|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Magazine - Online sacraments
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
You are both confusing the sort of difference involved here. The difference between a snack and a meal is one of degree. Ultimately they are the same sort of thing, only a meal has more food involved. It is also woefully ignorant of the fact that millions upon millions have to make due with a meal of only a mouthful of bread every day! Since the Gospels do not say how much food was consumed at the Last Supper, I would imagine it was not a relevant part of Jesus' commandment.
But the difference between bread and a picture of bread is one of kind. They are not the same sort of thing. One is actual food, the other is an an arrangement of pixels on your computer screen. You eat one, you look at the other.
So all this pitching about the difference between a snack and a meal is all terribly irrelevant. An internet Eucharist isn't on the same spectrum as pontifical high mass in its similarity to the Last Supper. It is another sort of thing altogether.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Let me ask a different question: Where, exactly, does it say that communion is to be a meal as you understand it? That is, a meal like dinner, supper, etc?
All 3 gospel accounts of the Last Supper indicate Jesus and the disciples were eating a meal ("while they were eating... after the supper..."). Not that it was the meal in itself. Zach argued that Communion was doing what Jesus did; so if Jesus and the disciples were eating a meal when they took Communion, couldn't it be argued that we should be, too?
quote:
But then it’s not online. It is different people sitting in different rooms with different pieces of bread and/or wine. They aren’t gathered.
But, for the reasons I've suggested above, I think people can gather online - if we accept that people don't have to be physically in the same place to be together.
quote:
And no one has answered this question yet: Since the (ordained?) minister presiding cannot intend to consecrate every particular piece of bread that happens to be used in services where his recorded voice is used (since he doesn’t know how many they are, where they are, etc.), wouldn’t you have to assume, then, that he actually has to intend to consecrate every piece of bread in the whole world, just to ‘cover his bases’?
As was pointed out above, not every theology of Communion requires the bread to be consecrated, so this wouldn't necessarily be a problem for those who subscribe to theologies and traditions like that.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
[x-post, responding to Zach]
How nice of you to clarify that the kinds of differences you approve of are okay, but the kinds of differences you don't approve of aren't.
We already went over this when you said that communion was "basically" the same thing that people had been doing down the centuries.
Which differences matter and which ones don't is surely a matter of opinion, once you've gone down the path of allowing differences at all, rather than insisting on proper recreation of a Passover meal. It comes down to what the purpose of the enterprise is.
It frequently seems to me is that your interest is very much on recreating particular elements, because of something you can see in a text, without asking WHY you're doing it. What's the point?
If Jesus said "do this in remembrance of me", surely the MAIN purpose is the remembrance, rather than the doing? Surely?
That's what I mean when I talk about how we shouldn't dismiss the 'ancients'. Human nature hasn't really changed. Thought processes haven't really changed. I can understand remembrance of Jesus' sacrifice perfectly well two centuries later.
What I can't understand is locking in physical details of how to do that for all time. Not that I have anything against gathering together, blessing bread and wine and remembering Jesus' sacrifice. I'm just not convinced that this is the only permissible method of carrying out the intended remembrance.
You know what it feels like to me? Imagine if Jesus was around circa 1990 and said "play this CD at your gatherings". Because he said "play this CD" instead of "play this music", you'd be swearing blind that it's absolutely vital the music come from a CD and not from an mp3 file. In two thousand years time, you'd be insisting with iron resolution that whatever new music-playing things we'd come up with just would not do the job.
[ 08. July 2012, 05:25: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
Other people have already responded as I would, but a couple more things...
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Where, exactly, does it say that communion is to be a meal as you understand it? That is, a meal like dinner, supper, etc?
As has already pointed out, it was a meal. But if you think that's not good enough, and it should say somewhere that our communions should also be meals, well that would make sense under a bible as a textbook type of understanding of scripture. I just don't see the bible like that. It's not a textbook, and shouldn't be read as such.
To go back to my "good enough" principles from earlier in the thread, I think that ideally, communion should include a full meal. I understand that's not practical, so in its place, just bread and wine on a Sunday morning is good enough. If someone is house-bound then a home visit is good enough. If no-one can visit them (or there's some other good reason), sharing real bread and wine online is good enough. I'm undecided as to whether an online sacrament without real food is good enough. I'll be looking forward to the experiment with interest.
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
And no one has answered this question yet: Since the (ordained?) minister presiding cannot intend to consecrate every particular piece of bread that happens to be used in services where his recorded voice is used (since he doesn’t know how many they are, where they are, etc.), wouldn’t you have to assume, then, that he actually has to intend to consecrate every piece of bread in the whole world, just to ‘cover his bases’?
As I said, I don't have that theology, so it's hard to put myself into that mindset, but I guess it would be the difference between seeing consecration as a kind of magical spell, or as an act of dedication to God. If its the latter (which I think is much more reasonable), then, knowing that God is omniscient, they can trust that they can dedicate to God the different bread that will be eaten by the different people that will take part in that communion.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Don't our communion celebrations reflect back to the ceremonial, formal part of a the Passover meal? That which Jesus was eating with his disciples? Does not this sharing of the bread and wine look back to the way the matzoh bread and cup are shared in the Jewish tradition? And having eaten a few of those meals there is nothing about a normal meal in those formal parts - it's all tastes and symbols. The meal follows afterwards.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
You are both confusing the sort of difference involved here. The difference between a snack and a meal is one of degree.
