Week Five Communion

And you thought the notes for week four were long!

Here are my notes for last week's session. Tomorrow we will talk a little about the Anabaptist tradition, as well as some newer voices on communion. See you then.

Communion Week Five

Brief overview of where we have been:

Table Practices, The Great Banquet (Kingdom language), Early Church history (Didache, 1^st Century), 15 centuries (How the Mass changes)

Intro - Embrace the whole long story of the church as our own. God is infinitely able to deal with humanity. Varieties of sinfulness are immense, but so are varieties of faithfulness across time and geography.

This will help us grasp how this "old, old story of Jesus and his love" transforms the broken world around us.

Eastern Church           

In those first centuries after Jesus' death there was no separation (East and West) - the church was catholic (universal). One common body.

Though, one important distiction was the use of Greek in the East and Latin in the West. These differences affect the formation of faith and worship in different parts of the world - but there are also psychological differences.

West - Precise use of language - very concerned (in a literal way) of the material elements of the bread and wine.

East - Delighted in symbolism, visual and allegorical approaches to theology and prayer.

Religious disputes turn into political disputes and the grow distinct during the 10^th and 11^th Century and the two churches split.

There are a lot of what seem like minor difference (what kind of bread to be used) and some major ones (does the Nicene Creed say "The Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father through the Son,", Greek, or "The Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son," Western, Latin interpretation).

The Orthodox Church while having lots in common with the Roman Catholic Church, actually have a lot more contact with Protestants these days. They see the split during the 16^th Century ( The Reformation) as a "domestic problem within the Western Church". And if the Western church could get itself together, then East and West might actually join again and unity might become a real option.

Pope John Paul II shows that the Catholics were interested too - "if the eastern and Western Churches remain divided by the year 2000, he would see his papacy as a failure".

Three things to note about the Orthodox Liturgy (that we might learn from)

1. Kingdom of God - Thee liturgy, unchanged fro 15 centuries, begins with Blessed is the Kingdom. The liturgy presents the journey of the church into the Kingdom Of God. Declaring this Kingdom to be the goal "of all our desires and interests of or whole life."

2. A repetition of the Beatitudes in every service (heard before the Gospel reading) - again, these distill Jesus' life and teachings. A vision of the Kingdom that is hear, and we are invited into what is not yet.

3. An emphasis on the Resurrection - some Protestant churches focus on the crucifixion and death of Christ - would do well to be aware of this imbalance, and have more joyful attention to the resurrection and the coming of the Kingdom. (Eleanor Kreider).

Reformation

• Created both positive and negative results for Communion.

• Concerns: more wider participation (not just the priest), services modeled on scripture, more preaching, more FREQUENT communion.

Still, a penitential tone persisted, as did Clerical power.

The worship service

Both the East and West followed the pattern of a two part worship.

One: Readings, Sermon Prayer (from Jewish background)

Two: Thanksgiving prayer, the story of the Last Supper, breaking the bread, sharing the cup. (Distinctively Christian).

By the middle ages the emphasis in on the second part - all the readings were said or sung in Latin (there might be some preaching in some churches, but pretty inconsequential) - a language almost no one understood. So basically the people heard the word, but couldn't understand it.

As said before you had to take Communion once a year (after confessing you just got the bread) - the Priest took the cup on behalf of everybody.

The theology of Sacrifice was huge - unscruplour priests said the only antidote for Hell was the Mass. And more mass. And pictures, statues, vestments, religious relics etc.

Is it any wonder that things blew up?

What did the Reformers Want?

To return the worship and mass to the people. Points:

1. Go back to scripture - discard some of the abusive church traditions
2. Frequent Communion Services
3. People could take the bread AND the Wine.
4. Fuller participation in hymns, responses, psalms (in their language)
5. Fuller Bible readings and more extensive sermons.

Contentious Issues           

They still argued amongst themselves, notably about Christ's presence in the elements.

Swiss and German leaned toward the symbolic view. Christ's presence was in the hearts of those taking the eucharist. 

Huldrich Zwingli (Swiss): "the true body of Chirst is present by contemplation of faith"

Some Anabaptists: "Christ's presence through the Spirit of the Community gathered around the table."

Martin Luther - Christ was present in the bread and the wine. Likened it to a union of fire and iron, when the iron gets fire-hot. Every part is in both the iron and the fire.

Calvin - Since the acension, Christ's humanity is in heaven, but in the Eucharist the Spirit "transfuses life into us form the flesh of Christ."

How did they reform?           

Sola scriptura - all doctrine and faith are based on scripture, not church tradition - a good idea, except the NT does not give models or instructions.

