• Home
  • About
  • Podcast Archive
  • Subscribe (RSS)
  • Subscribe (iTunes)
  • Deacons
  • Live Events
  • Advertise With Us

Homebrewed Christianity

Equipping grassroots theologians for creative thinking, engaging, and living.

Claremont School of Theology

You are here: Home / engaging / Eucharist Isn’t Enough: combating consumerism

Eucharist Isn’t Enough: combating consumerism

June 13, 2012 by Bo Sanders 44 Comments

Yesterday I wrote about my appreciation for a book by John Reader entitled Reconstructing Practical Theology: the Impact of Globalization. I mentioned his use of Zombie Categories and promised to tackle a specific issue today.

Globalization and technological developments pose unique challenges and potential assaults on the conception of “self”.  Reader examines three manifestations of these developments: Self as Commodity, Self as Consumer, and Self as Project.  While admittedly the “human capacity to reduce oneself to an object is nothing new”, there is a unique capacity for the loss of dignity and of ones integrity that is of significant concern for issues of ministry.

When an individual views themselves as a commodity, defines themselves as a consumer, or constructs a new identity to project there are social behaviors that have communal implications involved at every level of engagement. Each implication carries a legitimate concern regarding community and pastoral care.

Reader addresses specific concerns about globalization by interacting with writers from various camps who are attempting innovative critiques or corrections to some of the challenges provided in globalization. At one point he examines Radical Orthodoxy and the approach of John Millbank and William Cavanaugh, who promote the Eucharist as an antidote to globalization’s blurring of boundaries.

It is suggested that globalization fragments space and dislocates the individual from location and community as a result of the fragmentation. Whereas “globalization is a master narrative, one which claims universal truth and authority for itself”, Eucharist is promoted as being trans-historical by collapsing “all spatial and temporal divisions” in its catholicity.

Reader has serious concerns about Cavanagh’s (and Radical Orthodoxy’s) solutions to globalization’s challenges:

I will next raise some questions and reservations about his solution to the problem of how Christianity might be a site of resistance to the excesses of global capitalism. The value of his book is that it draws out issues which are central for practical theology as it engages with globalization and one can agree with his analysis without agreeing with the proposed antidote.

This provides a significant distinction for Reader will readily agree with Cavanaugh’s (and Milbank’s) analysis of the zombie categories and strongly affirm the profound danger of the commodification of church and the packaging of religious programming for appeal to a consumer driven market.

It is crucial that communities first acknowledge the realities of globalization and its impact upon the congregation (including the individual members that make up the congregation) or else it will be in danger of becoming an enclave that has simply created a fantasy for use during meeting times. Groups that do this create a toxic dichotomy in the lives of members – one while the group is together and another for the real world outside the meeting. While innovative approaches are much needed and deeply appreciated they must be constructed in full awareness and admission of the epic shifts happening in every society.

This really hit home with me for several reasons. The biggest reason is just how much I hear about communion. As one who has emerged from an evangelical upbringing, participates in the emergent conversation and is employed at a mainline church – I hear about the importance of Eucharist, communion and breaking bread. While I am willing to admit that there might be something I am just not getting about this issue, I am shocked at how much stock the folks I interact with talk about it.  And it’s a diverse group of folks:

  • New-monastics in intentional community
  • Lutherans
  • United Methodists
  • Emergent types
  • Radical Orthodox
  • House Church folks

That is quite a spread. So I should probably admit that I have never bought into trans or con substantiation. I am allergic to the whole debate about ‘real presence’ and I am nervous anytime someone calls it ‘sacrament’ hoping that they actually know what sacramental means theologically and are not just using that like religious ‘special sauce’ to sprinkle on things we want to give elevated importance to.

 I think that it is beautiful symbol, an important ceremony and true sacrament. So this thing that the Rad. O folks try and do to use Eucharist to combat consumerism is just funky to me. Its not just a stretch – it might be missing the point all together. Do we need to combat consumerism? Yes.  Is this the way to do it?  I don’t think so.

Having said that, I will agree with two things:

  1. Communion can combat consumerism. I’m not talking about the Eucharist, I’m talking about actually communing – sitting around a table and eating bread with others while talking about Jesus and being the body of Christ. But a religious ceremony, especially one that is administered by salaried officials? I don’t think so.
  2. The only way that I could get behind this Eucharist idea is if the wheat for the bread was grown by community and the soil that the grapes grew in was known and visited by them! IF communion was a way to reconnect with the earth and with a location – THEN I could get down with the suggestion. That would combat combat consumerism is a significant way.  But then again, I suppose at this point I am really supporting localism and not anything to do with Eucharist!

