Home » Headline, story & idea

Rethinking the Lord’s Supper

Submitted by smh00a on May 11, 2009 – 8:36 pmView Comments
Print This Post

communion1In a tragic twist of irony, the venue in the Christian faith that was intended to unify believers of diverse stripes and beliefs has actually divided and split the church in untold ways.

I’m referring to Communion. The Lord’s Supper. The Eucharist. The Table.

It goes by many names, and has been practiced many ways. It began with Jesus and his disciples, the night before the Christ would be betrayed, assembled around the Passover table with a meal with some bread to eat and wine to drink. You could make a strong case that it really began centuries earlier with the original Passover celebration, ordered by God to prepare the Israelites for their impending exile from Egypt.

This is part of the account of the Last Supper from Luke’s gospel:

When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. And he said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.”

After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”

And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table. The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed. But woe to that man who betrays him!” They began to question among themselves which of them it might be who would do this.

Fast-forward roughly 2,000 years. Today, 38,000 unique denominations exist in Christianity, many of them set apart by how they have observed the Lord’s Supper. Some use unleavened bread, some do not. Some drink wine (from one cup or many), some prefer grape juice. Some serve the wine and the bread separately, some practice intinction. Some observe it annually, others quarterly, and still others weekly. Some believe the bread and wine to be symbolic of Jesus’ body and blood, and others believe in the mysterious transubstantiation of the emblems into flesh and blood.

Disputes over the practice of the Lord’s Supper have created more divisions than perhaps any other tradition in Christianity. So much so that we refer to many of these diverse denominations as “communions.”

But what if we – the church – missed the point? What if Jesus’ Last Supper was, well, just a meal? A Passover meal, yes, but never intended to be institutionalized as a religious sacrament. What if he was simply observing the Passover like a good Jew would, but telling his disciples (then and now) through his words and actions that he was now the fulfillment of the Jewish law and would now be the centerpiece of table fellowship when his followers came together?

What if Jesus was reminding his disciples and us that some of the most radical moments of his ministry occurred around the dinner table?

I do not challenge 2,000 years of Christian history lightly. I come from a tradition that takes the Lord’s Supper seriously. Very seriously. Churches of Christ take communion weekly, even on youth trips and campouts, and some among us even insist on drinking the grape juice (never wine) from a single cup. On our better days, we were a family that puts Christ and his meal at the center of our fellowship, and on our worst days, we are bitterly sectarian and exclude certain groups for not seeing things our way. I grew up with an appreciation for the centrality of the Table to Christian assembly (all Christian assembly; not just Sunday), but with a nagging suspicion that other groups weren’t Hell-bound for doing things differently.

And to be honest, I’m glad the tradition of the Supper has stuck around. It’s a good thing to remember that Christ is in our midst when we gather around the table, a table that welcomes every kind of person to it.

Lately, however, I’ve wondered whether the ritual was legit. I’ve wondered if Christ’s primary intent was to ordain a new church tradition or just demonstrate a way of being in the world. I’ve wondered if Jesus is saddened by how far some would take their insistence on a certain way of observing the tradition they had turned from an ordinary Passover meal into a holy sacrament, excluding others on that basis.

Jesus ate so many meals. Of the numerous meal stories that are recorded in the gospels, ten are in Luke; one scholar quipped that Jesus is eating his way through the book. I think that as Jesus’ disciples looked back on their last meal with their Lord before his crucifixion, they would have remembered the meals Jesus enjoyed during the previous three years. His first healing of Simon’s mother, who recovered from her fever and began serving Jesus and Simon food. (Lk 4:38-44) A sinful woman anointing Jesus’ feet while he was at dinner with a Pharisee. (7:36-50) The feeding of the 5,000 from five loaves and two fish. (9:10-17) His meal with Mary and Martha. (10:38-42) Not washing before eating with Pharisees and experts in the law. (11:37-53) Healing on the Sabbath in front of the Pharisees and a teaching on whom we are to invite to luncheons and dinners. (14:1-13) Jesus parable of the Great Banquet. (14:15-23) Eating with tax collectors and sinners. (15:1-7; 19:1-10)

My point is this: More important than “getting right” the practice of the Eucharist on Sunday is our willingness to dine with sinful and marginalized people on Monday. I heard someone say recently that our celebration of the Lord’s Table on Sunday is practice for the openness of our own tables on Monday. In those radical acts of hospitality, our plain, store-bought dinner tables mysteriously transubstantiate into a Jesus Table, and our meal into the Lord’s Supper.