So, if we ever find ourselves together on a sinking ship, I'll take the wooden lifeboat and you'll take the tooth pick, since the difference between them is only a matter of degree?
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Don't our communion celebrations reflect back to the ceremonial, formal part of a the Passover meal? That which Jesus was eating with his disciples? Does not this sharing of the bread and wine look back to the way the matzoh bread and cup are shared in the Jewish tradition?
That's another interesting question. There's certainly Passover imagery in some of the accounts. But many scholars suggest that the wider "table fellowship" context seen throughout the gospels and the rest of the NT is at least as significant.
If the Passover => Communion link was central during the First Century, I would have expected the Early Church to have sorted out the Passion Week chronology. It's very hard to place the Last Supper consistently wrt Passover in those accounts, which suggests to me that the link wasn't foremost in the minds of those who wrote and evaluated the gospels. Apparently the earliest extra-biblical sources don't link the Last Supper and Passover either.
"Scholars increasingly recognise, therefore, that for a proper understanding of the roots of Christian Eucharistic practice, the Last Supper needs to be set within the broader context of shared meals that seem to have been characteristic of Jesus and of his first followers." (Bradshaw, "Early Christian Worship", p41).
[ 08. July 2012, 09:22: Message edited by: Melon ]
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
How nice of you to clarify that the kinds of differences you approve of are okay, but the kinds of differences you don't approve of aren't.
I approve of? Do I really need to point out again that the Bible lists what was used, but not how much?
Do it. Find an account of how much bread Jesus used in the Bible. Prove that your argument is at ALL relevant, and that this isn't all some joke.
For myself, I think a snack is just "a small meal." You might imagine a huge difference between a snack and a meal, but I can't see it.
quote:
If Jesus said "do this in remembrance of me", surely the MAIN purpose is the remembrance, rather than the doing? Surely?
Here we are again, in the argument that will loop around again and again unto eternity. You cut "Do this in remembrance of me" to just "Remember me." The Orfeo Version of the Bible. I'll pass, thank you.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I think you can look at two statements:
1. Remember me by doing this.
2. Do this in order to remember me.
Whichever one Jesus meant, they both involve two parts, remembering and doing this. If you leave out either, you're not following his instruction.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Let me ask a different question: Where, exactly, does it say that communion is to be a meal as you understand it? That is, a meal like dinner, supper, etc?
All 3 gospel accounts of the Last Supper indicate Jesus and the disciples were eating a meal ("while they were eating... after the supper..."). Not that it was the meal in itself. Zach argued that Communion was doing what Jesus did; so if Jesus and the disciples were eating a meal when they took Communion, couldn't it be argued that we should be, too?
Maybe. But no one is denying that the first Christians did share a larger meal with eachother. We see that in 1Cor 11, which is also the biblical basis for the separation of the two. But we need to ask: What is the essence of communion? What did Christ command?
The only thing Christ commanded was that one should take bread, bless/give thanks over the bread, break the bread, distribute the bread, take wine, bless/give thanks over the wine, distribute the wine, eat the bread and drink the wine. Now, there are certain questions in addition to this: Did Christ give all of these commandments to each Christian, or just to the Apostles? I’m inclined to believe that the commandment to ‘make’ the bread and the wine (bless and give thanks over them), and to consume both is a command to the Apotles, while the ‘avarage’ Christian can partake over either one, or both.
The reason for my inclination is that this is the most ancient interpretation and the fact that only the Apostles where with Christ when he did command this. And when St. Paul ‘commanded’ the consumption (1Cor 11:27), his statement can be interpreted to the effect that you could partake of just one of the species. (Also see what I wrote above.)
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
And no one has answered this question yet: Since the (ordained?) minister presiding cannot intend to consecrate every particular piece of bread that happens to be used in services where his recorded voice is used (since he doesn’t know how many they are, where they are, etc.), wouldn’t you have to assume, then, that he actually has to intend to consecrate every piece of bread in the whole world, just to ‘cover his bases’?
As was pointed out above, not every theology of Communion requires the bread to be consecrated, so this wouldn't necessarily be a problem for those who subscribe to theologies and traditions like that.
But since this was one of the argument given in favour of this by the ones who wanted to start it, it is highly relevant.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Whichever one Jesus meant, they both involve two parts, remembering and doing this. If you leave out either, you're not following his instruction.
Right! So now we just have to agree what he meant by "this". Some of the options are
- The Passover meal, once a year, which is what Jehovah's Witnesses do
- Whenever you eat together
- Whenever you organise a special meal among Christians
And there are other options. But, in all honesty, "Whenever you consume a homeopathic quantity of something chewy and something red, on a Sunday, in a special building, presided by someone with special qualifications" isn't the meaning of "this" that leaps off the page when I read the gospels.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
The only thing Christ commanded was that one should take bread, bless/give thanks over the bread, break the bread, distribute the bread, take wine, bless/give thanks over the wine, distribute the wine, eat the bread and drink the wine.
Really? Off the top of my head I don't think the gospels record Jesus telling anyone, explicitly and in direct speech, to do any of those things. The narrator describes quite a complex scene involving upper rooms, all-male company, sometimes proximity to the Passover, proximity to Christ's death... And then, after that quite complex picture has been painted, Jesus says "do this".
