|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Is theological liberalism unwelcome in the "liberal" Church
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Maybe the straw man, if there be one, is actually what you yourself said when you replied that Jesus makes an appearance on Sundays 'at the consecration'; also, what Martin60 said in his reply to me, stating clearly that in the minds of the people in church Jesus does not in fact arrive until, as I facetiously asked, he is summoned with bells.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Whereas your rituals are far more real.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Not sure what you mean by real.
But what I would say, with the greatest respect for the Sacrament, is that the presence of God is not dependent upon the ritual being performed; surely the ritual points to, confirms and makes personal to the worshipper the already-present Christ.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Is the idea of a cup of tea or a hug as real a comfort as an actual cup of tea or hug?
Sorry to be Martin60 like, but when it comes to the sacraments poor analogies are the best I do.
Jengie
[ 29. September 2017, 13:23: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
The Holy Spirit's presence within is the presence of God. The sacrament is very valuable but is an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace. To suggest that the only time one encounters Jesus is in the sacrament is very poor doctrine indeed.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Which straw man would do such a thing?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
The one you yourself set up!
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
If you're being literal ...
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Nothing you wrote suggests otherwise.
Question, is Jesus present in worship outside the experience of the Eucharist?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
It's in the eye of the beholder mate. What we bring to the party.
[ 29. September 2017, 14:01: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Do you know, I agree with that entirely.
There's a Wesley hymn that says as much:
Jesus, where'er thy people meet,
There they behold the mercy seat;
Where'er they seek thee thou art found,
And every place is hallowed ground.
For thou, within no walls confined,
Inhabitest the humble mind;
Such ever bring thee where they come,
And going take thee to their home.
I preached a sermon once on the sacrament where I quoted 'Deep calls unto deep.'
In other words, the sacrament 'works' because it connects the presence of God already within the worshipper with the presence of God revealed in the sacrament.
[ 29. September 2017, 14:51: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Yer cannee beat Charles Wesley. Or William Cowper who wrote that for that matter.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Whoops!
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Sigh. Obviously the problem with liberalism is that it isn't as Christian as Evangelicalism.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
And if I'm preaching you might get Annie Dillard. Also Brian McClaren for the sake of our recovering evangelicals.
Does Jesus make an appearance?
Given leo's church tradition I imagine that he does so at the consecration, every Sunday.
Official catholic teaching is that Jesus is present in the Word - read and preached
and in the assembled community
as well as in the sacrament
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Sigh. Obviously the problem with liberalism is that it isn't as Christian as Evangelicalism.
Why would you even say that?
Nobody is implying it at all.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Martin60 quote:
Yer cannee beat Charles Wesley. Or William Cowper who wrote that for that matter.
I think Wesley's Arminianism beats Cowper's Calvinism:
The next line from Cowper's hymn after the quoted stanzas reads: "Dear Shepherd of thy chosen few." Contrast with Wesley:
Thy sovereign grace to all extends,
Immense and unconfined;
From age to age it never ends,
It reaches all mankind.
Throughout the world its breadth is known,
Wide as infinity,
So wide it never passed by one;
Or it had passed by me.
IMO, Game, set and match to Charlie!
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Sigh. Obviously the problem with liberalism is that it isn't as Christian as Evangelicalism.
Why would you even say that?
Nobody is implying it at all.
So it was a different Mudfrog in a parallel universe who posted this then:
quote:
Originally not posted by anyone, apparently
In fact,if the liberal mind is wont only to accept the teachings it can personally accept, then I would suggest that it's rather dishonest to falsely attach the name of Jesus to them; instead why not simply talk about moral teachings from a humanistic perspective and be done with all this 'Christian-lite' affectation and pretence?
[ 29. September 2017, 18:52: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Yeah, that comment is made in the context of the opening post.
The recent few posts have to do with the presence of Jesus in worship, either in the sacrament or before the consecration.
Apples and pears
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
quote:
... Does Jesus make an appearance?
Given leo's church tradition I imagine that he does so at the consecration, every Sunday.
Official catholic teaching is that Jesus is present in the Word - read and preached
and in the assembled community
as well as in the sacrament
"The sea is his and he made it. His hands prepared the dry land".
My understanding is that we are always, in all places and at all times, in the presence of God. He is just as near, whether we are aware of him or not. Indeed, it's better theological grammar to say we are near him, rather than he is near us.
Phrases like 'we had a great time of worship, and God showed up' really make me cringe. Apart from being, I think, really bad theology, they make it sound as though one can manipulate God's presence, call him up as though we were Shakespeare's version of Owen Glendower.
What makes the difference for us though, is how conscious we are of God. We are both physical and spiritual beings. So he happens to have provided ways that crystallise this for us, ways to build up that relationship. If he has said,
"Do this in remembrance of me ... "
"When you pray ..... "
"Seek first his kingdom and his righteousness ... "
we can hardly expect him to reveal himself if we neglect the ways he has provided. But it seems to me that any problems are at our end, not God's
Well, that's what I think, anyway.
[ 29. September 2017, 19:41: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Maybe the straw man, if there be one, is actually what you yourself said when you replied that Jesus makes an appearance on Sundays 'at the consecration'; also, what Martin60 said in his reply to me, stating clearly that in the minds of the people in church Jesus does not in fact arrive until, as I facetiously asked, he is summoned with bells.
Martin can speak for himself. I merely point out that at a service in which encounter with Jesus is the central feature this is hardly undermined because leo cites Annie Dillard and Brian McClaren in his sermon.
Sorry, I forgot, you are Sally Army - presumably if Jesus was summoned by tambourines this would be entirely in line with the teaching of the Gospels, as opposed to Jesus' clear commands to Baptise people in the Great Commission and to Do This In Remembrance Of Me at the Last Supper.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Not sure what you mean by real.
But what I would say, with the greatest respect for the Sacrament, is that the presence of God is not dependent upon the ritual being performed; surely the ritual points to, confirms and makes personal to the worshipper the already-present Christ.
Angel: Take off your shoes, for you are standing on holy ground.
Moses: If holy means God is present there, isn't that rock over there holy? What about that creosote bush half a mile west of here? Is God more present by this torch than anywhere else on the plateau?
[ 29. September 2017, 23:14: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Holy Spirit's presence within is the presence of God. The sacrament is very valuable but is an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace. To suggest that the only time one encounters Jesus is in the sacrament is very poor doctrine indeed.
Well, lets use an analogy for marriage. Do you love your partner all the time? Well, then why do you go out with her on your wedding anniversary? You shouldn't love her more one day than the other 364 days of the year.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Yeah, that comment is made in the context of the opening post.
The recent few posts have to do with the presence of Jesus in worship, either in the sacrament or before the consecration.
Apples and pears
So you do think that, just not in the context of the Eucharist? Fwiw, I think Mr Cheesy was referring back to your comment above, not the subsequent posts.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Holy Spirit's presence within is the presence of God. The sacrament is very valuable but is an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace. To suggest that the only time one encounters Jesus is in the sacrament is very poor doctrine indeed.
Well, lets use an analogy for marriage. Do you love your partner all the time? Well, then why do you go out with her on your wedding anniversary? You shouldn't love her more one day than the other 364 days of the year.
That makes my point for me.
I don't love my wife only on the day we go out for an anniversary. We go out for an anniversary because I love her all the time.
The sacrament is like a frequent anniversary, it's a focus of the constant presence of Jesus in worship and, indeed, in life.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I am inferring from some of the replies that some of you think I am minimising the sacrament; I am not. I would be saying that the sacrament is a means of grace where Jesus is encountered but that it is not the only place he is present.
It may be a focus, a 'concentrated' event where by sight, sound, touch, smell and taste we humans can 'touch' him, but we are the poorer if we think that he can only be present at that point, in that moment.
Wesley spoke of a 6th sense that was beyond the human experience and was the divine presence, a gift of Gd.
I believe that all life and worship can be as sacramental as that.
And tambourines (in any church setting) are not a sacrament!
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Maybe the straw man, if there be one, is actually what you yourself said when you replied that Jesus makes an appearance on Sundays 'at the consecration'; also, what Martin60 said in his reply to me, stating clearly that in the minds of the people in church Jesus does not in fact arrive until, as I facetiously asked, he is summoned with bells.
Martin can speak for himself. I merely point out that at a service in which encounter with Jesus is the central feature this is hardly undermined because leo cites Annie Dillard and Brian McClaren in his sermon.
Sorry, I forgot, you are Sally Army - presumably if Jesus was summoned by tambourines this would be entirely in line with the teaching of the Gospels, as opposed to Jesus' clear commands to Baptise people in the Great Commission and to Do This In Remembrance Of Me at the Last Supper.
Martin will. In that bit of theatre in which we take part we are guided in our thoughts by the narrative and flow of events. It's all part of what we invoke. Make up. It doesn't all happen at once. Our minds don't work like that. They need a story.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Do what, exactly, in remembrance of him...?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
we are the poorer if we think that he can only be present at that point, in that moment.
Straw man. Is the ground in front of the burning bush holier than the ground 1000 feet away? Why or why not? Answers on a postcard.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
That was the OT. I'm not sure the NT gives us grounds to see a 'holy bush' as any holier than anywhere else. There are no super holy places in the NT. The holiness is Jesus Christ's alone....
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
That was the OT.
Yes, yes it was. But was it holier or not? Someone answer the question for me here.
quote:
I'm not sure the NT gives us grounds to see a 'holy bush' as any holier than anywhere else. There are no super holy places in the NT. The holiness is Jesus Christ's alone....
Was the OT was wrong about the nature of holiness, then? Local holiness (both of place and of thing) is all over the OT. Did that cease to be with the incarnation? Did the omnipresence of God begin when Mary had her chat with Gabriel?
I have no idea how you can reject the OT's understanding of holiness just because it's not mentioned in the NT. Could it have something to do with your church's traditions?
[ 01. October 2017, 05:40: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
we are the poorer if we think that he can only be present at that point, in that moment.
Straw man. Is the ground in front of the burning bush holier than the ground 1000 feet away? Why or why not? Answers on a postcard.
God was no closer to Moses, but Moses was closer to God.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
I think holiness is somewhat different in the NT. In both OT and NT it takes people by surprise. They blunder into it and are brought up short, but in the OT it is more often away from the business of life, and impressive, whereas in the NT it is in the midst of life and easier to miss. Like Jesus.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The OT got it just right on holiness for the evolving times I'm sure. It was always the holiest of all possible worlds. In the minds of the writers. And so it is now. It's entirely down to us to invoke holiness.
In the Moses story, which I used to believe was gospel and miss those childish things so, if God said the ground around that miraculously unburnt burning bush was holy, that was more than good enough for me. As the Eucharist is now.
As we evolved, holiness has. Our understanding of it has. Like righteousness. In my case in just a few years. Although the righteousness of universal social justice is explicit in the prophets, it's taken me three thousand years to realise it has no other practical meaning. That holiness - the presence of God? the set asidedness for the purposes of God? - is the same thing.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Did the omnipresence of God begin when Mary had her chat with Gabriel?
Surely God was always everywhere. But if God is everywhere then why is a bush especially holy?
quote:
I have no idea how you can reject the OT's understanding of holiness just because it's not mentioned in the NT. Could it have something to do with your church's traditions?
It's not a question of rejecting the OT's understanding, but of accepting that that was a different time. We no longer engage in animal sacrifice because that was a different time. We no longer live according to Levitical rules for the same reason. The ordained priesthood is no longer passed exclusively from father to son, etc.
Moreover, I can't see an explicit NT equivalent for the burning bush. As for the Lord's supper, how we read the invitation to share in a meal whenever we meet is clearly open to interpretation. Most denominations (including mine) see some sort of theological significance it, but I think there'd be a degree of ambiguity in many of them about its precise quality as a holy act.
[ 01. October 2017, 10:14: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
They used to think that the Temple was holy and that little room in the middle was the Holiest.