Consumerism needs combating. I just don’t think that rehabilitating old categories and ancient practices are going to be the solution. I do think that ancient practices should be a vital part of a whole integrated approach and an import anchor in the church’s web of meaning. I just get nervous when there is so much importance placed on Eucharist and that is often the first, and sometimes only, thing mentioned.

But if we go buy the bread and juice then provide people a religious service of them consuming it like they would a biscotti and latte?  They leave the transaction feeling better about themselves … that might actually be feeding their consumeristic mentality!

Thoughts? Questions? Concerns? Cautions?    -Bo

  • Share on Facebook.
  • Share on Twitter.
Filed Under: engaging, latest, living, thinking Tagged With: Bible, book, books, bread, ceremony, church, communion, community, earth, eucharist, globalization, God, grapes, history, jesus, John Reader, local, Luther, Milbank, radical orthodoxy, wheat, wine
42 comments
  Livefyre
  • Get Livefyre
  • FAQ
Sign in
+ Follow
Post comment
 
Link
Sort: Newest | Oldest
nepsis
nepsis 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

I see three spheres (nod to Lucas) in operation in this post and in the follow-up guest post by Dan Hague 'In Remembrance of Me': 1) New Testament POV 2) the testament of the body of Christian thought throughout history 3) how we WANT to define (fill in the blank) today in relation to modern concerns. The breakdown I see represented here and in much 21st century Christian thinking, even the thoughtful and very well-intentioned material presented in these two posts, is that its foundational mindset insists on individual interpretation of the "genuine" NT POV and assumes it has the capacity to do so reliably. It also allows for the living out of the modern interpretation in a vacuum, that is, WITHOUT any real reference to the lives and thinking of the millions of Christians who proceeded us over time. 

 

It takes intellectual curiosity and honesty for a modern mind to make an unbiased exploration of the first-hand writings (and thereby enter their mindset) of the profound thinkers and believers that inherited the Christian faith from the Apostles and defended it faithfully. Start with Ignatius of Antioch, who the Orthodox Church remembers as being himself a disciple of the Apostle John. Go on to read Justin, Tertullian, Athanasius, Irenaeus, Cyril and don't stop - read the way all through the first thousand years of the Church. People, both laity and clergy, really did give their blood again and again in faithful transmission and defense of the Faith they received as they received; they lived as children of memory and they knew the true cost of discipleship. Their Church was not the church Luther and Calvin protested, nor the one ordered into being by Henry VIII, nor the multitude shaped by the Great Awakening, nor the ones conjured up on the fly by the modern imagination.

 

While the Church of the first thousand years offered the faithful healing and transformation through participation in the Sacraments (especially the Eucharist as the true Body and Blood of Christ as He himself tells in John ch. 6), both people and Church had our same struggles with consumerism and damaging extravagance and failures of discernment. But that was the ongoing weakness of the flesh, not of the Spirit embedded in the Body of Christ.

 

If we don't know respect the lives of our Christian forebears and regularly and respectfully consult their legacy, then we can't inform our own thoughts with, for example, the sermons of St. John Chrysostom (4th century), which are full of warnings on extravagant consumption. And we have no clue about the clearly-defined role and power of the Eucharist in the Church of the first thousand years and how it meaningfully continues on today . The Eucharist is the “medicine of immortality’ given for the ‘healing of soul and body’ and the ‘forgiveness of sins.’ If embraced with faith and demonstrated in our lives, those attributes of God’s grace can lead to interior transformation. Interior transformation will take care of everything else.

Orthodox
Orthodox 5pts

 @nepsis

I stand with you on the John 6 reference, but do think you overstate on the "interior transformation" claim.  As social creatures, so much of who we are is "exterior" - economic, cultural, etc.  Good individuals bound in bad social relations can create much evil...

BoSanders
BoSanders moderator 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

 @Orthodox  @nepsis THIS is a conversation that I am DEEPLY interested in pursuing :)  Thanks for the comment!  -Bo 

"As social creatures, so much of who we are is "exterior" - economic, cultural, etc.  Good individuals bound in bad social relations can create much evil..."  

