Friday, December 10, 2004

adiaphora: whose presence with whom?

Catholic, Lutheran, Zwinglian, Calvinistic?
Or 'none of the above'? I have to say that I think huge portions of the Church lost the plot on their understanding of the Eucharist for a very long time.
On looking again at the biblical passages, with some help from friends, I can't help feel the very notion of a 'real' presence - let's not even go to transubstantiation! - completely misses the point and risks wounding the wounding the purpose for which the Lord's Supper was instituted.

So, Zwingli said the 'is' in 'this is my body' means represents and although hardly seeing eye to eye with Zwingli, Calvin too keeps sign and thing signified separate. Luther takes a different line. Is means what it says. He will not define how this can be, but the bread and the wine certainly Christ's body and blood.

Hmm. The background of all the directly relevant biblical passages is covenant and passover.

There is some confusion over when precisely the Last Supper took place, but the point remains that it was passover time when Jesus made his final journey to Jerusalem. The Last Supper is pregnant with passover symbolism: 'This is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many' (Mark 14:24). Eating of the Lord's Supper is just like eating passover. It identifies one with the saving event of our exodus - Christ on the cross.

Paul is very aware of this context in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11. In Chapter 10 he warns the Corinthians about the dangers of idol worship using the example of Israel in the wilderness. He is arguing that the Corinthians are in a similar covenant with the same God: the Israelites are 'our ancestors' (10:1) he tells his mixed Jew/Gentile readers. 'All' the Israelites shared in this covenant. They fell in the wilderness, under the judgment of God because of their idol worship and immorality all of which was unfaithfulness to the covenant God had made with them. The Corithians too face a frightening judgment (which possibly may be also understood as 'discipline', see 11:32) if they are likewise unfaithful. The Lord's Supper is understood as something which shows our common participation in the covenant (Compare 10:2 and 16), and therefore our common susceptibility to judgment should we worship idols.

Chapter 11 (17-34) can be understood in the same way. The crucial verse is 29. 'For all who eat and drink without discerning the body eat and drink judgment against themselves'. What does 'discerning the body mean'? There are basically two possibilities that have been proposed. Firstly that the Corinthians, in their drunken stupor (21) were not recognising Christ's presence in the bread and wine. The reason for their meeting together was to eat "the Lord's Supper". Secondly, that 'body' here refers to the Corinthian church, as in Chap 12 and 10:17 and also the immediate concern of Paul 10:20-22, that the church should show respect and love for each other when they meet together to share Communion. I think Paul is continuing to use covenant and passover (11:25). Failure to discern the body is failure to recognise Christ's body in the Eucharistic elements - but this does not mean any particular understanding of localised presence. The point is that participation in the 'loaf' is participation in the covenant which is established on Christ's exodus death. To treat your brothers and sisters in Christ as dirt is to gravely flout the covenant you have with God. He, after all, sent his Son to die for them. In this passage, I think Paul is playing on words and meanings. Failure to discern the body must mean both Christ's body given for us and Christ's body, the church.

So ... given the passover context, what about 'presence'? I think it a mistake to think Christ's physical body to be present in the bread, his blood in the wine. Why? Because, given the passover context, the purpose of the Supper is to remember Christ's death for us. Rather than thinking of Christ being present to us, we should think of us being present with Christ, on the cross. This was the new covenant he was establishing through a new exodus. A new escape from slavery, but this time from the slavery of sin. We enter into this covenant by entering into union with Christ. Our death becomes his, and his righteousness ours (2 Cor. 5:21).

But, does this mean I am advocating a 'mere' memorial. Well, I am not an expert in Zwingli but I know I am not too happy with his dualism - that is the physical is not necessarily unspiritual. Consequently, there could be no such thing as 'mere' remembrance - not for us who have God's Spirit living within us. Communion therefore is an act of faith, and expression of faith, a participation in the covenant which Christ has established for us.