Canticles of the Unhomed
Thursday, April 28, 2005
The Dreamscape in Its Persistence Prosecutes Its Ethereality Upon Me
Listening to a strange combination of Jack Johnson, Xavier Rudd and the Spin Doctors. Cannot attest to my mental state.
Had a strange dream about my mother last night. She was looking for me, and even though I was in the same room as her, she walked by me. Then I left, and when I woke up, I felt a certain amount of relief; whether was because she didn't find me, or she didn't appear to want to find me, or just that I was awake, I don't know. But there you go. I think this is the first time that I remember ever dreaming about my mom.
Had some small controversy about communion at the House on Sunday. It has been making me think. What role does a non Christian (if that term even means anything) play in communion? The classical evangelical protestant response is that the non Christian cannot partake, but only observe, since it is a fundamental rite by which we (Christians - man I love these DEMARKATIONS and deliniations) identify with Christ, his sufferings, death and resurrection. How can a person proclaim the Lord's death if he/she/it does not believe in Christ? How can a nonChristian "judge the body" appropriately, and thereby avoid "eating drinking condemnation?"
I have to admit it is not sitting well with me. The more I think about it, and the more I read about it, the more I don't like it. To me, it seems that the Lord's Table is at its best when it is inclusive rather than exclusive. In the much disputed passage in 1 Corinthians 11 Paul doesn't seem to be making deliniations twixt Christian and otherwise. It seems only reasonable that there were nonChristians at the church in Corinth. (if nothing else, their behavior should suggest that.) Paul's language is inclusive, in that he seems to be addressing the entire church body, not a certain group, beyond singling out those that didn't wait for the poor.
It seems to me that the Lord's Table represents the UNITY of the community, and the community is bound to include those that would be classically defined at nonChristians. It seems to me that Paul is addressing the fact of the divisions in the community at Corinth, and that by the virtue of those divisions, made evident in the rich not waiting for the poor, and that it is those divisions that are profaning the table, not the spiritual "state" of the participants.
It seems to me that the centre of the community is Christ, and that any that come to the community understands this, and becomes part of the community sometimes because of this, and sometimes in spite of this. Some come because they share an intrinsic bond of spiritual brother/sisterhood inherent in their shared spiritual heritage. Some come because they wish to better understand or experience this spiritual heritage. Some come because they desire acceptance and the relationships and friendships inherent in community. I cannot, nor should I, judge the validity of any person's reasons for coming to the community. But, I think that if the understanding is clear that the center of the community is Christ, and that a nonChristian comes that they will be exposed to this type of thing, and that they are as much a part of the community as anyone that calls Christ Lord, or subscribes to any of the modernist labels of christianity. That would seem to suggest to me that they have a part to play in the "proclaiming of the Lord's death until he comes again" stuff as much as I, since in terms of community, they are equal members to me.
So to exclude them from the Table seems ludicrious. And yet.
And yet, it is a difficult thing to throw away 2000 years of practise. A difficult, and dangerous thing. Should we not respect the historical momentum of this? Perhaps we, the Emergent, throw away too much of the baby with the bath water.
Got all the paperwork done and away to register the House as a religious society. Now, all we have to do is wait for the government to kick our asses...
Had a strange dream about my mother last night. She was looking for me, and even though I was in the same room as her, she walked by me. Then I left, and when I woke up, I felt a certain amount of relief; whether was because she didn't find me, or she didn't appear to want to find me, or just that I was awake, I don't know. But there you go. I think this is the first time that I remember ever dreaming about my mom.
Had some small controversy about communion at the House on Sunday. It has been making me think. What role does a non Christian (if that term even means anything) play in communion? The classical evangelical protestant response is that the non Christian cannot partake, but only observe, since it is a fundamental rite by which we (Christians - man I love these DEMARKATIONS and deliniations) identify with Christ, his sufferings, death and resurrection. How can a person proclaim the Lord's death if he/she/it does not believe in Christ? How can a nonChristian "judge the body" appropriately, and thereby avoid "eating drinking condemnation?"
I have to admit it is not sitting well with me. The more I think about it, and the more I read about it, the more I don't like it. To me, it seems that the Lord's Table is at its best when it is inclusive rather than exclusive. In the much disputed passage in 1 Corinthians 11 Paul doesn't seem to be making deliniations twixt Christian and otherwise. It seems only reasonable that there were nonChristians at the church in Corinth. (if nothing else, their behavior should suggest that.) Paul's language is inclusive, in that he seems to be addressing the entire church body, not a certain group, beyond singling out those that didn't wait for the poor.
It seems to me that the Lord's Table represents the UNITY of the community, and the community is bound to include those that would be classically defined at nonChristians. It seems to me that Paul is addressing the fact of the divisions in the community at Corinth, and that by the virtue of those divisions, made evident in the rich not waiting for the poor, and that it is those divisions that are profaning the table, not the spiritual "state" of the participants.
It seems to me that the centre of the community is Christ, and that any that come to the community understands this, and becomes part of the community sometimes because of this, and sometimes in spite of this. Some come because they share an intrinsic bond of spiritual brother/sisterhood inherent in their shared spiritual heritage. Some come because they wish to better understand or experience this spiritual heritage. Some come because they desire acceptance and the relationships and friendships inherent in community. I cannot, nor should I, judge the validity of any person's reasons for coming to the community. But, I think that if the understanding is clear that the center of the community is Christ, and that a nonChristian comes that they will be exposed to this type of thing, and that they are as much a part of the community as anyone that calls Christ Lord, or subscribes to any of the modernist labels of christianity. That would seem to suggest to me that they have a part to play in the "proclaiming of the Lord's death until he comes again" stuff as much as I, since in terms of community, they are equal members to me.
So to exclude them from the Table seems ludicrious. And yet.
And yet, it is a difficult thing to throw away 2000 years of practise. A difficult, and dangerous thing. Should we not respect the historical momentum of this? Perhaps we, the Emergent, throw away too much of the baby with the bath water.
Got all the paperwork done and away to register the House as a religious society. Now, all we have to do is wait for the government to kick our asses...
:: written by Matt Thompson, 2:51 PM
2 Comments:
Well, I for one would agree with the majority who see the Lord's table as a place for disciples to gather there has not been complete unanimity over the past 200 years. For example Solomon Stoddard allowed unbaptised members of the community in Northampton to partake. A practice which his grandson Jonathan Edwards reversed, producing much controversy. Also Wesley saw communion as a converting ordinance and encouraged everyone to partake as often as possible.
I guess the question is: are the sacraments/ordinances/practices/whatever you want to call them that Christ gave to the church for the church alone or something the church is to share with those outside the church?
I guess the question is: are the sacraments/ordinances/practices/whatever you want to call them that Christ gave to the church for the church alone or something the church is to share with those outside the church?
Mack made an interesting comment to me, when he talked about the difference twixt the COMMUNITY and the BODY. Maybe some things are for the community, and some for the Body of Christ. I don't know how far I follow the reasoning, but it made me think.
You know me. As loathe as I am to even remotely appear Wesleyan, I can't escape the conclusion that communion is in fact a spiritually formitive act.
You know me. As loathe as I am to even remotely appear Wesleyan, I can't escape the conclusion that communion is in fact a spiritually formitive act.
