By Bishop D.K.Sahu
One activity of the “koinonia” (fellowship) of the people of God is worship. The importance of worship lies in it being that activity which seeks to evoke the fundamentals and induct the worshipper into the heart of the story of the Creator. Stephen Sykes suggests that the phenomenon of Christian worship makes a vital difference to the conditions under which vigorous argument of a radical kind may be regarded as a constructive contribution to the performance of Christian identity.
The centrality of worship has been an emphasis more evident in the recent theological discussions irrespective of different traditions. This is evident in the World Council of Churches publication Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (hereinafter referred to as BEM). The document BEM was formulated by the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches at its meeting held in Lima, Peru in 1982. The text is one of the most important documents of the ecumenical movement.
At the heart of Christian worship is the recognition of the story of the triune God, celebrated in the act of thanksgiving. Praise is a central fact of Christian life. All creation is a work of God’s love and Jesus Christ is God’s giving of Himself in love to restore and fulfil all creation. The Holy Spirit is the pouring out of this love in endless fresh creativity. Praise of God recognizes, enjoys and celebrates it. It is an activity related to God and to other people in the context of creation. Worship is central in that life where the identity of God is witnessed to by a people in praise, confession, repentance, hearing the word and breaking bread. Worship is that activity which Christians engage in together where the community remembers and expresses the Christian story. The worship of the Christian community celebrates and anticipates the glory of God that will be consummated in the eschatological renewal of all creation. It is suggested that the ‘Supper’ incorporates different elements of worship and that the story, doctrine and institutional identities are evoked in the performance of the Supper.
Story of the Supper
Stephen Sykes proposes that the notion of story remembering itself coheres closely with major elements of Eucharistic theology. He notes that there are four components in story grammar; a setting, a theme, a plot, and a resolution. These four align with thanksgiving to the Father (creation), memorial of the Son (redemption), communion of the faithful (church), meal in the kingdom (eschatology). There is an extrinsic as well as intrinsic relationship between the Eucharist as sacrament and the performance of a public narrative memorial.
An important implication of his proposal is to recognize that the Eucharist theology which uses the idea of story is not open to the same objections a can be brought against some traditional doctrines. From the beginning the Christians have focused their concerns in the Supper as seen in Paul’s first letter to Corinth. The early Christians gathered at the Table to break bread and drink wine. This coming together in brotherly love was certainly not a Christian innovation. The Jews who lived in those days used to gather at the table in brotherly love. The Romans also used to assemble in brotherly love. The Romans also used to assemble in brotherly love in associations, and there was need for special laws concerning such associations which were called ‘Collegia’. They used to address each other in the association by the title ‘brethren’. The Jewish gathering was on the basis of race and the Roman gathering was on the basis of profession. The Christian gathering was based on the declaration that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, rich nor poor, master nor slave.
The central aspect of the Supper is praise. It has its root on the Jewish berakah (Blessed art Thou, O Lord Our God…’). God is blessed and thanked for his goodness in creation and redemption. In that blessing, the plea is that God will extend his graciousness into the present and also to the future. Through the blessing, a proclamation is made about the Lord’s death and his resurrection. An understanding of the nature of God is displayed at the Supper. This culminates in grateful praise of God for his marvellous work in Christ. The decisive fact of this aspect of praise is that it tells a story and an invitation is extended to come to the Table.
The Supper relates to a story of a great feast. Jesus looked to the feast in the final kingdom of God when many will come from east and west, north and south, and sit at the Table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Mt. 8:11, Lk. 13:29). The story is retold again and again during the Supper. In telling this story, it needs to be remembered that it cannot be understood unless it is placed in the right context.
There are two major roots to the story of the Supper. One was Jesus’ table-fellowship. The table fellowship of Jesus was a matter of great importance. Jesus had extended the meal across social boundaries, even to those who did not keep the Law. There were some who could not understand this; it was offensive and difficult for the Scribes and the Pharisees. They questioned Jesus’ dining with the tax collectors and sinners (Mk. 2:16-17). The Lucan account of the story of a meal with Zacchaeus is an example of the table fellowship of Jesus which he used as a sign of forgiveness and acceptance (Lk. 19:1-10).
The other root of the story of the Supper was the meal which Jews celebrated, and still celebrate each year at the Passover. The Passover meal was a celebration of the way in which God had brought the people of Israel out of their bondage in Egypt and set them on the road to the Promised Land. It was an occasion for reminding themselves of the gracious act of God. The book of Exodus, which records the institution of the Passover, states that ‘This day shall be for you a memorial day and you shall keep it as a feast to the Lord; throughout your generations you shall observe it as an ordinance for ever.’ (12:14)
The word memorial gave the Jewish paschal meal its whole meaning as an actualization of the deliverance of the people of God. It is not a subjective remembrance, but a strong power in forming the identity of the Jews. “And when your children say to you, “what do you mean by this service?” you shall say, “It is the sacrifice of the Lord’s Passover”.’ (Ex. 12:26, 27) The Jews as a people of God recall what God once did so that He may continue it today. It involved also a thanksgiving to God, a praising of God. Psalm 116 was sung during the meal – ‘What shall I render unto the Lord for all his bounty to me? I will lift up the cup of salvation, and call on the name of the Lord’ (116:12,13)
The Supper in the context of Passover is a blessing for the wonderful deeds of God, a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. The Church in continuation with the story of Passover celebrated the Supper with praise and by recalling the death and resurrection of Jesus. The story is told that it is God who has reconciled the world to Himself. This story of reconciliation gives the worshipping community its identity at the Table.The Church gathers around the Table to hear the story of what God has done for all mankind in Jesus, and goes out to tell the story. Jesus is a crucial part of that story but it begins with the call of Adam. The call sets the agenda of God’s engagement with human history.
The table fellowship background of the story of the Supper reminds one of the importances of the meal. ‘We for whom a meal is often a rushed cup of coffee and a piece of toast, or a hamburger taken on the run from a station buffet, need to realize afresh the importance of meals in the ancient world, and still today in other cultures. The meal is an expression of friendship and hospitality. To break bread with another was to share something of that person’s life.’ Jesus accepted many invitations to meals and much of his teaching was also given in the context of a meal. Quite a number of parables featured a meal or banquet theme. The Passover background of the Supper is a reminder of the Jewish antecedents of the Christian Supper.
In both cases the background of the Supper is a meal. The significance of the meal lies in the fact that it was a sharing of food and drink together. ‘In one case, a meal eaten in company as an expression of the character of Jesus’ mission and the fellowship of the kingdom of God. In the other, a meal re-enacting Israel’s history of salvation as focused in the exodus.’ They both give reminders that in essence the Supper is a celebration. It was celebrated on the first day of the week. He who was crucified, was expected to come and was experienced in the power of the Spirit.
One failure on the part of the Church is to treat the Supper as just a matter of individual piety rather than a corporate community celebration in anticipation of a meal in the kingdom. The perpetuation of individual piety in a caste society like India becomes again a barrier to communion where eating together with the outcastes is still a problem.
The Supper narrates the fundamental event of the Christian community and gives substance to the values and aspirations of that community, and enhances its sense of unity and purpose. It is maintained that the existence of the community is derived from the tradition concerning the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Supper evokes the memory of this narrative.
The retelling of this narrative affirms values and beliefs of central importance to the community of faith. It tells a story and thereby generates values. A narrative identity of the Supper makes a minimum of presuppositions and thus is ideally suited as a starting point for exposition of the nature of the meal. In this way it is capable of functioning as a point of entry for those who experience difficulties in making sense of the Supper, on account of a multiplicity of difficult ontological assumptions.
A narrative account of the Supper provides the community of faith with a sense of historical location as does the table fellowship of Jesus and the ‘Passover’. They narrate the fundamental events. The story of the death and resurrection of Jesus is affirmed to be the story of the community of faith, inviting hearers to correlate their situation with the pattern of death and life disclosed in the narrative of the Supper.
The Supper as a story is vulnerable to abuse or misinterpretation. George Stroup refers to those Protestant traditions which insist that celebration of the Lord’s Supper and baptism should always be accompanied by the sermon. The theological presupposition for this position is that the spiritual presence of the Word in the sacraments should not be separated from the appearances of the Word in Scripture and sermon. The Word is present when the Spirit enables personal and community identity to be fused to the narrative history of God’s grace. Sacraments without narratives are vulnerable and this is what Sykes means when he speaks of the extrinsic relation between Eucharist as a sacrament and the performance of public narrative memorial. The intrinsic relation between the Eucharist as a sacrament and performance of public narrative memorial is to link the sign character of the eating and drinking to the sign character of the public recitation of the narrative. The ritual of eating and drinking of eucharist elements and the performance of narratives are together indicative of an interior intention; it is by means of both that the proclamation of the meaning of Christ’s death is constantly made.