I need to be honest right here: I write this as one more inclined to plan a banquet and invite those friends who possess the means to turn around and invite me to their banquet, instead of inviting the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind.

I’d do well to meditate on the Jesus’ words in Matthew 24:40, as would we all:

“Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.”

http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_32.png http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_32.png http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_32.png http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_32.png http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_32.png http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_32.png http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_32.png

About smh00a

Seeking joy in East Boston, MA, Steve enjoys gardening, being a husband, community life, and writing. He blogs about spirituality and his garden at http://harvestboston.wordpress.com.

  • Interesting article and discussion.

    Although I agree that The Sheep and the Goats is specifically speaking about disciples, Jesus spoke generally about feasting with the poor in other contexts, not least in Luke 14. And Paul's message in I Cor 11 is about a eucharistic meal which is a feast in which some did not get to eat because of the greed of the first in line. We must be aware of the body of Christ, and allow the lowest in the body to gain as much as the greatest.

    In Anawim, we have two sacramental meals: a. A meal that is for everyone, especially the poor and hungry, without excluding anyone because of religious preferences. We have these meals every time we worship, four times a week. b. Twice a year-- New Year's and Resurrection Day-- we hold a Lord's Supper with the bread and wine. These are special times of commitment to Jesus as Lord, remembering His sacrifice for our sins.

    People come to Anawim with different theological ideas of what the Eucharist means, but we all share in the unity of it, as long as we recognize Jesus as our Lord and we are committed to Him.
  • More important than 'getting right' the practice of the Eucharist on Sunday is our willingness to dine with sinful and marginalized people on Monday."

    That statement in itself puts the point back into perspective. The Eucharist is indeed central and essential to the Christian faith (if you've read Torture and Eucharist by William Cavanaugh, you know why). But I think that it is desperate need of some rethought in light of how divisive it has become over the years. It's not the Eucharist meal in itself but it's actually being Eucharistic that is most important and I think a large portion of the church has lost its' handle on what that means.
  • I appreciate the lively debate my column spurred on ... that was the intent.

    For the record, I do believe that there is great significance in regularly remembering Christ in communion, both physical and symbolic. It's a meaningful rhythm the church has established, and one I'm glad to do whenever I can. That said, my point in the article was to suggest that communion was intended to be a rhythm that binds, not separates, and that Jesus may rather we not go through the motions that we do if it means we are separated from our brothers and sisters and the poor.

    I also want to communicate that the Lord's Supper can take many forms. Our remembrance of Christ as we eat with the poor or serve our brother/sister can transform any location -- from a park bench to a grand ballroom -- into a holy communion table.
  • modern_ancient
    I would suggest that Jesus was establishing a unique meal.

    "Do this in remembrance of me."

    I do agree that food is a powerful agent of creating community. I would argue that the eucharist is far from the most divisive issue. The issue of authority is the most divisive.
  • john
    Very good.
    The table of the Lord is a large table and the table is not just metaphor for community.
    Paul reinforces your argument... maybe you could argue that the early institutionalization was an attempt to preserve it as sacrament... my anglican tradition may have missed that but it'll be in my mind this Sunday.
    Thanks.
  • if anything should be at the center, the focus, even the apex of our weekly gathering it should be the Lord's Table (however groups choose to do it) and from that table, the thing that should be central to our lives as Christians uniting us across all flavors of the religion should be our treatment of the "least of these" every other day of the week. The specific hows of those things are less important to me and deeply personal to each community in their context.
  • I think linking eucharist to the poor is important...indeed, that is the context for Paul's admonition to eat the meal in a worthy manner.

    destroyideas, the notion that the Lord's Supper is a common meal isn't a new idea. It is an old idea. Many believe that many in the first centuries practiced the agape feast as the eucharistic meal...and we really have little sense that anyone was excluded. The challenge to "examine one's self" doesn't have anything to do, it seems to me, with discerning within one's self if one is a follower of Jesus or not.