As I just wrote in response to Mousethief, there are lots of possible readings of "do this" in that context. Personally, I think "whenever you break bread together to share a meal..." is a strong contender. But, whatever the answer, it is absolutely not self-evident that the sort of rite the church more or less settled on half a millenium after the Resurrection is exactly what Jesus had in mind. The previous 5 centuries of twists and turns in both baptismal and communion praxis suggest the exact opposite.
There's a huge danger for all of us in this area of reading our own praxis back into Scripture. So, for example, when we read 1 Corinthians it's easy for all of us to imagine this letter being read at the front of our church. But our churches are significantly different to the Corinthian church (and, in other ways, to other First Century churches) in many many ways. As I've said before, I'm not sure that the original readers of 1 Corinthians would even recognise what we call communion as something they practised themselves.
[ 08. July 2012, 22:24: Message edited by: Melon ]
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
But we need to ask: What is the essence of communion? What did Christ command?
Exactly. However, it appears that if I arrive at an answer different to Zach's it means I'm rewriting the Bible. Whereas he, presumably, is reading it just as it was intended. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
But we need to ask: What is the essence of communion? What did Christ command?
Exactly.
I'm not entirely sure it is about what Christ 'commanded'. I think that Jesus was pretty reticent about giving out lots of commandments (that seems to be more the OT style). There's a difference between saying "do this" and saying "I command you to do this".
In other words, he's not saying "My decree is that you should have communion" (whatever we mean by that)", but "Do this - it will help you remember me".
The difference might be subtle, but for me that difference is doing something because Jesus knows best and it's good for me, not Jesus is the boss so I'd better do what he says.
Like when scripture says "Fear not!" - if you do fear, the issue isn't that you've broken the rules, but that you're not reaping the benefits of trusting God.
Whereas, things that Jesus does directly command (like loving God and loving people) are very difficult, important for me and other people, and are fundamental to his message and person, so it makes sense that he phrases them in the form of commandments.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Noted. I wasn't particularly focused on the word 'command', truth be told, and I could have just as easily stopped the quote at "what is the essence of communion?".
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
The only thing Christ commanded was that one should take bread, bless/give thanks over the bread, break the bread, distribute the bread, take wine, bless/give thanks over the wine, distribute the wine, eat the bread and drink the wine.
Really? Off the top of my head I don't think the gospels record Jesus telling anyone, explicitly and in direct speech, to do any of those things. The narrator describes quite a complex scene involving upper rooms, all-male company, sometimes proximity to the Passover, proximity to Christ's death... And then, after that quite complex picture has been painted, Jesus says "do this".
The greek text is actually quite clear. In Luk 22:19, Christ says “this is my body,” and “do this.” Now, ‘this is’ (τοῦτό ἐστιν) is gramatically linked to ‘do this’ (τοῦτο ποιεῖτε). What Christ is indeed saying is “do the bread.” Now, what did he do with the bread? He took it, he gave thanks over it, he broke it and distributed it. That is what the text says. It’s not complicated at all.
And I suspect that the complex picture you are talking about is the picture yiu get from reading all the Gospel narratives. But the question here is what, exactly, Christ meant when he said “do this in remembrance of me.” Here the text is quite clear.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
The greek text is actually quite clear. In Luk 22:19, Christ says “this is my body,”
If we can just stop there for a moment... Jesus says those words, incarnate, in the room. He has a body with arms and legs and everything. Everyone in the room can see this. So, whatever else is going on here, Jesus' "This IS my body" in the present tense, cannot be referring, literally, in the present tense, to the bread in his body's hands, unless at that point Jesus had two bodies - the flesh and blood one and the bready one. Although I'm thinking we could create a really weird sect by pursuing that possibility.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
The context is a last meal before the passion. Jesus knew this, and despite Jesus having taught about it the disciples were caught by surprise about what happened next.
We have hindsight, we know the sequence, last meal-Gethsemene-arrest-trial-crucifixion. (We also have the hindsight of Resurrection which is why we celebrate the Passion, but this is a tangent.)
Jesus said, "Do this." Do what exactly? Break the bread? Eat the meal? Remember? The debate has been going on for centuries.
If it was simply to remember then why the command to do something physical? If all the communion is about is remembering then why the command to do something physical. "Do this in remembrance of me." So whatever this is it isn't simply about rememrance alone. If it was there would have been no need to do something, simply remembering would be enough.
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
If we can just stop there for a moment... Jesus says those words, incarnate, in the room. He has a body with arms and legs and everything. Everyone in the room can see this. So, whatever else is going on here, Jesus' "This IS my body" in the present tense, cannot be referring, literally, in the present tense, to the bread in his body's hands, unless at that point Jesus had two bodies - the flesh and blood one and the bready one. Although I'm thinking we could create a really weird sect by pursuing that possibility.
Jesus was God incarnate. If you are saying that God could not be present in the bread and wine, a position you seem to be ridiculing with the two bodies straw man, then God could not have been present in the dove what came down on Jesus at his baptism, or in the voice, or in the voice on the transfiguration. Yhe beleif is that Jesus is present by the power of the spirit in the elements of communion, as he was at the Last Supper.
Is this the view of a sect?