2. Doctrine of the Supper
The origin of different denominational identities that went into the formation of the CNI goes back to the conflicts of sixteenth century Europe. The Reformers emphasized the importance of a visible Church. The intention of the Reformers was to reform in order to preserve the true identity of the Church. They felt that the identity of the early Church had become distorted by the late medieval Roman Church. They were engaged in discovering the Biblical perspective. According to them the Church is nourished by the Word of God. It is the community or fellowship of believers, anchored in a common faith in a common Lord. This community meets together to hear God’s word preached and to participate in the sacraments. The identity of the community is determined by the preaching of the Gospel of Christ and by the correct administration of the sacraments. The reformers placed word and sacrament at the centre of the ministry of the church. The Lord’s Supper was the bond of charity that united the faithful community. Communion was a function of community by which all were joined in one body.
The story of the history of the Supper is one of controversy. The division between the churches has centred upon the question of the nature of the ‘real presence’, and ‘sacrifice’. In this respect the eschatological aspect has been undermined, which ought to be a celebration, an act of praise, in anticipation of the coming reign of God. Much doctrinal difference centres on the word anamnesis (memorial). Scholars give different nuances to their explanations. There have been arguments between Catholics and Protestants, and among Protestants, concerning both the Eucharistic sacrifice and the presence of Christ; and between East and West about the relation between the roles of Christ and the Holy Spirit in the Eucharist.
The doctrinal dispute over the centuries has led to the mutual alienation of the traditions of East and West and within the Western tradition, to alienation between Rome and the Reformation. It has also caused difficulty in understanding the meaning of the Supper for those entering the Church from other religious traditions. For example the theology of the Eastern churches has stressed the Divine Liturgy as a reflection of the heavenly liturgy before the throne of God. In the West the emphasis came to lie on the words of institution as relating to the representation of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross, and the significance of Jesus’ words over the giving of bread and wine.
Within the ecumenical movement, a wide-ranging consensus has come into being over the doctrine of the Supper. One widely accepted multilateral document is BEM. In BEM, the doctrine of Eucharist is treated under five headings. They are Thanksgiving, Memorial, Invocation of the Spirit, Communion, and Anticipation of the Meal in the Kingdom. One important category of all these is the anticipation of the Meal in the Kingdom. To achieve consensus in this respect one fundamental error into which the church is prone to fall is that of subordinating the eschatological to the historical. The Church is treated as having, for practical purposes, the whole plenitude of God’s grace in itself now. God has, as it were, deposited His grace with the Church and left it to her to administer. The fact is that the Church is not there to administer grace; rather it is a worshipping community of men and women who celebrate the reign of God. At the heart of that celebration is a rehearsing of His words and deeds. A congregation which believes and lives by the Gospel is characterized by its eschatology.
The Supper points to an inclusiveness because it is rooted in the story of the Table Fellowship of Jesus and the Passover. Jesus shared a meal with tax collectors and sinners and the Passover with his disciples. The Supper in itself is a redemptive act, an effective sign that also creates the possibility for openness to the future. Seen in this perspective it depicts what is needed to remove all that hinders fellowship, and incorporates the idea of the coming reign of God, giving rise to a new vision. Eschatological belief points to the possibility of a new order based on faith that in the incarnation the word of God entered into His own disordered world. The divine economy entered into historical and creaturely existence. This is what Paul spoke of when he referred to the gathering up of all things into Christ, things visible and invisible. It is an ordering within the eternal purpose of divine love and fellowship. The celebration of the Supper is anchored in the adoration of God. In celebration the ultimate essence of catholicity lies not in doctrinal controversy but in the transcendence of all divisions in Christ. It covers all areas and all dimensions of life.
3. Institutions and the Supper
The Supper as a church doctrine is essential to the identity of the group. It helps to constitute faithful adherence to a community. But disagreement on the matter of doctrine constitutes one of the main reasons for refusing to resume table fellowship between different denominations. There is a glaring discrepancy between the theological character of the Supper as a sacrament of fellowship and the historical situation of mutual excommunication. In the present ecumenical context the debate centres on the question of inter-communion.