So… they either accommodated or reacted.

Example - Luther told people they cold take communion more frequently, they resisted the change, so he told them to take the initiative. If you want communion, tell the pastor. And if no one asks, then the service will only contain the service of the word (the first part). And will be shorter.

This shorter service became the norm - not because of scripture - but accommodating what people would bear.

What does Luther Keep?

If scriptures didn't forbid something, he kept it. Like the elevation of the host.

What did he radically remove?

He purged the Canon of short prayers within the Roman Mass. He called "the abominable concoction drawn form everyone's sewer and cesspool." - no mention of sacrifice remains. He also takes out the Nicene Creed - and the Word, notably in the sermon becomes the focal point of the service.

Hymns are now in the people's language - participation that creates a folk mass to educate the unlearned. This refocusing on the sermon makes the Lord Supper a marginal postscript at the end of  a service. (What a change?!!!)

Question:

Where does the communion service fit for you in Grain of Wheat? Is it central? Is it an afterthought? Do things lead up to it? Or is the teaching (homily) the center?

Zwingli and Calvin

Zwingli - Reminding

(Same era as Luther)

Based on scripture, Baptism and the Lord's Supper must be observed. But they are signs of God's redemption, visual aids, reminders to God's grace and forgiveness. He was strongly against the idea that Christ was in the bread and wine - accused of "emptying the sacraments". Demoting the Eucharistic to a reminder.

Some thing Zwingli gets judged to harshly around this and that he said that Communion wasn't just a "looking back and remembering", but an encounter with Christ in the present, with other participants (the community) around the table.

Interesting the idea of community though.

There were no congregational response or music - participation was listening. Spare buildings (nothing visual - very Swiss) where people were taught, exhorted (cautioned) and edified (instructed and improved).

This does, incidentally, lead to a whole style of worship still around today.

Calvin           

(2^nd generation reformer)

Held a high sacramental view of Communion. Christ fully in the Supper by means of the Holy Spirit. Something to be experienced, not explained.

He hoped that Communion would become a weekly part of Sunday worship but the people resisted and ended up with a monthly service.

Question

How do you understand this remembrance? Is that what communion is for you? How is Christ present?

Clerical Order           

Though the reformers gave the Mass back to the people - they hung onto the order, the separation between clery and laity. The ministers preached the word, gave out the sacraments, and governed the church.

So, while they reformed a lot, they didn't touch the most sensitive nerve at all: the power of the Clergy.

What was accomplished?

• they didn't fully break out of the medival mindset into pure scriptural worship. There was still a lot of stress on the sin of individuals and the need for confession before coming to the table.

• things were still focused (in the West) on the cross, on sacrifice and a penitential tone to communion services

• BUT  - they simplified worship into ordinary language, they increased participation of the congregation, congregational singing, a new emphasis on teaching.

• ordinary people still resisted frequent communion (recall the 1^st Century weekly love feasts - mentioned in acts and Corinthians) - it was too much to ask

• unfortunately the Communion service gets pushed to the margins, at the end, reduced in importance when compared to the teaching

Major Irony Point

People took the question of communion so seriously that they tortured, drownded and exiled each other over what was said in the liturgy. Literally a burning issue (not my pun). All the reformers agreed on the importance of Communion.

Yet - after all the terror and tradgedy - the Catholic Church in spite of daily mass, ordinary people took Communion once a year.

And it was the same in the Reformed Churches. Communion was held to be so important, that you could only do it a few times a year. And the ceremonies of preparation were rigourous and exhausting. The Eucharist was no longer at the center of a conregation's worship life.

Questions leading into next time:

Was the excitement of hearing the Bible read and taught so great that the table paled in comparison?

Was the food of the table so inwardly obsessive that it seemed "impossible to eat"?

Why had the table of the Lord become so unapproachable, so inaccessible?

Next time:           

How would 16^th century Anabaptists respond to a communion service in Amsterdam, in Winnipeg, at Grain of Wheat?

Week Four Communion

I am finding it difficult to summarize our sessions - as many of you know, editing something down can take as much time as the original writing.

So in the interest of being thorough, as long as they are, here are my notes for last Sunday's session.

Communion Week Four

The Lord's Supper, The Last Supper, The Mass           

What does the Lord's Supper have in common with the last supper?

• little.

We do "reenact" that evening as we speak the words aloud. But our ritual, and the ritual or communion (Eucharist) is not a real meal with courses of food, it is not in a home with a dozen people, there is not a foreboding mood (as there was with the betrayal of a trusted friend).

