Toward a Theology of the Pre-cut Bread
In this post I propose to begin a conversation on whether a theology can be imagined that would give meaning to the symbol of pre-cut bread. I don't know whether it is possible, but we'll see what happens.
1. A theology of accomodation (i.e. the incarnation)
1A. Practical Issues of Accomodation
It seems that one of the primary impulses to use pre-cut bread is to accomodate certain practical elements within the worship space. These might be (1) hygenic elements (its "cleaner") and (2) time elements (its faster...is it really faster?). It seems to me that the idea that something is more practical for worship is not neccessarily a strike against it. In a very strong sense, the incarnation was a very practical event. It was, dare I say, an accomodation to our humanness. In the incarnation we see a God who cares about the practical issues of being human taking on the practical limitations of humanity. Therefore, practical considerations are sanctified and made holy. Therefore, the practical consideration of accomodating hygenic concerns could be a legitimate choice in the worship space. Taken to the extreme on the other end (an anti-accomodationist perspective) one would have to get rid of all sorts of human accomodations (buildings, pews, sound system, scheduled meeting time, bulletins, heat and air-conditioning, lighting, asthetic beauty, etc.).
1B. Relational issues of accomodation
In my field education church, I found that many accomodations in communion were taken to help appease various concerns individuals had about various practices. For example, people were a little "grossed" out by the idea of dipping bread into a cup that had other pieces of bread floating around in it. The solution: have two cups on hand to play tag-team. The acolyte was then "fishing" out the pieces of bread with a spoon in the wayward cup. At first glance this seems silly to me. But it is accomodating people's "needs" in this act. I don't want to say that worship is about accomodating people's needs, but I do want to say that in the incarnation, God accomodated our physical needs, relational, and material needs. They are not unimportant. And so if having a tag-team cup helps bring someone to the table to begin with, then I'm up for making the "accomodation" to get them there and then working with them once they're there.
2. A theology of Hygine
2A. "Ceremonial/Cleanliness Laws"
It seems to me that any problem the NT has with "ceremonial" laws in the OT have more to do with priorities than the existence of them. For example, its not that the pharisess were following these laws but that they were choosing to follow certain laws (sabbath laws for instance) over other more important laws (justice laws). Jesus never seems to categorically throw out these laws. But rather reprioritizes them. Some of these OT laws certainly seem to have a hygenic function (see for example my favorite backpacking verser: Deut 23:13). So hygine is not necessarily in and of itself a bad thing and may even be a good thing to think about in a spiritual way.
2B. A Call to Physical Healing
Jesus came to heal the sick. What does it mean that we would institute a form of communion that could (probably does) lead to physical unhealth? Our call to help people heal physically should have some ramifications for our practice of communion.
So that's about it for now. I look forward to your responses.
Tom
1. A theology of accomodation (i.e. the incarnation)
1A. Practical Issues of Accomodation
It seems that one of the primary impulses to use pre-cut bread is to accomodate certain practical elements within the worship space. These might be (1) hygenic elements (its "cleaner") and (2) time elements (its faster...is it really faster?). It seems to me that the idea that something is more practical for worship is not neccessarily a strike against it. In a very strong sense, the incarnation was a very practical event. It was, dare I say, an accomodation to our humanness. In the incarnation we see a God who cares about the practical issues of being human taking on the practical limitations of humanity. Therefore, practical considerations are sanctified and made holy. Therefore, the practical consideration of accomodating hygenic concerns could be a legitimate choice in the worship space. Taken to the extreme on the other end (an anti-accomodationist perspective) one would have to get rid of all sorts of human accomodations (buildings, pews, sound system, scheduled meeting time, bulletins, heat and air-conditioning, lighting, asthetic beauty, etc.).
1B. Relational issues of accomodation
In my field education church, I found that many accomodations in communion were taken to help appease various concerns individuals had about various practices. For example, people were a little "grossed" out by the idea of dipping bread into a cup that had other pieces of bread floating around in it. The solution: have two cups on hand to play tag-team. The acolyte was then "fishing" out the pieces of bread with a spoon in the wayward cup. At first glance this seems silly to me. But it is accomodating people's "needs" in this act. I don't want to say that worship is about accomodating people's needs, but I do want to say that in the incarnation, God accomodated our physical needs, relational, and material needs. They are not unimportant. And so if having a tag-team cup helps bring someone to the table to begin with, then I'm up for making the "accomodation" to get them there and then working with them once they're there.
2. A theology of Hygine
2A. "Ceremonial/Cleanliness Laws"
It seems to me that any problem the NT has with "ceremonial" laws in the OT have more to do with priorities than the existence of them. For example, its not that the pharisess were following these laws but that they were choosing to follow certain laws (sabbath laws for instance) over other more important laws (justice laws). Jesus never seems to categorically throw out these laws. But rather reprioritizes them. Some of these OT laws certainly seem to have a hygenic function (see for example my favorite backpacking verser: Deut 23:13). So hygine is not necessarily in and of itself a bad thing and may even be a good thing to think about in a spiritual way.
2B. A Call to Physical Healing
Jesus came to heal the sick. What does it mean that we would institute a form of communion that could (probably does) lead to physical unhealth? Our call to help people heal physically should have some ramifications for our practice of communion.
So that's about it for now. I look forward to your responses.
Tom
posted by Tom Arthur at 6:54 AM
6 Comments:
I guess I will begin at the beginning king.
1. theology of accomodation. We are not God. That is vitally important to remember and not said with any drop of facetiousness. The ordained do not kenote to the level of the laity. The logic of accomadating to someones hygenic desires and God becoming man fails because we are not God. And wouldn't kenosis be even more greater if he came down even to the form of baked wheat instead of being limited (we are limiting God) to what our laity can imagine. I really could on a lot on this but I will try and continue with your post.
Practical Issues. You are pushing the universal over the particular by saying not only that the act itself can be altered at the whim of a local pastor, but that any part of it that might cause angst for the parishioner must be torn away. The pastorite should not only submit to the narrow vision imagination of the laity (and it is a narrow one if it must be accomodated too) but he or she must submit to the holy spirit working within the tradition of the church. The church historically has not been a place for whimsical innovation. And while Paul was all things to all people in 1 cor 9, he followed a liturgical manner in the lord's supper in 1 cor 11 which he didn't want people to waver from and he said "Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord." There can be a wrong way to celebrate the Lord's Supper, whether it be internal (explicit for paul) or external (i would say is implicit for paul) and the church should not accomodate itself to sin. Thinking about eucharist hygenically and in your manner of temporality both puts the practitioner above the practice and above the Lord who sacrificed.
Oh, and I take a little offense at saying that aesthetic beauty is a human accomodation. I would happily get rid of buildings and pews and sound systems and meeting times and bulletins and heat and air and lighting, but beauty is the glory of God and should be lifted up in praise of creation.
I might go on later...
I want to echo Wilson’s comments about the aesthetic value of the drama of liturgy. Beauty is the object of the erõs dimension of love. In saying this, I refer to the love made possible once God’s grasp of us has corrected our navel-gazing blindness. In that state of grace, when we consider the breathtaking experiences of a beautiful racehorse or a beautiful eagle or a gorgeous Labrador Retriever, it becomes clear that the common denominator is our perception of excellence for a particular purpose. We apprehend, as through a mirror, the Creator beyond the created. When we admire a beautiful sunset, we who have seen many sunsets recognize in it an excellence well-suited to the simple purpose of demanding that we pause to rest our minds as day gives way to night. When we see a particularly beautiful painting or drama or read a beautiful poem or a story that brings tears to our eyes, we recognize in it an excellence in touching our hearts while communicating a truth about life as we have experienced it.
When we think of beauty in this way, we see that beauty is what expresses truth for us in a profound way. Thus, beauty and truth are closely related. Indeed, they are two different faces of the same ultimate reality; they are God’s energeia that is revealed to us progressively. Beauty is the aesthetic expression of truth, and truth is the meaning implied by beauty. Erõs, by driving us to become as one with the beautiful and true, is the engine of our creativity. To express the true, we create beauty. When we stand before the sublime, we confront Mystery. When the beauty of the Eucharist grasps us and we become restless to know the Mystery, our lives are enriched with a taste of the timeless.
Erõs towards beauty drives every artistic effort and every meaningful liturgy. In a sense, one can say that erõs directed towards beauty is our highway to the holy, for it transforms our reality by turning us toward others and God in our effort to unite with the sublime and the ultimate.
Derek's comment reminded me of something. I guess Amy Laura Hall has an anecdote that she pulls out in ethics: There was this church that took communion from the common bread and cup (I'm not sure if she was personally involved with this church), and a member was diagnosed with HIV/AIDS. They met to discuss what to do about it. Their decision: let the HIV/AIDS patient partake first, to avoid the germs; then everyone else take from the same cup.
A moving decision. Wise? I'll let you guys duke that out.
Tom M.
First, I'll concede on the "beauty" issue realizing I have gotten in over my head on a term which is significantly loaded. I did not mean to use beauty in the way that I think it was taken. I meant it in a personal subjective sense (though I suspect I am even over my head in that characterization).
