The first Sunday in October was World Communion Sunday, except it didn’t include most of the people of the world, including the Roman Catholic church, the Eastern Orthodox church, the Episcopal church, and the Lutherans. Most people correctly have an idea that bread and wine are somehow connected to Jesus but have no clue how divisive a subject it has been in the Christian church. Catholics assert that the bread and the wine literally become the body and blood of Jesus. Lutherans can’t quite buy the literal business and so say that their risen savior is present “in, with, and under” the elements. Most other Western churches simply say that the “meal” is sort of a trip down memory lane.  

The problem, at least for me, is that the origin of the sacrament, as commonly understood, is highly questionable. It is assumed that Jesus and his disciples entered Jerusalem at Passover, and the night before his arrest, he shared a meal with his disciples, all 12 of them, all men, an assumption that apparently forgets that Jesus had women disciples as well. We are led by St Paul, who wrote 25 years after the crucifixion, to believe “…that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body that is broken for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, he took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” 

This description of what we call the Lord’s Supper [Mass, Eucharist, Holy Communion] is given in the textual context of Paul describing another early Christian custom, that of the common meal. These were occasions when rich and poor alike came together to share food and drink, all equal, all together. The problem at the church group in Corinth, to whom Paul wrote his letter, was that instead of sharing, the rich arrived early and ate and drank so that nothing was left for the poorer members. As Paul wrote: “One goes hungry while another becomes drunk. What!!” So we have two types of concurrent meals, the common meal, and the communion meal – confused and confusing. The question that arises is whether they can be disentangled and, if so, did they have different origins?

I think that the answer to both questions is yes. Beginning with the common meal, it certainly seems to be a natural result of the community “family of friends” gathered by Jesus. Not only did they share what they had, but anyone who emulated them would also see sharing as essential to their life together; in the earliest communities, there was neither male nor female, rich nor poor. It is doubtful that these early communes lasted long, but in Acts chapters 2 and 4 we find remembrances of this early idealized community: “and all who believed were together and had all things in common”. It did not take long, at least in Corinth, for the rich to slide back into their old ways, although given the addictive nature of wealth, 25 years is plenty of time for backsliding. And so Paul is shocked- the rich eat and get drunk while others go hungry. Not what Jesus had in mind.

Jesus challenged, criticized, and condemned the rich and powerful in both his teaching and his life. The wealthy establishment, centered in the Temple, was sufficiently threatened by Jesus that they had him crucified. In order to escape the impression that they had murdered a hero of the population, the rich and powerful created the notion that Jesus had to die, that his crucifixion was the centerpiece of God’s plan of salvation, his death being a sacrifice that, in some magical way atoned for the sins of the people. Although it was a one-time historical event, the Lord’s Supper was proclaimed to be a re-enactment of this sacrifice, focused on confessing one’s personal sin and awaiting the return of the Savior sometime in the future. It had nothing to do with the injustice that pervaded society right then and there. That was what the other meal was all about. If a Christian wants to mystically celebrate Christ’s presence in the bread and wine, that’s all well and good. But we must not lose sight of that other meal.

Speaking for myself, communion has no connection to “Jesus dying for my sins”. It has no connection to my confessing sins. It has rather to do with the painful awareness of the economic inequality of human life. But beyond that pain lies another dimension, and that is the assurance that, ultimately, God makes all things right. Included in that assurance is the conviction that although Jesus was crucified and his body destroyed, his Spirit lived on, inspiring his followers. Not “just” a spiritual presence, but Real Spirit, really alive, a mode of being that although transcending comprehension, is nonetheless absolutely true. 

From this pilgrim’s perspective, sharing the bounty of the earth is what true communion is all about.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Author

A Fellow Pilgrim – Notes Along The Way

Offering observations, comments, and questions by a fellow Pilgrim.