BoSanders
BoSanders moderator 5pts

 @Orthodox too funny ;) 

Orthodox
Orthodox 5pts like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

 @BoSanders

This discussion has made me a little uncomfortable, as I fear it uncovers some potential contradictions that exist between my Materialist and Christian positions...

nepsis
nepsis 5pts like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

 @Orthodox Yes, my John 6 reference is the mainstream Patristic exegesis. Regarding interior transformation, perhaps I can explain by my understanding of Bonhoeffer. He was first a man of prayer and study, which then informed and energized his public and pastoral life. His personal and spiritual growth over time did in fact transform him in the Spirit so that he was able to clearly discern the danger of Hitler's Nazis, to oppose Hitler's corruption of German Church from the start, and in the end the rule of Hitler himself. It was  Bonhoeffer's faith-infused dedication to prayer, study, and community that which enabled him to rise above the mob that embraced Hitler's Church (yet he remain grounded in love for them) and in the end to face his martyrdom with such grace.

 

 "Acquire a peaceful spirit [the Holy Spirit] and thousands around you will be saved,' said St. Seraphim of Sarov. Boehoeffer was able to 'save' thousands who discerned the Spirit within him and valued their own interior life. He could not save the hundreds of thousands of the spiritually idle who embraced Hitler's Church.

 

 If one doesn't have such an ongoing primary commitment to developing one's interior life, one can't escape one's own engagement with bad social relations, dangerous (or even vapid) group-think, and the worldly forces that deform the human spirit from age to age.

BoSanders
BoSanders moderator 5pts

 @nepsis  I really REALLY like that clarification. I am with you about developing the inner life.  -Bo 

BoSanders
BoSanders moderator 5pts

 @nepsis  you do a good job at making many solid point.  You make a couple of assertions about the author (me) that weaken your point - probably a result of your agenda. Then you end by saying something quite silly that discredits your entire post. ;(

 

I liked your many solid points about the tradition and the importance of reading those authors. The error is to assume that if they are not in the post ... that I must not know them. I have have read those you mentioned... but that is not what this post was about. My author (John Reader) is saying that our new global reality calls for a re-examiation. 

 

I was sticking with you (even through the arrogant John 6 comment) until your last sentance. If you think that 'inner transformation' will fix everything - then you have not engaged the very idea of the post and only regurgitated what you already came with (why think about new thing when you have all the answers?)   Reader is saying that the very formation of 'self' has shifted that the old answers need to be re-examined. 

 

So, unfortunately you display the exact flaw of your way of thinking. It's like you playing make-believe in your houses of certainty.  I hope I have read you wrong and that I am way out of line. But that promising post was truly disappointing.  

nepsis
nepsis 5pts

@BoSanders

Bo, I sincerely apologize for the smug tone of my original comment. The messenger has demeaned the message. Please forgive me.

 

I reread both posts referenced, snippets of the Reader book, and reviewed a couple of articles I'll mention below as I reflected on our exchange. It's always hard when we use the same terms, but place such different meanings behind them.

 

1) I do need  to broaden my background and hope to read a bit more into 21st century Protestant thought ( I never went past Bonhoeffer, who I enjoy and admire greatly, but I otherwise freely admit my ignorance.) I found this to be a thoughtful response to the concept of "Radical Orthodoxy":  http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/the-radical-orthodoxy-project-42 . Does “re-examining old answers” means yet again re-imagining and selectively repackaging elements of historical Tradition in an effort to reengage the modern mind and its concept of self?

 

If you want to expand your horizons in eucharistic theology, you might visit http://www.schmemann.org/ and read the essay there 'Theology and Eucharist.' Fr. Alexander Schmemann was a prominent mainstream Orthodox theologian of the 20th century. He also has a powerful essay on the impact of secularization and the resulting 'religionless religion' as an appendix to his book 'Great Lent.'

 

2) The Orthodox Church has always held that the reception of the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ is the apogee of community and continuity. For us, the common cup is not the beginning of a movement towards unity, it is the end fruit of unity. Orthodox holds that embracing the continuity of the holistic sacramental life within the Church remains the answer to freeing ourselves from the false self with its indulgent desires and rediscovering of the dignity of our original nature as children of God. 