So how did this meal, the last supper gets changed to first the Love Feast (as spoken about in Corinthians) and then over time ritualized to what we have now? What can we learn from these roots, from these traditions? What does our celebration of Communion say about our faith, our church-community, of the universal church?

John D. Rempel (MCC liaison to the United Nations) writes:

"The Lord's Supper is our most profound and formative symbol. How we practice it reveals more of what we believe about grace, the church, and mission than any other aspect of congregational life; it is our theology incarnate.

The Lord's Supper in Mennonite Tradition, Vision Journal

Love Feasts

As mentioned last time, the early church had many shared meals, which they nicknamed agape, or love feasts. The common meals were practical expressions of love.

And it is at one these meals that Paul criticizes their practice (1Cor. 11). The rich arrived early, maybe after visiting the baths, and went ahead with eating and drinking. The poor, some who would be slaves, came later when there wasn't much left and all the good spots were gone, so they had to remain out in the courtyard. Paul calls this behaviour of the rich "contempt for the church of God" and a humiliation of the poor.

He calls them to be aware of the others needs, much more than just being nice to each other, they have a responsibility to care for each other. This behaviour describes the "unworthy manner" or partaking the Lord's Supper. Years later, sensitive Christians apply this to their inward piety, and suffer guilt over whether they are worth to take communion.

Now, these love feasts have their roots in both the Jewish Festival Traditions (like Passover) and the Roman Banquet celebrations. The Christian church adopts these - one thing to note, again, is how the love feast is at the same time (same event/meal) as the Lord's Supper. Yet, they are separate even in the time of the church at Corinth.

In the third century the love feast continue - Tertullian writes about North African Communities that had shared food and drink, and blessings, prayers, a free worship for all - and a way of helping the needy members.

Church Grows - Agape dropped

As the Christian movement grows, congregations grow in numbers, and worship and fellowship no longer centered around an actual meal table. As numbers increased, the agapes could no longer serve the entire community - so they became special events put on by the rich for invited guests.

To gain status Christian groups organized themselves as burial societies (giving a funeral character to the meals which focused on the great banquet of the Kingdom of God to come). 5^th century - Augustine writes about the debaucheries and lavish banquets in cemeteries. The meals are separated from the ceremony of the Eucharist - and get increasingly criticized as drunken feast - and of sexual misconduct. Basically, these meals fade away during this time.

Where does the Eucharist Go? Early Christian Worship

So if those meals go, where does the ceremony go? The ceremony of the Eucharist is part of the Lord's Day (now called Sunday in Rome) - and the thanksgiving to God shines out of that service (eucharistein - which is why the service become known as that). The range of thanksgiving to God was wide - thanks for creation, for redemption, victory of Christ over evil, for nature. Calling their worship time by that name - "giving thanks" - reminded the Christians of the inner meaning of worship.

Question -

What does our communion service remind you? (thanksgiving, unity of the body, Jesus' story, our theology? Where does this fit in?)

Medieval Mass

"The earlier corporate character of Christianity gave way to Christians being a group of individuals within a hierarchal structure that dispensed benefits according to a tightly controlled means."

There is a shift in tone in worship - gone is the youthful, clean shaven Good Shepherd Jesus of early depictions to the haloed Christ of glittering mosaics (lots of stain-glass too) depicting him as emperor and judge. (some of this was rooted in all the discussion of whether Christ was divine or not - so there was this overemphasis of the majestic Christ enthroned in heaven).

The Sunday service of Eucharist was celebrated in massive buildings by huge crowds and had become remote, splendid and mysterious. Overawed and afraid, people increasing shied away from the communion table. A bishop of the time called the Eucharist the "shuddering hour". People were terrified to stand in front of the judgment throne (and felt grotesquely unworthy).

The once moveable table becomes the altar - fenced off for clergy only - it was surrounded by careful attendants who created and preserved this mysterious and Holy purpose. The service was called the "mysterium tremendum".

A huge shift away from the focus on a reconciling community to a focus on individuals before God, asking the dreaded question: Am I worthy?

And two clear divisions emerge between the clergy and the laity. The churchgoers, in writings of the time, are compared to sheep and goats in their pens, Deacons are kept busy walking around with long rods to discipline any sleepers, gigglers or whisperers.

Paying penance for your sins emerges here. Basically what is to be done about sins committed after baptism? There were the major sins, denying the faith, adultery and murder, those penances could last a life time - but there was a whole catalog of lesser sins, with specific periods and acts of penance (standing outside the church door in sackcloth and ashes - a lot of the penances involved humiliation). Something else that emerges is the need for a sacramental confession of sins before taking communion (this becomes obligatory in the 10^th century). And a bunch of reasons why you couldn't take communion were added (borrowing from PT purity laws) - sexual activity, menstruation and childbirth.) A 12^th century theologian glosses over this by saying: "From infrequent celebration has grown reverence for the sacrament."

