Love On John's Terms (part 1)

I give you a new commandment---to love one another.  Just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.  Everyone will know by this that you are my disciples---if you have love for one another. – John 13:34-35  (NET)

Most certainly, these words represent a very familiar saying that is attributed to Jesus.  Some might insist that this statement represents the cornerstone of what it means to live as a Christian, and it would be difficult to disagree with that assertion.  Surely, those that lay claim to a confession of Jesus as Lord would and should have a desire to live out the prescription of these words, thereby showing themselves to be functionaries within the community that has oriented their lives around Jesus and His pronouncement of the kingdom of His God. 

These words are reported to have fallen from the lips of Jesus at what is generally referred to as the “Last Supper,” and the statement is immediately bracketed by Judas’ departure for what is revealed to be the purpose of executing his plan to betray Jesus to the Temple authorities, and Jesus’ insistence that Peter is going to be shortly offering his own betrayal in the form of a three-fold denial of his Lord.

So what is meant by these words?  What is implied?  What will it look like when Jesus’ disciples are loving one another?  Quite rightly, each person comes to this text and these words with ideas concerning what it indeed it means to love.  Due to the fact that humans are relational creatures, formed in community with other relational creatures, love generally comes to be defined in relational terms---love of and for other people.  For the most part, for good or for ill, humans formulate their conceptions about love primarily according to that which is received from parents and family (regardless of who or what plays those roles). 

The love of fathers and mothers (or lack thereof from whomever plays those roles) readily serves to shape and define the parameters that are placed around the concept of love.  The love of a father or a mother is generally considered to be the strongest type of love.  It is this type of love, which is largely and ideally of the completely unconditional variety, that is simply presumed upon and taken to be an unalterable matter-of-fact.  It is this ideal of love that most people desire to cultivate in their relationships, regardless of the type of relationship. 

The model of love that is associated with mothers and fathers, whether it is a good model to which should be aspired or a faulty model which might possibly need to be avoided, lies behind the age-old adage (within societies that do not participate in arranged marriages) that insists that women most often marry men that are like their father, whereas men desire to marry women that remind them of their mothers (think of the song lyrics “I want a girl just like the girl that married dear old dad”). 

For better or for worse, humans are programmed to seek out love based on the terms of love that have been presented to them from the time of their birth.  Unsurprisingly then, it is this type of love (painting with an overly broad brush), that people desire to offer up as part of the experience of their relationship with the Creator God.  Conversely, it comes to be believed that such is the type of love that the Creator God desires to share with them---defining the God of love based upon (generally) parentally constructed concepts of love.  Of course, this does not hold true one hundred percent of the time. 

Corinth's Communion (part 9)

If personal concerns are at the fore when one participates in the communion table, then attempts taken to determine what it would mean to take the elements in an unworthy manner, along with an examination of self, juxtaposed with the irrelevant notion of examining oneself to see if one is in the faith, then this would most likely devolve into an idea that sins must be confessed before taking communion so that the participant will then be worthy to receive the symbols of the body and blood. 

Conversely, some would declare that this type of self-examination is precisely not what is to take place, as it puts the focus on one’s own self rather than on Jesus, and that Paul is indicating that the focus must be on Jesus, with the bread and the cup acting as useful symbols that allow such a focus to be maintained.  Therefore, in a strange twist, it is declared that confession of personal sins in order to become worthy is that which makes one unworthy, as doing so is nothing more than part and parcel of an attempt to work towards one’s salvation and is therefore a denial of grace, which is ultimately taken to be a denial of Jesus. 

Beyond that, semantics and grammar are brought into play, and it is declared that proper understanding is had when one sees that “unworthy” is not the word that is used, but rather “unworthily,” which is then what makes all the difference in the world, with a determination as to whether the word in question is meant to be taken as modifying the noun or the verb.  Now, this is not the place to delve into whether or not the proper word is the adjective unworthy or the adverb unworthily, and basing an entire communion methodology upon what is implied by the differences between the two. 

Getting focused on such a thing would seem to miss the point either way, as determining if one is supposed to be focusing on self and sins as opposed to Jesus and His sacrifice, may be an unwarranted flight into a disconnected and individualized spiritualization in the realm of personal concern and the final destination of one’s eternal soul.  This would be another instance of losing focus on the larger movement of the letter itself and the kingdom community, of forgetting the environment into which Paul writes and the concerns that he is raising and addressing within this entire section that runs as one unit from at least the seventeenth verse through the thirty-fourth verse, while also failing to consider the fact that there is a very real and known situation that would be readily identified by Paul’s intended hearers. 

Quite frankly, though the thoughts and actions of individual persons are in view here, it seems clear, at least based on the way that Paul has introduced the specific topic of communion as well as what follows (verses twenty-seven through thirty-four), that it is the actions of this church as a group---as a body---when they are coming together for what they are erroneously referring to as the Lord’s Supper (their actions making it an erroneous application) that is the concern, and the demand is placed upon the reader to see, hear, and understand the situation in this way.