Some believe that it is Christ present in the Supper who invites all to His Table. This cannot and should not be thwarted by ecclesiastical discipline. Others believe that there cannot be inter-communion between separated Christians as it implies full unity in the wholeness of his truth. All Christians wish to overcome this gap. Ecumenists have differed on ways and means. Some think that communion at the Supper should be the final goal of Christian unity, and others think that intercommunion should be seen as an effective step on the way to fuller unity.
The common participation in one Eucharist will allow the Lord creatively to bring us closer to the perfect peace and unity that will mark the final kingdom, for such a Eucharist will be the occasion for Him to exercise the three eschatological functions of casting out from us in judgement what is amiss in us, of uniting us closer to Himself in divine fellowship, and of joining us together in common enjoyment of His presence and gifts.
The Church as a ‘koinonia’ cannot live except as a visibly defined body with a structure. But that does not indicate continuation of one structure. It means repudiations of tradition are to be followed by reassertions when a break occurs; then a new structure is formed. Order is the co-ordination of the life of the Church.
In the biblical story the concept of order is viewed over against disorder and chaos. The beginning of the story is that the world was without form and void except for the creative word of God. Sin entered into the ordered cosmos and brought chaos. The story ends with the point that the covenant of God contains the promise of a new order, a new creation when all things will be restored to order. So order is part of the story which must be reflected in the institutional identity of a community.
Intercommunion is associated with the ordering of the institutional life of the Church. Substantial agreement on doctrine does not automatically lead all churches to intercommunion, because intercommunion involves the issues of ministry and authority. In most churches the celebrant at the supper is normally an ordained minister. The general recognized responsibility of the ordained ministry is to proclaim the word of God, and to celebrate the Sacraments. The ordained ministry becomes a visible focus of institutional identity in the celebration of the Supper as well as a cause of disrepute for intercommunion.
Being one of the concerns of the ecumenical movement, the missionary witness of the Church is vital. Ministerial order must be ancillary. Saying this is not to discredit the role of the ordained ministry, but to draw attention to the concept of the priesthood of the people of God. The minister is a representative of the people and thus is understood to represent the priestly people.
In the community celebration of the Supper, the minister is to be seen as seeking the response and acknowledgement of the community. It is by committing his life to the community that a minister has the authority to celebrate. The authority is governed by mutual love within the community and is exercised with respect to the community. It is shared by all, and not exclusive to any group within the people of God.
The goal of ecumenism is the ordering of the Household of God, where He is the Head. The word ‘oikonomia’ is the ordering of a house. God came into the world to take control of His household and it is He who will gather everything to Himself. His ‘oikonomia’ is not an imposition on the world but operates from within. Reordering of the household is done through Jesus in the form of a servant. In the course of that reordering the Church is called to obedience through the Spirit. In that calling the Church on earth shares all historical contingents. The question of management of the household as a concern of the present is wide ranging. One contemporary set of questions is concerned with liberation and social justice.
The Church as a ‘koinonia’ means fellowship with God as well as with fellow human beings. Therefore ‘koinonia’ is not a cover for individualism in which each looks out for himself or for herself at the expense of others; neither is it a cover for toleration, to maintain harmony among free individuals. The Church as a ‘koinonia’ speaks of the manifestation of the love of God. Therefore the prophetic role in ‘koinonia’ is essential; that also constitutes one element in the institution of the Supper. The church always requires a contemporary prophetic ministry like that of Paul’s to the Corinthian congregation. Alongside the narration of the events of the Supper, Paul needed to elucidate what it meant to discern the true nature of the Church as the body of Christ (I Cor. 11:33). In Corinth’s case there was failure of discernment that led to the persistence of social division in the congregation.
The Supper is a challenge to the Church when it remains static and unquestioning with regard to injustice within the life of the community. If hope rests on God, then the Church must endeavour to leave behind any tendency towards stabilization and go on with readiness to be open to the future. That means to be in constant dialogue with the present, maintaining hope in God for a new situation. Such an aim cannot consist in adaptation or preservation of the status quo but in readiness to be the instruments for the reconciling purpose of God.
India is not by tradition individualist. The family and the community play a great part in Indian life. In the east the family has a much wider significance than in the west since it consists of not only husband and wife but parents, brothers, sisters, children and grandchildren. The Christians in India have also learnt from the Bible that God the Father cares for individuals and society, and that the individual has his own worth in society. It is possible to see in the Church that type of life which perfectly reconciles the individual and community.