BoSanders
BoSanders moderator 5pts

 @nepsis Hold the presses! Uh Oh ... what do we have here? I thought that you were against 'updating' the faith and engaging our contemporary understanding??   But here you are talking about chromosomes!   (Don't get me wrong: I love it!)    BUT - and let's be clear - chromosomes are not in the Bible. YOU are adding that to our understanding.  Where did you get that, certainly not from some 4th century writer.  No, you are updating and revisiting old questions and understandings with new information and new understandings.

 

I'm being a little cheeky with ya but you have to admit ... you are not merely repeating the old inherited words and using that old formulations as given. You are doing something...  What I am suggesting is different in degree but not necessarily kind. I am way further down the road and several degrees over but - from where I am standing you are well on your way :p

 

Chromosomes are not what you have inherited from the christian tradition or the language of the church - you have integrated something that you got from somewhere else. I'm glad that you are. The only difference is that you are borrowing new understanding to reinforce what you already held and I am engaging it a way that leads to me embracing some stuff I didn't already hold and some stuff that ratifies the traditional expression. 

 

I am open to literary functions and relational implications  of verses like "this is my body" and the feeding of the 5,000 men (since women didn't count).   I'm not interested in a stiff wooden reading simply for the sake of continuity any more than I am willing to hold that the earth in the center because 'the sun stood still'.  It's OK to update. We get what was happening textually in 'the sun stood still' (Joshua 10:31) without deriving a cosmology from it. 

nepsis
nepsis 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

@BoSanders

 Bo, I assume you accept that God through the Holy Spirit created 23 chromosomes out of nothing to match the 23 in Mary's egg to form zygote Jesus, and that Christ transmuted five loaves, two fishes and apparently the atoms of 'thin air' into food for five thousand, and that He reanimated and 'resouled' the stinking flesh of Lazarus three days dead, and so on and so forth. If so, are you really prepared to deny that Christ is fully capable of choosing to keep his promise of Mat 28:20 by making Himself, His Grace, and His healing power present in the blessed bread and wine, sitting as He is at His Father's right hand and in His full glory as the Second Person of the Trinity?

 

If the notion of Him establishing His Real Presence in two fruits of His own creation is akin to unicorns and leprechauns and just too much to have faith in, how can one possibly assert belief in the rest? On what foundation does one's Christology stand? Or the assertion of God's omnipotence? Or the simply conviction that Christ keeps His promises to us? 

 

Health and salvation to you and your and theirs by God's Grace! 

BoSanders
BoSanders moderator 5pts

 @nepsis I'm so glad that you wrote back ! It was really good to hear your thoughts.  I am about halfway through that article you linked to.

 

The only thing that I would want to say about your comment - and this may just be one of those points we primarily disagree on - is that "re-examining old answers" may indeed mean "yet again re-imagining and selectively repackaging elements of historical Tradition in an effort to reengage the modern mind and its concept of self - it may not but ... that is the thing with re-examining: you don't know what you will find.

 

If we are not willing to do this - reexamine and reframe for the contemporary context - certainly a potentially dangerous endeavor we are in and even greater danger of something far more catastrophic.

In my mind is would be the same as us all agreeing to speak Greek in America, pretend the earth is the center of the universe and that mythical creatures and magical rainbows really do lead to pots of gold.  I know that sounds dismissive and insulting but that is how I feel when I read pre-modern stuff about the Eucharist.  Please forgive me for my terrible caricatured opinion ... I know it is awful.  But it is really is where I am at. 

 

Hopefully we can stay in dialogue!  I have a lot to learn.  -Bo 

jacksonnickd
jacksonnickd 5pts like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

I'm a Quaker, so traditional I shouldn't practice communion, however I do, because I love it. In fact becoming a Quaker has made me want to participate in the Eucharist more. I think the  traditional critique Quakers have had with communion can be applied here. The Reader's Digest version is that Quaker have believed that communion is not necessary for salvation, so if it helps you draw closer to Jesus, do it, if it is a distraction, then don't. The Eucharist is not a magical potion you take to give you eternal life, it is a way to draw closer to God and your community using you body and not just your mind.

 

Quaker's were thinking of how the Eucharist should function as a gateway to God and salvation (however we're going to define that). I think it can be thought of in the same way in terms of combating capitalism. If we think by simply getting together with our insular group of people who are in no way other and eating crackers and drinking juicy juice with them we have somehow incarnated a new mode of being that stands against the powers of darkness we are kidding ourselves. I don't really have any great suggestions for where to go from there that haven't already been mentioned, but I think when we apply magical thinking to the Eucharist we get into trouble.

