RECALIBRATING CHRISTIANITY - HOLY COMMUNION

PAUL

"For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes." 

1 Corinthians 11:23-26  

Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.®

Paul wrote his first Letter to the Corinthians roughly around 50 CE.  It contains the earliest record of Jesus' instituting Holy Communion, The Lord's Supper, the Eucharist, etc..   What is interesting in Paul's recalling of this event is that Paul was not present on the night  Jesus instituted Holy Communion.  An overlooked fact is that he makes no claim that he heard about this incident from one of Jesus' disciples or any of the other apostles.  He claims he received this information as a direct revelation from Jesus.  

This letter also makes it clear that the members of the church in Corinth were more Greek than Jewish.  The issues that Paul addresses in his letter; such as, eating meat offered to idols,  how women dress, and men having intimate relations with other men are more likely issues Paul had with Greek culture than he would have had with the Jewish population living in Corinth.  

There is a sense of Paul trying to backpedal on what he taught them regarding Holy Communion.  Obviously something went wrong in what he taught, which is the reason Paul is writing about it in his first epistle to them.  In the verses that follows, Paul has heard that there was an incident or were incidents in which participating in Holy Communion resulted in people becoming weak, sick, and dying.  Paul's reasons that the people who became sick and died was due to their not "discerning" Jesus' body and blood before partaking in it and thus took it unworthily.  The implication is that they treated Holy Communion as some sort of Bacchanalian event rather than the somber eating of a small unleavened wafer and a sip of wine that is common in today's practice of Holy Communion in most mainline churches.  

Much has been made of Paul's "unworthiness" issue with regard to Holy Communion.  Did people really die because they took it unworthily?  Who then is considered worthy enough in taking it?  If one does not know if one is worthy to take it, should they avoid it?  The point I am trying to make with these question is that all of sudden we have a Christian rite that doesn't sound very Jesus-like.  Would Jesus kill people or allow people to die because of some vague worthiness rule?  

In Brian Muraresku's fascinating book, "The Immortality Key -The Secret History of The Religion With No Name," he hypothesizes that what caused the members of the Corinthian church to become sick and die was simply that the wine they drank was laced with a hallucinogenic mix that proved fatal for some.  His book explains that such practices of mixing wine with herbs and other substances were common at the time. 

Mixing hallucinogenic substances with wine was a practice that may have been adapted from the mystery religions of the ancient Greeks and Roman, such as, the Eleusinian or Dionysian mystery religions in which participant would be offered such hallucinogenic mixes to experience visions. In the case of the Eleusinian mysteries, participants reportedly would emerge from such an experience having no fear of death.  

Isn't that exactly what Holy Communion also offers its partakers today without the hallucinogenic laced wine?  So why not mix hallucinogenics to give one an immediate taste of immortality associated with eating and drinking the body and blood of Jesus Christ?  It is an intriguing hypothesis.  

The fear of taking Holy Communion unworthily and offering it to someone who was unworthy led to the rite of confession in many churches.  Growing up in the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, I can recall that on a Friday night preceding a Sunday in which Holy Communion was offered, this who were planning on taking Holy Communion were required to "sign up" to take Holy Communion.  This allowed the pastor to examine one's worthiness.  If a pastor know of a conflict between members or some transgression that merited removes, he could deny offering a member the sacrament. 

 Of course, Roman Catholics have been practicing confession for centuries.  The paradoxical point of taking Holy Communion is that worthiness is contingent on confessing one's unworthiness; as in, admitting that one is a miserable sinner, totally unworthy of God's grace.   

THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

The Gospel of John does not contain the story of Jesus instituting Holy Communion in the way Paul describes it.  The authors of the Synoptic Gospels seemed to have copied Paul's sacramental revelation almost verbatim.  The Gospel of John does not.  As mentioned in other posts, the Gospel of John is a theological work written in Jesus' voice.  The entire gospel is sacramental in nature, carrying the reader on a mystical journey from rebirth through Baptism (born again by water and spirit in John 3) to eternal communion with God in Christ.  

The Gospel of John doesn't directly talk about sharing a Passover meal in which Jesus talks about bread and wine being consecrated to represent his body and blood.  It does, however, talk about a meal he is having with his disciple around the time of Passover  in which he has his famous diner discourse with his disciples that extend from John 13 through John 17.  The elements of bread and wine are treated separately in the Gospel of John.  

His being the Bread of Life is found in John 6 and his reference the fruit of the vine (grapes) is in John 16.  In the following selected verses from the Gospel of John, one can piece together the concept of Holy Communion in John's mystical portrayal which has shaped how Holy Communion is largely understood today.   

