We Drink the Same Cup

This was presented before Communion on Sunday, November 12, 2006.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

On July 16, 1054, after centuries of drifting apart, the schism between the Western Church and the Eastern Church was finally formalized. Cardinal Humbert, a representative of Pope Leo IX, strode into the Church of Santa Sophia in Constantinople and laid a papal bull of excommunication upon the alter. He and his colleagues then quickly departed, ceremonially shaking the dust off their feet. And the Church of Rome and the churches of the East that had been in communion with each other since the very foundation of the Church, were divided. Thereafter, the pope in Rome would deny communion to the eastern Christians and the patriarchs of the eastern Churches would deny communion to western Catholics, and to this day there has been no lasting reconciliation. But do you know what is remarkable? The western Christians went back their churches, and the eastern Christians went to their churches, and they both drank the cup.

About 500 years later, in 1529, Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli met at Marburg castle in central Germany to attempt hash out their theological differences. Both men had been instrumental in the protestant reformation and outspoken in their criticisms of the Roman Catholic Church, but they had a fundamental disagreement about the nature of communion that they could not resolve. Luther believed that Christ was somehow spiritually present in the bread and the wine. Zwingli believed that the ceremony of communion was a memorial of Christ’s death but that Christ was not spiritually or physically present in the emblems. So, because of this disagreement, any hope of unity among the various Protestant movements was lost, and to this day there has been no lasting reconciliation. But do you know what is remarkable? The next Sunday Martin Luther went to his church and Zwingli went to his church, and they both drank the cup.

We go forward about another 400 years and we find Europe embroiled in World War I. We see the German soldiers hunkered down in their trenches enduring the atrocious conditions of trench warfare while inflicting those same conditions on the allied soldiers who are hunkered down in their trenches a short distance away. By day and night they hurl mortars and even chemical weapons at one another, and in this conflict we see human pride and hatred at its worst. But do you know what is remarkable? Even during this dark time, army Chaplains on both sides of the conflict would make their way through the trenches with their communion kits stopping to commemorate the Lord’s death with small groups of men: “The Body of Christ, broken for you, soldier.” And the German soldiers in their trenches and the allied soldiers in their trenches both drank the cup.

Then He took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s Kingdom.” What did he say? He’s going to drink it with us in His Father’s Kingdom! Well, the Kingdom of God that Jesus spent His life teaching about is here. The Kingdom has come. Here it is among us. The Church that Christ instituted by His Spirit is the Kingdom of God, and Christ Himself has given his promise not only that He will be present where believers gather in His name, but that He will actually drink the cup with us.

Much has been made throughout history of the nature of communion. Are the bread and wine mysteriously transformed into the body and blood of Christ? Or is Christ, as Luther thought, just somehow spiritually present in the emblems? Or is it just a ceremony of remembrance? Perhaps, though, the important question is not as much about what’s for dinner as it is about who is at the table. We were not there on the night Jesus was betrayed. We didn’t see His miracles with our own eyes, we didn’t see His resurrected body, and we didn’t have the opportunity to share a last meal with our Lord and Savior. But the institution of the Lord’s Supper is a work of divine genius instituted by Christ Himself. Although separated chronologically by a span of about 2000 years, we can still share a meal with our Lord and Savior. Jesus really does take His seat at the table in some mysterious way.

But that’s not even the genius of it. The real genius of the Lord’s Supper is the logical conclusion that those who take a seat at the table with Christ are taking a seat with each other. “There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” Because there is one Lord, there is one table and one supper. And those who wish to commune with the Lord, whether they like it or not, are communing with each other. I like to imagine one huge table at which every follower of Christ who has ever lived takes his seat to share the same meal. And Cardinal Humbert back in 1054 may think he excommunicated the patriarch of Constantinople, but the truth is that there he sits, right across the table, sharing the same meal. And there isn’t a thing Cardinal Humbert can do about it because it isn’t his table.