    At Missio Dei, we practice an open table. We have meals every week...and for most of us this is the eucharistic meal. It isn't a "mere" meal. Rather, it is sacramental because we, the Body of Christ, are a living sacrament. When we break bread together, we are doing so in the presence of Christ. We, rather than the elements, are what makes it sacramental.

    However, some among us don't feel that a simple meal is eucharistic. Because of this, every month we also add wine or grape juice and bread to the meal and engage in a bit of prophetic performance. We practice communion in a more liturgical way at these times so that everyone in our community feels honored by how we practice communion, but also because we find the enacting of the Last supper through the symbols of wine and bread to be a powerful testimony. But this in no way diminishes the spiritual value of the other meals.

    In all cases, we welcome all to share the meal as Christ's meal. We will often ask people to be reconciled to one another before doing so, but never put belief in Christ as a marker to determine who should or should not eat the meal.
  • Let me get this right... in order to solve thousands of years of division caused over how to partake in communion you suggest an entirely new way?
  • joseph of antioch
    I belong to the Orthodox church, which sets a pretty high standard for taking the Eucharist, with disciplines such as fasting & confession. One thing they do that I like a lot is to distribute blessed bread (called antidoron) to any who wish to take it at the end of Sunday liturgy. You can read about this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antidoron

    I haven't been impressed by churches such as the Episcopal church offering open communion to any who wish to participate. But my thinking was challenged recently when I read Sara Miles book Take This Bread. She was an agnostic who walked int St Gregory of Nyssa church in San Francisco, took communion, & became a converted Christian, to her own amazement & dismay. She went on to found a food bank/ministry that distributed food from the church communion altar. Maybe that's what a church in postmodern imperial America should look like.

    Check out Sara Miles story at her website http://saramiles.net/

    peace
    joseph
  • Jon
    I certainly agree with the general premise here, the Eucharist should never be something that divides the Body of Christ. It's more than tragic irony, it's an inversion of the Eucharistic Supper from the Mystery that makes us the very Body of Christ to something that tears apart that Body. On that note, I'm not sure a new theory on the Supper helps.

    I come from a position of high sacramentology as well as a strong sense of inclusionism; which in practical terms means that I think we should all be able to Sup together regardless of how we personally believe. What we believe about the Supper has no bearing on the Supper itself, it's Christ's and when we are faithful and gather and receive the elements together it doesn't matter how we feel or how we think, it is what it is and nothing we can do can change that.

    It may not be terribly practical, but I think the best thing we can do is to make a point to participate at the Table together, and then have our family squabbles about the Table elsewhere. Coming together in the Peace of Christ's Table is an act of faithful obedience first and foremost. This isn't to undermine the theological, only that it seems difficult to imagine how we can let theology excuse ourselves from being faithful.
  • It's not the Eucharist that divides us, of course. We divide ourselves, using even the gift of communion as an excuse.

    I appreciate your inclusiveness, Jon. And I like that you insist that the Supper is Christ's. I wonder, though, about your emphasis that "what we believe about the Supper has no bearing on the Supper itself... it doesn't matter how we feel or how we think, it is what it is and nothing we can do can change that."

    Perhaps our beliefs have no bearing on what other people experience in the Eucharist, but I think it certainly has a bearing on what we ourselves experience. As Daniel pointed out earlier in this discussion, Paul warned about taking communion "in an unworthy manner," saying that doing so would bring not blessing but judgment upon us. I think it's directly analogous to the way Jesus offered healing to people; if they came with faith, they found miraculous healing, but if they had no faith, Jesus could do nothing for them. Same Jesus, same offer, but what people actually received depended on how they came to him.

    As Jesus said (in the famous sixth chapter of John):
    "Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven, and gives life to the world."

    They said to him, "Lord, give us this bread always."

    Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst." (Jn 6.32-35)
    Jesus offers the bread of life to all, but only those who come to him and believe in him receive its miraculous gifts.

    Perhaps that's a reminder of the uniqueness of communion, that it is more than an ordinary meal, more than just the experience of eating together.
  • Jon
    I should probably clarify by what I mean when I say, "it is what it is". What I mean is that since the Supper is Christ's, our opinions on what the Supper is doesn't change what the Supper is. Our opinions, our theology and our practices certain have an influence on ourselves as we partake, and indeed influences others as they partake. But what I was trying to emphasize was that regardless of to the rightness or to the wrongness of our belief about the Supper, it doesn't change what the Supper is and what God offers and promises and in fact gives us in and through the Supper.

