I live in Abilene, TX. It is, in every way, a college town. There are three, count them, three, Christian colleges in Abilene. There is MacMurray, a Methodist school. There is Hardin-Simmons, a Baptist school and seminary. And then there is ACU, the biggest school in town, a Church of Christ school and seminary. So, needless to say, there is a lot of church going in Abilene. A lot. And, the universities greatly influence the ways in which church is done. Generally, people are much more open-minded theologically in a town like that.
But not all are.
So let me get kinda “Church of Christy” for a minute. If you are familiar with our services at all, the you will remember that we take the Lord’s Supper (Eucharist) every week. I really like that about us—and so do a number of liturgical scholars, which I think is pretty cool. I think it is one of the most theologically mature things that we do as a fellowship. And notice that this is an issue about which the overwhelming majority of us still agree. Huh, who would have thought that? The Eucharist uniting people?
No, I must be thinking of something else.
But along those same lines, if you know about us taking the Eucharist every week, you’ll most likely concede that it is almost always rather lifeless and boring when we do it. Most of the time it is hurried, and it is blatantly obvious that no real preparation has gone into it. It is often just another thing to check off the list, part of our mystical “five acts of worship” (whatever that means).
And what is worse is that so often we have taken the table aspect—the communal aspect—completely out of it. The ways in which we take of it look almost nothing like the way they did in the earliest centuries of Christianity. That is so sad to me. It is also ironic, because we claim to look exactly like they did! But I wonder how many of us actually still think that.
I recently read John Mark Hick’s Come to the Table: Revisioning the Lord’s Supper. Fanstastic book. I could not put it down—I read it in only a day or two. It really shook me up, and made me re-evaluate my own theology of the Eucharist. And it led to several realizations for me. One of which is that Churches of Christ should really do a lot more to rediscover the biblical witness and to appropriate it to our churches everyday. He even gives some helpful and practical suggestions for implementing a more biblical Eucharist in modern 21st century Churches of Christ. I highly recommend.
But lets face it, many churches won’t change. Many are stuck in their routines, and won’t even think of deviating from them. I came from a background like this, and I shamefully judged others who were attempting to alter my way of doing things.
But not all churches are like that. Some are changing. And I am constantly amazed and impressed by them. I respect churches so much that are trying to get back to the Bible—something most of us claim to do, but few of us actually try to do. And one thing that I never really realized is the fact that even within these churches that are progressively atlering the ways in which they do things, there is still internal debate. It is almost impossible to have universal agreement on an issue within a church. And I know that it is wildly naïve to not see that, but it is true. I did not. I guess I just thought that they all just one day decided to do something different and everyone was cool with that.
Boy was I wrong.
The other day I went to a church that normally takes the Eucharist in a moderately traditional “CoC” way. But this particular Sunday the leadership decided to change things up a little bit. Instead of having a few select men (why it is always only men has been a constant mystery to me—but that is another post!) stand at the front and then pass the trays of crackers and juice to every other aisle—alternating with the man on the opposite side of the row of pews, this particular Sunday the elders stood at the center of the aisles and the people came to them. It was done much in the style of the Episcopal tradition. The methodology was changed this week to enhance the communal aspect of the Eucharist—a perfect example of trying to return to the biblical witness. I really liked it and was encouraged by it.
But (and there is always a but) there were two older people behind me as I stood in the line. And instead of hearing them talk about Christ, his sacrifice, its ramifications, or at the very least, about the fact that for once at church everyone was looking around during the Lord’s Supper, that it felt a little more like a group experience, I only heard complaining. One said, “This is not organized.”
The other piped up with, “This is not saving time.”
Then after it was over, while there are others that were still eating, they walked up to the preacher and instead of saying, “Christ lives,” “Blessed is the body broken,” or anything like that, they said, “Do I get a vote?…” and proceeded to complain to him—while the service was still going on! I gained so much more respect for this preacher after having watched that.
Now I am not necessarily saying that the way that church took the Eucharist that day was the best way possible. There were probably better options, But come on! At least they were trying something new. They were attempting to change the way the church saw the Lord’s Supper by taking of it in a little different way. I thought it a noble and appropriate cause.
Why is it that churches have such a hard time doing something new? Maybe that is the question, the point, of this post.
It would take way too long to unpack the theology that was expressed by those people, but a few questions will have to be asked: What was so disorganized? What do they mean by organization? Is their complaining in any way tied to a skewed reading of 1 Corinthains? Oh, and why are they trying to save time? What does that even mean? Save time. I guess there are more important things that they needed to do with their time, so they are more than welcome to sacrifice time spent checking in that silly little bread and wine shaped box on the checklist we call worship.
Or maybe this post means nothing at all. Just me venting. I don’t know. Allow me some unneccessary synicism?
No comments:
Post a Comment