Marriage, Eucharist and Unity

Some say that unity must proceed the Eucharist; others say that the Eucharist leads to unity.

We can look at Marriage to serve as an analogy for this question. When a couple first mets, there is little unity. As they learn more about one another that unity grows until one day they may express a desire to be as united in the sacrament of matrimony. That sacrament actually unites the two, and while they are still individuals they continue to grow in love and unity.

Unity is on both sides of that sacrament. A marriage does not actually take place unless both parties truly desire unity prior to the sacrament. At the same time, unity is fulfilled as a result of the sacrament.

So, both statements are true: unity must proceed the Eucharist and the Eucharist leads to unity. However, the unity preceding the sacrament will be incomplete.

I believe the unity which precedes is largely absent from both parties (Catholics and Protestants). With out the desire for unity (again, on both sides), the act unifying us is not possible.

The wide-spread sharing of the Eucharist is certainly the end goal, but this is "putting the carriage before the horse." Its like proposing on the second date. Even statements of common faith produced by high-level Church officials is a bit too soon.

Unity must begin on the lowest level; between congregations and individuals. We must know each other before we can express our unity with one another. Let us participate in ministry together, have fellowship, and study the Bible together. Through this our unity may grow to a point when we may be able to express it more fully.

Denominational Shift

I wonder what reasons are given for people who decide to switch denominations. A Lutheran becoming Methodist for example.

Just off the top of my head I would imagine that theological reasons rank fairly low on the list, excluding certain fundamentalist denomination of course.

Here is just a quick brainstorm:

1. I moved and my previous denomination does not have a church where I now live.
2. I married and we choose to go to my spouse's church for simplicity.
3. I liked the liturgy/pastor/preaching/music/amenities/etc. of this particular church in my town, so I started going there.
4. Many of my friends go to this new denomination.
5. So-and-so offended me at my previous church, so I left.
6. I wanted to get involved in a particular ministry of this new church.
7. I just wanted to try something new.
8. I believe my new denomination is more theologically correct/Biblical than my previous one.

Can you think of any other reasons why someone would change Christian denominations (non-Catholic)? If you have "made a switch" could you tell me why?

I wonder if this has ever been studied, or if its feasible to gather this information.

Sinning to Receive Christ

This post is in response to a comment left by "against heterodoxy." The comment was made on my previous post about my perceived invitation to communion. The commenter says what I did was a sin.

I have never been confronted with this issue in quite this way. I have been told that it is inappropriate or wrong but not a sin.

Sin, as defined in the Catechism:

is an offense against God: "Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight." (Ps 51:4) Sin sets itself against God's love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become "like gods," (Gen 3:5) knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus "love of oneself even to contempt of God." (St Augustine De civ. Die 14, 28: PL 41, 436) In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation. (Phil 2:6-9)

If sin is something that separates us from God, "and sets our hearts against Him," how can receiving Christ in the Eucharist (by a baptized, repentant Christian) ever be understood as sin? My heart was completely with Christ as I received him. If sin is something that separates us from God, then isn't not receiving Eucharist at mass a sin?

Certainly one can receive in an unworthy matter (1 Cor 11:27-29) I believe that "unworthy manner" refers to the reception of those who would not identify themselves with Christ - receiving him is a lie, and Christians who approach with an unrepentant heart. Does this warning apply to baptized non-Catholic Christians who are repentant of their sins?

A few more questions came to me as I read the comment:

When non-Catholic Christians celebrate the Eucharist in their own churches, is this a sin? If it is, why? If not, why is Roman Catholic Eucharist a sin for Protestants? How do the meals which Jesus shared with sinners relate to the Lord's Supper? (Mt 9)

How does one atone for the "sin" of receiving Christ? Does the Eucharist belong to the Church or does it belong to Christ?

Mt 9:9-13 and an Invitation

Sunday's Gospel reading was form Matthew 9:9-13. It is about Matthew's call to follow Jesus. Following the call Jesus has a meal with tax collectors as sinners, much to the disapproval of the Pharisees.

Our pastor preached a message of inclusion. He said that Jesus came specifically for sinners; he came to heal. Jesus did not ask for any membership cards in order to share a meal.

But then he started preaching a message I did not expect. He spoke of Jesus' inclusion at table with sinners and tax collectors. He then turned and pointed to the altar and said that this Eucharistic table is also an open one. He said that it is inclusive, not exclusive. Jesus invites everyone to his table.

I felt a certain conviction to approach the altar. Not only because I believe it is something that I ought to do; but now also because I perceived the homily as a direct invitation. And so I received.

I still felt a bit awkward; that it was "sneaky." It certainly was not guilt, but rather a social stigma. I was torn. To follow my conscience and participate because I believe Christ commanded this of all of his followers, and now the priest suggesting an open table. At the same time I know the institutional structures of the Roman Catholic Church forbid Eucharistic sharing.

The priest is aware that I am a Protestant Christian, and I was in the line next to his at the Eucharist. Following mass I did not feel any animosity from him. He asked how I was doing in school, and our anniversary plans. He didn't draw me aside and tell me I was wrong. One cannot preach an inclusive sermon, without willing to accept the consequences that radical inclusion entails.

The message was not quite as explicit as I would have liked, but the message was clear. Still, I wonder why I feel the need to "get permission" to receive from anyone other than Christ?

The Crucifix and The Cross

In the National Guard I am given a "chaplains field kit" which is used to conduct field services. If you look closely you can see a cross in the middle. This kit is given to both Protestant and Catholic chaplains.

The cross you can see in the middle of the picture is two sided. If you are Catholic you show the crucifix side. If you are Protestant you simply show the reverse which is a blank cross.

Protestants are not "hiding Jesus" or have any aversion to Christ Crucified. I find that the different use of symbols stems from a different focus each community has on Christ's action on the cross.

Roman Catholics tend to emphasize Christ's death on the cross. The mass itself is a re-enactment of the Last Supper. Help me with the word, is it anamesis...? Meaning more than a memory, a renewed participation in the past event.

Protestant Christians tend to emphasize Christ as risen. It is not only because Christ died that we are saved, but because Christ is the Son of God and has power over death that we find salvation in his work on the Cross.

Christ remains on the cross in Roman Catholic settings as we remember the sacrifice he provided for us. The cross is empty, like the empty tomb, in Protestant Churches to recall the power of Christ over death and Satan.

The chaplain kit has both cross and crucifix, which I think it a helpful way of thinking of Christ's work on the cross. It is not an either/or view. Rather we need to have both the crucifix and the cross in order to have a full understanding of what happened through the Passion and Resurrection of the Lord.

Sin and Liturgy: Post Script

After a bit more reflection I realized that we do have a part of the liturgy that deals with sin.

In most Disciples congregations The Lord's Prayer is recited in every worship service. "And forgive us our trespasses..." simply assumes a sinful human nature that requires forgiveness.

Still, it lacks the potency of "I confess to almighty God...that I have sinned through my own fault in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do..."

The Lord's prayer loses more of its bite when certain congregations use "debts/debtors" as opposed to "trespass/those who trespass against us." I will save this issue for another post.

Sin and liturgy

From here on out I will be writing from the perspective of my own Christian tradition. The diversity of Protestant Christianity is simply too great to make statements like "Protests do x, and they believe y."

Even within the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), my own tradition, there is great diversity. I will be writing from my experience and reflection. If your experience differs from my own feel free to comment or send me an email.

---

Near the beginning of the Roman Catholic liturgy is the Penitential Rite. Here worshipers admit that they are sinners and ask for forgiveness before entering into worship.

I have attended about a dozen different Disciples congregations and found them all to have a unique liturgy. One thing they all have in common, however, is that they do not have anything which resembles a Penitential Rite.

It is rare for me to hear much mention of sin in the liturgy of a Disciples Church. This is not to say that we don't take sin seriously, but it is largely a personal matter. I have seen sin wrestled with outside the context of worship such as in the Sunday School classes, at church camp, in Bible studies, and occasionally in sermons. I wonder out loud here: Why isn't sin acknowledged in the liturgy itself?

The Disciples of Christ Church does not recognize the sacrament of reconciliation (confession) either. So if we don't have confession and we don't confront sin in the liturgy how do we respond to the sin we find in our lives? The simple answer is...we don't.

When sin is not addressed in worship or sacrament we are left with a few possible responses.

1. I have a blank check to sin because of Jesus Christ:

No matter what I do, sins past and future are redeemed by the power of the cross. I don't need to worry myself too much with my own sin because Christ paid that price for me. I will try to be a good person, but its no big deal if I mess up.

or...

2. Sin is completely my personal responsibility to deal with:

I must repent and pray to God directly when I realize my own sin. I'm pretty sure he will forgive me if I pray for it. I have to do this in the privacy of my own home (or head) because surely my Christian brothers and sisters are not as great of sinners as I am. How embarrassing to confess to them that I am not a good enough Christian.

or...

3. Disciples congregations need to deal with sin in liturgy and sacrament:

Sin is not a personal matter and must be dealt with communally. Our expression of Christian community is in the congregation. I am a sinner and so is the man and woman on either side of me as we gather to worship. When we do not acknowledge our failures within worship we deceive ourselves and lie to God. We must come before God in our worship with repentance.