We now know that the way is open and that Jesus is God-not-in-a-Temple-but-in-us.
The holy place, the holy of holies is us - we are the temple of the Holy Spirit.
The true sacrament - or properly: 'mystery of faith' - is 'Christ in you, the hope of glory.' (Colossians 1 v 27)
Since Pentecost God is not with us (in burning bushes or in a temple made with hands) but is within us. There are no holy places except the human heart that is receptive to grace.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
You liberal you Mudfrog!
And perfectly orthodox SvitlanaV2.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
You liberal you Mudfrog!
And perfectly orthodox SvitlanaV2.
Why is that liberal? It's perfectly good evangelical Wesleyan Salvationist theology
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
I am reminded of a snippet from Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s “Aurora Leigh”:
quote:
Earth's crammed with heaven,
And every common bush afire with God,
But only he who sees takes off his shoes;
The rest sit round and pluck blackberries.
I guess that given my screen name, my avatar and my signature, it doesn’t come as a surprise that this story resonates with me for a variety of reasons and in a variety of ways. It’s one of those stories that one can spend a great deal of time unpacking, and still come back and find more later on. It’s a mistake, I think, for look only for direct lines of correlation: x = A, or the like.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Did the omnipresence of God begin when Mary had her chat with Gabriel?
Surely God was always everywhere. But if God is everywhere then why is a bush especially holy?
Because it is where Moses directly encounters God.
There is a strand in the rabbinic tradition that says the burning bush actually underscores the omnipresence of God. Jewish tradition is that the bush was a thornbush, and the idea is that by manifesting himself in such an ordinary and even unattractive plant, God emphasizes his presence in all things.
The ground around the bush is not holy (meaning set apart or separate from other ground) because the divine is present there. The divine is present everywhere. “Do I not fill the heavens and the earth? declares the Lord,” asks Jeremiah (23:24). But what is happening here is not presence but a theophany, a manifestation of the divine presence (in Jewish terms, the Shekhina) in such a way that humans can directly perceive and even engage with it. The ground is holy because what is happening there is holy.
quote:
quote:
I have no idea how you can reject the OT's understanding of holiness just because it's not mentioned in the NT. Could it have something to do with your church's traditions?
It's not a question of rejecting the OT's understanding, but of accepting that that was a different time. We no longer engage in animal sacrifice because that was a different time. We no longer live according to Levitical rules for the same reason. The ordained priesthood is no longer passed exclusively from father to son, etc.
Moreover, I can't see an explicit NT equivalent for the burning bush.
Yes, things are somewhat different in the NT, because of the Incarnation. God is manifest, God is with us, in a new and complete way. The Spirit dwells within us.
But there are parallels in the NT to the theophanies of the OT, to the divine breaking through in such a way as to be directly perceived. The baptism of Jesus and the Transfiguration are perhaps the most obvious. Saul/Paul on the road to Damascus and Pentecost, perhaps.
quote:
As for the Lord's supper, how we read the invitation to share in a meal whenever we meet is clearly open to interpretation. Most denominations (including mine) see some sort of theological significance it, but I think there'd be a degree of ambiguity in many of them about its precise quality as a holy act.
Frankly, I don’t think there’s too much ambiguity. Jesus said to “eat this bread,” which he said is his body, and to “drink this cup,” which he said is his blood, as his memorial. Paul added that whenever we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim Jesus’s death until he comes again.
Perhaps God’s instruction to Moses is helpful here. God tells Moses to remove his sandals. Again, rabbinic tradition sees this a couple of ways (at least). The most direct is as a sign of humility and of acknowledging God’s superiority. This is consistent with the meaning of shoes/sandals elsewhere in the OT. But some also see it more metaphorically, as an invitation to direct contact with the holy. Moses cannot touch the burning bush, but he can touch the holy ground around it. But in order to do that, he must remove his sandals, so that his feet are in direct contact with the ground. (Some these days might say so that he can be truly “grounded.”) This can be understood both spiritually—discarding the things that keep us from truly encountering the divine—but also physically, since Judaism didn’t see a strict separation between the two.