Must be a big one, because those who believe in real presence in some form in communion include the Roman Catholic Church, eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches, Lutherans, Calvin believed in real presence, so that's reformed churches too, and the majority of Anglicans. Even a large number of Evangelicals believe in the real presence in some form.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Balaam:
If it was simply to remember then why the command to do something physical? If all the communion is about is remembering then why the command to do something physical. "Do this in remembrance of me." So whatever this is it isn't simply about rememrance alone. If it was there would have been no need to do something, simply remembering would be enough.
Why shouldn't Jesus command/invite us to do something physical to help us remember? Surely the breaking of the bread acts as a powerful picture/acted-out metaphor of what would happen to Jesus on the cross - simple, yet sticks in the memory. There's no reason in the world why you can't use something physical as a means of remembering.
And if Jesus meant something more than that, why didn't He spell it out as clearly as He did the "in remembrance of me"? Why leave us guessing about other, more "deeper" results/actions resulting from the Supper and pick out the remembrance one if that wasn't the main point of it?
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
I wasn't saying it isn't about remembering, remembering is a very important aspect of communion which should not be minimised in any way. The point was that there is more to communion than remembrance alone.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
And if Jesus meant something more than that, why didn't He spell it out as clearly as He did the "in remembrance of me"? Why leave us guessing about other, more "deeper" results/actions resulting from the Supper and pick out the remembrance one if that wasn't the main point of it?
Jesus wasn't actually too great at spelling things out. there are lots of occasions where his disciples misunderstand, or say his teaching is 'hard'.
I don't see how 'in remembrance of me' on its own is particularly clear. At the risk of sounding like a grammar nerd, it's a fragment, not a sentence, so it doesn't have a complete meaning. 'Do this in remembrance of me' is a sentence because it tells us what to do - 'this'.
Rather typically, though, Jesus has left what we have to do open to a certain amount of interpretation. But if I was going to be as literal minded about it as Melon is being, I would say whatever 'this' is, it certainly can't mean 'log onto your computer at the same time as a lot of other people', because they didn't have any computers.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
[ 10. July 2012, 23:25: Message edited by: Arrietty ]
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
Rather typically, though, Jesus has left what we have to do open to a certain amount of interpretation. But if I was going to be as literal minded about it as Melon is being, I would say whatever 'this' is, it certainly can't mean 'log onto your computer at the same time as a lot of other people', because they didn't have any computers.
It may, however, mean something simple which could potentially be achieved online like that. "This" clearly doesn't include a PC, but it doesn't necessarily exclude it either. If Jesus had commanded his followers not to fall into debt, it would be ludicrous to say that it wasn't acceptable to use a spreadsheet to manage your finances, because Jesus didn't have a computer. It wouldn't be right to say you must use a spreadsheet either, but no one's saying that.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
But I'm using a literalist approach, so what Jesus 'might' have meant in our context is irrelevant.
As I understand Melon's post, because Jesus said 'This is my body' when he had a physical body. neither then nor at any time in the future can 'this is my body' refer in any real way to the bread in communion - it must always mean it is just a reminder of the last supper? Or Jesus' sacrifice?
(Not being a memorialist, I'm a bit confused about what exactly we're remembering, or how by remembering we're 'doing this', since presumably Jesus wasn't at that point remembering what was about to happen or what was actually happening when he said it. But I accept that's because I'm not familiar with that approach to communion.)
Taking a similarly literalist approach, there weren't any computers when Jesus said 'Do this', so whatever he meant, it can't have been anything with a computer. So discussing what Jesus might have meant if he was thinking about computers is irrelevant to 'Do this'.
[ 11. July 2012, 09:48: Message edited by: Arrietty ]
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
But if I was going to be as literal minded about it as Melon is being, I would say whatever 'this' is, it certainly can't mean 'log onto your computer at the same time as a lot of other people', because they didn't have any computers.
Which, of course, would be equally silly. I would suggest that, when a statement cannot mean what it would mean if taken literally, the normal solution is to look for a less literal meaning that allows more space for interpretation - and for cultures that do not share the table etiquette of First Century Palestine.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
As I understand Melon's post, because Jesus said 'This is my body' when he had a physical body. neither then nor at any time in the future can 'this is my body' refer in any real way to the bread in communion - it must always mean it is just a reminder of the last supper? Or Jesus' sacrifice?
Gosh, did I say any of that? My only point was that any attempt to build The One Correct Rite on "do this" (as several people above have attempted) is doomed because the scriptural statements are under-defined (compared, say, to chapter after chapter of detail on exactly how to conduct sacrifices, decorate temples etc in the OT.)
[ 11. July 2012, 10:15: Message edited by: Melon ]
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
Having slept on it...
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
The greek text is actually quite clear. In Luk 22:19, Christ says “this is my body,” and “do this.” Now, ‘this is’ (τοῦτό ἐστιν) is gramatically linked to ‘do this’ (τοῦτο ποιεῖτε). What Christ is indeed saying is “do the bread.” Now, what did he do with the bread? He took it, he gave thanks over it, he broke it and distributed it. That is what the text says. It’s not complicated at all.
With respect, I think you are confusing syntax with deep semantics.
If, today, we read "Jesus drove up to the pump, inserted the nozzle into his car, filled it and said 'Do this in remembrance of me!'", I don't think any reader would assume that he was instituting some new rite where the form of pump, nozzle, car and "fill up" were all up for abstract theological debate. We would all assume that the context is one that we know about, and that Jesus was telling us to remember him within that existing context. We would paint in a garage forecourt, and maybe a shop selling tabloid newspapers and wilted flowers.