    Whatever the Supper actually is (and I certainly have strong opinions on the matter), the things that we think about it do not change its actual, objective reality as God's gift to us and His calling to us to come and eat and drink.
  • Daniel
    Hi Paul. I just can't get around Paul's warning in I Corinthians 11:27 ("For this reason, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." - NET). On Paul's view, if you are not in unity with the Body, to partake in communion could lead to your death (and that is how the early Church took Judas' participation in communion--as sealing his death sentence).

    Jesus constantly feasted with the poor. Fine. True and good.
    Jesus also inaugurated the New Covenant and celebrated the Passover WITHOUT the generic poor. He was with his committed disciples. Surely this is significant!

    Communion is no occasion for power politics, to be clear. Each local body has to be sensitive about how to pull it off without needlessly offending those who aren't baptized. But I can't read the New Testament without taking seriously the Church as the Body of Christ--called to die, to manifest the sacrificial love of God, for the world. This is not entered into lightly.

    I'm kind of tired, honestly, with the anti-establishment impulses of some. Not all institutions are corrupt! Not all rituals are dead and lifeless! Quite to the contrary. Baptism. Marriage. And yes, communion. These are rituals at the center of Christian praxis. I'd hate to see people who are trying to take Jesus seriously throw them out.

    Peace,
    -Daniel-
  • I can understand your concern about Paul's words, Daniel. But "in an unworthy manner" isn't primarily aimed at those who are not baptized, is it? Paul was specifically addressing Christians who were not living their faith, splitting into factions, not sharing their food at their communion gatherings, leaving some brothers and sisters to go hungry. "Do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing?" These Christians were the ones eating and drinking judgment on themselves. And Paul warns "let a man examine himself," which seems quite different from withholding communion from others.

    I'm not sure if you share the belief that taking communion unworthily may lead to death. I don't see Jesus teaching this, which probably would have been worth mentioning to the disciples at that first communion (if it is true). And even if Judas was indeed "sealing his death sentence" by eating, still Jesus did not prevent him, but served him with the rest.

    I do think it was significant that Jesus celebrated with his closest followers. But I don't think this says anything about communion being exclusionary. Many other followers and close friends of Jesus also weren't served then, Mary and Martha for example, and Jesus certainly wasn't exclusionary towards them.

    I agree that not all rituals are dead and lifeless. But I don't think the folks discussing here sound like they want to throw out communion; it sounds like they want to make it more central and meaningful in their worship and communities.

    As for the question of whether all institutions are corrupt, maybe that's better discussed elsewhere (like here).
  • This is actually something I have been pondering this for quite some time. All that I have found supports this idea that "communion" is just a meal. It has many implications more than just any old meal but a meal, a supper, nonetheless. It makes sense. Why must we complicate and institutionalize everything? I think that the meal’s simplicity makes it beautiful.

    Also, in my opinion, it was very cleaver, as he often is, of Mr. Jesus to do it this way. Eating is something we all have to do at some point or another throughout our life. If we celebrate communion every time we eat that’s a lot of remembering. And I think that is exactly what he intended. He fool proofed the crucifixion. Ahh, how amazing!

    Furthermore, as you mention in your essay, meals are a way to gather people together and have a good time. Jesus is the groom of the ‘Celebration Wedding’ (Bradley Hathaway). He is the King of the party. I think that he wanted to go out with a bang. To show that following Him, in the end was worth it.

    You have great insight!

