Below is a link to a blog that I read on a regular basis. I have been thinking this way about the Eucharist for some time now. I believe that Christ's word about being present when two or three are gathered in His name is simply another way of saying, "remember me when you break bread together."Rethinking the Lord’s Supper
Grace and peace to all.
Image is the work of deb hoeffner.
I’ve read a bit of Patrick McCormick, but one that I’ve not finished is his book, “A Banqueter’s Guide to the All-Night Soup Kitchen of the Kingdom of God.” In it he talks about re-membering (becoming closely related…or membering) ourselves to Jesus by participating in the Eucharist. The thing is, if I re-member myself to Christ, and the poor and outcast re-member themselves to Jesus, doesn’t that make me membered to them? Or as McCormick questions, shouldn’t it member me to them? Isn’t there something intrinsically wrong if we can participate the Eucharist without caring about the least of these who are also invited? Of course! It’s a scandal and a scandal Paul addresses in 1Corithians.
ReplyDeleteRight on. These are wonderful thoughts from the blog. That is the idea of being one body. We are baptized into Christ, so there is no longer Jew or Gentle, Slave or Free, Male or Female, Rich or Poor. Paul didn’t add the Rich or Poor, but he certainly could have. And in participating in the one Body and Blood of Christ that was poured out for us, we proclaim our oneness. In that context it is absurd to forget a suffering brother or sister who is part of this body. It just doesn’t make sense.
So in a way, yes, Jesus was showing us how to live in the world by instituting the Lord’s Supper, but it might be rethinking it too much to suggest that this is the only and ultimate meaning. In my estimation of things, this way of living in the world is drawn out of the reality of Christ’s physical presence and institution of a holy sacrament. We do not need to eliminate these historical truths about the Eucharist in order to affirm the need to dine with the sinful and marginalized people. In fact, the imperative to do so is only that much stronger because of the actual presence of Christ, the one with whom we unite ourselves. “Getting it right” is important. To have the proper meaning of the sacrament thrusts us into the world to be the Body of Christ that we receive in the Eucharist.
Thanks for the thoughts Dan. I can't help but note that at every step of the way Jesus went out of his way to call out those in established religion and say, "You think you have it all figured out with your religiosity but what it is really about is loving God and neighbor, period." (I know there is a comma but I didn't know how to write/punctuate the end of that sentence.) I wonder if Jesus really meant to institute a holy sacrament or was just trying to say, yet again, in another creative way that the point isn't to make it to heaven alone but to love and be loved, care and be cared for. Every time I hear that this and that are required for salvation I think back to when Jesus said that your stack of rules are unnecessary if you love God and love others. I don't think we can get it right and I don't think Jesus was very concerned about us getting it right. Getting it right was the entire focus of the Jewish elite and Jesus kept calling them on it. He kept saying that getting it right takes a back seat to being connected to God and others in love. If you get it right and haven't let God or others be a part of the equation then you've got it all wrong. The point of the law and the prophets and God's intervention in human history is to get us to stop acting like we can get it right because this implies that we are above others in some way and that places barriers so high that we are more willing to blow people up than sit and talk to them. (Can anyone say, "run-on sentence?") I am beginning to think that everyone needs some major screw-up in their lives to prove to them that they can't and won't get it right. Although, we tend to climb right back up on our high horses even after major screw-ups.
ReplyDeleteIt’s true, I doubt we can “get it all right” when it comes to a sacrament. Sacrament comes from a word meaning mystery. I’d hate to pretend that we’ve grasped the entirety of a mystery of God’s grace.
ReplyDeleteI suppose it is true that the disciples got it all wrong. They misunderstood a lot of things. That would be why the Eucharist became the central practice of Christians for 2 millennia. For at least 17 centuries Christians explained it as a holy sacrament established by Christ and passed down by the Apostles in which the bread and wine become Christ. In participating in it, we become united to Christ physically and to one another through His Body and Blood. But I am willing to admit that it could all be a huge misunderstanding. Maybe they got it wrong in the first century when they reenacted the Last Supper by raising the bread above their heads and proclaiming, “This is Jesus, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.”
But if those who sat with Jesus at the Last Supper got it wrong, and 1600-2000 years worth of Christians got it wrong, I’m not really willing to take a stab at what I think it means. I’m far too removed. All I’ve got is how it’s been interpreted and practiced by the Church since the beginning.
It seems that Jesus does admonish those who had things right, but He does not say, “so forget trying to do things right!” Instead He says, “You’ve heard that it was said, do not commit adultery, but I tell you that whoever looks at someone lustfully has committed adultery in the heart.” I think Jesus just made it more intense! (that could arguably be a burdensome rule). But what is Jesus really getting at? Its just like you’ve said, the religious leaders were hardcore about the letter of the Law, but they forgot the heart of the Law. So Jesus told them to forget the letter and only grasp the heart of the Law. No way, He called them back to the heart of the Law. It’s like the prophets you mentioned. They called people back to obeying the covenant. They did not tell them to forget about the requirements of the covenant, just that doing the sacrifices without the heart or devotion is not enough. They did not say that doing the sacrifices a certain way is not important, its just that there is a really wrong way to do them: without actually meaning it!
So I think it’s ok that there is a way to do things, but the way to do things does not trump loving people, and honestly, loving people does not trump the way to do things. They work together. We’ve always got to have them together. And I think the right way to celebrate the Eucharist is to be the Body of Christ into the world after participating in the Body of Christ. Of course others might disagree. (sorry I’m so long winded. I did edit this to make it shorter!)