And Luther and Zwingli may disagree about what’s for dinner, but it seems that doesn’t matter a whole lot because if they want to eat with Jesus, it’s just a logical necessity that they’ve got to sit at the same table. And those French and German soldiers locked in mortal combat may be a little uncomfortable with the fact the guy they were just shooting at is now rubbing elbows with them at the Lord’s Table, but that is the reality of the communion. Those who wish to commune with Lord, commune with each other.

We can close our eyes and pretend that people with disagree with or dislike are not at the table with us, but that doesn’t change the reality. We are all broken, sinful people who at some level are ignorant about fundamental truths of the gospel and the nature of God, and if Jesus wants to turn us away from His table who can blame Him. But from looking at the types of people Jesus ate with during His time on earth, I would be very surprised if he suddenly got pickier about the type of company he keeps.

Whether we forgive each other or not, whether we agree with each other or not, whether we even love each other or not, we all sit at the same table and we drink the same cup and we serve the same Lord.

When we come to the Lord’s table we participate in a divine feast of Christian unity. It is not a unity that God humbly pleas for, it is a unity that God mandates by divine fiat. We are the Body of Christ. There is only one Christ and He has only one Body. And all the members of that timeless Body from every nation and every continent who have ever lived or who ever will live, take their place at one gigantic table and share one meal presided over by our one Lord.

And the Christian man and his Christian wife who has just left him may each come to the table with anger and bitterness in their hearts and hatred for one another, but they both sit at the same table and they drink the same cup.

And the Christian father and his children who he has physically or emotionally abused may bring to the table a mixed bag of anger and love and forgiveness and hatred, but they all sit at the same table and they drink the same cup.

And the Christian business partners who have argued and bickered or who have been cheated and defrauded by one another during the week, may retreat on Sunday to the safety of their different congregations, but whether they like to think about it or not, when they partake of the Lord’s Supper they both sit at the same table and they drink the same cup.

And the members of churches that have bitterly split over issues of doctrine or leadership may worship from different buildings, but when they partake of the Lord’s Supper they all sit at that same table and they all drink the same cup.

And when all of God’s children take our places at that one timeless and universal table in order to participate with our Lord in this sacred feast, then the nature of Christ’s Church is seen and felt for what it truly is: the most powerful force the world has ever known, blessed with God’s divine power and guidance to heal and to save this broken world. When we raise our cups with Christ, we raise our cups with each other, and our disagreements and differences melt away as Christ’s Church proclaims together that universal truth that we all agree on: Jesus Christ is Lord.

Letter to SaveChildrenNow.org

This is my response to the the activities of the organization SaveChildrenNow.org. The intention of Save Children Now is to convince its visitors to support increased government action in feeding the starving children around the world by imposing a $30-$50 tax on people from wealthy nations. Low-income earners in a nation are exempt from the tax.
__________________________________________________

Dear directors of Save Children Now,

I really appreciate your concern for the hurting and starving people of this world, and I want you to know that you are not alone in your passion for caring for these children. Millions of people around the world are deeply concerned about the suffering these children endure and are giving of their resources to make a difference. SaveChildrenNow is particularly effective in spreading the message to those who have not yet seen the faces of the hungry children and who have not yet been convicted of the incredible amount of good that can be done by aiding them.

I am curious about your statement that "saving children should never be based on donations". Do you mean I should not be giving voluntary donations to causes that feed these children, or do you mean that feeding the children should not be completely dependant on the voluntary donations of individuals? My intuition would say that what you really meant was that voluntary donations alone are insufficient and that some coercive action by governments is acceptable and necessary in order to really solve this problem. However, your advertisements state that you are not asking people for money to help the children, and the place on your website that does ask visitors for money states that the money is to be used to advertise the site rather than feed children. So, maybe my intuition here is incorrect and you really do dislike voluntary donations, preferring to focus all your efforts on convincing governments to solve the problem.

