Am I the only one who thinks that Tom Wright's eschatology is narrowly middle-class?

Dear David,

Thank you for your reply. I certainly didn't mean to imply that the discussion is led by people for whom justification by faith is not important. I know that I am in a Christian context in which people would explictly disagree with the doctrine of justification by faith, so it does not stetch credibility. I simply don't know what people think about it, but wanted to say that justification by faith is one of the issues involved here.

It is interesting to relate the 'crumbs under the table' to the original use in the scripture. I wonder to what extent this story is intended to be invoked by the use of these words in the liturgy? Or perhaps the intension is not important, to what extent does this story actually enter into people's experience at this point of the liturgy? In my own experience there is not a link here. To reinstate a link, as you suggest, would have the effect of changing the meaning, but is that what we want?

In Cranmer's day communion was very infrequent, partly because people were afraid of taking their communion whilst unworthy. In this context, the prayer functions as a pastoral reassurance that it is ok to take communion because it is a feast for sinners, not a small club for the few holy ones.

But does it mean the same today? Of course there are many within the churches who do have a pathological sense of unworthiness already. Should it be changed? Sin does have to be mentioned, but what is the appropriate amount in relation to the good stuff? This prayer, unlike others, repeatedly mentions mercy and on the whole is more positive than negative. I don't really think that those with such deep and persitant fears will leave these behind by avoiding any accusation of unworthiness, as this is not controllable in life and the world. The answer is to get counselling.

It has been said that the prayer of humble access is "the only effective attempt ever made to give liturgical expression to the doctrine of justification by faith alone" by no less a figure than Gregory Dix, perhaps the greatest liturgical scholar of the 20th Century.

Rowan Williams points out that putting the prayer of humble access at this point means that the 'resolution' of the tension of being sinners comes in reception of the elements. Taking communion, not the consecration, is the climax of the service.

I suggest that the real reason people do not want the prayer of humble access today is that they don't think justification by faith is important/true or don't want a Protestant theology of the Eucharist.

So for example Christopher Newell and Mary Jones at the latest Inclusive Church conferernce argue that this prayer should never be used because it gives:

"a sense of unworthiness just before we break bread together is, for all of us, and especially for those who live every day with an overwhelming and unbearable sense of unworthiness, wholly unfortunate directly before the gathering at the feast"

Whilst it's possible to understand their pastoral concern for hurt people, one might also question whether they are, under the guise of pastoral sympathy, seeking to undermine the gospel. The truth of justification by faith is that we are sinners but that we can have the righteousness of Christ through God's mercy. If this is at the heart of the gospel then it is only fair that the sacrament which bears witness to it should reflect it.

It may well be that some wish to make justification by faith not central in the life of the church, in which case it is entirely logical to omit or modify this prayer.

It is interesting to note how this has been discussed previously through history, trying to make sense of the Bible. There have been some patristic quotes already, but one of the periods in which this discussion was most active is the late middle ages.

Bonadventure and the Scotus advocated that the second person of the Trinity would have become human even if there had been no fall. In contrast Aquinas advocated the necessity of the incarnation because of human sin:

'Although God could have become incarnate without the existence of sin, it is nevertheless more appropriate to say that, if man had not sinned, God would not have become incarnate, since in Sacred Scripture the reason for the Incarnation is everywhere given as the sin of the first man.' Summa Theologica, Third Part, Question 1, Article 3

Generally speaking, the church decided that Aquinas' account was more plausible.

I would hope however that we would simply preach the message of any passage set for us, rather than import things said in other parts of scripture which, however good, God is not trying to communicate through this particular one.

Baroness Caroline Cox is a female speak at FCA on 6th July.

Also featured are:

Bishop Keith Ackerman (FiF, North America)

Archbishop Peter Jenson (Sydney)

Canon Ben Enwuchola

Bishop John Broadhurst (Fulham)

Bishop John Hind (Chichester)

Bishop Michael Nazir Ali (Rochester)

Rev Vaughan Roberts (Oxford)

Canon Vinay Samual (India)

Wallace Benn

...as well as messages from the Archbishops of Ugand, Rwanda and Kenya.

You will have to make up your own mind whether this group is diverse or not.