Diversity and Division, II

Let's take a closer look at 1st Corinthians 11, per jh's suggestion. All quotations are from the NRSV (an English language witness for the churches of the conservative reformation). I have examined NJB (an English language witness for the Roman Catholic Church), and find, unsurprisingly, no great difference between them.

1 Corinthians 11:1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.

This verse appears to refer back to the discussion of 1st Corinthians 10, about food sacrificed to idols, and Paul's injunction that we should not use Christian freedom as a justification for actions that will be harmful to others.

1 Corinthians 11:2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you.

This is an interesting and possibly important verse. By the principal of locality, it should group with the material immediately preceding or following, but the emphasis on traditions (rather than love) makes it a poor match for the section on eating food sacrificed to idols. So it must look forward.

To my eyes, the organization of the material in 1 Cor 11 is a bit jumbled. But in terms of content and tone, it seems to me that this particular verse must have been originally written as a prelude to 1 Cor 11:23ff: do what I did (1 Cor 11:2), because what I did came from the Lord (1 Cor 11:23). It is almost as if Paul was in the midst of writing one letter to the Corinthians, when he received a new letter from Corinth that informed him of difficulties in the new community, leading him to a hasty reworking of his letter-in-progress to address these problems.

But if we take this verse in situ, as referring to 1 Cor 11:3-16, it presents interesting presents problems and opportunities both for jh and for me. I'd be happy about women leading worship as a church tradition, while jh might not be. I believe that jh would be happy about traditional gender roles (e.g., the husband is the head of his wife), which I don't think deserve the imprimatur of 1 Cor 11:2.

1 Corinthians 11:3-16 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ. Any man who prays or prophesies with something on his head disgraces his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head—it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should wear a veil. For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man. Indeed, man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man. For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man or man independent of woman. For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman; but all things come from God. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. But if anyone is disposed to be contentious—we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

This is an interesting passage, and one that gets bent in service of a variety of agendas in the general area of gender relations. I think that Borg and Crossan in “The First Paul” have a sensible way of handling this passage, but I'll set it aside for now.

1 Corinthians 11:17-22  Now in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. For, to begin with, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and to some extent I believe it. Indeed, there have to be factions among you, for only so will it become clear who among you are genuine. When you come together, it is not really to eat the Lord’s supper. For when the time comes to eat, each of you goes ahead with your own supper, and one goes hungry and another becomes drunk. What! Do you not have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you show contempt for the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What should I say to you? Should I commend you? In this matter I do not commend you!

I think that this was the passage that jh was actually pointing to, as it refers to divisions in the Corinthian church. The problem here appears to be that within the Corinthian church, the agape feast (the precursor to our communion/mass) amounted to several co-located picnics. Each party brought its own food and drink: the rich feasted, while the poor went hungry. I dare say that “prosperity gospel” churches have little use for this passage!

My personal opinion is that we've gone too far in reacting to the criticism that Paul makes here of the Corinthians, in that in our services, the elements represent only a symbolic witness to a feast. Jesus knew that when people ate and drank together, it broke down the barriers between them. It is a shame that our worship does not necessarily accomplish this. Indeed, I think that the standard Lutheran emphasis on communion as a means for forgiveness of sins results in an underemphasis on communion as fellowship creating and identifying sacrament. In my opinion, the ideal form for communion would be a meal embedded within a worship service—one part Mass, one part pot-luck. But this is both a digression and a personal heresy, as well as a tremendous logistical challenge for worship and music committees.

The problem in Corinth was that the very thing that was supposed to symbolic of and instrumental in bringing the community together (the agape feast) had become a vehicle for emphasizing social distinctions. And here, I believe, is where jh's position has the most traction. How can we preserve Christian unity, in the face of differences in worship style and tradition?

1 Corinthians 23-26 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

The earliest witness to the Words of Institution. It appears to me that these words were intended to frame the agape feast—bread at the beginning, wine at the end, extending the traditional Jewish pre- and post-meal blessings. Again, it seems to me that these are the verses that Paul is pointing to in 1 Cor 11:2, when he spoke of preserving traditions.

1 Corinthians 11:27-32 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves. For this reason many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

When I was young, this passage was used to justify the Lutheran practice of first communion following confirmation, typically at the end of the eighth grade year (making confirmation remarkably like a Lutheran Bar Mitzvah). The point was it required education to understand communion, and thereby to guarantee that it would not be taken “in an unworthy manner.” More recently, the interpretation of this verse has tended to focus on the earlier section (1 Cor 11:17-22), and with this has come a freedom to offer communion to younger children, although standard Lutheran practice still requires a brief course as preparation. I don't know what current Roman Catholic practice is, but I expect it is what the older Lutheran practice followed. But here is a curiosity—the Orthodox churches do First Communion as a part of the baptismal service, offering the elements of bread and wine become body and blood to infants. Lutheran practice thus seems to be drifting from Catholic towards Orthodox, although the requirement of pre-communion education still makes it feel more Catholic than Orthodox, even as my daughter (now an adult) had her first communion at age five.

1 Corinthians 11:33-34 So then, my brothers and sisters, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. If you are hungry, eat at home, so that when you come together, it will not be for your condemnation. About the other things I will give instructions when I come.

Final exhortations on the subject of the agape feast, with emphasis on the particular issues of the Corinthian community.

To be continued...

Peace