I, personally, think that the best (and only) way to really help these children is by voluntary donations. My reasoning here is based upon a deep distrust of the ability of governments to faithfully and efficiently distribute the funds to those in need. Let's look at some of the things that can go wrong when government gets involved. First of all, even if the nations of the world convince their leaders to institute this $30-$50 tax to feed the hungry, I am very skeptical that it would end up being used for those ends. For instance, Federal gas taxes in the US are supposed to go to maintaining the Interstate highway system, but once the politicians get all their earmarks in the transportation bill, the money ends up going to build a museum in some congressman's home district or a bridge to an unpopulated island, not the Interstate highway system. When we look at existing foreign aid programs like USAID, we find most of the development money going to Israel and Egypt, not because they have the largest needs, but because they are political allies of the United States. And for the money the US spends to fight AIDS in Africa, it has been stipulated by congress that a certain percentage of that must go to fund abstinence-based programs.

The history of government giving is almost always politically directed, and I don't know how that is going to suddenly change if this new tax is instituted. The politicians will still decide who gets the money based on political objectives rather than humanitarian ones. When private charities help the poor, they are held directly accountable by their donors by way of competition between charities. When a charity I am giving to is spending its funds inefficiently or using the money in ways I don't agree with, I can just give to a different charity. This is not possible with government spending. If the government's bloated bureaucracy consumes 70% of the funds, leaving only 30% to feed the hungry children, we have no recourse but to complain to our politicians or try to vote them out. And if we don't expect the alternative party to be any more efficient in its aid expenses, then we really have no way to fix the problem.

Also, notice that in order for this new tax to become law, it really needs to be supported by a majority of the voters of the country that will pass it. But, if we could convince half the voters of a nation that they should be giving $50 a year to feed the starving children, then we would already have an enormous amount of money going to feed the children because those people would already be giving voluntarily. The only benefit of passing a law and imposing the $50 tax on everyone would be to force the other half of the nation to contribute their $50 as well. So, the best we could hope for by passing the law would be a doubling of contributions. However, when we take into account that the efficiency of private charities is usually around 90% and the efficiency of government spending is significantly lower than that (sometimes approaching 10%) the expected doubling of revenue due to using the power of government disappears.

Now, it is certainly possible for half of the voters of a nation who have no intention of paying the tax (because they are low-income earners and exempted) to get a law passed that imposes this $50 tax on the other half of the population (the rich people). This is the only way I can see that using the coercive power of government would provide more funds than people acting voluntarily. So, the success of this plan depends upon large numbers of people, who have little intention of giving any money themselves, forcing another group of people to give to help the children. This, of course, perpetuates the centuries old tendency of people to look at the suffering in the world and ask "Why is no one doing anything?" while not lifting a finger themselves.

Other than the prospect of encouraging people to join the cause of SaveChildrenNow, secure in the fact that they will never be required to give anything themselves, I can find no reason to exempt low-income earners from the $50 tax. Even people living at the poverty level in Western nations still do better financially than about 70% of the population of the world. If it is acceptable to coerce the top 10% of the world's population to involuntarily aid the hungry children, why is it unacceptable to coerce the top 30% to do so?

The hope of millions of starving children does not lie with government solutions that will most likely never be implemented and that will be grossly inefficient and politically directed even if they are implemented. The hope of the children lies with ordinary people like us who are moved to give sacrificially of our own incomes to improve another person's life and to convince others to voluntarily do the same. The coercive hand of government has shown itself incapable of eliminating poverty even at the local level, and I see no reason for governments to do any better at the global level by us simply giving them more money.

The message of the starving children is one that needs to be shared, frequently and passionately, and I applaud SaveChildrenNow for its excellent efforts in convicting people of the severity of the problem. I would urge you, though, to follow in the footsteps of the hundreds of other organizations who are actively working to connect willing donors with needy children and who are making a real difference in the world.