulgaria hasn’t had a realhistorical chance to be reared with Wesleyan Eucharistictheology, hymnody and practice. Instead, it received theritual which was deeply penitential, calling upon peopleto repent and unfortunately having less emphasis oncelebration of God’s grace. What we consider to be ourMethodist Eucharistic heritage now is in fact remnantfrom these “conventionalities” of American (andBulgarian) Protestantism which is widely recognized asour common evangelical heritage. We cannot deny the factthat during the communist regime in Bulgaria theMethodist Church sustained the greatest loss among theother protestant denominations and lost quite a lot byits identity. After the fall of Communism there was asmall number of Methodists from the previous generation.In the process of restoration of the Methodist Churchmany coworkers from other Protestant traditions weregained over and many evangelicals became members of ourChurch. The strong evangelical influence from differentsources continues to water the soil of BulgarianMethodism. I cannot reject the positive impulses but Iam convinced that the theological devaluation of theEucharist and its celebration as a memorial act only arenot among these impulses. On the contrary, thisdevaluation is clear evidence that we continue to keepalive those old Protestant ghosts claiming that thespiritual is more important than embodied; the inward3 This Holy Mystery: A United Methodist Understanding of Holy Communion(Nashville: The General Board of Discipleship of The United Methodist Church,2004), p.6. The document is cited below as THM.

6

and personal is more important than the outward andcorporate; preaching (Word) is more effective thanEucharist (Table). On this false contradiction theindividualism among Christians continues to grow and itdamages the same fundamentals of the authenticunderstanding of the Church as the real body of Christ(which is not just summation of individuals) in whichChrist himself is truly present in the Holy Communionand in the proclaimed Word through the power of the HolySpirit in the midst of the community gathered in hisname.

2. Wesleyan understanding and practice of the Holy CommunionIt is not easy for someone to imagine that a movement oflay renewal can be a renewal of sacramental practicewith great emphasis on Eucharist at the same time. Theearly Methodism united these two aspects (spiritualrenewal and sacramental renewal) despite of all thedifficulties and tensions caused by many factorsincluding Wesley’s rejection of the idea for separationfrom the Church of England and the hostility of manyChurch officials and lay people towards Methodists.

John and Charles Wesley (both clergy into the Churchof England) had a great respect towards their ownChurch’s theology. This respect is clearly evident intheir understanding of Eucharist basically formedsimultaneously by the rejection of the Roman Catholicdoctrine of transubstantiation and strong sense ofChrist’s presence in Holy Communion through the power ofthe Holy Spirit which were clearly expressed in Article28 of the Thirty Nine Articles of Religion (theunderlining is mine – D.T.):

7

The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love thatChristians ought to have among themselves one to another, butrather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death:insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith,receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of theBody of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partakingof the Blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Breadand Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by HolyWrit; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture,overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasionto many superstitions.

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper,only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean wherebythe Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ'sordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.4

Wesley didn’t develop a systematic exposition of hisEucharistic theology. We can speak about a presupposedEucharistic doctrine, which marks we can identify inJohn Wesley’s writings and Charles Wesley’s hymnody.This presupposed theological concept was the eighteenth-century Anglican modification of Calvin’s Eucharisticdoctrine known as “virtualism”. In Calvin’sunderstanding Christ bodily is in heaven and by thepower of the Holy Spirit “our souls are joined toChrist, raised to heaven where he is at the right handof the Father.”5 According to Wesley the direction iscompletely reversed:

4 See:http://www.anglicancommunion.org/resources/acis/docs/thirty_nine_articles.cfm 5 Theodore Runyon, The New Creation (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998), p.129

8

We need not now go up to heaven,To bring the long-sought Saviour down;Thou art to all already given,Thou dost even now Thy banquet crown:Thou every faithful soul appear,And show Thy real presence here!6

In fact the real presence of Christ in HolyCommunion according to this virtualist doctrine is noless than the presence in the Roman Mass – Christ ispresent truly and effectually not through the miracle oftransubstantiation but by power (virtue) of the HolySpirit, who only can make Christ present to the souls ofgathered believers. There is no change in the substanceof the bread and wine. They remain what they were, but“in relation to Him are more”:

