This article was originally published at the Biblical Horizons blog.
Some of the comments and responses on the original article have been shared at the end.
Peter Leithart in Against Christianity points out that “Christianity” tends to be an ideology, and that Jesus did not come to set up an ideology but to found a kingdom: Christen-Dom.
Christendom is a total way of life, including thinking. But as a way, it is a walk, a path. “In Him we live and move and have our being.” The way to learn this path is through ritual. Ritual is essential to Biblical religion, but unimportant to ideology.
I recently read a remark to the effect that Old Covenant worship was ritualistic, while New Covenant worship is a celebration response to the resurrection. This was just an offhand remark, so I cannot pretend to know all that was intended it by the person who wrote it. It seemed to mean, however, that (within bounds) New Covenant worship is not patterned by the Bible. Rather, worship is a response to an idea, and if not spontaneous is at least free of any prescribed order.
Now, there is a long tradition of this, I think. Jesus instituted a ritual and prescribed it for the Church, and that ritual is obeyed by virtually no churches. It is clear that the churches have felt that they can do the Lord’s Supper any way they want. This, I submit, is the triumph of ideology. Consider: Jesus clearly commanded us to sit when we eat with Him. This is seen in every feeding of the 5000 and 4000 in the gospels. Jesus instituted the meal sitting. He prayed while sitting. Physical posture was important to Jesus, but is it not important to the gnosticized churches. An ideology about the meaning of the Supper pushes churches into having people stand around, or kneel in humility. Being seated with Jesus in the heavenlies as His queen is not the message in these churches.
Consider: Jesus used bread. How many churches use bread? Precious few. If your spouse asks you to drop by the store and bring home some bread, do you bring home crackers? Wafers? Cubes of pie crust (which seems to be the latest thing in some Reformed circles)? We pray “give us this day our daily bread,” and then we are forced to eat anything but common daily bread. This is a ritual heresy, for it communicates that the Son of God was not incarnated as an ordinary human being (daily bread) but as some kind of weird non-human wafer or cracker.
Consider: Jesus instituted wine. How many churches use wine?
Consider: If you have one cup, you have to drink as the cup is passed. Similarly, the bread was passed hand to hand and the disciples ate as soon as they broke off a piece. How many churches respect this? Precious few. A new ritual has been added of having everyone wait and then the pastor says something he’s made up and everyone eats and drinks together. Instead of each of us drinking and offering to die for the person next to us, we all drink in abstraction.
Consider: Jesus clearly ate the bread first, since He broke off His piece first. And it’s clear that the conception of the Cup is that Jesus drank of it first. Just so, in the prescribed ritual, the minister eats and drinks martyrdom for his congregation and sets the example. How many churches do this? Incredibly, it is now the custom for the minister to be served last of all!!
Consider: The elements are passed hand to hand, though the minister begins the ritual and speaks the words. How many churches do this? Denying the priesthood of all believers, the ideologists insist that each person be served individually by the minister. Plus is just feels holier and more meaningful. Understand: It is ideology that produces this perverted rite. It is an ideology so powerful that the churches are simply blind to the fact that they reject Jesus’ example and disobey Him.
Consider: Jesus instituted two rites, with two prayers. Only after everyone has eaten the bread is a new prayer said for the wine and the second rite begun. How many churches obey Jesus in this? Precious few.
So, we have seen that “Christianity” is alive and well. Obedience is rejected in favor of ideology. The most clear ritual pattern we have in the New Covenant is almost universally perverted to conform to one or another theological ideology. Let us be clear: Jesus did not say “Understand this” but “Do this.” It is the doing that is important. The Christianity churches, however, substitute ideology for obedience. Many refuse communion to people who do not have the right ideology about the Supper. And as we have shown, their various ideologies and notions create false rituals in disobedience to what Jesus instituted.
Christendom religion, however, leads in the opposite direction. Since the psalms were given to us in parallel lines, that is how we should sing them. Metrical paraphrases are NOT psalms, but hymns based on the IDEAS in the psalms. If we want to follow Jesus, walking with and after Him and not just thinking about Him, we’ll need to sing the psalms in lines.
