As for the words of institution: No church anywhere will ever have any problem with a faithful reciting of scripture. As stated earlier all three gospels, and 1 Cor agree the words Jesus said are “This is my body…” I agree, the introduction to communion (why do we have one of these anyway??) should not over-emphasize any one aspect of the feast. You can interpret is how you like, but represent has only a very limited meaning. I will argue for saying “This is my body” primarily because that is what scripture says, 2) because it makes the meaning most alive and open and 3) it can be accepted by every Christian denomination.

Further on the communion question concerning an open table. Inviting non-Christians to the Eucharist is unbiblical, against Christian tradition, and counter-intuitive. 1 Cor 11:27-29 “Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.” (NIV) Here I believe Body of the Lord is a reference to the Church. Those who cannot discern the church, i.e. those who are not part of it, should not participate in the feast which unities us as Christians and recalls our baptism (see an allusion to baptism in 1 Cor 10). The Didache, chapter 9 says it explicitly “But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord.”

If you are looking for an inclusive meal narrative (that is to invite all to the table), why not use the “Feeding of the 5,000?” The Last Supper was among Jesus’ disciples, and the early church shows us it was a meal for Christians only.

This is not about putting up fences, but rather accurately declaring reality. Non-Christians cannot “discern the Body of Christ,” nor can they “do this in remembrance of me,” nor affirm their baptism in the feast. To celebrate Eucharist with a non-believer, thus saying we are “in communion” while not sharing in the same Lord is, quite frankly, a lie.

I do invite you to continue the discussion. Thanks for those questions.

Very interesting post, and conversation.

I am a Disciple, and currently in Seminary, just so you know a little about me.

I wanted to comment about a couple of the things you have said, both in the post and in the comment section.

You have talked about feeling marginalized by the word usage in communion, that a theological viewpoint is being shown by saying “represent” instead of being literal with it. The beauty of the Disciples denomination is that every church can have their own idea about that. Personally, I don’t believe that the bread and “wine” is literally the body and blood of Jesus, and so I prefer the person presiding to say that and might feel turned off if they made a big point about it being literally the body and blood of Jesus. The thing is, that within the Disciples denomination, you can find a church that fits in with your theological beliefs. The idea that those presiding should only use your interpretation throughout the denomination totally goes against what we stand for as a denomination. You can definitely choose as a church home a church that believes as you do, (and notice that I am not suggesting at all that you should leave the denomination, because I definitely do not think that you should) and let those of us that feel more comfortable with representative or figurative language continue to have and use it.

And I know that you said you didn’t want to get into here, but you brought it up, so I feel compelled to reply to it, you say that you feel it would be marginalizing to a segment of a congregation for a church to become Open and Affirming (and I think that is the reason the denomination has not done that as of yet, because there are many churches that do feel it would be wrong to become Open and Affirming and there is fear that churches would leave the denomination over it), but ultimately that is a decision that a church has to make for itself, and deserves to be able to make for itself. Again, in my theological understanding, Jesus would want churches to be Open and Affirming and although I am not gay myself, I would feel much more comfortable and believe that I am in a more Christ-like community if my Church were Open and Affirming.

Those that disagree still have churches within the denomination where they can feel at home.

Other then points 1 and 4 (and maybe 7 and 8, but which you admit might not actually be a problem in your mind) your concerns about the DOC are not actually about the DOC as a whole but about certain churches within the denomination. Like others have said, most Disciple ministers I know abhor the idea of Re-Baptisim. But the beauty of point 1 is that you can find a church that fits with you on most of these other issues.