 

In my community as part of our liturgy before we take communion we say, "Let all who are hungry, come to this table. Let all who are thirsty, come to this cup." Addmitedly, we don't really practice this as everyone at the table is 20 something, middle class, college educated, and white, but I think taking those words seriously and making the Eucharist a place where we participate in a meal, in each others lives, and the qualification for whether or not you get to eat today is not based on your intelligence, ability to produce, or other utilitarian benefits to society, but simply whether or not you crave food would be a way to not so much "combat" capitalism, but a way to engage in a new culture and a new mode of being.

danhauge
danhauge 5pts like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

One other aspect of the Eucharist that I find exciting and significant for this discussion, is the possibilities of seeing it as a genuinely 'commonwealth'--a common meal where our unity in Christ can be given tangible expression. From hints in 1 Corinthians 11 and the Didache, it looks like some form of the Lord's Supper was part of a full community meal (not just a thimble of juice and an inch square of bread). In 1 Corinthians 11 Paul gets ticked off at some of the community who are over-indulging. It's not 100% clear just what the situation is, but what is clear is that Paul's upset about how it contributes to exacerbating class distinctions between them. ("One goes hungry while another becomes drunk!" "Do you show contempt for the church and humiliate those who have nothing?")

 

Now, it doesn't look like Paul is drawing the conclusion that they ought to do something about their class inequality in the first place--his solution seems to be for the richer people to just have their feasts at home and not flaunt it in front of the poorer members (though again, it's a little fuzzy).  But I think there is still the germ of an idea here--that our unity in Christ should mean that how we relate to each other, how we share our resources and treat each other as with equal dignity, is really important. Acting in community in such a way that perpetuates our class distinctions is to take communion in "an unworthy manner".

 

From there, it seems reasonable to me to extend that idea to question whether we should work, eat, and live with such grossly unfair class and wealth distinctions in the first place. How can we create a Lord's Supper that instantiates a true commonwealth, a true kin-dom, that then extends to how we do economics throughout creation?

LucasLand
LucasLand 5pts

 @danhauge YES! I once tweeted my summary of that passage as something like "You take the Lord's Supper unworthily if you don't feed the hungry." The interesting thing about that passage is the way that Paul's rebuke forms parentheses around the liturgical words instituting the ritual of the eucharist.

BoSanders
BoSanders moderator 5pts

 @danhauge  What a great point!  "it doesn't look like Paul is drawing the conclusion that they ought to do something about their class inequality in the first place" BUT ... that "it seems reasonable to me to extend that idea to question whether we should work, eat, and live with such grossly unfair class and wealth distinctions in the first place."  WOW.

  maybe I will re-write this post and put that kind of a spin on it ;)   -Bo 

thank you SO much for your thoughts 

danhauge
danhauge 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

 @BoSanders I guess I could add that--even though Paul isn't going all "classless society" in this particular passage--we do have the visions in Acts (probably idealized, yes) of a community that liquidates assets and shares wealth in common. And Paul also criticizes Peter, in Galatians, for enabling Jew/Gentile distinctions to stand through his own behavior at their common meals. How can we make communion more commUNION?

kenalto9
kenalto9 5pts

 @danhauge  @BoSanders really like the commonwealth reference, but this points me onto another tangent-some see the early Acts communities as communes, the radically new communities that ancient Israel was pointed towards by the jubilees. I have heard it taught that Paul was so certain of the immanence of the eschaton that he did not place to much concern on living a sustainable life here - celibacy preferable to marriage - no need to sustain the species, no need to overcome slavery, that would all happen in the soon to arrive Second Coming. My tangent: given that we are now 2,000 years later and have not seen the second coming Jesus and Paul taught would come in the lives of those of their day, how do we respond?

 

after reading one of Bo's posts this spring I bought and read James Kugel's How to Read the Bible. Is there a similar work on the New Testament?

BoSanders
BoSanders moderator 5pts

 @danhauge if you want to write that post - I will put it up for ya ;)   I think that you are REALLY onto something.  

kenalto9
kenalto9 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

Bo- I'm left concluding that your feelings about the eucharist illustrate what a large role context plays in what gives meaning to our lives, including our lives of worship.

