Monday, November 14, 2005
‘Christ Plays’ 200-212
Staff discussion proceeded along the lines of these two questions:
1. Peterson calls the Lord’s Supper a “preached parable” (p. 201), but doesn’t revisit this metaphor after introducing it. How useful (or not) is the term “parable” for understanding the sacrament of communion?
Howie noted that this term is “the language of pedagogy” rather than the language of “the mystery of encountering the presence of Christ.” Mary added that this term adds some “distance from the event” when there should be immediacy and transcendence. John said that Peterson’s framework for the Lord’s Supper—"remembered theology” and “preached theology"—is helpful, but wondered, “is that enough?” That set up the second discussion point:
2. Martha Moore-Keish connects the Eucharist and eschatology in A More Profound Alleluia. She writes:
Many biblical writers present the picture of God’s ultimate reign as that of a great feast at the end of time, when ‘many will come from east and west and will eat with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven’ (Matt. 8:11). So from earliest days the community has been necessary for celebration of the Eucharistic meal, and the Eucharist has provided a foretaste of the eschatological feast of the Lamb (Rev 19:9). (p. 116)
Are there any eschatological undertones in Peterson’s description of the Lord’s Supper? Any hints of how it foreshadows “a great feast at the end of time”? Or are these two accounts (M-K and EP) of the Lord’s Supper mostly distinct?
Mary said an eschatological undertone to Peterson’s section would have strengthened it. She said that after the passage on brokenness at the top of page 211, she wrote, “When does it get better?” She added that the sacrament “has to be pointing to wholeness.”
I added that since the feast image is a rare example of a simple and enticing picture that captures the otherwise daunting and metaphysically elusive concepts of eschatology, it would have been useful to pick up on in this chapter.
That said, there are some striking passages about the Lord’s Supper in this section, including these words on page 202:
The Eucharist stands as a bulwark against reducing our participation in salvation to the exercise of devotional practices before God or being recruited to run errands for God. It is hard to get through our heads, but the fact is that we are not in charge of salvation and we can add nothing to it. Left to ourselves to decide what is appropriate, we will only distract or dilute. Salvation is a way of life in which what we cannot do for ourselves is done for us by Jesus on the cross. At the Supper we renew our understanding and obedience in this salvation reality and receive over and over again what we cannot take or perform for ourselves but only receive. “Do this.” This Supper, received in the fear-of-the-Lord, is the remembrance and the proclamation that keep salvation rooted and grounded in Christ, and only in Christ.
Just as Sabbath-keeping protects creation from the sacrilege of being taken over by us, so Eucharist protects salvation from being dominated by our feelings and projects. Whatever we do in this world of salvation has to be rooted and grounded in the death of Christ on the Cross. Receiving the Eucharist is the definitive practice, the focal practice that keeps us attentive and responsive to Jesus as present and saving. The cultivation of this awareness and responsiveness is fundamental to anything that we do.
Earlier: 181-199
Interdisciplinary Application • Reading • (0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink