Friends,
I’m reading a wonderful new book (Brazos, 2006) called: Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible: Matthew by Stanley Hauerwas. It’s really very thought provoking and well written. I came across a paragraph I’d like to share with you:
Jesus charges members of the church to confront those whom we think have sinned against us. He does not say that if we think we have been wronged we might consider confronting the one we believe has done us wrong. Jesus tells us that we must do so because the wrong is not against us, but rather against the body, that is, the very holiness of the church is at stake. Moreover, to be required to confront those whom we believe have wronged us is risky business because we may find out that we are mistaken.
In 1 Cor. 6:1-8 Paul admonishes the Corinthians for taking one another to courts of law presided over by unbelievers. Paul reminds the Corinthians, a reminder that surely draws on Jesus’ admonition not to remain angry with one another, that we should be ready to suffer a wrong rather than act against the body of Christ, for nothing less is at stake than the church offering the world an alternative to the world’s justice. If such a community does not exist, then unbelievers will have no way to know God’s grace.
The church, therefore, has rightly thought confession of sin, penance, and reconciliation necessary for the reception of the Eucharist. How could we dare come the feast of reconciliation not in unity with our brothers and sisters? The name given that unity is love. The gifts of bread and wine must be brought by those at peace with God and one another. If we are unreconciled, we best not receive; we dare not dishonor the holiness of the gifts of God. (68-69)
That’s powerful stuff. Makes me wonder if there is anyone in my life with whom I have not reconciled.
Soli Deo Gloria!
16 Comments(+Add)
An interesting point. I contend that the early church observed the Lord’s Supper every Sunday. It was a centerpiece of the gathering and it meant much more than is usually attributed to it today. And the forgiveness/reconciliation aspect is sorely missing as well.
I believe a weekly observance could go far to unite a body of believers and provide spiritual accountability for eacn believer and the church as a whole. We have lost the fullness of communion as it was originally given.
You know what has been a great experience for us in the Chapel we go to? Communion.
We only unfortunately do it once a month, but I love how the chaplains lead us to repent and prayerfully consider those who’ve sinned against us, and for us to forgive them, and reconcile in our heart. You know…”a man should examine himself before taking part in the bread and wine”…
It’s been fantastic. Imagine, 10 minutes of personal prayer around all the other believers, talking to God and asking Him to reveal the sins in your heart, in the middle of a church service! It’s great. Then we read 1 Cor. 11:23-26 and take communion. I just wish we did it more often. The forgiveness and reconciliation has been wonderful, and I think a lot of people are missing out.
Thanks for that quotation Jerry!
Joe
Excellent thoughts, Jerry!
Our church participates in the Lord’s Supper each week, which I greatly appreciate. It has to be the most peaceful time of my week…
I appreciate having Communion more often also, because I really think it’s so central to NT Christianity. However, this post brings up something that is one I’ve my pet peeves regarding the way Communion is presented a lot time in churches (I’m not saying this post is wrong in any way, but rather it just brought this to mind, and I think it’s relevant).
Anyway, one thing I’ve heard just about every pastor quote before the elements are served is this passage in 1 Corinthians 11:
Typically, a pastor gives people a few moments to “examine their hearts” and then gets on with it. Then the pastor gives the warning about the possibility of judgement. Now, I won’t deny there’s some truth in that – I don’t think we should be flippant in our attitude to Christ’s sacrifice. But I also think that we need to a look at that passage in the entire context of what Paul says in the rest of the letter.
Basically what Paul was chastizing the Corinthians for was for making the Lord’s Supper an exclusionary event where the rich would come and pig out and get drunk first, and leave little or nothing for the poor in the congregation. For the poor, this meal would have been maybe the one opportunity they had all week for a decent meal, and the rich in the church were taking that away from them. That’s why some in the church were bringing judgement on themselves. God hates that kind of exclusion.
So I guess the way we present it today turns it into more of an introspective thing, and I think that really loses a lot of the original power of the passage. I also think that if the issue had to do with just “personal holiness”, as it’s presented a lot of the time, that a lot more Christians would be struck dead after Communion. It’s also interesting to me that we’ve taken a passage in which Paul is warning the Corinthians about the dangers of excluding certain people from the Lord’s Supper to justify excluding certain people from the Sacrament.
Phil,
I agree 100%. It particularly bothers me when people use this passage to tell those in the congregation who are not yet believers that they are not welcome to partake. I don’t understand that at all. I mean, is there a deeper place in hell for those who denied Jesus AND took communion in an unworthy manner? Besides, the picture of Jesus offering a piece of bread to Judas ought to be enough to settle any doubts.