 

As an Anglican I'm definitely in a context where liturgy and sacraments are a big part of what we do. I believe the rituals really do have meaning, and coming together in community to take part in those rituals is part of what identifies us as community, opens us to the idea that we share in some things, in short actually create the community.

 

On a personal level I find the eucharist not only connects me to Christ but believe it connects me to all other people who have ever shared a eucharist - an idea that sometimes has more meaning when I think of connection to members of my family now dead who I know have shared eucharist, that sometimes I broaden to include people I am not personally aware of - eucharist is part of what lets me think of neighbour as including those people on the other side of the world that I will never meet as neighbour.

 

There have been times in my own life of faith when I have not felt a strong connection to God or community, and at those times I have really found it helpful to 'go through the motions' of our rituals as part of opening myself up once again to the awareness of being part of a community.

 

As one of the true saints of our congregation described a period of illness when she was too sick to pray, rather than be hard on herself for failing to pray, she felt able to lay back and trust that others were praying on her behalf - a sign she knew and trusted she was part of a community.

 

The eucharist itself probably shouldn't be construed as confronting globalization or consumerism, but it truly is part of creating and supporting christian community. It is then up to the community to realize that consumerism and globalization are false idols.

BoSanders
BoSanders moderator 5pts

 @kenalto9 YES! that is exactly what I was trying to say "The eucharist itself probably shouldn't be construed as confronting globalization or consumerism, but it truly is part of creating and supporting christian community"   

Plus ... that we should grow our own wheat and brew our own wine ;)  those two things!  -Bo 

LucasLand
LucasLand 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

 @BoSanders  @kenalto9 Would you preclude the possibility of eucharistic practice playing a role in confronting globalization or consumerism? I agree that the eucharist is not everything, but you seem to now take the opposite side that in terms of globalization/consumerism it is nothing. That seems too extreme a position to me.

LucasLand
LucasLand 5pts

 @kenalto9  @BoSanders Glad you liked the links! The problem you mention only affects as long as we continue to allow church and all the concomitant rituals to be individual practices. Obviously you can't control the person next to you, but if we talk about it and agree that communal practices is better (or at least moves us closer to the middle) then we can move in the direction of confronting the things you're talking about. Though your sermon was uncomfortable, it is pushing your community to think beyond individual piety and more in social and communal ways.I think the best we can do is fail in that direction. 

kenalto9
kenalto9 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

 @LucasLand  @BoSanders 

i'm hampered (shopping pun?) constrained by my Anglican understanding that we operate by orthopraxy - share the same rituals - but can think for ourselves and attach our own meanings to them. So, for me, yes, participating in the body of Christ does directly confront consumerism and globalization. The person next to me in the pew may attach all or none of the same meanings. So, if consumerism and globalization are not on their radar, does the eucharist confront globalization? There is a limited sense in which they become more completely my neighbour and part of my community, and might eventually share my point of view...

On trinity sunday I preached about the trinity illustrating the inherently relatedness of God, and used Tripp's kin-dom of God to further that, then went into concern for creation and how confronting an oil pipeline directly affects people on both side of the issue in our congregation - some were ready to kiss me afterwards, some told me that the sermon was way too political and confrontational.

wish I was better at expressing to my community the insights that Homebrewed sparks in my synapses. LucasLands What Would Jesus Eat? links were very good! Taste and see!

BoSanders
BoSanders moderator 5pts

 @LucasLand  @kenalto9  I'm glad (very greatful) for the discussion! This is exactly what I was hoping for when I put this up.

 

my humor doesn't come through in text ;( I should have started my earlier response " You are right that there are many incremental options" and then listed baking and knowing you baker ;)   - thanks agian. I am inspired. I'm headed to read your links  -Bo 

LucasLand
LucasLand 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

 @BoSanders  @kenalto9 Sorry. Didn't mean to caricature your position. Just trying to ferret out the real meat of what we're all trying to get at. Thanks again for the good discussion.

BoSanders
BoSanders moderator 5pts

 @LucasLand  @kenalto9  Hold it! I'm not being prescriptive - I'm saying that it would do more to combat consumerism that buying it.  Two comments ago (above) you had me wrongly saying that it played 'no role'  - now you have me being Ultra-local and too narrow.   Don't be so extreme ;)    [i'm having fun with ya] 

You can bake the bread, or know the person who does, or a dozen other incremental ways to be more connected and intentional.  I was simply making about point that just buying elements and have a ceremony doesn't do the job. It is much bigger than that. 