O the depth of love divine, the unfathomable grace!Who shall say how bread and wine God into us conveys!Has the bread his flesh imparts,How the wine transmits his blood,Fills his faithful people’s hearts with all the life of God!7

The Holy Communions remains a mystery which isunexplainable by logical constructions. We can say withWesley brothers that the bread and wine “conveys” Godinto us and fills us with “all the life of God” throughthe power of the Holy Spirit. In the same time we doesnot claim to be able to explain fully, with accordancewith the same brothers and many other witnesses fromdifferent ages of Church history, the same manner of

6 Ibid., p.130.7 Runyon, p.131.

9

this “conveying” or “transmission”, or in other words –the reality of Christ’s presence:

Let the wisest mortal show how we grace receive;Feeble elements bestow a power not theirs to give.Who explains the wondrous way,How through these the virtue came? These the virtue did convey, yet still remain the same.

How the spirits heavenward rise, by earthly matter fed,Drink herewith divine supplies and eat immortal bread?Ask the Father’s wisdom how:Christ who did the means ordain;Angels round our altar bow to search it out, in vain. Sure and real is the grace, the manner be unknown;only meet us in thy ways and perfect us in one.Let us taste the heavenly powers, Lord, we ask for nothing more.Thine to bless, ’tis only ours to wonder and adore.8

The power of the Holy Spirit communicates Christ’sreal presence to us in this unique way - through thevisible, tangible, “feeble elements” of the bread andwine. According to Rob Staples’ interpretation we candefine the sacraments as an “operative symbols”, whichmeans to affirm that they not only proclaim a truth butthat through them “God performs an act of gracecorresponding the truth.” This concept is a modern wayto express the same basic idea as the poetic Eucharisticvirtualism of Charles Wesley in which the Holy Ghostmakes real the sign:8 Ibid, p.132.

10

Come Holy Ghost, thine influence shedAnd realize the sign.Thy life infuse into the bread,Thy Power into wine.9

Charles Wesley includes in his Eucharistic hymnsprayers of invitation of the Holy Spirit to be presentand active in the experience of the sacrament. Thesimilarities with the liturgical evpi,klhsij, a partof most traditional Eucharistic celebrations is obvious.Spirit is invoked not only to “realize the sign”, but tobe the spark of human memory, awareness, and conscienceat the Lord’s Table:

Come, thou everlasting Spirit,Bring to every thankful mindAll the Savior’s dying meritAll his sufferings for mankind.10 The emphasis on Christ’s presence in Holy Communion

didn’t lead Wesley brothers to underestimation of theidea of remembrance of His passions. Charles refers tothe Holy Spirit as the “Divine Remembrancer” but in thesame time he joins his brother John in sharing DanielBrevint’s opinion that Eucharist is not simply recallingof Christ’s suffering and death:

The main intention of Christ herein was not the bareremembrance of His Passions; but over and above, to invite us toHis Sacrifice, not us done and gone many years since, but as tograce and mercy, still lasting, still new, still the same as when

9 Runyon, p.133.10 S T Kimbrough, Jr., p.142.

11

it was first offered for us…. This Sacrament, duly received,makes the thing which it represents, as really present for ouruse as if it were newly done.11

Thus the Eucharistic remembrance reveals itself as areal avna,mnhsij – a dynamic action that “becomes re-presentation of past gracious acts of God in thepresent, so powerfully as to make them truly presentnow.”12 Above all things in the past, Christ is risen andhe is alive and present here and now. Eucharist is notsome kind of repetition of Christ’s sacrifice, butdynamic representation as when this sacrifice “was firstoffered for us”.