If, today, we read "Jesus jumped onto the checkout map, put on an eye patch, stood on one leg and sang the Marseillaise, and said 'Do this in remembrance of me!", no reader today would begin to scour the world for the community where this behaviour was commonplace - we would assume that Jesus was creating some new practice and try to work out why and how we should implement that new practice.
Both statements in italics above are similar, syntactically, to "Jesus took bread ... 'do this'". Demonstrating that the "do this" refers to what came earlier is just a demonstration of the blindingly obvious. But such a demonstration, on its own cannot tell us what the paragraph means. Analysing the syntax isn't going to tell us whether Jesus is giving new meaning to existing cultural practice or creating something new. There are surely at least three options:
- Do the Passover in remembrance of me from now on
- Remember me whenever you break bread and give thanks during a typical First Century Jewish meal (as on the Road to Emmaus when, once again, Jesus was present with arms and legs)
- Create some sort of rite to repeat what happened in the Upper Room - but in that case there is clearly a huge amount of flexibility in the rite since the NT provides such sketchy details
FWIW, my money is on #2. But the reading I just cannot see is "Do exactly what my congregation happens to do today, after umpteen historical twists and turns, and insist that this is The One Right way to do it." And yet, time and time again, these are the words we put into Jesus' mouth.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
Analysing the syntax isn't going to tell us whether Jesus is giving new meaning to existing cultural practice or creating something new. There are surely at least three options:
- Do the Passover in remembrance of me from now on
- Remember me whenever you break bread and give thanks during a typical First Century Jewish meal (as on the Road to Emmaus when, once again, Jesus was present with arms and legs)
- Create some sort of rite to repeat what happened in the Upper Room - but in that case there is clearly a huge amount of flexibility in the rite since the NT provides such sketchy details
I think this explanation is brilliant, and worth my de-lurking to say so! I'd tend to agree with you in going for your option 2, but I can certainly see why many people prefer option 3.
As you say, though, the lack of detail in the NT accounts should cause those who choose option 3 to be non-dogmatic about the nature of the rite. 'We do things like this in our church / tradition' is fine but 'This is the only valid way' stretches the NT accounts beyond what they can bear, in my view.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
I would suggest that, when a statement cannot mean what it would mean if taken literally, the normal solution is to look for a less literal meaning that allows more space for interpretation - and for cultures that do not share the table etiquette of First Century Palestine.
What is puzzling me is that you appear to think there is anything novel in that approach, or that it leads logically to what you are proposing or acts as a rationale for it.
I don't really have a dog in this race - at the moment I am licenced by the C of E to work online via i-church, by accepting this licence I have undertaken to work with reference to my bishop, and I would certainly expect to consult with him before I announced that I was doing anything that might be construed as 'online communion'.
So I wouldn't offer something called a sacrament online, but my particular context has nothing at all to do with what anyone else might or might not do.
I think I only got drawn back into the discussion because it appears to have gone towards the Humpty Dumpty end of things. Humpty Dumpty, as represented by Lewis Carroll in Through the Looking Glass, says he can make words mean whatever he wants them to mean. It's an interesting philosophical point. Similarly, this thread seems to have wound up saying that actions online can mean whatever we want them to mean. Possibly an even more interesting philosophical point for those of us that enjoy discussing things online.
And it seems we may be moving even further, into quasi Bill Clinton territory, by concluding 'It depends on what your meaning of this, is'.
So maybe it all boils down to asking 'Did you take communion from that woman?' ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
So maybe it all boils down to asking 'Did you take communion from that woman?'
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
I think, to be fair though, it's not so much Humpty Dumptyish as trying to strip away all the things that have come to be inextricably associated with communion but which are interpretations of (or additions to) the gospel accounts.
I don't really have a dog in this fight either, seeing that I sit more or less on the outer fringes of church these days, but it's an interesting idea, and the experimental mindset makes much more sense to me than asserting that what Jesus actually meant was obviously to have a man in strange robes standing in a church (Jesus: "a what?") giving people individual wafers and submolecular sips of wine.
I don't recognise that as a reflection of Jesus's "this", but other people do, so that's fine. Sadly, there are plenty of people who aren't prepared to extend the same courtesy to those with a different understanding.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
What surprises me is that Melon is very keen on on line communion for shipmates but he himself takes little or no part in any ship discussion apart from this single issue.
Why does someone so out of communion with the Ship want to celebrate communion as a new initiative on the Ship?
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Because the Ship is not just the discussion boards, but also St Pixels and the magazine too. And people are involved in different areas. And as we've had pointed out to us before, the bulletin boards are a very small part of the whole thing.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
And on that note, everything CK just said applies to Melon in spades. Describing him as "out of communion" with the Ship is just screamingly inaccurate.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
Jesus wasn't actually too great at spelling things out. there are lots of occasions where his disciples misunderstand, or say his teaching is 'hard'.
I don't see how 'in remembrance of me' on its own is particularly clear. At the risk of sounding like a grammar nerd, it's a fragment, not a sentence, so it doesn't have a complete meaning. 'Do this in remembrance of me' is a sentence because it tells us what to do - 'this'.