In a similar way, God provides water, bread and wine (and per some traditions, oil), so that we can physically connect with the divine, so that it becomes a tangible and embodied encounter and not just an intellectual or emotional encounter.
[ 02. October 2017, 13:35: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Mudfrog
Which of these synonyms of liberal doesn't apply to the salvation obtained in Christ alone?
abundant, copious, ample, plentiful, generous, lavish, luxuriant, profuse, considerable, prolific, rich, excessive, immoderate, superabundant, overabundant, over the top, plenteous, generous, magnanimous, open-handed, unsparing, unstinting, ungrudging, lavish, free, munificent, bountiful, beneficent, benevolent, big-hearted, kind-hearted, kind, philanthropic, charitable, altruistic, unselfish, extravagant, overgenerous, generous to a fault, immoderate, wasteful, overabundant, profligate, prodigal, thriftless, improvident, intemperate, unrestrained, wild
?
[ 02. October 2017, 13:37: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Did Jesus actually say "eat this bread"?
"Take, eat", and "do this", maybe, the gospels don't agree. It matters to me because I can more easily locate the presence of Christ in the actions, including serving, and in the remembering and re-enacting than in the bread and wine themselves. I have an over-twitchy hocus pocus detector.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Did Jesus actually say "eat this bread"?
"Take, eat", and "do this", maybe, the gospels don't agree. It matters to me because I can more easily locate the presence of Christ in the actions, including serving, and in the remembering and re-enacting than in the bread and wine themselves. I have an over-twitchy hocus pocus detector.
Hmm. Perhaps not. I didn't go back and check. I think he perhaps just says "take and eat/drink." I may have been conflating what Jesus is recorded as saying with Paul's "as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup . . . ."
(And FWIW, I understand the tendency to twitchiness. But I perhaps have a comparable twitchiness to what sometimes seems like a reactive downplaying of the significance of the bread and cup.)
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I don’t think there’s too much ambiguity. Jesus said to “eat this bread,” which he said is his body, and to “drink this cup,” which he said is his blood, as his memorial. Paul added that whenever we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim Jesus’s death until he comes again.
Perhaps God’s instruction to Moses is helpful here. God tells Moses to remove his sandals. Again, rabbinic tradition sees this a couple of ways (at least). The most direct is as a sign of humility and of acknowledging God’s superiority. This is consistent with the meaning of shoes/sandals elsewhere in the OT. But some also see it more metaphorically, as an invitation to direct contact with the holy. Moses cannot touch the burning bush, but he can touch the holy ground around it. But in order to do that, he must remove his sandals, so that his feet are in direct contact with the ground. (Some these days might say so that he can be truly “grounded.”) This can be understood both spiritually—discarding the things that keep us from truly encountering the divine—but also physically, since Judaism didn’t see a strict separation between the two.
In a similar way, God provides water, bread and wine (and per some traditions, oil), so that we can physically connect with the divine, so that it becomes a tangible and embodied encounter and not just an intellectual or emotional encounter.
Thank you for this.
As you've suggested here, there are 'traditional' ways of seeing the NT mirroring the OT. But IMO the ambiguity remains, not least because some denominations hardly focus on what you've mentioned here. Certainly, the idea that we 'physically' connect with the divine through communion doesn't, ISTM, sit neatly with a memorialist understanding of the Lord's Supper.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
It is not different versions, it is the same version, see 1 Corinthians 11:23-26.
We both eat and drink and remember as we do.
My own take is that we are reluctant to see the enormity of it. Whatever is going on I think it points to Christ binding himself to the disciples (and therefore by proxy us) not as good people in the future but as they are then in that room, doubters, deniers and at least in one version including Judas who would betray him.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
A damn good take.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
We both eat and drink and remember as we do.
With the caveat, I would suggest, that the English understanding of "remember" doesn't have quite the depth of meaning that the Greek anamnesis does, or the Hebrew concept of "memorial," which likely provided the context for what the disciples would have understood Jesus to mean by "in rememberance of me."
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Yeah, for that reason I tend to take the Iona Community usage which is 're-member' rather than 'remember'.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
We both eat and drink and remember as we do.
