• 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 / In Remembrance of Me: guest post by Dan Hauge

In Remembrance of Me: guest post by Dan Hauge

June 15, 2012 by Bo Sanders 6 Comments

by Dan Hauge 

As 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 consumerism and commodification that Bo talks about, but I have intuitively felt for some time that an emphasis on the Eucharist really has the potential to help the church combat these less-than-humanizing cultural tendencies. So getting ready to hear how the Eucharist just won’t cut it brought up a certain defensiveness in me.

However, as I read his critique of how the Eucharist plays out in many church contexts (providing people a religious service with bread and wine serving the same function as a biscotti and latte) his critique began to make a lot of sense, and I realized I agreed with him—if we’re talking about the Eucharist as the specific ritual where we gather in our (mostly) demographically homogeneous communities, partake of thimble-sized versions of the elements, and place a great amount of importance on whether God’s presence really or symbolically resides in those thimble-sized elements.
At least in my own evangelical contexts, taking communion has come to be primarily an opportunity for us to intellectually “remember” the events of Good Friday, and then privately reflect in gratitude on whatever significance we believe those events have for us. In some more creative versions there is space for people to mingle and interact, and while all these things are valuable in and of themselves, I believe there is potential for more.

 My own understanding of the eucharist has been shaped by the distinct possibility that many early Christians experienced it as a common meal. Jesus’ final supper, whether a Passover or not, is definitely portrayed as a full meal. The Didache offers instructions for a Eucharistic prayer to be read “after you have been filled” (10.1), and the latter part of 1 Corinthians 11 seems to describe a Lord’s Supper where the community is sharing a meal together. And eating together implies a lot of sharing—sharing space, sharing resources, and sharing the fruit of your labors, whether the farming, purchasing, or cooking. What is key for me in all of this is the sense of unity—people coming together, sharing what they have, embodying the deeper truth of our interdependence as co-equal children of God.

In the Corinthian church this sense of unity was (to put it mildly) breaking down, as some members were doing some serious feasting (perhaps bringing some of their favorite menu items from home, or maybe even taking more than their fair share), to the extent that they created a visible, uncomfortable gap between the better-off and not-so-well-off. In one of his snarkier passages, Paul addresses this gap head on: “No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval.” He goes on to complain that “one goes hungry and another becomes drunk”, and asks “do you show contempt for the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing?” (By the way, I’m drawing mostly from the work of Dr. Gordon Fee in my interpretation of this passage.)
The way in which the ‘feasters’ were behaving during a meal that was supposed to embody commonality was turning it into a time of self-gratification. (I’m tempted to call it a time of “consumerism”, but I suppose we shouldn’t slide over the real cultural and economic differences between their time and ours). Still, this exercise of privilege, enjoying their own resources at the expense of the inclusion of people of lower class, is for Paul a matter of taking the bread and cup of Jesus “in an unworthy manner”.

In fact, it’s worth questioning whether Paul’s reiteration of Jesus’ instructions to take the Eucharist “in remembrance of me” is really geared toward remembering the theological significance of Good Friday (as it’s often been understood), or if he might rather be emphasizing “remembrance” of who Jesus was—his radical inclusive love, his barrier-breaking kingdom (or kin-dom, if you like). How you treat each other—with dignity, with mutuality and shared purpose embodied in the equal sharing of sustenance—matters a great deal if the Eucharist is truly going to reflect who Jesus was and what he calls us to be.

Now, it’s worth pointing out that Paul doesn’t seem too concerned about uprooting the class structures themselves. His solution to this particular issue is a little more mundane—if you really want to chow down, do it at home and don’t bring it into the context of the shared meal with the rest of the body. But this is a case where I think we can take the basic principle (don’t exacerbate class distinctions within the community of Christ) and extend it to the issues of class, marginalization, and oppression in general.

If the community of Jesus followers is supposed to be about sharing the vision of God’s shalom with the wider world, shouldn’t our Eucharist celebrations embody that? Can we celebrate the Eucharist in such a way that calls into question the fact that we live, work, and eat every day in the midst of grossly unfair class structures that divide us, excessively rewarding some and punishing others?

I think about a UCC church I once attended in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside (an area with a significant amount of poverty and drug use), where right after the service the “coffee and snack hour” was open to the entire neighborhood. It was one (rare) instance where it did not feel like the church fellowship was one community “serving” the poor community it lived in the midst of. Rather it felt like one community gathering, where it just so happened that most of the people didn’t choose to attend the formal service the hour before. How can Christians of privilege, who constantly benefit from the dominant system even as we critique it, engage in genuinely mutual community with those the system leaves behind? Can we create ways of truly eating together, to embody real communion in our communion?

