Finally getting back to my "2/2"...
Quote:
|
The problem with what you have said here is that you have ignored what I was actually talking about and created a different issue.
|
Actually just there I was asking for clarification of your point.
Quote:
|
I am starting with the presumption that we are talking about the actions of true Christians and not unbelievers who happen to show up and partake of "communion" anyway. I am noting that Christians are coming together in whatever way they do to partake of the remembrance that Jesus commanded. I am presuming that they understand the significance of the broken body and spilt blood symbolized by the "elements." But some have added "traditions" or even beliefs concerning the practice. I asked whether a mistaken "add-on" denies them the standing before God to partake of communion/the table. But you come back with "absent a true understanding." Does that mean you presume that the erroneous "add-on" (in your opinion, as well as mine) causes them to not understand and therefore not be truly partaking of communion?
|
I'm saying that can definitely be true. In many cases where the significance of partaking of the table (particularly in some denoms where it is partaken of by younger adults or even children) is lost for the sake of the tradition, and even "church culture." I was asking whether in God's eyes the importance of the observation is greater than that of the rituals involved, or indeed, of the proper understanding of the table. If, to God, the rituals or add-on beliefs are insignificant then there's no problem with any form of the table. If the understanding is insignificant to God then God merely delights in act of obedience and nothing more.
I think you agree with me that a proper understanding of the table's significance is paramount. So "add-on" beliefs and rituals only really serve to cloud the true significance of the table, in my opinion. I remember when I was younger and just learning how to paint with oil paints. The best help I got when composing a picture was "don't over-work it. Don't put so much on the canvas that one loses the intent of the picture." I think the same is true of these add-on beliefs and rituals. Sure the original intent of those beliefs and rituals were to increase the appreciation of the table, to heighten the enjoyment of the table, but eventually they got so far "painted" that the appreciation of the reality of what the table signifies was lost in the din of religion (there's that word again).
I know that in some denominations the table is partaken of only once a month, or even once or twice yearly. I think the reasoning lies with the desire to cause the church to appreciate the gravity of the table. On the other hand it may even diminish the appreciation of the table, and it's certainly not what the Lord had in mind when he said, "do this often..." So is this a kind of forsaking the gathering together of the saints? For some it could be. This could be a factor of division, in fact; when some saints would want to gather together with the church to take the Lord's table more often and their traditional denomination only does it once or twice yearly.
I think we began this aspect of our discussion when talking about terminology. It seems to me that the issue was one of pride. You argued that the LC takes unreasonable pride in the way it conducts the Lord's Table. Well, personally I don't see it. I can only comment on what I have seen personally, and I can only testify to my own experience of it. In my case, I want a real relational experience of the Lord's Table, and I don't get that when a lot of "utensils," and extraneous rituals are involved. I would much rather focus on the appreciation and enjoyment of the Lord Himself than worry about whether I'm chewing the wafer or letting it dissolve in my mouth; I would rather not worry about whether the Table is being "administered properly" by a member of the clergy.