Christianity's covenant renewal: Worthiness and communion

Christianity's covenant renewal: Worthiness and communion

Church views on communion - what it is and what it means - vary widely.  Traditionally, we acknowledge three views.  Two are sacramental (meaning they are a means of dispensing grace to humans from God) and one is symbolic (meaning it merely reminds us of what Christ did on the cross).  The first two are far more concerned about I Cor 11:29: For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.  After all, if you are flippantly consuming what is ACTUALLY, in substance and meaning, the flesh of the crucified messiah, could there be a greater insult?  The third view seeks a variety of ways to interpret that verse.  Most that I have heard focus on defining one of three words: worthy, judgment, and body.  What does it mean to be worthy, what kind of judgment are we talking about, and what is this cracker and grape juice about anyway?  In asking these two question, the meaning of the verse is often summarily dismissed.  You're worthy by virtue of belief in Christ (what that actually MEANS is another discussion altogether), the judgment ranges from "your prayers won't be heard" to "you look like a fool" but is usually not really substantial, and I cannot tell you how many times I've heard a pastor include in a communion sermonette the disclaimer, "This is just a cracker and some juice."  Now that all of my Zwinglian communion-partaking friends are up in arms at the suggestion that they disregard scripture, I will politely ask that you offer a more accurate representation of your definition in the comments if you have one.  It's not my view, and it's been crammed down my throat in the Pentecostal/Non-Denominational Church for the past thirty years, so I freely admit, I am biased.

With that said, I'm not sure I entirely agree with my Catholic or Lutheran friends either.  At least, not on the sacramental bit.  I'm more inclined to trans/con-substantiation (it's a technicality to me, really) than symbolism not on the basis of church tradition or anything to do with sacraments, but because of John 6:51-58:

“I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.”

The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?”

Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. This is the bread which came down from heaven–not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.”

And, most importantly, verse 66:

From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more.

Jesus used some very crude, offensive language in this passage.  Eat his flesh?  Drink his blood?  How revolting to a Jew with strict dietary laws!  This wasn't a surprise to him; he knew how difficult these words would be to accept.  He could have used a metaphor less offensive to his Jewish brothers if he meant for it to be metaphorical.  He could've easily said, "My blood is LIKE drink" or corrected their misunderstanding by saying, "This is a parable."  Or started out by saying, "Here's a parable"!  Instead, he turns to his disciples and says, "Do you want to leave me, too?"  You can't say he didn't KNOW they would be offended, or that there was no other metaphor he could have used.  Therefore, if you say that Jesus didn't mean his words quite literally, you're saying that he deliberately led all of these people astray.

A necessary disclaimer: Yes, this is the book of John and the words of Christ are viewed through the lens of later reflection.  But let's be clear, this was NOT something added in by a Catholic church trying to substantiate its view of communion.  No matter how much we may want to throw this away on the basis of "later church addition", it's in the earliest manuscripts.  The Fourth Gospel writer(s) wrote it and it survives as scripture. 

Back to the topic at hand: a proper interpretation of communion worthiness.

I am a strong advocate of interpreting our Christian traditions on the basis of their Jewish origins.  The corresponding Jewish tradition in this case is quite obvious: Passover.  Passover is a renewal of the covenant between God and Israel.  I see communion as a renewal of the covenant between God and me (or us, rather, since Passover is definitively about community identification).  So if this is the case, what about that pesky verse in Corinthians?

"For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." I Cor 11:29

It wasn't really an option for the children of Israel to partake in Passover unworthily.  The unworthy person (who would "eat and drink judgment" because they didn't discern the significance) was strictly prohibited from participation.  There wasn't even a penalty stipulated ("If he eats it, you shall do this.")  It was just NOT going to happen.  No foreigners were to partake of the Passover.  PERIOD.  A foreigner is identified, very explicitly, as someone not in covenant with Yahweh (ie uncircumcised).  If a foreigner wishes to become an Israelite, let him be circumcised into covenant, then he can participate in Passover.  (Exodus 12:43-50)

This doesn't feel good to our modern sensibilities.  Everyone should be allowed to participate in communion, right off the street!  This isn't some cult ritual only for the special elect ones!  Well… no.  True, it's not our job to regulate a man's relationship with God.  If he says he's in covenant relationship - his heart has been circumcised - we really have to take him at his word.  Whether or not someone is "saved" is the one thing we can't judge.  But God can.  People need to be aware that by participating in communion, they are proclaiming, "I am in a lifelong covenant with God."  Lying about that in order to have some crackers and juice is something no sensible person would do unless they didn't realize what they were saying.  Our job is not to regulate who can and cannot receive communion, it is to make certain all participants understand the significance of what they're doing.  At that point, it's between them and God.

One final note: what about children?

Some children are born into covenant.  Their parent(s) have a covenant with God that extends to them until they reach an age (different for each child) where they have the maturity and understanding to make their own covenant with God and become directly accountable to him.  Personally, I see no problem with these children partaking in communion that is MEDIATED by their parents.  The children in the household were permitted to participate in Passover and, in fact, their questions about "Why do we do this?" form the basis of the tradition being passed down from one generation to the next. 

Some children are not born into covenant.  These children come to the church "off the street", either out of a well-meaning parent's efforts to instill morality through Sunday School or they are friends of covenant children who tag along.  I am NOT proposing that these children are not important to God; they are VITAL to expansion of the kingdom.  But they have no context for understanding communion/Passover, and are the very definition of foreigners.  When they become old enough to initiate their own covenant with God (again, a different age for each child) then the significance of communion/Passover should be explained to them.

Because any Sunday School has a mix of these two groups of children, it is best if communion isn't offered as part of Sunday School worship.  But it need not be denied to children in "grown up" service whose parents accept the responsibility for their education and understanding of what they're doing.