The Eucharist was for Wesley not only the presenceof Christ, but a “Trinitarian meal”:

Father, Son and Holy SpiritSav’d by TheeHappy weShall thy throne inherit:Here our heavenly banquet tasting.In thy loveJoy we proveEver, ever lasting.13

This Trinitarian approach of the Wesleys helps us torecover the Trinitarian fullness of Eucharistictheology: “The Father riches out through the love of theSon, made present and palpable through the bread andwine (by the virtue of the Spirit – D.T.), his body and hisblood, to nourish and renew us”.14 11 Runyon., p.131. 12 THM, p. 8.13 S T Kimbrough, Jr., “Wesleyan Ecclesiology: Charles Wesley’s Understanding of the Nature of theChurch”, in Orthodox and Wesleyan Ecclesiology, S T Kimbrough, Jr., ed. (Crestwood,NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2007), p. 142. 14 Runyon, p.132.

12

If in the Eucharist God really nourishes and renewsus by his Divine grace (“Fills his faithful people’s hearts with all thelife of God!”), there is no doubt that the frequentcelebration of the sacrament is absolutely necessary forthose who are going on to perfection. In his poem“Constant Communion” Wesley underlines that “truefollowers” of Christ in the early Church were those whocontinued in the regular practice of Holy Communion.Their duty was fulfilled: “They kept the Eucharisticfeast”. The situation in his own time was completelydifferent and Wesley outlined it with exposingquestions:

Where is the pure primeval flame,Which in their faithful bosom glowed?Where are the followers of the Lamb,Thy dying witnesses of God?Why is the faithful seed decreased,The life of God extinct and dead?The daily sacrifice is ceased,And charity to heaven is fled.15

If our real goal is to “become participants of the

divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4) by grace, the “fasting,prayer, scripture reading, meditation, and the frequentreceiving of the Eucharist are all means of grace, ofreceiving the life-giving, life-renewing, re-creatingpower of the Holy Spirit so that the image of God in usmight be healed and renewed, that we might be madeperfect in love.”16 John Wesley believed that by

15 S T Kimbrough, Jr., p.140.16 Grant Sperry White, “Recovery of the Great Eucharistic Prayer in theWesleyan Tradition”, in Orthodox and Wesleyan Scriptural Understanding and Practice, S TKimbrough, Jr., ed. (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2005),p.286.

13

partaking of Holy Communion one could experience God'sprevenient grace (God seeking us out, calling us, guidingus), God's convicting grace (the grace that convicts us ofour sin and calls us to repent), God's justifying grace(that wonderful grace that allows us to feel forgivenand in right relationship with God), and God's sanctifyinggrace (the grace that urges us and enables us to grow inpersonal and social holiness as we become disciples ofpeace and justice in the world).17 Wesley insisted on the“converting” character of Eucharist, following one ofhis favorite teachers, William Law, who wrote that theparticipation in the Eucharistic meal is “neither morenor less than to put on Christ, to receive birth andlife and nourishment and growth from him; as the branchreceives its being and life, and nourishment and growthfrom the vine.” Grasped in this way, Eucharist is notoptional, simply one among many other means of grace,and the insistence on constant Communion is not aneccentric freak of high churchman. As Runyon points out,“Constant communion clearly means that this service ofthanksgiving and praise is to become an integral part ofthe Christian’s life.”18

In his sermon The Duty of Constant Communion Wesleyrejected all the common objections against constantlyreceiving the Lord’s Supper with two arguments: the HolyCommunion is a command of God and it is a mercy to men:

It has been shown, First, that if we consider the Lord'sSupper as a command of Christ, no man can have any pretence toChristian piety, who does not receive it (not once a month, but)

17 See John Wesley, “Means of Grace”, II.1, in John Wesley’s Forty-Four Sermons(Epworth Press, 2002), p.136. Katy Black, “Will This Holy Mystery Serve United MethodistChurch Well?”, in Quarterly Review, Volume 25, Number 3, Fall 2005, p.308. THM,p.7. 18 Runyon, p. 136.