Corey,
I get what you are saying, but as a matter of exegetical soundness, which Phil and you seem to be advocating, I humbly offer this: Jesus did not offer Judas ‘communion.’ He offered Judas the Passover bread which Judas, as a Jew, was entitled to consume. Jesus’ offer to Judas really has very little to do with the bread, or as Phil says, the sacrament, we are offered and offer to others in communion.
What I cannot understand, with respect to your concerns, is why someone who is not a Christian would want to participate in the body and blood of Christ in such a way. That is, why would someone who is not a Christian want to eat and, if they do not understand what they are doing, are they not inviting the very judgment that Paul warns of to those who eat in an unworthy manner?
To be sure, what most concerns me about this quote is the connection between confrontation and confession.
jerry
It goes even deeper than that, Jerry:
This is the transparancy that is lacking today in many churches. James addressed this in terms of Healing; That we should confess our sins one to another:
In the context of a fellowship meal, this should be a very important activity, the opportunity to confess, to repent, to heal broken relationships and to be healed physically. Unfortunately, we have to get done in time for football or we have to make sure we stay under an hour, or whatever excuse. I believe that we do not experience some of God’s blessings because we are too programmed and not relationship based, and when someone does confess a sin, they fear being judged rather than being loved.
Corey,
It is a fellowship meal; I would be one who would disagree with just anyone taking it. What fellowship has light with darkness? Just an opinion; I would feel the same for one claiming to be a Christian and living like the devil as well.
I tend to think not. I guess I think that God judges people a lot of the time based on their understanding. If a person wasn’t a Christian, but took communion out of some sort of genuine curiosity, I have a hard time believing God would have some sort of extra judgement for that person.
The judgement that Paul seems to be talking about is definitely in the context of believers who should know better. I also think that Corey’s point is a good one. Jesus ate with anyone who was willing to eat with Him. He didn’t give them pre-conditions to meet. Now, after they encountered Christ, they were often convicted of their sins, and forced to either repent or continue in a hardened condition.
So I also guess it’s hard to see how a non-Christian become more damned or more lost. God always hold a higher standard for His own children than the pagans it seems.
Jerry,
Agreed, but if moments later, Jesus takes that bread and breaks it and says ‘This is my body’, I have to think that in his mind (is it okay to try and read Jesus’ mind?) that offer of bread to Judas was an offer of reconciliation. Essentially, it’s Jesus saying, ‘Judas, you don’t have to do this. You can be forgiven. This body is broken for you, too.’
As far as someone who is not yet a Christian being interested in taking communion, I think that if they’re attending church services, they have at least an interest in understanding who Jesus is and what he’s about. To withold participation until people have made some kind of confession or prayed some prayer seems to be missing the point that this person is seeking Jesus, and maybe through Communion, they can find him (I could tell you some amazing stories of how we’ve seen this happen in our church.)
PB -
And I’ll argue again from the last supper. When did it start being a fellowship meal? Was it only after Judas left that they all sighed with relief and said, ‘Good, now that the sinners are gone, let’s fellowship together.’ Or was it fellowship al along?
Emphasis mine.
Why is it that many sinners followed Jesus? Why is it that most sinners run when they hear the word “church”?
Is it perhaps that our righteousness, relevance, hipness, whateverness is all about ourselves and not about the love and grace that Jesus radiated? I think so.
Oops, posted in the wrong thread!
corey,
The Last Supper was within the context of the seder, (see here). Judas left after the eating of bitter herbs and prior to the Cup of Judgment.
After this “course” within the seder, the afikomen, bread set aside earlier in the meal, is broken and served along with the Cup of Redemption. Judas shared in neither of these – the bread he ate was not from the afikomen, which is the bread of the Lord’s Supper.
The only part of the passover meal “repurposed” by Jesus was the Cup of Redemption. The meal, itself, was not a “fellowship” meal – it was remembrance of the Passover, and future remembrance of Jesus’ sacrifice.
I do believe that the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is meant for those who claim to follow him…
A sign of the end times……
Oh my goodness….
I agree with Chris L!
I don’t disagree with this, really. My point is that the passage in 1 Corinthians doesn’t really speak to that issue at all. Paul was clearly warning Christians of bringing judgment upon themselves, not non-Christians.
I think to say that Communion is “for” Christians is sort of self-evident, in the fact that by definition one can really only be considered to be partaking in the blood and body of Christ if he is a Christian. Otherwise, he’s just eating bread and drinking wine – a meaningless act to a non-believer. Now I do think that we should do our best to describe to non-Christians what we are doing, so they see it isn’t just a meaningless act to us, but I don’t think God will strike a non-Christian dead or even put them under judgment if they do eat the bread and drink the wine. I mean I don’t believe there’s anything sacred about the elements themselves, but they become sacred in a sense when they partaken by Christians.