As for Point 4, I believe that an open table is absolutely essential and there is no scriptual basis whatsoever for denying anyone the right to come to the table, and I think that pretty much every Disciples church is in agreement on that. I’m not sure why the invitation for all to come to the table is a turn off for you. You say that you can’t join in with a non-believer, but if there is a non-believer there at the worship service, chances are good that they aren’t going to join in the communion anyway, and if they do, then it is an opportunity for you (or someone) to talk to them about what exactly that ritual means. It would provide an evangelical moment. I don’t see it as being something that should keep you from participating in communion. And even if it were not an open table, there is no guarentee that every other believer that is taking communion has the same understanding of what that means that you do, how is that any different than someone who doesn’t believe at all sharing the table with you? And how about someone who is a believer, but is experiencing doubt in their faith. I have certainly been there before, should I have not joined in at communion because of that? I would hope that you wouldn’t answer yes to that question, because it was a large part due to communion that I came back to the church and to Christ and am now studying to become a minister myself. If the table had been closed to me at that time of doubt, I would most definitely not be in Seminary and working at a church now. I agree that communion is about more than just uniting us with God and that it does unite us with each other, but being united with others in a different place then yourself either because they are non-believers or because they have a different understanding or because they are having a crisis of faith does nothing to lessen YOUR experience of the Eucharist or your unity in that ritual with God.

I agree with you that over-emphasis on “represents” in the words used at the table in worship makes my scalp itch, although i have no problem accepting someone with that view in fellowship. It does not communicate either mystery or the tradition very well — but i can affirm that in our more Baptist-influenced areas (i.e., rural, but not only rural), that’s language that gets foregrounded at the table, especially by elders/lay leaders.

As for Russ’ point “We are quick to trade unity for self-determination,” if only he were incorrect on this, but he is not. All too true.

This is by no means a “critical point” of decision. I just wanted to fully work out just what my concerns are before I bring it to my nurturing committee, my denominational mentor, and so on..

I am fundamentally opposed to leaving a denomination simply because it doesn’t suit my tastes. This is American individualism at its worst. Where is the sense of mystery and understanding that the Church is so much bigger than oneself? Not to mention that switching denominations (as a minister) is not as easy as changing your socks.

I think what can help you to focus right now is to decide what you want to do with your ordainment. You’ve said several times that you feel God is calling you to aid in the Unification of Christians. You can do that no matter what church you are in.

Now, we all know that you grow stronger by struggling, and we all know that the DOC’s won’t “kick you out” as you say because you have more conservative beliefs. The questions you have are very healthy at this point, and you’re very lucky to have such a well-rounded group of individuals here to help you. The only thing you need to decide is what you will be doing with that piece of paper once it’s framed on your wall. Do you want to be the minister in a DOC church? Are you still looking to become a Chaplain for the Army? Are you thinking of founding your own church? You have many options once you’ve become ordained, and the assumption that you will immediately be placed in an existing DOC church, while likely, is not the only option you will have.

The suggestion that you become an Episcopalian priest seems like the easy way out. (Yes, Russ, I realize it was just a suggestion) If you want to achieve God’s calling for you, I feel that can be best directed through either the DOC or the Catholic Church. Both are members of the CCT, so you can work towards Christian Unification with a nice start in either church. (Or, if you really want a challenge, get the Episcopalians to join the CCT!)

Back to my point: no matter which church you are in, you can achieve your goal. Remember that it’s ok to make mistakes. Like Russ said, “all will be fine if you decide to ‘jump ship’ from the Disciples.” Just have a talk with the Lord one of these days and see if he can give you a little more guidance.

It seems a lot of suggestions on these concerns are all hinting towards changing denominations. I haven’t read them all in great detail, but the gist I’ve gotten is “Joel, Don’t like it? Then get out.”

I’m a family therapist and really believe in systems and the importance of how you come to be who you are because of or in spite of where you grew up. I think lots of people would agree that a church is a community much like a family. Very often, we are “born into” a church/denomination, “Cradle Catholics” and so forth. Sometimes, like you can’t choose who your parents are, you can’t choose easily where you are raised spiritually. And without making this too long, I find it strange how easily people abandon their religious roots once they enter that magical age of adulthood. Should it be so easy? Could you suddenly divorce your parents or your siblings so easily?

Many people don’t consider Catholics who were baptized as infants to have one of those really cool born-again, I-see-the-light sort of personal experiences. But my story of religion just tickles me pink. To think that I was chosen to be a Christian at a young age…chosen by my parents, by my community, by the Roman Catholic church, and above all, by God…the whole thing completely out of my control. Well, it makes faith and spirituality as natural to me as being a woman. I didn’t have to wake up one day and decide to be a woman, I just became that.