14

as often as he can. Secondly, that if we consider the institutionof it, as a mercy to ourselves, no man who does not receive it asoften as he can has any pretence to Christian prudence. Thirdly,that none of the objections usually made, can be any excuse forthat man who does not, at every opportunity obey this command andaccept this mercy. (The Duty of constant Communion, II.21).19

Wesley explained that the issue of unworthiness doesnot apply to the people who are to commune, but to themanner in which the consecrated elements are consumed:“Here is not a word said of being unworthy to eat anddrink. Indeed he [Paul] does speak of eating anddrinking unworthily; but that is quite a differentthing; so he has told us himself. In this very chapterwe are told that by eating and drinking unworthily ismeant, taking the holy sacrament in such a rude anddisorderly way, that one was ‘hungry and anotherdrunken’ [1 Cor. 11:21]” (II.8). In other words, Paulhad in mind those who failed to recognize the church –the body of Christ – as a community of faith withinwhich all the Christians relate to each other and areunited in love.20

Wesley brothers were convinced that God’s love,experienced in the Holy Communion, had real power tounite the members of Christ’s body. Eucharist has keysignificance to community:

T̓T Tis here his closest love unitesThe members to their Head. Assured of this significance and all the benefits

of Eucharistic celebration, Methodist lay preachers wereeager for right to offer the sacrament to their ownsocieties, but they met Wesley’s steadfast refusal. He

19 See: http://new.gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/101/ 20 THM, p. 18.

15

understood that the separate Methodist Communion wasequivalent to separate Methodist church. Anyhow thisseparation from the Church of England was only a matterof time.

Did Wesley’s Eucharistic understanding lead to realsacramental renewal among his own people? We can give apositive answer to this question. As J. EarnestRattenbury wrote, “The early Methodists flocked tocelebration of Holy Communion in such numbers that theclergy were really embarrassed with the multitude ofcommunicants with which they had deal.”21 In his JournalJohn Wesley testified to the number of communicants thatwas typical for the services in which he participated.The numbers (500, 800, and 1300) are really impressiveno matter where the services were held – in the churchbuildings or on the field. Obviously Wesley and hispeople appreciated highly the Eucharist as a means ofgrace with multifaceted nature that has a unique placeamong all the other means (works of piety and works ofmercy). Unfortunately, the Methodist movement started tolose this high appreciation step by step after itsconversion into the separate church body (bodies) as aresult of losing the authentic Wesleyan understanding ofEucharist.

3. The United Methodist interpretation of Wesleyan Eucharistictheology and practice

The United Methodist Church has materialized itsmodern interpretation of Wesleyan Eucharistic heritagein official doctrinal and liturgical texts. These textsmove beyond the simple repetition or explanatorycommentaries upon the articles regarding Holy Communion21 J. Earnest Rattenbury is quoted from Runyon, p.128.

16

in UM doctrinal standards - The Articles of Religion of theMethodist Church (Article XVIII, “Of the Lord’s Supper”)and The Confession of Faith of the Evangelical Brethren Church (ArticleVI, “The Sacraments").

The sacramental renaissance in United Methodismstarted at least in 197222, when the prototype of thecurrent Word and Table liturgy first appeared. Thisprototype, as Grant S. White points out, “set forth themain principle followed by all subsequent UnitedMethodist revisions of the Eucharist in containing agreat Eucharistic prayer based on early Christian modelsrather than Anglican-Cranmerian tradition which haduntil then been the textual standard, if not thestandard in practice.”23 The process of further revisionsculminated with the publication of the United Methodist Bookof Worship (1992), in which preface we can read that theworship book “acknowledges our Anglican liturgicalheritage… and witnesses to our Evangelical UnitedBrethren and Methodist heritage.”24 But in fact, there isat least one more important influence from theliturgical tradition which springs from sources farbehind Anglican via media. The accepted greatEucharistic prayer (Great Thanksgiving) connects thecontemporary United Methodist liturgical practice withan ecumenically popular ancient West Syrian traditionfrom the fifth century. The UM Great Thanksgiving hasvery similar structure as the anaphora (avnafora,) ofthe Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. This choiceestablishes a very good point of contact between UnitedMethodists and those who follow the Byzantine rite.22 The Liturgy of the Lord’s Supper: An Alternative Text.23 White, p.279. 24 The United Methodist Book of Worship (Nashville, TN: The United MethodistPublishing House, 1995).

