11/06/2012

Table Myths, part 2


I’m continuing in the discussion of the Table, which we celebrate in our gatherings of worship.  Last time I shared Myth #1: It’s my personal time with Jesus.  Though well intentioned, Paul did not instruct the Corinthians to observe a private introspection when eating the bread and drinking the cup, but rather told them to consider their motives and relationships within the community of Christians.

Myth #2: We take communion because Jesus commanded it.

Stay with me.  Don’t go into cardiac arrest.  No doubt, we observe the Table to be consistent with Jesus’ actions in the Upper Room and other apostolic teachings.  Jesus met with His disciples, they established the Church, and the practice of the Table has been diligently carried forward to us today.  However, in the interest of faithful study, let’s briefly examine what Jesus actually said, and the context in which He said it.

None of us were there.  The Church wasn’t there.  The Church had not even begun.  Jesus wasn’t speaking directly to us.  He was dining with His closest circle of friends; an experience bathed in secrecy, featuring the washing of feet as an appetizer and the accusation of a traitor for dessert.  This was a peculiar supper indeed.  And most notably, this was the Passover meal – a meal in which the people of Israel actively and dynamically remembered the salvation of God.  It was in the midst of this setting that Jesus told His small group, “Do this in remembrance of me.”

The key is found in the understanding of “remembrance.”  Think of it this way… If you ask a man today about his high school graduation he would tell you all the details of the day: time, place, color of tassel, etc.  However, if you were to ask a man in the first-century to describe his high school graduation, he would immediately jump out of his seat, run to the closet and put on the cap and gown, reenacting the ceremony in front of you.

Jesus also told them, “This is My body.”  Obviously, the disciples were not confused at His statement, though centuries of Christians have debated His meaning.  Jesus was sitting among them and they comprehended that the bread was symbolic, yet at the same time something more than a symbol alone.  The meal’s symbolic meaning is that He really and truly is with us even though He is not physically with us any longer, and even more that He is with us as a gathered community.

That’s anamnesis – participatory and dynamic recollection.  It’s a remembrance that is more than a post-enlightened “just the facts” – something happened, someone did something, etc.  While the mere data is important, it’s not the whole story.  You could say that the Gospel story is greater than the sum of its parts.

Jesus’ desire for those men was not to have them gather once a week in silence and sterility to cerebrally mourn his loss.  He was engaging them in a life-giving, dramatic ritual steeped in history and re-envisioned by His passion.  That desire remains today.

Keep in mind that Jesus was instituting a practice to bring to mind something that had not yet taken place!  That’s miraculous enough.  Add that this trust has been brought forward in history to those of us who were non-existent at the time it happened, and yet we “remember” it.  Let us be found, not checking off an agenda item, but dynamically participating in the mystery of the Gospel story.

I’ve written a brief survey based on the biblical concepts of the Table.  If you haven’t already done so, check it out: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/radecki_table_survey

No comments: