Thousand Acre Church

I’m still talking about communion here.  “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.”  So,… Eating the Lord’s Supper is how we proclaim the Lord’s death.  Huh?  How do you proclaim the Lord’s death by consuming saltines and grape juice?  I’m not saying that’s not a legitimate way to observe communion; I’m just wondering, “How does my consumption of bread and wine proclaim the Lord’s death?”

So hold that thought.  Before we go further, consider what we “proclaim” about the Lord’s death.  One of the things that keeps rising to the top in things I’m reading is the fact the we should probably be able to tell people why Jesus was put to death on the cross.  I’m not asking for a philosophical/theological answer that most Christians might be already familiar with.  You know, “Jesus died for my sins.”, “Jesus had to die as the atoning sacrifice for my sins and yours.”, or “Jesus died to defeat the devil.”  Those are all theological answers.  I’m not discounting those answers (very early in the writings of Paul he says that Jesus died for our sins); but, I’m thinking about the “more than theological” answer to that question.

I’m learning to put into words the differences between how I FORMERLY read and interpreted the gospels and letters in the New Testament and how I read and interpret them NOW.  The most brief way to say it is that, while my Bible study was formerly informed by a background of philosophy and established theological traditions, I have recently had the opportunity to interact with studies of the Bible that use history, economics, sociology, anthropology, and archeology as a means of putting theological traditions through the fire.  It is in that context that the question, “Why did Jesus die on the cross?” has a richer meaning.  Every telling of the story of Jesus’ life and the story of the early church should account for their persecution in a way that is meaningful in more-than-theological ways.

Briefly, the Romans wanted him dead and persecuted his followers because Jesus claimed to be Lord.  He was a rival to Caesar and to the Roman social order.  He claimed to be King.  At his crucifixion he was mocked by Pilate with the title “King of the Jews”.  Pilate demonstrated, in Rome’s usual public display, that Rome had the power to put to death those insurgents and political challengers who claimed the allegiance to a kingdom other than to Caesar’s kingdom.

Likewise, to account for persecution of Jesus and his followers by Jews, we can point to their structures of power and politics in the first century.  Jesus challenged the Jewish center.  He did that from the margins of society.  He seemed to live out his extreme style of love through his meal practices with people on the outside of the religious establishment.  That was one of the charges of his opponents, “He is a drunkard and glutton.” and “He eats with toll collectors and prostitutes.”  Jesus said a lot of things about love and the Kingdom of God…. but if that was all he did (talk about love), then I’m not sure that his opponents in the established traditions would have wanted him nixed.  It was his PRACTICE of love (rather than his talk of love) that encouraged their supposed Jewish flock to eat with people who were unclean and sinful.  They had no conception of the Kingdom of God coming to earth that included such a filthy and repugnant fellowship.  They were being faithful to their practices of cleanliness (especially at meals) in anticipation that their faithfulness would usher in God’s Kingdom, and here Jesus goes flipping the script.  He was wrecking the whole effort and acting like it was cool.

Back to communion:  When we share a table across social boundaries in the manner in which Jesus ate, we proclaim his death.  We live for the kind of Kingdom for which he died.  We teach Jesus’ theology of social inclusion and honor his death and resurrection that gives us a hope in which we can boldly defy social conventions.  Social conventions are numerous at meal time.  You can learn many things about a culture by their meal practices.  I’m ashamed of what some would learn about the church through its meal practices.  Or even ashamed about my own meal practices (drive-through, alone, in my car between point A and point B).

So, for example, when the Corinthians ate the food that was available for the communal meal before everyone was present, they disregarded the laborer and those who didn’t have the leisure to arrive sooner.  The people who needed the meal the most (those who have nothing, see the text) were often being left out of the meal altogether.  The dysfunctions and divisions were numerous.  This was not really the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:20).  Or rather it was not really the kuriskon deipnon (literally, “Lord-style supper).  It was not the way Jesus ate meals.  I would say that we rarely eat meals (or remember Jesus’ death) the way Jesus ate meals.  Our loss, for sure.