The community that celebrates the Supper is reminded of a divine relationship where there is a correspondence between human rights and dignity, and the place of every human being in the eternal will of God. It is the place where God is the Father, Jesus Christ is the brother, and the Spirit is the counsellor. Every human being is a person whose rightful place is within the divine relationship.
The individual person emerges within the community in the free giving of himself or herself in surrender to the other. In such an act of surrender to each other the personhood becomes real and there arises a community. When several persons surrender to each other in this way there arises a community in which ‘Love finds communion without seeking it, or rather precisely because it does not seek it’.
The historical character of Christian faith demands that the Bible as a witness to the integration of individual and community must be taken seriously. The socio-cultural background of the Old Testament and the New Testament is a witness that confessions of faith are not theoretical statements but are based on God’s redemptive acts and his message as applied to particular situations.
Individual conversion is not complete outside of a reconciled community. The ideal is a community which has a vision to transcend the divisions of society. The inclusiveness of community consists in recognition of the importance of the family in society and the humanity of all, and the acceptance of sick, weak, outcastes, poor and rich. Implicit in this recognition is a risk-taking love for others which is proclaimed and celebrated in the act of the Supper. The question of self-emptying when applied to the community is ultimately based on Christ’s self-giving obedience unto death.
Therefore one fundamental feature of self-emptying for the community is an activity. It is found by the persons in the community in participation within divine relationship. This community is composed of those people who have their place within it not by virtue of their capacity to love but by virtue of the reality of the gift of the Holy Spirit. So the community is helped to be free from introversion of love which could work as a fragmenting force and lead to a tyrannical collectivism.
The community constituted by the love of the triune God is neither a continuing self-perpetuating institution in which God does nothing new, nor simply a momentous event which happens ever anew when a group of Christians meet together. The community constituted by the love of God is visited by the Lord in both love and judgement as it praises, listens to His word, prays for the world and breaks the bread together. Therefore worship constitutes an important element in shaping the identity of the Christian community. It is a fact that the majority of Indian Christians are from the outcastes but are excluded from receiving any privileges such as are afforded to scheduled castes by the Government. The Mandal Commission reported that :
In view of this the Scheduled Caste converts to Christianity, Islam, Buddhism etc. should not be denied the benefits extended to Scheduled Castes and the same should hold good in respect of Other Backward Classes. At some places it was also contended that all Muslims and all Christians should be included in the list of Other Backward Classes as these communities were really very backward.
It is also argued in some circles that a communal church is ideal on the basis that the churches drawn from homogeneous caste or tribal groups are among the strongest in India. They have carried over some of their old social cohesion intact. But the question is whether that ought to be an ideal for the Church in India with regard to dealing with the issues of justice, and witnessing to the reconciling power of the gospel.
The compartmentalization of India into different religious communities has the effect of isolating Christians from being a part of the ferment in the life of the nation. ‘India deals with foreign elements much as an oyster deals with a piece of grit. The invader is allowed to become a part of India, but he is prevented from contaminating the national life by a protective wall of social distance.’ Any new religions that enter India have a good chance of survival, but they often become in effect a new caste. The religion is accepted as a recognized component of Indian society, but in return it is expected not to disturb the existing pattern. For example the Jews and Parsees have long been accepted on this basis.
BEM in the section on Eucharist draws attention to the communion of the faithful. The ecclesiological section particularly emphasizes the socially reconciling character of the relationship in the new community, and the challenge of the Eucharist to social separation and injustice. Section ‘E’ Meal of the Kingdom, continually affirms the vision of the renewal of creation and mission to the whole world. The bread and wine is offered in a setting which transcends the social as well as natural divisions. In that setting the offering of bread ad wine speaks of the goodness of the created order, the offering of One life for many, and the sharing of that blessing by all.
The very act of sharing embraced in the Supper questions the oppressive structure of the society and the division of the community between rich and poor, male and female, black and white, high caste, low caste and outcaste. As a celebration it incorporates both aspects of remembrance, the past as well as the future. Suggesting the interrelation of the three categories : ‘narrative’, ‘doctrine’ and ‘institution’ through the performance of the Supper as an act of worship, is to draw attention to the basis of Christian identity.
It is the human tendency to cling to the past and to a structure that makes them insensitive to the Lord’s active visitation of His people in judgment and renewal. Institutional blindness could be one important factor in the persistence of divisions among Christians, and therefore hassled to continued celebration of the Supper in mutual isolation. The eschatological dimension of worship assists in challenging a community. It contains a polarity of the ‘already’ and the ‘not yet’. The most obvious thing regarding the Supper is that it was instituted during the course of a meal and it has to do with food and drink. Yet its nature as a real meal has hardly been prominent in the popular conception of the Supper. A rethinking of the importance of the Supper in the life of a united Church would bring the different perspectives of ecclesiology to the whole.
One dominant feature of the debate during the negotiation in north India in the formation of the Church of North India was the question of unification of ministry and right practice of baptism. The debate continues about a valid form of baptism and its place in the socio-religious context of India. The issue of baptism is debated in the context where the Church has to take into account the question of conversion because in India conversion has never been a strictly individual matter.
Baptism as well as being a personal acceptance of Christ, includes a social aspect, that is, the need to take into account the significance of a religious community as a social unit. Pressure from without and an ingrained attitude from within compel the Church to operate as a religious community like any other. The converts leave behind one set of personal relationships and accept another and this involves shifting the delicate balance of communal power.
The new loyalty in the community does not abolish the old. For example while rigid retention of caste is not general in the Church, the underlying attitude is very powerful in the relationships between the members of the Church. Conversion from one group to another means not only a change in spiritual allegiance but also a shift in political power Therefore communalism has been a fertile source of political and social tension. Today in India it shows itself in the rivalries of different castes, language groups, and in some cases the threat of secession from the Indian Union.
To suggest replacing ‘koinonia’ with an individual piety would be the end of the ecumenical movement. Rather the need is for a right understanding of the social identity of Christian ‘koinonia’. Being with God is fundamentally interpersonal. Discussing social identity based on the triune God is to focus on the sociality of being within God. As Karl Barth says, human inter-relationship is derived from the relationship which is within God’s own being. Human community is thus grounded in the community of God’s own being. So the human being created in correspondence with God’s own being is not solitary but a being in relation.
Inter-relating ecclesiology through the Supper draws attention to an intermediate category for remembering God’s presence in the world. It does not mean that such a category is exhaustive but that it is a particular category through which the bond of being one in Christ could be realized in the community.
The identity of the church as a community is shaped by the story. In a world where people feel lost, there is a powerful urge for individuals and groups to reaffirm their distinctiveness, doing this perhaps in racial, national, tribal and local ecclesiastical terms. It is feared that consensus would lead to a disappearance of identities, which would be in danger of being swallowed up in the uniformity.
Christians have always tried to maintain their identity amidst differences of geographical area, language, lifestyle, belief systems, and programmes of action; and Indian Christians are no exception. But it is vital to ask how the Church as a community incorporating different former ecclesial, caste and language identities, could sustain its own identity without falling into uniformity or chaotic diversity. One fundamental challenge is to sustain the multiform identity of Christianity in a coherent way. The object in depicting the identity of the Church through ‘Supper’ is to focus on the corporate nature of the Church as the people of God. The way this has been described suggests that it is not an invisible people of God but an actual people on a journey.
 Sykes, Stephen. The Identity of Christianity, SPCK, London,1984,p265
 Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry, Faith and Order paper No 111,WCC,Geneva,1982
 Sykes, Stephen. The Story and Eucharist, Interpretation, October,1983,p365
 Gorringe,Timothy. Redeeming Time, DLT,London,1986,p150-174
 Dunn, J.D.G. Whatever happened to the Lord’s Supper? Epworth Review, Vol.IX,No1,January,1992,p35
 Stroup,George.The Promise of Narrative Theology, SCM,London,1981,p253
 See also Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission, The Final Report, 1981,SPCK,London,1982
 Wainwright, Geoffrey. Eucharist and Eschatology,Epworth,1971,p143
 Schillebeeckx,Edward, The Church with a Human Face, SCM,London,1985
 Bonhoeffer, Dietrich, Sanctorum Communio,Collins,London,p125
 Grant,John W. God’s People in India, London,1959,p21
 Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics,Vol.III/2,T&T Clark,Edinburgh,p220,p324
<EUCHARIST AND COMMUNITY BEYOND ALL BORDERS>, Seoul:WTI 2009