 

It will require ongoing analysis of my privilege in society, a willingness to examine how my ways of being, eating, and doing contribute to making life harder for others, and a recognition of how all of this creates a barrier to mutual relationship with others. A barrier that Jesus died to overcome, but that is only overcome as we follow and trust Jesus, finding ways to share together, strive together and eat together “in remembrance of him”.

  • Share on Facebook.
  • Share on Twitter.
Filed Under: engaging, latest, living, thinking Tagged With: Bible, book, books, church, communion, eucharist, feast, God, Gordon Fee, jesus, love, meal, Spirit, table
5 comments
  Livefyre
  • Get Livefyre
  • FAQ
Sign in
+ Follow
Post comment
 
Link
Newest | Oldest
cammoblammo
cammoblammo 5pts

My denomination (the Salvation Army) essentially stopped observing the Eucharist over a sort of class matter.

 

The 'back theology' version of the story is simple---we are strongly teetotal and many of our members in the early days were reformed alcoholics. In retrospect, it made sense to remove alcohol from our meetings. I know one lady today who came to our denomination because even the smell of grape juice at her original church brought back memories of her abusive, alcoholic father.

 

Historically the story was much more interesting. Women have always been able to fill all roles in our movement, including presiding over the Sacraments. This caused political problems with the other denominations. They were happy for women to preach and teach, but they would not stand by and allow women to serve the Eucharist. We weren't particularly fussed about upsetting other churches, but this seems to have been a battle we weren't willing to fight. This problem, coupled with the apparent fact that many in our movement misinterpreted the partaking of the elements as some sort of license to sin, we simply decided to abolish the whole thing.

 

In the intervening years we've produced an impressive body of theology reinterpreting the Sacraments (especially the Eucharist) as a lifestyle thing. One of our favourite hymns sums it up this way:

 

My life must be Christ's broken bread,

My love his outpoured wine;

A cup o'erfilled, a table spread,

Beneath His name and sign,

That other lives, refreshed and fed,

May share His life through mine.

 

We've also done a lot of work to introduce the Love Feast, although that's been pretty well ignored by, well, everyone. Introducing a Sacrament is hard to do. Praxis doesn't like to follow doctrine, does it? However, this post  brings up a pretty good example of theology following practice.

 

A church I was at a few years ago started this same sort of meal. It wasn't a 'food programme', it was a common lunch. We'd provide the meal and everyone would pay one or two dollars at the door, on an honour system. The rich were just as welcome as the poor, and sat with them. Our office staff (mostly social workers) would come over for lunch and dine with their clients. Our sponsors (mostly grocers and bakers who would provide the food at very reduced rates) would come along and join the meal.

 

It worked brilliantly. Or should I say, it was a great time. Thinking about this meal as some sort of programme with reportable KPIs just seems wrong. This was communion, not something we did to keep Jesus (or our Headquarters) happy. Sometimes it's easier to hide in a kitchen scrubbing pans than it is to share a meal with the Other. 

 

Is this a Sacrament? Is it as legitimate as the Eucharist? I don't know, but it seems to be similar to the commensality Jesus practised. If we continue this sort of thing I imagine we could wrap it into a doctrine in, I don't know, fifty years?

Orthodox
Orthodox 5pts

Great post!

drew_psu
drew_psu 5pts

I started to write a comment... It got long. Pingback coming up! :-)

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

Great follow up post! My question is the one that William Cavanaugh posed to me... Do we or should we draw a distinction between the agape meal and the eucharist? Regardless of what the answer is, it seems that there is some important work defining how the New Testament talks about these two things, how the church historically has defined it and how we want to define it moving forward.My own thought is that they should not be defined as two distinct things (as your post sort of implies), because the New Testament doesn't seem to define them as separate things. If they are not separate distinct things, then how do we define, describe and practice what this central ritual is and how we practice it?

danhauge
danhauge 5pts

 @LucasLand Great question--I do lean toward the idea that there should not be a sharp divide between the two--although my own study of church history is a little thin (I majored in Biblical Studies, obviously :)), so I don't have sufficient appreciation for how that distinction was made. Worth looking into more.

Trackbacks

  1. Does Communion Build Up or Tear Down Love? says:
    June 15, 2012 at 10:01 am

    [...] By drewtatusko Leave a CommentThere is an interesting conversation regarding the Eucharist over at Homebrewed Christianity. From Dan Hague:(I)t’s worth questioning whether Paul’s reiteration of Jesus’ instructions to [...]

Search

Subscribe via iTunes

 


Support the brew

Return to top of page

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