Rituals are miniature temporal encapsulations of the walk, the way, the movement, the following of life. They train us in how to move and have our being. Indeed, rituals are microchronic recapitulations of the founding events of a world. That is what the rituals in Leviticus are, and that is what the move from bread to wine in the Supper is. The Christendom Christian rejoices in the patterns of worship seen in the whole Bible, especially in Revelation, because he wants a new and revised way of life, a new walk.
Far from wanting to be free from Biblical ritual patterns, the dominion Christian seeks to learn as much about the dance steps of the way and walk as possible, so as to keep in step with the Spirit’s music.
Select Comments and Responses
Question:
What about foot washing prior to the table?
John 13:14 “If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s feet.”
Does this ritual have a place in the Lord’s service?
Response from Jordan
It seems to me that because footwashing is not part of what Paul says he received and is passing on in 1 Corinthians, it is not part of the rite. A theological reason may be that the soil is no longer curse-prosecuting (“cursed is the soil with reference to you”) and so the Old Covenant need to wash feet is no longer with us. In Christ, we are located in New Glorified Soil, not in Old Adamic Soil. Since washing feet has something to do with removing the judgment for sin, it seems to me that it links with the confession and absolution before the Supper, and possibly with self-examination and mutual concern for righteousness.
We can also see mutual humility and service enjoined here. I notice that we are to wash one another’s feet, not have the pastor wash each of our feet. This goes with passing the elements of communion hand to hand. Jesus gives us bread and wine, and we are to share it one with another. Some liturgical churches do footwashing on Maundy Thursday, and guess what? it’s the pastor/bishop who washes the feet! That is NOT what Jesus said to do.
Other questions can be raised about the details I took up in my essay. Common cup? For some churches that is important, though in a church of any size the cup has to be refilled more than once. And indeed, I’ve been in Episcopal churches where there is more than one “common cup” being used in communion, which pretty much defeats the idea! If you have more than one “common cup,” you may as well have individual cups.
The details of the ritual, I think, need to be seen affirmed elsewhere in Scripture. For instance, Jesus always COMMANDS people to sit down when He feeds them. That pretty much thoroughly reinforces what we see going on when the Supper was instituted. Paul makes a big deal out of the One Loaf, but never says anything equivalent about One Cup. Oddly, the churches that insist on “common cup” also use bits of wafer bread, reversing Paul’s own emphasis. Passing hand to hand is reinforced by all the “one-anothering” teachings in the Bible. Etc.
I’ve spent more time on the details in *From Bread to Wine.* Here I wanted to make the point that Christendom religion is ritual-friendly, unlike ideological Christianity.
But, this is the place to debate all aspects of this. That’s why we set up this blog.
Comment
On the point of waiting and eating together, I believe that comes from 1 Cor. 11:33- “So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. ”
Also, I have always found it odd that Jesus told us to “Take and eat” yet often one is told to go and “receive” the body as the priest or pastor places a wafer on the tongue.
Response from Jordan
Yes, 1 Cor. 11:33 is pointed to, but of course that command means to wait until everyone has arrived at the meeting. Clearly, one cannot drink at the same time from one cup.
Another ritual mistake is that Jesus spoke the words “This is My body” AS He gave the bread to the disciples. “He broke it and gave it to them saying….” That is the rite He instituted. But notice how many churches give thanks as a kind of consecration, and then put the elements back on the table, and sing Agnus Dei or something else, and then begin to distribute. This ritual mistake invites people to wonder what has happened to the bread and wine. Is Jesus hiding in them now? Should we bow down to them now? But if the rite were done as Jesus commanded (“Do THIS!”) there would be no such interval of time, and the question would never have arisen.
Question
Jim, with regard to your last comment, how would you structure the various movements of the Lord’s Supper?
In the congregation I pastor, I have a short intro to the supper, usually making some link with something in the text or sermon, and then I read the “words of institution,” but when I come to “gave thanks,” I actually give thanks/bless (“Blessed are you, Almighty God, Maker of heaven and earth…”). Then I read the rest, breaking when the word “break” appears, and distribute. But that means that I’m not saying “This is [Christ’s] body” as I give the bread to the people. Should I be?