Rather typically, though, Jesus has left what we have to do open to a certain amount of interpretation. But if I was going to be as literal minded about it as Melon is being, I would say whatever 'this' is, it certainly can't mean 'log onto your computer at the same time as a lot of other people', because they didn't have any computers.
I know Melon's already commented on this, but I didn't think he'she (sorry! ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) ) was being literalist about this. The point (as I understood it) was that some posters had claimed that Jesus, by saying "do this in remembrance of me" had made it very clear what Communion was and the way in which we were to celebrate. As you point out, that's not necessarily the case - there's a whole raft of possible interpretations for Jesus' words (some plausible, some less so), which Melon (and others, including me to a lesser extent) were pointing out.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
Sorry to double post, but the last one was getting horrendously long, so thought I'd split it up a bit.
Another thought that struck me about this, which isn't particularly aimed at anyone. I wonder, when we look at the descriptions of the Last Supper for clues or instructions or whatever about how we're to celebrate Communion, whether we're looking at them in the wrong way and for the wrong things. Three of them (Matthew, Mark and Luke) aren't passages of instruction, but stories; they don't tell us how to "do" Communion but what Jesus and the disciples did on that particular night. They probably weren't written to answer the question "how shall we celebrate Communion": "why do we celebrate Communion" or even "what is that strange stuff those Christians do with bread and wine all about" seem equally plausible questions that the gospels' accounts could be seeking to answer.
Even the passage that seems the most instructional, the 1 Cor. 11 passage, isn't particularly helpful as a "how to do Communion right" guide; I don't agree with those who've said or implied that it leaves us with a clear instruction about how to celebrate this. That's not the context of the passage, it doesn't seem to be the question Paul's answering. Paul's explaining why they've got Communion (as we'd call it) so wrong in Corinth. The point he seems to be making isn't that they've erred in any matter of practice or ritual, but that they've misunderstood what it's about. It's a proclamation of Christ's death, not a chance for the priveliged to stuff themselves silly. They're not getting the details wrong (well, they may be, but Paul doesn't suggest that's the case), they're getting the ethos, the spirit, the point of the Supper wrong - and that makes it invalid.
So (ITSM) the point of this passage isn't "here's a list of instructions on how to do Communion right" as some have implied. It's saying "this breaking bread and drinking wine is for a purpose - for remembering and proclaiming Christ's death. Nothing you do should detract from that". To look at it to try and find the definitive guide seems, to me, to be missing the point.
All of which suggests that, whatever the final shape of these experiments may be, that spirit of shared remembrance and proclamation is what's important, rather than adhering to one tradition's view of what a valid Communion. I do genuinely believe that's possible online.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966
|
Posted
I've read this whole discussion (it took quite a while!) and think it has been very interesting. As to what I think about the concept of online Communion, I had a sort of initial gut reaction that it's a bad idea; but the discussions have made me think about it--perhaps it could work--perhaps it would depend how it was done.
Or perhaps the answer is to have something--some gesture or ritual everyone attending the online service does at the same time--something even resembling communion in some ways--but not to call it that. To call it something else--an agape meal or something, as I think has been suggested. Because it would be just too different, for too many people, from communion as we know it, where we are physically gathered in the same place with others, and where everyone is eating part of the same bread or batch of wafers or whatever that have been blessed all at once, and touched, by a minister.
Just as a skype conversation with my sons is not the same as being with them in the same room, but is better than nothing; so perhaps we could have a new thing where people would gather in that on-line way and unite mentally, perhaps even spiritually, though not physically, and then celebrate or ritualize this gathering by some sort of joint action everyone does at the same time, a ritual eating of bread with wine perhaps, those foods that can also serve as symbols---again, an agape sort of idea. And it would absolutely not be called a sacrament. It would not be Communion, but it would be a shared ritual in the name of Christ and Christian fellowship, and would be better than nothing.
In the same way that if something wonderful happened in the life of one of my sons, and he told us on skype video chat, and we his parents opened a bottle of champagne, and so did he all those miles away, and we saw each other raising the glasses to toast, and drank together in joyous celebration of his news....this little ritual would be nowhere near as fulfilling as if we did it all together in the same room, and shared the same bottle, and could follow it up with a physical hug; but it would be "better than nothing," it would go some way towards the human need for ritual to mark important moments, and towards our need as parents to express our love and to share that with him.
Of course in this analogy I've left out the crucial aspects of communion--what Jesus said, what he did, how we are to go on "doing this" in memory of him, the powerful force of it all, the significance of "this is my body, this is my blood," in eating and drinking we are all united with each other and with him, and his presence is among us in whatever we we believe happens....all of that. Those crucial aspects are why I feel at the moment that whatever joint ritual people shared online should not be called a sacrament and should not be called Communion.
Anyway, I'm really posting to say how much I have been appreciating this discussion about what the Eucharist is and means, a subject I was already thinking about a great deal.
And to say I am particularly grateful to the person (sorry, it's so far back I forget who) who linked to Dom Gregory Dix's passage about the Eucharist, referred to as a "purple passage"--and the prose is indeed lush--but so moving, and so beautiful, and I am very grateful indeed to have read it.
Cara
--------------------
Pondering.
Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
I know Melon's already commented on this, but I didn't think he'she (sorry! ) was being literalist about this. The point (as I understood it) was that some posters had claimed that Jesus, by saying "do this in remembrance of me" had made it very clear what Communion was and the way in which we were to celebrate. As you point out, that's not necessarily the case - there's a whole raft of possible interpretations for Jesus' words (some plausible, some less so), which Melon (and others, including me to a lesser extent) were pointing out.
Thanks for your reply ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
As I said, my own approach is dictated by my particular circumstances, so to an extent I should probably keep out of the discussion because I already know what I think about my own potential involvement in my current circumstances. But if people who are interested want to get together and do something and then report back on it for further discussion it doesn't bother me in the slightest because it doesn't really affect me.
To be perfectly honest I do get the feeling this has been presented to be as controversial as possible, and with the completely unjustifiable and unnecessary claim that nobody has ever tried it before - and that does irritate me, just on the grounds of accuracy.
Similarly, I find the - at least implicit - claim that this 'experiment' on its on can be hugely influential on how the wider church sees 'online sacraments' somewhat overblown. Of course it may contribute to the body of experience and thinking that is drawn on when/if the issue is looked at seriously by any group which may consider authorising such a thing in a denomination. But that is about it. That doesn't devalue the 'experiment' at all but it makes this sort of discussion somewhat otiose really. Just get on an do it and then there might be something to discuss.
I may be - and probably am - getting the wrong end of the stick, in which case apologies.
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
To be perfectly honest I do get the feeling this has been presented to be as controversial as possible, and with the completely unjustifiable and unnecessary claim that nobody has ever tried it before - and that does irritate me, just on the grounds of accuracy.
Yes, it irritates me to - not necessarily about accuracy. But it does look to me like the need to be 'sensational', controversial and newsworthy rather than the need to build community and online Church.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
My very cynical take is that it's being used as a way for the PTB to marshal their arguments before negotiating this with churches.
My understanding is that in the sacramental churches we're basing our communion services on the Passover observances. Small pieces of bread being broken off a larger piece and cups of wine being shared or sipped from ceremonially being my experience of those meals - both Jewish and Christian run. Incidentally, soft sliced bread is as different from matzoh crackers and unleavened bread as wafers are.
The other point I made pages ago, and it has been lost in the nitpicking on what communion services are. Surely, one of the counter cultural points of early Christian communities was that they met together and supported each other. "How those Christians love one another." Is it not a continuation of those counter-cultural tendencies that we should continue to meet one another face to face? Particularly when research is finding
quote:
[a]ll of these studies suggest that computer-mediated communication, and especially electronic mail, is less valuable for building and sustaining close social relationships than other means, such as face-to-face contact and telephone conversations.
Surely as churches we should try to maintain face to face interactions in this more and more electronically isolating world. On-line church services as outreach means that there's even less reason to go and visit people who can't get to church.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
Similarly, this thread seems to have wound up saying that actions online can mean whatever we want them to mean.
That certainly isn't what I've once said on this thread, or what I believe. It feels to me like you are still arguing with Paul Fiddes, whose shoes I would not pretend to fill (and whose proposal about avatar communion was, in my view, very odd.)
As I thought I explained yesterday, my point about the semantic scope of the institution accounts is in response to the suggestion - commonly heard and actually argued continually above - that "It's clear what Jesus instituted and it happens to be exactly what my church does." The "it could mean anything I like" option is just as wrong as the "it can only mean exactly one thing and have exactly one pastoral outworking." Which, I believe, is very often true of Scripture.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
What surprises me is that Melon is very keen on on line communion for shipmates but he himself takes little or no part in any ship discussion apart from this single issue.
Why does someone so out of communion with the Ship want to celebrate communion as a new initiative on the Ship?
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Because the Ship is not just the discussion boards, but also St Pixels and the magazine too. And people are involved in different areas. And as we've had pointed out to us before, the bulletin boards are a very small part of the whole thing.
It's actually very simple... I wrote an article for Ship of Fools and then started a thread, at Simon's request, so people could respond to that article. I thought that was relatively clear in the OP.
For the record, St Pixels is not longer "part of Ship of Fools", although St Pixels and the Ship are on good speaking terms and share plenty of past and present members. St Pixels is now "owned" by a separate company limited by guarantee. We held our most recent AGM and elected new directors a few weeks ago.
The article was not particularly about what the Ship community or communities should or shouldn't do about communion. It was about how the church in general handles (or, more accurately, generally doesn't handle) this question. And the suggestion in the article was that the Ship might be a place where that question could be addressed without, say, half the church members leaving or the resident priest impaling himself on a sharpened mitre.
We were hoping that, among those in and around the Ship community, there would be people with a range of views and traditions who were interested in exploring this area. And, to judge from the list of email addresses left via the survey, this appears to be the case.
All this seems to me to be in the tradition of Christian Unrest about which the Ship community speaks so often. Of course it's always the case that being unrestful with other people's sacred cows is a lot more fun than when others return the complement.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
[a]ll of these studies suggest that computer-mediated communication, and especially electronic mail, is less valuable for building and sustaining close social relationships than other means, such as face-to-face contact and telephone conversations.
So, say, a telephone conversation via Skype would be ok? With, maybe several people, and video? Or Google Hangouts? Or any number of computer-based media that do everything a telephone does and more?
Not to mention that, for some time, telephone in most countries has been digital anyway. My French 'land line' plugs into my phone company-provided router and uses a protocol a lot like Skype. We could get lost in the details about QoS and so on, but "telephone = computer medium" is a reasonable approximation nowadays.