Jesus said..., “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.  Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.  For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.  Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.  . . .He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.  On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching.  Who can accept it?”  Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? ...From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him." - John 6:53-56, 59-61 & 66 NIV

“I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.  If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.  If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you."  - John 16: 5-7 NIV

As I have mentioned in other posts Jesus being Jewish and knowing the repulsion at eating something that wasn't kosher; much less a reference to eating human flesh or drinking human blood, would not have likely used bread and wine as a symbol of his "real" body and blood that people must eat and drink in order to have eternal life.  The Gospel of John provides proof of this repulsion in the reaction some of Jesus' disciples had when he says, "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day."   

Indeed this was a hard teaching that a practicing Jew would not have accepted.   The authors of John knew that devout Jews would not accept such a teaching, even if it was intended to be symbolic.  It was one of many lines in the Gospel of John that Jews could not cross, but that  a Christian was expected to.  

As we see in Paul's admonition against taking Holy Communion unworthily, the Gospel of John takes a harsher approach.  If a branch of the vine does not produce fruit, it will be thrown away and burned.   This is teaching that is indeed hard to hear.  To attach such threatening language to something that is intended to create community is coercive and threatening.  

It can be argued and it is likely that a community which discriminates against, denigrates, and condemns those who are deemed unproductive will not encourage productivity, but will create an ecclesial class structure of those considered worthy and those not.  Is not a message with the teaching of Jesus, that all are worthy of God's love which we are to emulate in our lives.

HOLY COMMUNION 

Holy Communion has always been about differentiating between those who were true believers in Jesus Christ and those who were not, (i.e. practicing Jews and anyone consider an "unbeliever").  Holy Communion is the most ecclesiastical controlled substance within Christianity.  Holy Communion has historically been treated as an in-house sacrament that is usually distributed to baptized and confirmed  members of a congregation.  In liturgical churches, the elements of bread and wine can only be consecrated by and ordained priest, pastor, or minister.  It can be offered daily, weekly, twice a month, once a month or once a year.  Strict control of this sacrament belies and makes a mockery of the Christian teaching that Jesus died for all. 

Some progressive congregations practice what is known open communion in which everyone is welcome to partake, but most have conditional requirements to be met in order to avoid unworthy participation.  Sacramental rites, as a whole, are designed to discriminate between those committed to a church's teachings or the oddly stated "apostolic teachings" and those who are not.  Baptism, Holy Communion, Confirmation are all designed to say who is included and who is excluded from the Kingdom of God.    

I have nothing against liturgical ritual, as we humans tend to like protocols that imbue an identity and convey membership.  I do, however, find them objectionable when they result in judging others who don't share that identity or don't belong to one's affiliation.  By nature we humans are discriminating lot.  

The ability to discriminate is necessary to differentiate between good and bad and between what works and what doesn't.  It is a component of our creative abilities.  On the other hand, our ability to discriminate allows us to create differences where they don't fundamentally exist and has caused more human suffering, like racism, xenophobia, homophobia, and other anxiety inducing phobias to numerous  to be recalled here. 

COMMUNION AS A RITE TO CONFIRM THE HUMAN COMMUNITY

For the Human Family

O God, you made us in your own image and redeemed us through Jesus your Son: Look with compassion on the whole human family; take away the arrogance and hatred which infect our hearts; break down the walls that separate us; unite us in bonds of love; and work through our struggle and confusion to accomplish your purposes on earth; that, in your good time, all nations and races may serve you in harmony around your heavenly throne; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

From "The Book of Common Prayer," 1979, The Church Hymnal Corporation, New York, New York.

This is one of my favorite prayers in "The Book of Common Prayer."   It embodies what I believe is both the aspirational and confessional goal and purpose of the Christian message.  It gives me hope for Christianity; in that, as the ancient dictum states, "Lex orandi, Lex credendi" -  what we pray for shapes what we believe. This is a communal prayer for the whole human family.  It reflects what communion is all about; what all sacramental rites should be about advocating that the whole of humanity becomes one family.  

I can see a positive side to sacraments if we can bring them down to earth, if they validate community, and  if they promote unconditional love in the form of compassionate care for all of creation.   This is the task that Jesus' teachings point to and appoints us to carry out.  

Grace is not merely a free gift of God given to humankind, but is an ability that all humans are capable of; to give freely of who we are, not as sacrifice but as an act of unconditional love in all things and for all things.  Communion is holy only when such love appears so other than the world we have created and live in. The reality is that as we created the type of world we live in today and we have the ability to make it better, to make it a home for all living things, to fulfill the mandate to love as we are loved by God.

Above all, we need to stop beating each other and ourselves up over real and perceived sins.  We must forgive as Jesus taught us to do.  When we encounter failure in such endeavors, we should learn from it, not languish in it.  True religion is ultimately about making our world a better world, not condemning it.  Whatever happens after this life one must commend to God, whatever happens in this life, God has commended to us.  That was and is the point of what Jesus taught.