All these awe inspiring rites and ceremonies created a fear. Pagans used to be afraid of God. Now Christians were terrified of Gods' Condemnation. The only way to gain favour with God was the penitential system.

I've mentioned this struggle with Christ's divinity at this time (the earlier Council Of Nicea is all about establishing that Divinity within the trinity. And this divinity gets overstressed so much that Christ's humanity, his mediatorship, recedes into the shadows - people turn to Saints for this personal relationship.)

12 century - when the Sanctus bell rang, the people looked in adoration as the priest raised the consecrated bread. By the 16^th century, people fell on their knees during the consecration of the bread and wine - so they could NOT look at the holy and mysterious elements. Further was a teaching that the priest ate and drank as the representative for the entire community.

How far this had come from the Love feast?!!!

Required to confess and take Communion at least once a year, medieval European Christians were no longer active participants but watchers. The mass was a priestly act. Ordinary people participated by looking on.

Council of Trent

Just to mention how far this goes - and hopefully you can see some of the stirrings of the reformation here - but at the Council of Trent, part of the counter reformation in the mid-16^th century - it was stressed by the Catholic Church that: the Mass was not a mere meal, nor just a memorial service to recall a sacrifice made long ago. The mass a sacrifice - possessing its own power of atonement and petition - it was to be understood as simultaneously the sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Church.

Now, mostly we are Protestants but this history of the church is our history too (not to blame it all on the Catholic Church). There is nothing that justifies the medieval abuses of the penitential system - yet, the ancient tradition carried on the memory and the importance of confession and forgiveness. (we confess before communion).

Each of the reforming traditions maintained different themes from the early church.

Lutheran: remember God's grace and the impossibility of doing anything to earn God's forgiveness.

Calvinists: took seriously the need to prepare to approach the Communion table.

Anabaptists: emphasized corporate purity, and used the kiss of peace, love feasts, and the foot-washing ceremony as liturgical means to deepen the vitality of the gathered church.

Question:

What elements do you respond to? What symbols have meaning for you? If any? Are you drawn to a certain form of Communion? Do you feel worthy?

Closing

Basically Catholics and Protestants can learn from each other - gain depth in listening to each other (mention the article: A Sacramental approach to life and worship - by Arthur Boers, Pastor of Menno Church). Return to the origins of the early church (you see this in a lot of the emergent church movement) - embrace the whole long story of the church as our own. Not start blaming and condemning others.

God if infinitely able to deal with humanity, continually recalling us to his love.

Next time - a bit on the Eastern Church

And the Reformation

Note - this teaching has been gathered from different sources, but notably Eleanor Kreider's wonderful book: Communion Shapes Character.

Week three Communion summary

Hello. I wanted to start with a question - basically do people read the summaries, or want them? Please let me know by commenting below. I don't want to go to the extra work if they are not useful.

I thought we had a great session last Sunday - a small, but very dynamic group.

We discussed the background of Corinthians, what the city was like (very diverse, lots of different religions, the church at Corinth being mainly gentile) and what it was about their version of the Lord's Supper that Paul responded to... and by responded, I mean quite strongly corrected. As mentioned before the love feast, a common meal of sorts, really, was celebrated by the church on a weekly basis. Different classes of people came together for this - and within the feast was the ritualized taking of the bread and wine, in remembrance of the Last Supper.

Paul strongly objected to the drunkenness that was going on, as well as the class distinctions that were brought forward - as opposed to a "coming together" of the classes, these meals were actually further bringing out the tensions. Rich folk brought better food, and more of it - poorer folk showed up late (because they were working in the field) when a lot of the food was gone. Paul's correction in 1Corinthians is the first record of the ritualized communion being separated from the love feast.

We also discussed Paul's talking about communion as bringing unity to the body. To be both in communion with God and with each other. (A subject he explores further in Chapter 12, when talking about the gifts of each part of the body).

A question:

This idea of the body, of being unified as we share in this communion ritual.

Have you experienced this? Do you come to the table as an individual? As a part of Grain of Wheat? As a part of the larger body (the church?) What is your experience?

We also spent some time on the first century Christian writing referred to as the Didache,(a chunk of it is seen in the picture above). This treatise explains some of the early church practices.