The value of any particular medium depends largely on how it is used. One of the four primary institution texts in the NT is an example of Paul's own telepresence strategy - the occasional letter delivered weeks or months after he wrote it. I'm pretty sure we could find studies to show how occasional letter-writing isn't a good way to maintain relationships. I'm also pretty sure we could find Christians who would say that, actually, those occasional letters help them to maintain a vital relationship, even though they were addressed to someone else.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
It feels to me like you are still arguing with Paul Fiddes, whose shoes I would not pretend to fill (and whose proposal about avatar communion was, in my view, very odd.)
Well whatever you 'feel' I'm doing, I can tell you quite categorically that I'm not arguing with Paul Fiddes. I engaged with the discussion of his paper when he wrote it was on the various blogs that took him up on it such as litugy.co.nz - who I see are also having currently a discussion about your article - and Mark Brown's blog, The Brown Blog, which unfortunately seems to have gone offline.
His proposal seemed to be based on the idea that avatars could somehow in themselves receive grace which they passed on to the people who operated the avatars.
In fact I think you can defend that idea in exactly the same way you can defend any of the ideas here if you make the terms of your discussion wide enough and make it axiomatic that nobody really knows what is happening at communion, or how.
But since that leads you to whatever the opposite of reductio ad absurdiam is, it doesn't actually lead to any conclusions.
Which is why I'm saying get on with it and then report back. It then moves out of the realms of speculation to an experience based discussion. As I've said, from my point of view that doesn't move the total discussion on a lot, but it does have the merits of being focussed and practical.
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
And on that note, everything CK just said applies to Melon in spades. Describing him as "out of communion" with the Ship is just screamingly inaccurate.
Amen to that. All shamwari's post really meant is, "I haven't come across him before ...". Which is fair enough, but you can't make assumptions about someone based on that.
Having waded through this thread, I'm still unclear about whether something will come of this discussion or not. I'm still up for trying it though. There's only so much talking you can do.
Tubbs
[ 12. July 2012, 12:46: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
Just for reference, I wanted to read the Fiddes article ('cos I'm a bit of a fan of his, normally). You can get it via the Internet Archive, through this link.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
No, I'm reacting to the way we are less of a community, in the wake of another neighbour found dead in his home 3 months after he died, 2 months after we flagged up our concerns that we hadn't seen him around and hadn't had it followed through. Another alcoholic ex-veteran - this one from the Falklands. So I'm reacting against another reason for us all to sit inside our closed doors ignoring what's really going on outside.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
My very cynical take is that it's being used as a way for the PTB to marshal their arguments before negotiating this with churches.
I don't think there's anything to negotiate is there? The Ship isn't a church, so neither the issue of being denominationally authorised or being in or out of communion with other churches has any bearing at all.
Even if the Ship became a church - which could be one ipso facto outcome of it starting to offer 'communion', at least in the eyes of those participating - it would be an independent church whose governance was entirely down to the people running it.
Of course anyone presiding at such a service who was also licensed by their own denomination to conduct services offline might be seen to be offering it on behalf of that denomination. I believe that's why the advertised 'Twitter communion' never took place. The person who had said he'd be leading it was a Methodist minister and in the end I think he was asked not to do it by the Methodist church as it would confuse people about what was being offered.
[ 12. July 2012, 15:43: Message edited by: Arrietty ]
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Just for reference, I wanted to read the Fiddes article ('cos I'm a bit of a fan of his, normally). You can get it via the Internet Archive, through this link.
And although Mark Brown's blog is gone, there's a blog and discussion about it (from the time it was written) on Bosco Peters' blog.
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
In fact I think you can defend that idea in exactly the same way you can defend any of the ideas here if you make the terms of your discussion wide enough and make it axiomatic that nobody really knows what is happening at communion, or how.
Sure... although that is absolutely not what I've once argued. There's a huge space between "anything you want it to mean" and "precisely one narrow meaning". Being able to navigate that space without tipping to one extreme or the other seems to me to be one of the most important guidelines in exegesis. Eg, from Daniel Marguerat:
quote:
What, then, is the role of exegesis? It is not simply to to list the variety of interpretations given to a text over the years. The primary role of exegesis is to impose limits of interpretation. Not all readings are legitimate ... To be more explicit, rather than declaring a single meaning as canonical, the exegete establishes the boundaries of the plurality of senses of a text.
("Le Protestantisme et son avenir", p57, my translation)
The NT texts that we take as the institution can't be taken to mean "anything I want them to mean". They can't be taken to rubber stamp what my church does and only what my church does either. The legitimate range of interpretation has to lie somewhere in the middle. There's nowhere sensible to go IMO by framing the discussion in terms of "which of the two extremes do you want to embrace"?
quote:
Which is why I'm saying get on with it and then report back. It then moves out of the realms of speculation to an experience based discussion. As I've said, from my point of view that doesn't move the total discussion on a lot, but it does have the merits of being focussed and practical.
Amen. Although, eg, it's useful to have a feel for what issues people see before getting on with it so you can take those concerns into account, ask to what extent those concerns were addressed, etc.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
leo: If someone extends their hands towards me via Skype , I can become the next archbishop of Canterbury.
Only if you have a webcam, so that we can check if you have a beard.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