Could you perhaps outline how you see this part of the ritual taking place? Should we even bother reading the “words of institution”? And could you, perhaps in another blog entry, elaborate on your view of “breaking” as “taking a piece” (as opposed to “tearing in half”)?
Thanks!
Response from Jeff Meyers
Here’s what I do:
1. Grab the bread. No introductory comments at all. Ever. Just do it.
2. Say, “On the night in which he was betrayed our Lord took bread and gave thanks.”
3. I give thanks [pray].
4. Say, “Then he broke it and gave it to his disciples saying, ‘Take and eat, this is my body given for you.’”
4-1/2. I break the bread while I am saying #4.
5. The elders/deacons come forward to distribute the bread.
6. Sing a Psalm during distribution.
7. Distribution finished. I hold up the chunk of bread that I will be eating and say, “Take and eat the body of Christ given for you.”
8. Everybody eats. We do eat the bread together. Don’t need to, I know. But we do.
9. I take hold of the cup, hold it up, and say, “In the same way after they ate, Jesus took the cup and gave thanks.”
10. I give thanks with an emphasis on the covenant memorial aspect of the wine rite.
11. After I finish giving thanks I say, “He gave it to his disciples and said, this cup is the new covenant in my blood shed for many for the forgiveness of sins. Take and drink from it all of you!”
12. The elders/deacons come forward and receive the wine from me to distribute.
13. I immediately grab the chalice, hold it up, and say, “The peace of Christ be with all of you.” I drink from the cup. Then I tell everyone to pass the peace of Christ to your neighbor as you pass the cup. Sometimes I remind them to talk and enjoy one another after they have received, passed, and drunk the cup.
14. After everyone has been served I say, “The body and blood of our Lord strengthen and preserve you steadfast in the true faith unto life everlasting. In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” The congregation says, “Amen!”
15. We all stand and sing the Nunc Dimittis.
For what it’s worth.
Response from Jordan
All I would add, besides NOT eating altogether, is (a) pray sitting down at & behind the table; (b) have your distributors sitting around the table with you; (c) eat your piece of bread and pass the loaf around the table, and then have them get up and pass to the congregation. Similarly, use a chalice for yourself and the distributors seated around the table with you, and then have them get up and distribute trays to the congregation. A common cup contains enough for 6-8 distributors, and starts the ritual the way Jesus actually did it.
Frankly, I don’t see any reason to read the “words of institution.” You don’t read aloud the recipe for frying an egg out of The Joy of Cooking every time you fry an egg. I probably would make a few comments linking back to the sermon, and then pick up the bread, give thanks, break off my piece, and pass it on to the elder next to me saying “the body of Christ, given for you.”
The words of institution almost become an incantation. Will the Supper work if you don’t say those words first? (Plus, at least in “two-office” churches around here, half the time a different elder “gets” to preside at the Table, and the garbled versions of the half-memorized words of institution that they issue forth are quite remarkable.)
As for breaking off a piece instead of tearing it in half, I’m not sure about the Greek. A loaf of bread has surface integrity, and when you break off the first piece for yourself, you have broken the loaf. It seems much more reasonable to me that this is what Jesus did: Pulled off His own piece and then started the bread around the table. I’d be happy to be corrected if the Greek actually means “rip in half.”
Comment
Jesus instituted his Supper with the intention that when we partake we do so to remember his death and to show it forth. The gospel narrative is not providing us with a blue print of posture etc, after all he instituted it following a meal, in an upper room, with 12 men, and not on Sunday. None of these are essential elements to the Supper, yes bread should be used, yes so should wine, but the posture etc is irrelevant.
To kneel for the body and blood of Jesus is “a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy Receivers” (Black Rubric).
Response from Jordan
Precisely. An ideology about the supper has wrecked Jesus’ commands about it. Every time Jesus fed anyone He ordered them to sit. Every time. And the theology is that we are seated with Him in the heavenlies. In union with Him we are not priests who stand but priests who sit (Hebrews).
