Grace, Community, and Communion

This gospel will offend you.  Just sayin'.

One of the issues Paul addresses with the Corinthians is the matter of joining in fellowship through observing the communal meal.  In 1 Cor. 11:16, Paul specifically addresses the matter of disunity, an issue that should not be present among believers, who are brothers and sisters, one body in Christ.  Verses 18-19 demonstrate that Paul is aware of disagreements, arguments, and even splits among the Corinthians.  He makes the surprising remark that through such divisions, the truth of the gospel will become clear.  In other words, those who are correct will be shown to be so:  "those who are approved may become evident among you."   Verses 20-22 cite that Paul views the purpose of the Corinthians' meal has been forgotten; while it should be an act of unity for the community (ἐκκλησίας: ekklēsias, not "church") in fashion after the Lord, it has become one marred by selfish eating and drinking, without regard to the needs of others in attendance.

Verses 23-26 are Paul's repeated instruction on the purpose of the Lord's Supper.  Verse 27 then addresses not the person taking communion, but rather the manner of participation.  It has been the traditional interpretation that one should consider oneself first guilty, confess any sins, accept Christ as Savior, and then be allowed to participate in the communal meal.  I strongly disagree with this traditional view, and I believe Paul would too, especially in regard to his opening (11:16, 18, 20) and closing (11:33) statements.  Verse 28 states that a man must examine himself, but we read into that the issue of sin, whereas Paul instead makes this commonly misread statement, again, in the context of unity.  In other words, is the eater/drinker conscious of union with Christ and his body?  Again, this does not necessarily imply sin.  Moreover, in 2 Cor. 13:5 Paul uses the same word "examine" to instruct the Corinthians in a similar matter, to effectively show Christ's strength and work.  This is not a negative command, in which they should refrain from participation due to sin, but rather it is an encouragement to remember the faith they possess.

The remainder of verses in Chapter 11 mentions several times the matter of judgment, none of which references a judgment coming from God.  We have read into the context a judgment from God on the sin of the participant.  Rather, again, the context is the community.  The factions present in the body are certainly not from God, but are instead a result of the members judging each other!  Of course this will be the case when one person or a few people eat most of the food.  The matter would be no different in today's context.  Verse 30 states that weakness and even death is the result of improper observance of the meal.  Again, no reference to or even context of judgment from God has been made; rather, we look to the purpose of the meal itself, which is to remind the participants of the new covenant and death of Christ, both pointing to life for the believer.  Instead of a matter of judgment, the improper manner in which the meal is observed is a matter of not seeing oneself as a beneficiary of the covenant.  Therefore, weakness, sickness, and death still plague some.  Proper judgment about the purpose of the meal and the real life of community is a form of child training (παιδεύω, v. 32) on the part of the Lord.  Again, punishment by sickness or death from God is not in the context of any part of the passage.

Finally, verses 33-34 again address the issue of unity among the participants, not whether or not someone is a believer or non-believer.  On that note, we look back to verse 19.  Paul describes that there exists "factions" in the community.  The Greek word is heresies (αἱρέσεις) which some have taken to mean "unbelievers."  Thus, they use this verse especially to support idea that not only will "un-confessed sin" in the life of a believer bring judgment upon drinking and eating, but also that non-Christians will somehow collapse on the spot to the horror (or instead maybe some perverse sense of righteous justification and pleasure) of those present.  Again, the context is community, not sin.  The reference to αἱρέσεις is a reference to differing opinions and discord, not sin.

I wonder what would happen if a critical change to this distinctive practice was made.  Instead of denying visitors and unbelievers and prostitutes and drug-dealers and perverts access to the Lord's Supper, maybe we should invite them to make a conscious, willing investigation into God's goodness and the new covenant favor and life found in the death and resurrection of Christ.  What if we said, "Here, drink and eat this.  Jesus died for you so that you could experience health and life.  We remind ourselves of his life and God's fulfilled promise every time we observe this.  Let's see if he'll come through for you, too.  He who puts his trust in the Lord will not be ashamed.  Taste and see that he is good."