Second, as to the "we are not God" comment. You're going to have to do a lot more work for me to see or understand how my suggestions are suggesting taking God's place. I certainly don't understand my position as such. So in the generic I agree, "We are not God." But in the particular, I don't see how my "toward a theology" suggests that we are. I was not suggesting that the ordained "kenote" to the laity but rather that God "kenotes" to the laity. I am but a means to another end, God. As are the elements. I have, Wilson, by your stark "kenosis into bread" comment grasped more fully the weight of this discussion for you. I cannot come anywhere near accepting that God kenotes into "baked wheat."
Third, I think you use the word "whim" as a characterization of my position a bit too whimsically. I make these comments within a rather broad historical Christian setting. I think that denominations who make them do so in that manner as well. It appears to me that you are suggesting that if one doesn't fit within a liturgical pattern of choice, one must be doing so whimiscially. I wonder how one decides what is whimisical and what is not?
Fourth, "narrow vision." You suggest a "narrow vision" is one which must be accomodated to. Does not your own stance fall under this same kind of judgment?
Fifth, again you use the word "whimisical innovation." I'd like to know what your definition of "whimisical" is. Certainly the church doesn't look anything like it did after it was "born" at Pentecost (or at the choosing of the 12). So some (actually I think quite a bit) innovation has taken place. I disagree that the Holy Spirit does not prompt innovation, especially in matters of form around issues which do not have broad ecumencial and Catholic consensus (there is, to my knowledge no early church council creed on the issue of eucharist).
Sixth, I think you imply that my suggestions are an "unworthy" manner and are thus are sinful. That's quite an accusation. I think you make this accusation because you believe that God "kenotes into baked wheat." If anything less than "kenoting into baked wheat" is an unworthy manner then there are very few "real" Christians.
Seventh, you suggest that I put the practioner over the practice. I think your suggestion here leads to extremely narrow practices. Even narrow than you might want. If your suggestion is true, then what stops us from saying that the bread or wine used must be the exact kind of bread and wine Jesus used (wheat grown in the same region, even the same field, or wine made with the same grapes from the same region, or even from the same field, baked in the exact same manner--no natural gas--with the exact same tools, served on the exact same kind of serving dish with the exact same kind of cup, etc.)? The reality, I think is that communion must be interpreted into each setting. The interpretation does not put the practioner over the practice in this setting anymore than interpreting the Bible puts the interpreter over the Word of God. Interpretation is always necessary.
I hope you will provide more.
Tom
P.S. As I'm writing this I get the distinct feeling that the blog-o-sphere might have certain limitations which are severely prohibitive for holding a meaningful conversation on this topic. It might be beneficial, Wilson, for you and I to sit down over lunch sometime to reflect on these questions further.
Derek,
The very fact that you provide the option for "exceptions" suggests that whatever happens in communion is not always dependent upon a rigid interpretation of the elements.
I do like your thoughts on "floaters" though. Don't get me wrong. I think that has some very significant and theologically powerful symbolism/means of grace. I just don't think its the only possible option out there.
Tom,
I wonder what the HIV/AIDS patient thought about this arrangement.
Tom
King, you are quite correct in the limitations of the internet community so I shall keep my response brief.
I used whimsical in a certain because I feel that precut bread (in the manner described by sarah moody in particular) was used for eucharist solely by the consideration of the pastor and/or church and not by the tradition.
I used the word narrow because you used it. I was just trying to imply that it takes a far more narrow theological imagination to accomodate to certain people than it would to say that we must mold ourselves to the practice we have been given and to believe in mysteries that seem incoherent to modernity.
I will not call you sinful or any practices of the sort; I cannot being sinful myself. But I think sin is involved and this isn't just find the via media between sin and Rome or constantinople, whichever way is most comfortable for your congregation. I don't think it is about comfort or willingness to participate.
When you say communion must be interpreted into each setting, I say we have been given a setting by the Church, by our traditions respectively. It is not to us, as pastors or whomever, to interpret that for a given situation but to practice it as it has been practiced for thousands of years. Sure, if I was the arbiter of what communion should be or what is valid I might claim only palestinian wheet baked during the service and only wine crushed by jewish feet mixed with water from the jordan, but I am not the arbiter. We are not the arbiters. We can only do what we receive from those who have come before. When we become the arbiters of what is valid or invalid (and I may sound like I'm contradicting myself, but I think it is terribly consistent) the line between sin and nonsin blurs to the point of illegibility.
That's more than I wanted, but I hope that was congenial enough that we can continue this after break in person perhaps.
Post a Comment
<< Home