    Thanks!
  • I like the diversity of communion celebrations. It seems to me as it reflects the depth and mystery of God. I find unity in the fact that we are all commemorating one Lord Jesus Christ and his forgiveness. And just like every moment is holy and from God, we take only a small percentage of time to focus our attention on him making those moment sacred, every meal is holy, a life given for our sustenance, and yet we reserve the bread and wine (or grape juice) in a re-enactment of the new covenant Jesus inaugurated.
  • You've got me thinking about doing a congregational wide dinner on Communion Sunday! I appreciate your point and enjoy the idea of the relationship between the Lord's Table and my Family Table Monday - Saturday. Thanks!
  • I agree that anything that disrupts our unity is bad (and likely from the enemy) and it bad in a most ironic way that the Lord's Supper has even been misused in this way. Nevertheless, there are clear indications in the NT that the Eucharist was a sacramental practice from the very beginning. It is true that we are completely dependent on the earliest disciples to have gotten this right, but that is the case in all matter of our faith - even down to what Jesus said and did. Remember how Paul got on the Corinthians' case for abusing the Table: he warns them to avoid a death sentence.
    Thinking about Paul's stern admonition, I think an alternate way to come to what you are wanting to say is to argue that we don't take Communion seriously enough at all. We are not supposed to take the bread and the cup when we have unresolved sin or disunity in our lives. If we applied this very strictly, how many of us would have to fore go the Eucharist? It should bother us every time we come to the Table unworthily. There is grace, yes there is, but we have made that grace far too cheap. The answer is not to discard the body and blood of the Lord, it is to require a higher standard of ourselves. The answer is for us to examine ourselves - individually and corporately - and eradicate all the ways in which we work against the prayer Jesus prayed for us in John 17.
    Love your blog,
    Mike
  • Daniel
    The words of Matthew 25 (not 24) concern the disciples, not the generic poor (cf. my article here: http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/2008/12/who-are-t...).

    While I'm sympathetic to your larger point about not dividing unnecessarily, the words of Jesus are inaugurating a new covenant. In fact THE new covenant Israel had been looking forward to. If the first covenant was enough to cut off the foreskins of all male children (an exclusionary practice for the non-circumcized... not to mention the women), then certainly the new covenant is worth marking with something! That something is in fact two somethings: baptism and communion, both of which are intended to be exclusionary.

    This is because the calling of the Church is a serious calling. The Spirit does not just call everyone to follow and die. Are your poor friends willing to die for Jesus? If so, then let them be baptized and receive communion. If not, then why throw a pearl to pigs?
    I'm being harsh, of course, I don't believe becoming a Christian through the waters of baptism marks one off as 'saved'. But I do believe that baptism (and the ongoing practice of communion with Christian sisters and brothers) marks us off as the unique people of God with a unique calling (nonviolent, sacrificial love, fellowship with believers, hospitality, simplicity, generosity, etc.).

    And so while we should feast with the poor, we should take communion only with the sisters and brothers (as Jesus himself did--you notice that the last supper was NOT taken with anyone and everyone). This is not because we are better than them, but it is because we are called to something which they are not (but to which they are of course invited).

    Peace,
    -Daniel-
  • I disagree with your reading of Matthew 25. In fact the vast majority of biblical scholarship through history disagrees with that view. I wouldn't necessarily run around pronouncing it as the only reading of the passage, as a result.

    In fact, reading it the traditional way fits well in the eschatology of the Kingdom being made now on earth. Preceding the sheep and goats analogy is the parable of talents teaching the disciples to use their gifts properly to be ready for the end of time, so it fits in just nicely that he's still talking to the disciples telling them how to use their gifts - that is the analogy is an explanation of the preceding parables.
  • I agree, Daniel, that baptism and communion "marks us off as the unique people of God with a unique calling," as you describe it. (And I agree with your interpretation of Mt 25, by the way.)

    But I think you are mistaken to call communion "exclusionary." Yes, it is intended specifically for those who follow Jesus with faith, and it is truly a sacrament, an experience of God's presence, only for them (us). But it is a very different to take this truth and use it to exclude others, as has often been done by Christians. The body and blood of Christ is not ours to create or control. It is given by Christ to those who are his. We can only try to respect and cooperate with what Jesus is offering.

    I think it's worth noting that Jesus gave the first communion to Judas with the other disciples, though Jesus seemed to know of his treachery ("...the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table." Lk 22.21). Judas, who of all people perhaps most deserved to be excluded, was not refused the bread and wine that Jesus was offering. It seems, however, not to have been much of a sacrament for him.

    As for communion with the poor, I was quite impressed by the experiences I had while visiting street churches in Boston, DC, and Atlanta. (Read about Boston's common cathedral here.) The homeless folks they served really seemed to appreciate communion, and seemed to receive it with respect and grace. I visited an Episcopal church in DC where communion for the homeless was especially moving (described here). My wife and I now include communion as part of the spiritual retreats we offer for poor people from Chicago.
blog comments powered by Disqus