17

In my opinion, the Great Thanksgiving expresses verywell all the important theological ideas of theEucharist which Wesley brothers appreciated highly. Thedistinctive pneumatological dimension of WesleyanChristianity (especially with regard to the Eucharist)is explicitly expressed through the invocation of theSpirit. The so called evpi,klhsij, which is theculmination of the Eucharistic prayer, “can indeed beseen simply as a making liturgically explicit somethingthat has always been a part of Wesleyan tradition.”25 Theinvocation of the Spirit and the entire Eucharisticprayer serve excellent to recover the authentic Wesleyanunderstanding of multi-faceted nature of the HolyCommunion. In the same time through this liturgicalpattern United Methodists acknowledge that their“sacramental theology and practice have lagged farbehind Wesley’s.”26

In 2004 UMC finally provided the necessarytheological exposition of its understanding of Eucharistin addition to the liturgical reforms. The officialdocument, entitled This Holy Mystery (THM), explicitlyoutlines six major theological ideas from New Testamentthat define the meaning of the Holy Communion: 1) an actof thanksgiving; 2) a communion of the church – bothlocal and universal; 3) anamnesis; 4) a type ofsacrifice; 5) a vehicle of God’s grace through theaction of the Holy Spirit; 6) an eschatological meal.

According to THM Christ is “truly present” in HolyCommunion. His true presence is revealed in three wayssimultaneously: through the community gathered in Jesus’name, through the Word proclaimed and enacted, and

25 White, p.281. 26 McDonald, p.304.

18

through the elements of bread and wine shared. Thedocument shows clearly the Trinitarian character ofEucharist: “Through Jesus Christ and in the power of the Holy Spirit,God meets us at the Table. God, who has given the sacraments to thechurch, acts in and through Holy Communion.”27 Despite of allexplanations, Eucharist remains a mystery. Christ istruly present but we cannot fully understand how thishappens. It is more important that we can experience hispresence: “The divine presence is a living reality and can be experiencedby participants; it is not a remembrance of the Last Supper and theCrucifixion only.”28

THM deals with the “individualistic” interpretationsof Eucharist in very good manner underlining thatChrist’s presence in the sacrament is “a promise to thechurch and is not dependent upon recognition of thispresence by the individual members of thecongregation.”29

THM shows successfully the connection between theEucharistic practice and Wesleyan emphasis onsanctification. Holy Communion provides necessaryspiritual nourishment for our Christian journey. AsWesley pointed out, “This is the food of our souls: Thisgives strength to perform our duty, and leads us on toperfection” (“The Duty of Constant Communion”, I.3).Through the operation of the Holy Spirit (divine grace)we are “progressively shaped into the Christ’s image”and our wholeness is restored. Indeed this is a lifelongprocess in which Eucharistic participation plays asignificant role.

27 THM, p. 11.28 Ibid., p. 11. 29 Ibid., p.11

19

It is obvious that the both Word and Table Liturgyand THM seek to provide enough liturgical andtheological useable resources to overcome in veryWesleyan manner the contradiction between Word andTable, speech and sign-act, spirit and body, corporateand individual. The both texts try to interpret andreintroduce the Wesleyan understanding of Eucharist inmodern ecclesial and ecumenical context. In the sametime this is an attempt to recover the spirituality thatstands behind the ideas expressed in these texts.Unfortunately, this attempt is facing with not veryfriendly reality. In this point I completely share theconclusions of William Macdonald that may be applied toour Bulgarian situation:

We have a theology and a liturgy, but we are not shaped bythem. Eucharist is regarded as one program among many, not as theheart and soul of the church’s life… Having a sacramentaltheology is one thing, but living out of it is something quitedifferent. We are not there yet. But maybe, if taken up andconsidered, THM can be a step along the way to the Eucharisticfeast.30

4. The reception of the United Methodist interpretation of WesleyanEucharistic theology and practice: some difficulties and fears The recovery of Wesleyan Eucharistic understanding andpractice in contemporary United Methodist Church inBulgaria may be supported a lot if we take to heart thecareful examination and consideration of both Word andTable liturgy and This Holy Mystery.