Norm

RECALIBRATING CHRISTIANITY - CHRIST

In Christianity, Christ is synonymous with its Hebrew counterpart, the Messiah, which mean "the anointed one."  As mentioned in previous posts, Jesus did not readily accept being identified as the Messiah in the Synoptic Gospels.  It was others who proclaimed him to be the Messiah or identified him as such.   

Throughout most of the Hebrew Scriptures, the use of the term "messiah" referred to  someone anointed to be the king of Israel or as a high priest.  The term is peppered throughout the books of First and Second Samuel and First and Second Kings.  The concept of an eschatological messiah that arises at the end of time is derived from the the prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel.  Such a messiah is also referenced in the Book of Daniel.  The concept of a messianic age evolved perhaps during the Babylonian captivity and strengthened after the restoration of the Judah as a protectorate of the Persian Empire.  

The eschatological Messiah was and is thought to be a descendent, a son, of David.  This is where the Christian version of the Messiah comes into play.  That Jesus never directly identified himself as the Messiah in the Synoptic Gospels leads one to wonder if in fact Jesus ever thought himself to be the Messiah. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke attempt to assure us he is a "son of David."  On the other hand both Gospels bring that into question because Joseph, Mary's betrothed husband is cut out of the picture as having anything directly to do with Jesus' birth.   That privilege in the Gospel of Matthew and Luke's Gospel, claim that Jesus' biological father is, in fact, God or that Mary, being the only human involved, resulted in Jesus having a parthenogenetic birth.  I think it would have been far easier to explain who Jesus is Matthew and Luke wouldn't have tried so hard to cut Joseph out of the picture.

CHRIST, PAUL, AND THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

While etymologically meaning the anointed, the meanings terms messiah and christ have diverged over time. Very little is mentioned in the writings of Paul and John of Jesus being the son of David.   Paul makes an in interesting comment about this Jesus being both the Son of God and the son of David in Epistle to the Romans (1:1-4), "Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures  regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord."  Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.®

A close reading of this passage indicates that Paul knew nothing of the birth stories of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke and considered Jesus "appointed or chosen" to be God's Son "by his resurrection from the dead."  As such, one can speak of Jesus as the Christ  as the anointed son of God due to his being resurrected or, according to the Gospel of John, as the only-begotten Son of God, chosen from eternity, the very Word of God made flesh through whom all things came into being (See John 1).  One has to remember that in the Gospel of John, Jesus is Christ from the beginning of creation.  As such there is no baptism of Jesus story, no brith story, and no transfiguration story.  Jesus is Christ from the moment he is born.  

In Paul's mind, Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah who was ushering in a new age and a new heaven and earth that occurred at his resurrection and  not his birth or even his baptism as described by the Synoptic Gospels.   Paul seems totally unaware of any of the life stories found in the Synoptic Gospels.  Instead Paul fully recognized Jesus to be a Jew like him, saying in his Epistle to the Galatians (4:4-5), "But when the set time had fully come, God sent his son, born of a woman, born under the law, [in other words, born a Jew -nw] to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship, which occurred after Jesus' death and resurrection. 

For Paul, Jesus only becomes and/or is recognized as the Christ after his resurrection.  Paul also retained the notion that Jesus as the Christ would return to earth within Paul's lifetime, which can explain some of Paul's sense of urgency that is found in some of his letters.  It is not clear, however, that Paul understood Jesus Christ as God incarnate, that is something that is derived from the Gospel of John.  The Jewish concept of the Messiah makes no such claim and it is doubtful that if Jesus thought he was the Messiah that he was God incarnate.     

Paul did not know Jesus of Nazareth in the flesh.   He only encountered and knew Jesus in a spiritual, visionary sense.  As a result, Jesus' resurrection was spiritual, as far a Paul was concerned.  For Paul, Jesus' resurrection transfigured Jesus from a physical being  into a spiritual being.   As a spiritual being, the resurrected Christ had a physical presence in the world through the Church, which Paul called the Body of Christ. 

Walter Meeks in his book, "The First Urban Christians, the Social World of the Apostle Paul," states that use of the "human body" was a common metaphor for society (pg. 81).  Paul's use of the Body of Christ was as metaphor for the ecclesia, the church, where people played different roles within the body, just as the human body has different parts that have different roles. (See 1 Corinthians 12). 

As noted in my previous post on the Resurrection, Paul uses the term the Body of Christ as a metaphor of the risen Christ who bestows his being to those who partake in the sacramental life of the church, the rite of Baptism (Christening) and the sharing of Jesus' sacrificed body and blood distributed in Holy Communion.   Through the sacramental life of the church one became one with Christ.  Being one with Christ made one a spiritual being who has also died with Christ and is raised with Christ to life everlasting.