Your point about the location and timing and the persons involved is significant. Which things are adiaphora and which are not is something the rest of the Bible confirms. Read the six narratives about the feedings and ask why the Spirit records that Jesus ordered people to sit down each time. And ask why Jesus felt it necessary to COMMAND them to sit. If we care about learning ritual and walk from Jesus and from the Bible (the point of my essay), then the question of posture is pretty much crystal clear. Kneeling is not humble. It is rebellious.
Sure, if you’re meeting in the woods in the GULAG and you have to stand around and use water and rice cakes, then that’s what you do. Given a choice, though, we ought to be as sensitive as possible to what the Bible says. Nobody ever eats kneeling in the Bible.
Comment
The “waiting for one another” that Paul talks about is not “waiting for everyone to arrive.” At the beginning of his instructions, he points out that he is addressing what happens at the meeting when the whole church is gathered (“coming together,” 11:20), and accuses each one of “taking first in the eating” (v. 21), the result of this being that one is hungry and another is drunk, with the implication that these two states are found at the very same table.
Also, none of the accounts actually say that Jesus ate the bread–indeed, in terms of the symbolism, he would not have, since he did not need to receive his own sacrifice. And he certainly did not drink at least one of the cups (see Luke 22:17-18–and the very fact that this account gives us two cups makes asserting a set biblical order of the cup and the bread challenging). The cup is specifically said to be the blood of the sacrifice, which Jesus did not drink. He, rather, drank the cup of judgment: for him to drink a different cup in the very same act would be serious ritual confusion.
My overall point is this: your principle that we need to be more mindful of what our rituals say is absolutely correct–and I’ve had the debate with someone in my own church who insists that the characteristic of the New Covenant is it’s emphasis on the word instead of on ritual–but the texts do not permit us to say that churches are being disobedient because the pastor eats last (since the texts never tell us even that Jesus ate the bread, and the symbolism in fact argues against it), or because each person waits to eat his portion until all are served (this applies to the cup as well, since in Luke 22:17 Jesus commands them to “divide” the cup among themselves–the same term, strikingly enough, used for what the soldiers did to Jesus’ garments before they cast lots, Mk. 15:24 & Luke 23:34). So, while we can discuss the principles of how the Supper is observed, bringing in the entire biblical story to inform that, we should not accuse churches of disobedience based upon one perspective of the details of the text.
Response from Jordan
Dear Mr Smith,
I tried to be a bit careful in reserving the charge of “disobedience” for only certain things. “Failure to follow the example” would be my more general “charge.” To the extent that I was not clear (and in a brief blog, I’m sure I was not sufficiently so), please excuse it. Your general point is certainly valid: Given that there are debatable aspects of what the Scriptures enjoin, we should not be quick to accuse others of disobedience. I’m really accusing the churches of carelessness.
You raise interesting points. It seems to me, however, that Matthew 26:29, Mark 14:25, & Luke 22:18 & 16 indicate that Jesus drank of the cup He shared, and ate of the bread also. Otherwise, I don’t see that His statements make much sense. Why vow not to do it again if He had not just done it? More generally, it is quite clear that Jesus drinks of a CUP that He says that Peter will later drink from also. Hence, it makes perfect sense for Him to drink first as He institutes the Supper. And since the Cup is the outpouring of His blood, and His own death, then there is no reason to think He did not eat of the bread also. Jesus’ sacrifice is not only something unique FOR us, but is also something that we participate in by extending it for the life of the world. That’s why the epistles call on us to be living sacrifices, to be poured out as libations, etc.
As for 1 Corinthians 11, I’m sorry but I cannot see your point of view at all. Paul contrasts what is going on with eating and drinking at home. That is, he’s commenting on an Agape. This just has nothing to do with eating and drinking simultaneously. Do you know of any commentator who takes it that way?
Finally, it’s true that Luke gives more details and uses different words. As someone convinced that Matthew is first, almost immediately after Pentecost, and that Matthew gives the original prescriptions for the churches to use, I don’t think Luke theological variations apply to the rite itself. (See on this blog, March 20, 2008.)
Anyway, thank you for your posting, and for reminding us all to be more careful.