You are right, those aren't to only options - I was throwing one out for a clear alternative.

By the way, I am 100% with you.  you are really stating things well about the role of communion and the need to be intentional.  The rest is just details and examples ;)   I appreciate your contribution A LOT  

-Bo 

LucasLand
LucasLand 5pts

 @BoSanders  @kenalto9 I worry though about being so prescriptive about growing wheat and knowing the vineyard. (It's interesting that you say growing the wheat but not the grapes.) Have you ever tried to grow your own wheat? What do we do with churches in cities and areas that can't produce wheat?I totally agree that you are getting at something important, but you keep insisting that the two alternatives are either buying bread and wine (I assume from a big box grocer) or growing it yourself. There's a lot between those two extremes that could be useful in combating consumerism.I would prefer to come up with some principles or values that we can include in our theology/understand of what the eucharist actually is and means (e.g. connecting it to the Passover meal more directly) that would then guide us into living that out both in our practice of the ritual, but also within our lives together.Ultra local is too narrow and  not helpful IMO.

BoSanders
BoSanders moderator 5pts

 @LucasLand  @kenalto9 NO! remember when I said " I do think that ancient practices should be a vital part of a whole integrated approach and an import anchor in the church’s web of meaning. I just get nervous when there is so much importance placed on Eucharist and that is often the first, and sometimes only, thing mentioned." in the initial post. 

 

nothing extreme here ;)  just saying that growing our own bread and knowing the vineyard our wine comes from might do more to combat the problem than BUYing the elements !!!   -Bo   

LucasLand
LucasLand 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

I wrote about this way back and was definitely inspired by Cavanaugh's Being Consumed in a  post called Eucharist as Eat-In http://wwje.wordpress.com/2008/12/03/eucharist-as-eat-in/  In fact, after hearing him speak at Baylor I talked to Cavanaugh about it and sent him the link to my post. He was intrigued, but had questions about how the distinction would be made theologically between the agape feast and the sacrament of Eucharist. As a Catholic theologian he has different concerns than I do.

 

I'v also written about the Eucharist in connection with local food issues here: http://wwje.wordpress.com/2009/06/04/transforming-the-body/ and somewhat summed up it all in a sermon I preached at Texas Lutheran University using the hermetically sealed all-in-one communion packages as my launching point here: http://wwje.wordpress.com/2010/10/24/consumerism-industrial-food-and-the-eucharist/

 

So, I am very much on board with the critical engagement of eucharistic practice in terms of the convergence of globalization, industrial food and consumerism. I realize that neither you nor Reader are throwing out Cavanaugh, but I'm not sure I understand all the hemming and hawing about eucharistic practice. I'm not sure that only elements that are SOLE (sustainable, organic, local and ethical) should be the barrier to entry for the eucharist. Rather there should be an acknowledgment (as in the ancient liturgy which speaks of the crushing of grains and grapes) of what went in to getting that particular meal to the table.

 

The thing I felt like Cavanaugh contributed elsewhere is the insistence that the eucharist is not a private transaction or individual ritual between a person and a priest or pastor, but instead something which forms and shapes us into a "public, social body." Certainly the eucharist can be practiced badly and mask bad theology, but that doesn't mean it doesn't hold the possibility and power to shape us in better ways. It seems that as such a central ritual to Christianity we should be looking to strengthen and improve our theology and practice of the eucharist instead of marginalizing it as ineffective or somehow complicit.

 

I agree 100% with your critique, but am not sure how you move past the problem by doing an end around the ritual itself. Perhaps that's not what you're really suggesting.

 

Anyway, great post! Obviously a topic I love and am passionate about.

BoSanders
BoSanders moderator 5pts

 @LucasLand That was deep.  I can't wait to read the links!  thank you for the insightful and impassioned response ;)  -Bo  

Stephen Barkley
Stephen Barkley 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

If globalization "fragments space and dislocates the individual from location and community" (sounds like Wendell Berry), then what better way to combat it than a practice that re-roots us in our new identity (in Christ)? Sure, it's no silver bullet but it sounds like a good starting point to me.

BoSanders
BoSanders moderator 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

 @Stephen Barkley you would think so!  But what if we go buy the bread and juice then provide people a religious service of them consuming it like they would a biscotti and latte?  The leave the transaction feeling better about themselves ... that might actually be feeding their consumeristic metality!