* * *

It is not clear what the earliest followers of Jesus believed about Jesus after his death.  Did they actually believe he was physically resurrected. Did the concept of resurrection cross their minds?  In what way did they understand Jesus to be the Way?  Did they consider him to be the Messiah or did they consider him a prophet?   The Book of the Acts of the Apostles, which is the only biblical source describing the earliest days of the early church were written in the last decades of the first century or a late as the early decades of the second century CE.  

The problem I have with the New Testament is that it feels like it is one side of story that was heavily shaped by the writings of Paul and John.  While the Synoptic Gospels seem to share a common source regarding the teachings and life story of Jesus, they read as though they were edited to favor both the Pauline and Johannine teachings about Jesus.  If Paul elevated Jesus to be the Christ, the chosen one of God, the writer or writers of the Gospel of John raised him to be the only-begotten Son of God, the Word made flesh through whom all things came into being.   

The Gospel of John, more than other writing in the New Testament, has defined who Jesus as the Christ is, the Word made flesh and the Only-begotten Son of God.   I have written extensively about the Gospel of John and the Paul's epistles in various posts, but I feel compelled to stress again how crucial both are to orthodox, mainstream Christian theology, but are they accurate?  Do they really capture who Jesus is? 

In my opinion, both Paul and the Gospel of John distort a historical understanding of Jesus and, more importantly, they distort the relevance of what Jesus actually taught, very little of which appears in the Epistles of Paul of the Gospel of John.  Unfortunately, both the Pauline and Johannine teachings about Jesus is what orthodox and mainline Christianity is based on.    This is not to say that what Paul or the authors of John have written is insincere, but rather that much of what they wrote proceeds from theological speculation about Jesus rather than the actual teachings of Jesus.   There are a number of places in the New Testament that one can point to as contradicting the teachings of Jesus found in the Synoptic Gospel.  

 CHRIST AND ESCHATOLOGY

Before moving on to a twenty-first century understanding of Christ, we need to look at both Christ/The Messiah as a metonym for hope.   In Abrahamic monotheism, the idea of "the Messiah" and Christ is an eschatological figure who will usher in a new heaven and new earth is rooted in the notion of a hope against all odds.  It hearkens back to Abraham and the promise that he would be a father of many nations, although he was, at the time he received that prophetic vision, childless and would father only one legitimate child to carry on his search for the promise land which never occurred in his life time nor the lifetime of his children, their children and his grandchildren.  It would not take shape until after the Children of Israel's exodus from Egypt, some four hundred years later.   Paul more than any other writer in the New Testament makes frequent references to Abraham's faithful, hopefulness in the promises of God.

The eschatological Messiah of Jesus' day came out of the sense of loss that happened in the destruction of the first temple and the Babylonian captivity in which the the leadership and ruling class of Judah were taken into captivity.  As mentioned above, this Messiah was derived from the prophecies of Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Ezekiel; prophecies that offered a hope that some day, the Kingdom of David would be restored, and in fact, that at the end of time there would be established a new heaven and a new earth.  This hope became entrenched in Judea when it was under Greek and Roman occupation and deeply entrenched after the destruction of the second Temple and the Roman emperor Hadrian banishing Jews from their homeland, a banishment that for the most part lasted for two thousand years when the state of Israel was established in 1948.  

In Christianity, this sense of hope is expressed in the doctrine of the Second Coming of Christ.  This doctrine is a bit off in my estimation because if Jesus is/was the Messiah as foretold by the prophets, then why is it necessary for him to come again?  The whole theology of the Second Coming seems to say that Jesus wasn't able to accomplish establishing a new heaven and a new earth, or creating a thousand year reign of peace on the earth.  

The simple fact is that none of that has happened to date.  I can think of theological excuses for it not happening, but they are all speculative.  In my opinion, the second coming of Christ can only be properly understood as a metonym for the hope that Jesus' teachings offer and treated as having mythic relevance in how we understand our redemptive roles in the world. 

CHRIST AND HOPE FOR THE WORLD

The world is always in need of hope.  World peace, an end to war, an end to poverty, an end to hunger, and an end to suffering have always been within our grasp if we would fully vigorously pursue such hope in our lifetimes.  To date Christianity has failed to do so; that is not say that there have never been times when some people have tried, but Christian doctrine largely is not aimed at making this world a better place.  It has allowed for failure to follow Jesus through doctrines like original sin and the Second Coming; ways to kick the can of our redemptive responsibility and accountability to love God by loving what God loves down the road of this life till it ends in death, at which point the only hope left for any of us is the hope of a better life in a hereafter.  

While I personally believe that this life suggests more life, such a belief can't be used as an excuse for me or anyone else from engaging in the redemptive responsibilities Jesus left us with; the responsibility we have in realizing the kingdom of God that Jesus talked about in our lives.  If we are to recalibrate Christianity then Jesus as the Christ must be understood as the exemplar of such a redemptive hope that is to be realized by putting into action the teachings he left us with.

Norm