With the caveat, I would suggest, that the English understanding of "remember" doesn't have quite the depth of meaning that the Greek anamnesis does, or the Hebrew concept of "memorial," which likely provided the context for what the disciples would have understood Jesus to mean by "in rememberance of me."
I think that rather than reading back the early church, 2nd Century evolution of the Eucharist and what it came to mean for the Gentile church in Rome and Asia Minor, we should actually be looking at what the Passover meal meant to the first century Jew of AD33 (or whatever year it was to them).
It seems logical to me that as Jesus reclined at the tables with all the elements of the Passover meal arrayed before them
Forget Da Vinci!, when he said 'Do this in remembrance of me', the 'This' he was referring to was the Passover meal in its entirety with all its constituent elements - liturgical questions and prayers; the bread, wine, lamb, herbs, etc, etc....
(We all know that in the Gentile world that was totally irrelevant and the Eucharist became a symbolic meal - we don't need to reiterate that)
but my point is this: when Jesus gestured to the food on the table and used each element to illustrate the Exodus story; when in the context of the Passover commemoration of the Exodus he said 'when you do this',
1) What was the 'this'? (I suggest it was the Passover meal.)
2) What was being remembered (It was the Exodus, now it was himself
3) What did it mean to 'remember' in that exodus context? Was he saying they should remember him as they had up to that point remembered Moses and the Exodus? I think I would suggest so.
That being the case I would ask, how, in what manner, do the Jewish brothers and sisters 'remember' the Exodus?
Is it a memorial celebration or is there, as has been suggested, more going on? I would like to know what happens in the heart and mind of a Jewish person as he, even today, remembers the Exodus every Friday night or at Passover.
I think I would be safe to say that if we discern how the Jews 'remember' Moses we will be close to getting inside the intention of Jesus and the thoughts of the Apostles a to how they remembered Jesus subsequently when they celebrated te Lord's Supper.
I find it difficult - along with all Evangelicals - to go beyond the memorialist stage. It seems t me to be a reading back into the words of Jesus something he never intended, and something alien to the Apostles' Jewish mindset.
If we insist on a literal reading of amamnesis, can Shipmates help me to understand how the first century Jew employs that to remember the Exodus? What would amamnesis be like for them
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
anamnesis. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
but my point is this: when Jesus gestured to the food on the table and used each element to illustrate the Exodus story; when in the context of the Passover commemoration of the Exodus he said 'when you do this',
1) What was the 'this'? (I suggest it was the Passover meal.)
2) What was being remembered (It was the Exodus, now it was himself
3) What did it mean to 'remember' in that exodus context? Was he saying they should remember him as they had up to that point remembered Moses and the Exodus? I think I would suggest so.
I'm not clear what you are saying here.
It seems to me that you're mixing up various passages.
quote:
From Luke
22:15 And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 22:16 For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” 22:17 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves. 22:18 For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 22:19 Then he took bread, and after giving thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 22:20 And in the same way he took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.
The "this" in 22:19 is ambiguous: what is it that is to be done? Drinking the cup, having the meal, blessing the food, dividing it amongst many?
quote:
from Mark
14:22 While they were eating, he took bread, and after giving thanks he broke it, gave it to them, and said, “Take it. This is my body.” 14:23 And after taking the cup and giving thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 14:24 He said to them, “This is my blood, the blood of the covenant, that is poured out for many. 14:25 I tell you the truth, I will no longer drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.” 14:26 After singing a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.
Mark doesn't seem to be writing from the context of a meal. And the "this" doesn't seem to appear in the same way.
quote:
From 1 Corinthians 11
11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night in which he was betrayed took bread, 11:24 and after he had given thanks he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 11:25 In the same way, he also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, every time you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 11:26 For every time you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
I'd suggest that it is hard to position the "this" in that paragraph as being about having the meal, otherwise verse 11:25 becomes "do this [the passover meal] every time you eat/drink it in remembrance of me"
Taken together I can't see that the "this" can be talking about the passover meal, because that makes little grammatical sense.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