(I meant to put this in the post - I will add it now)  -Bo 

Orthodox
Orthodox 5pts

I hate to sound anti-progressive, but I share the critique voiced above.  It seems to me if one takes seriously the suggestion to turn the Eucharist into “a way to reconnect with the earth and with a location” it then transforms into a liberal brand of commodified worship.  I actually propose the method of “doing the same things Sunday after Sunday” might function to prevent the “religious marketplace” from a process of repackaging and reselling forms of worship to us as “religious consumers”.

ngilmour
ngilmour 5pts

 @BoSanders  @LucasLand Well, all you'd have to do, Bo, is to articulate some better way to exist, and perhaps I could order my own efforts so that I strive towards that way of being. ;)

BoSanders
BoSanders moderator 5pts

 @ngilmour  @LucasLand Nate G, at some point you and I will have to talk about the hopeless attraction to idealism that you are possessed by :)  your loving friend  -Bo 

BoSanders
BoSanders moderator 5pts

 @Orthodox WHOA!  That is deep. If I had read this before I posted, I would have written differently ;)  -Bo  thanks for writing back in !!!! 

BoSanders
BoSanders moderator 5pts

 @LucasLand  @Orthodox I am so glad that you wrote in. That was a VERY helpful post  -Bo 

ngilmour
ngilmour 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

 @LucasLand Lucas, you've articulated nicely what I would have liked to have written.  I can understand the all-or-nothing temptation, but as an old-style idealist, I generally prefer ways of existence that draw nearer to the ideal, knowing always that the current way of life as well as the current iteration of the ideal are always subject to deconstruction.  But that doesn't automatically mean that all things are equally worthless.

Orthodox
Orthodox 5pts like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

 @BoSanders  @Orthodox

 

Re-reading, I think I have misinterpreted what you meant, as I was thinking in terms of “commodification” instead of “consumerism”.  The point I was trying to make – perhaps poorly – is that the form of worship (or the practice, in the case of the Eucharist) can itself become the commodity, and that engaging in a particular form of worship as it comes to us from history/tradition/culture is quite different than surveying the “marketplace” of available forms or practices and choosing the one that best fits our individual consumer preference.  In this way, our particular brand of worship (or practice) can become just another item - like a diet cola, college, or on-line social networking site - we select for use on the basis of aesthetics and convenience.

LucasLand
LucasLand 5pts like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

 @BoSanders  @Orthodox I guess it depends on what exactly you mean by "combating consumerism." I'm not sure what would be sufficient in your mind.In my thinking communal practices in themselves combat the individualism of consumerism. I think eucharistic practice as we've been describing can certainly combat consumerism on multiple levels. It depends how far you think it has to go in order to "count." Does the eucharistic practice have to literally dismantle the WTO or Wal-Mart?Again, I think requiring only local/organic or whatever elements is not a rabbit hole you want to go down, because those definitions are not easy to define as proved by our local farmer's markets rules.I don't think Cavanaugh or me or anyone is claiming that somehow any eucharistic practice makes consumerism "magically" disappear, but it seems a central part of Christian faith and practice historically and an important part of a holistic theology and practice that can combat consumerism.It also seems like you are insisting on our practice being held to standards so far beyond the present reality that we are forced to stop practicing the eucharist all together. I wrote a post recently about How to Start a Business When You Don't Believe in Capitalism addressing this problem. Somewhere between the reality of our brokenness and the vision of a just system we have to actually live and breathe and pay the bills. If you want real people to engage in combating consumerism, you don't require them first to start a commune where they can insure their ritual is perfectly just. If we engage the eucharist properly, then it seems to me that it begins to reveal these things as it forms us.

 

You're going to force me to write my own post on this now! 

BoSanders
BoSanders moderator 5pts

@Orthodox how so? I'm open but I don't see it. Communion doesn't combat consumerism if you buy the bread and wine. There is nothing magical about the ceremony. It's about spending time with those people connecting

Trackbacks

  1. In Remembrance of Me: guest post by Dan Hauge says:
    June 15, 2012 at 9:07 am

    [...] I began to read through Bo’s post, Eucharist Isn’t Enough, the other day, I began to steel myself for disappointment. I feel keenly the problems of [...]

Search

Subscribe via iTunes

 


Support the brew

Return to top of page

Copyright © 2013 ·Delicious Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in