The Bulgarian translation of the liturgical text(1995) is made from German following the text acceptedby the Central Conference of the Central and Southern30 MacDonald, p.307.

20

Europe. It was already mentioned that in Bulgarianversion of Word and Table liturgy we have no invocationof the Holy Spirit. The extended narrative ofthanksgiving centered on the history of salvation,culminating in Christ and the gift of the Holy Spiritafter the Resurrection, is also out of the Bulgariantext. In this case the joint examination of Word and Tableliturgy and This Holy Mystery is seriously embarrassed becauseof the reduction of the Eucharistic prayer. In this wayour liturgical practice in Bulgaria goes without veryimportant dimensions of Wesleyan understanding of HolyCommunion (real presence of Christ, emphasis upon theactivity of the Holy Spirit, clear Trinitarian characterof the Eucharistic feast). This loss is not the only onein our context. We can’t see clearly the similaritiesbetween our understanding and practice and these whichwe find in the Orthodox Church. Thus we dissipate thereal opportunities for contacts and dialogues with thepredominant Christian tradition in our country, whichrejects the doctrine of transubstantiation and promotesthe Eucharist – centered life.

The fears that THM and the original text of Word andTable liturgy are very “high Church” articulations ofWesleyan Eucharistic theology and practice areunjustified. I am convinced that both texts provide verygood basis for meaningful and applicable to theBulgarian context recovery of our sacramental life inmodern ecclesial conditions, keeping the Wesleyan spiritof catholicity. These texts, if they are seriouslytaken, would help us to say good-bye to every kind ofdualism that urge us to prefer the spiritual over theembodied, the inward and personal over the outward andcorporate. It is clear that the recovery of our

21

sacramental life is an important point in the process ofrecovery of the authentic Wesleyan spirituality andethos.

III.ConclusionSomeone may argue that the recovery of the WesleyanEucharistic theology after so many years of memorialismwould fail but I see that Bulgarian Methodists need andwant more than what they are receiving from thesacrament of Holy Communion as it is practiced in ourchurches. They want to meet God at the Table throughChrist in the power of the Holy Spirit; they really wantthis and nothing less. Do we have any right to continueto hold the anemic memorialism in our Eucharisticcelebrations? Do we prefer to feel hungry while we staybefore the “bread of life” broken for us and for many?If our answer is negative to both questions, we have twovery practical sources that may help us to rediscoverand reunite what we believe about the Eucharist and theway in which we celebrate it – Word and Table liturgy and ThisHoly Mystery. We can waste them but the better idea is touse them for the spiritual welfare of our congregations.My own modest experience shows me that it is possibleand fruitful.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Kimbrough, Jr., ST. “Wesleyan Ecclesiology: Charles Wesley’sUnderstanding of the Nature of the Church”, in Orthodox and WesleyanEcclesiology, 129-147. Ed. ST Kimbrough, Jr. Crestwood, NY:St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2007.

22

Macdonald, William. “Will This Holy Mystery Serve United MethodistChurch Well?”, in Quarterly Review, Volume 25, Number 3,Fall 2005, 304-307.

Runyon, Theodore, The New Creation. John Wesley’s Theology forToday. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1998.

Wesley, John. John Wesley’s Forty-Four Sermons. Epworth Press,2002

White, Grant S. “The recovery of the Great Eucharistic Prayer in theWesleyan Tradition, in Orthodox and Wesleyan Scriptural Understandingand Practice”, 277-292. Ed. ST Kimbrough, Jr. Crestwood,NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2005

The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church (Nashville,TN: The United Methodist Publishing House, 2000).

The United Methodist Book of Worship (Nashville, TN: TheUnited Methodist Publishing House, 1995).

This Holy Mystery: A United Methodist Understanding of HolyCommunion (Nashville: The General Board of Discipleshipof The United Methodist Church, 2004).

The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom - http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/liturgy/liturgy.html

23

24