By countermanding the
example that had been provided by Jesus in the context of His announcement of the
presence of the kingdom of heaven in which He reversed and flattened out the
social order, this church community in the city of Corinth was apparently
guilty of not being a unique and shining light to the world. It seems
that they were indeed calling what they were doing the Lord’s Supper, and that
they were speaking of it in terms of the messianic banquet, but with what was
happening there, which is precisely the opposite of reversing and flattening
out the social order, but rather operating with it and reinforcing it, Paul
tells them “you are not really eating the Lord’s Supper” (1 Corinthians 11:20b).
If one is going
hungry while another becomes drunk and presumably satiated with as much food as
desired (with serving taking place according to socially accepted honor-related
customs) while all were sitting at the same table, how could this possibly be
looked upon as the Lord’s Supper? Paul could rightly ask where compassion
and love and preference are on display in such a situation? Most
decidedly, those qualities are not present.
Paul does not deny that the members of this church community come from
different segments of society. He does not deny that there are
individuals from all socio-economic levels coming together, nor does he level any
part of his critique in this direction.
He accepts that this will be the case and does not rail against such
things. However, he does write “Do you
not have houses so that you can eat and drink?” (11:22a) The Apostle was
not concerning himself with the facts of the eating and the drinking.
This was not the thing with which he took issue.
Eating and drinking were
fine, as long as the meal table was shared equally with all and sundry. What appears to have concerned him was the
fact that the entrenched forces of the world, backed up from time immemorial by
the powers and rulers and kingdoms of the world and by the way that they went
about gaining and maintaining power, were infiltrating that which was supposed
to represent the kingdom of the Creator God---which was to model, based on
Jesus’ example and insistence, an entirely different way of establishing and
growing a kingdom---perhaps even an entirely different way of being human.
Following up on his
rhetorical inquiry about private houses in which the people could eat and drink
to their heart’s content, Paul asks “Or are you trying to show contempt for the
church of God by shaming those who have nothing?” (11:22b) How horrible
that this situation had crept into the church of the Christ! By bringing
the banqueting table and festal meal practices of the world into the church,
and by attempting to erect and maintain, within the church, the same social
divisions and boundaries that existed outside of the church, they were
extending the shame (in an honor and shame society) felt by those that they
supposedly referred to as brothers and sisters in their union with the Christ,
while blindly referring to their perverted (in the sense that it was completely
improper) meal table as the Lord’s Supper. It is no wonder that Paul
writes “Should I praise you? I will not praise you for this!” (11:22c),
before going on to talk about the Lord’s Supper as it is meant to be.
In the recounting of
what he is said to have received from Jesus and which he had passed on to this
church (11:23), Paul makes it clear that Jesus gave the bread and the cup to
all, and that none were left out. That was not the first time that Jesus
had done this, as the same thing can be seen to have happened at the feedings of the multitudes
over which Jesus presided---presumably, all shared equally. With this in
mind, can one even imagine engaging in a celebration, calling it the Lord’s
Supper, and not allowing all to participate? Of course not!
It seems that many do
engage in such a practice in their churches on a regular basis, as individuals
are actively and purposefully excluded from participation at the Lord’s Supper. This exclusion is often based on what might
very well appear to be, upon a closer and far more informed and contextualized
reading of the words of Paul regarding examination of self and judgment, a
seriously flawed practice. Some even
exclude themselves based on this type of reading. The exclusion of some
from participation in the meal due to social custom, however, appears to be
precisely what was taking place. Standard meal practice, in which
inequality was rampant, was in effect, and it was being referred to as the
Lord’s Supper. This could not possibly be that for which Jesus had gone
to the cross as part of the inauguration of the kingdom of His God on earth, so
it is little wonder that Paul was somewhat angry with this church.
No comments:
Post a Comment