The Didache is dated approximately 49-79 AD, before John’s Epistles, the book of Revelation, and possibly many other New Testament books were written. The earliest layers of the Didache may have seen their origin during the time of the Jerusalem Council (around 50 AD), and may have played a role in the controversy surrounding the Gentiles (Acts 15). If this is the case, then the Didache may have been a collaborative work of some council members as a proposed draft for the letter to the Gentiles (Acts 15:22-29).

For us, we might recognize something from our own Communion liturgy:

From the Didache, Chapter 9 (section on Communion):

Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into your kingdom.

Next Sunday we will continue looking at early church practices.

See you then.

Communion Week three (and hey, where did week two go?)

First off, my apologies for not posting anything about week two in our Communion Discussion (time does have a way of getting away from me).

I plan to post something a bit more detailed tomorrow. But basically week two was looking at the parable of the great banquet (luke 14: 12 - 24) and how Jesus celebration of the last supper anticipated the kingdom-feast.

As well, we discussed Jesus' message of the Kingdom of God being "already and not yet." And how this relates to the sharing of Communion.

Tomorrow morning we will be looking (finally) at some early church practices: the church at Corinth, and the early Christian text: the didache. (pronounced: did - I - kay).

Stay tuned for something a bit more detailed, substantial, and focused (!)

See you in the morning.

Communion Week One - Jesus' Table Manners

Each week I will post a summary of points and scripture readings (or links to documents) that I have referred to in our discussion.

This morning's session -

Jesus' Table Manners

To begin with an intro to the topic of communion.Why do we partake in this ritual? What does it mean to us? How does it transform us? Why have we chosen to do in the way we do?

The Last Supper

Davinci's famous painting is iconic and gives the world an image of this event - the last fellowship meal Jesus had with his followers.

The meal was a Jewish Seder - celebrated during Passover. A meal where different foods were given symbolism. In this context, Jesus' invested meaning into the bread and the wine.

Some background on the words:

1Cor. 10:16

16The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ?

This verse reference to sharing (Grk. Koinonia) in the body and blood, is the source of the name: Communion.

1 Cor. 11: 24 gives us the reference for the Eucharist. The thanksgiving (Gk: Eucharistoun)

23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for [5] you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

Jesus words on the last supper - in the synoptic gospels.

Matt 26: 26-28

Mark 14: 22-25

Luke 22: 17 - 20

Scholarly Discourse

Now scholars argue, that’s what they like to do, about whether the last supper as explained in the gospels was a part of Jesus’ story, as if it was liturgical text from the early church that was inserted as part of the story. In other words the accounts of what the church did read back into the lifetime of Jesus.

Jesus and “Sinners” at the table

(adapted from sources, including How to Read the Gospels and Acts - Joel B. Green)

This was the central theme of this morning's session. The significance of sharing a meal in First Century Palestine was quite different than sharing a meal in current western society. The significance of meeting others at the table is seen throughout Scripture -the story of Lot visited by the Angels (Gen. 19) is a shocking example of those table laws. Betrayal at the table was one of the most severe insults. Jesus references Psalm 41:9 when (in John 13:8) he predicts this betrayal: “He who shares my bread has lifted up his heel against me.”

Jesus broke down social barriers, and practiced an open table with outcasts, sinners, and those considered unclean by Jewish Purity Laws. For this inclusive practice, he was openly criticised and called a drunkard and a glutton.

Meals as well as having a social significance had a deep religious significance. God prepares a table for us (Psalm 23). God invites to feast (Prov. 9: 1-6).

Again, this focuses the point that Jesus challenging Jewish Ritualistic Purity Laws crossed social, political, and religious boundaries. By drawing out the significance of Jesus' meal practices (or what I called: manners) - we see just how radical and ultimately transformative of a message this was.

Read the story of Zaccheus (Luke 19) for a good example of how the invitation to the table was transformative.

Read the story of the good samaritan (Luke 10 25:37) as another example of  Jesus challenging the purity laws - and how he replaced this ritual cleanliness with compassion.

By the way, if you are looking for a good online Bible source. Here is one for the NRSV. And another one from the ESV (English Standard Version).

Some questions to ponder:

• What do Jesus' practices tell us about inclusivity?

• How is this similar to our ritual of communion (which ultimately grew out of Jesus' breaking of bread with others)?

• How do our rituals and actions differ from Jesus' practice?

Next time we will review any thoughts that have come out of this talk of table practices. As well we will spend some time with the parable of the Great Banquet (Luke 14: 15-24).

And what did Jesus mean when he said:

For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes. (Luke 22:18)

And, if that's not enough (!) we will look at early church practices of The Lord's Supper in 1Cor. Notably in Chapters 10 and 11.

See you then.