I know Joel has had a similar upbringing. His parents choose a church and the community and his family helped to form and shape him.

Now we all get concerns about our families every now and again. It can make you want to disown members when they’re doing or saying things that have you concerned. But you stick by them because of that history and the way you were chosen to be related to them beyond your control.

I’m not saying that no one should ever switch denominations or join churches. I’m not saying be loyal to the way you were brought up at all costs, because eventually the metaphor breaks down a bit. But if you are very much tied to the denomination that makes you who you are, in a very familial way, it shouldn’t be an easy process of “just become” Episcopal… or Catholic or whatever. Are we not called to continue to be a part of our families even in adulthood and become voices within them to shape who and what they are?

Is the ease with which we leave an affiliation today a cause of so many problems? Divorce runs rampant through this nation because we’re stuck in this mentality that if it doesn’t work, give up and try a new one. (also another kettle of fish that isn’t a perfect metaphor.)

Anyway…my bottom line. Sometimes it’s not so easy to just change denominations to suit what you think you want. I think you should work with your family awhile before you decide it can’t work out and you need to divorce it. Especially this being the DOC. I mean, come on, if there is no place for a family member like Joel, who has these concerns, then are they really fulfilling their mission of Christian unity? Sometimes you can’t give up on your family, and you pray that they don’t give up on you despite the lack of “perfect fit,” if there even is such a thing anywhere.

That is a fine conclusion and acceptable interpretation of the text. My argument for staying close to the text is so that we can re-member it better. Not simply “remembering Jesus in our hearts” but an attempt to be there as best we can.

Disciples are very open, but it seems to me that many congregations are making choices that exclude those who may be more conservative/orthodox/whatever. Saying “represents” (whether you believe that’s what it means or not, excludes those who accept real presence – indeed the majority of Christianity)

There are others moves which exclude our openness. (Please just an example, I don’t want to get into this here!) Voting to be an open and affirming congregation. Doesn’t this exclude those who have legitimate concerns about the practice of homosexuality? The O&A label may actually marginalize.

I think you articulated my struggle very well. Not only do I feel a level of discomfort being an extreme minority in the Disciples; I feel rather discomforted with the loose theology of the Disciples generally. I could go somewhere more “comfortable,” but I fear I will rob the Disciples of their attempt to be united in our diversity. And I feel some sort of vague call to bring reform within the Disciples.

Though it would be nice to share a common foundation/context/ethos with the church I serve, in order to be more effective.

Personal note: I myself couldn’t deal with the vagueness and wishy-washy nature of the way the DoC handles these questions. I think it was Keith? above, who called “No Creed but Christ” a slogan, and I agree. I ending up loving the idea of doing without a formal creed, but when I took that idea to it’s logical conclusion, substituting a creed with a silly slogan became a problem as well. I’ve since embraced Quakerism; the branch of Christianity where “Creed” is a dirty word. I say this not necessarily to get into any details of my own faith since we’re talking about you! But to give an example of how I think everyone should feel comfortable finding a spiritual home that suits their own needs, wants, and beliefs. If you truly can be comfortable with the loose theology of the DoC, that’s great! But if you think you would end up unhappy, craving more structure and sound doctrine, I would personally encourage you to try something else! Finding your spiritual niche is wonderful!
I look forward to reading more! Maybe see you at an inter-faith or interdenominational picnic some day? That’s where the unity could be! over a meal sometime… oh wait! Wasn’t that what Jesus was talking about with that whole supper thing???

I do want to respond to all of your points, and I found the critiques very helpful. Perhaps it is best to wait as I address each topic in detail, and incorporate your thoughts.

I do want to address your #3 quotation. Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19 all agree and all say “This is my body.” Greek (NA27/IBS4) “τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου.” word for word this is the body of me. 1 Cor 11:24 “Τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα” word for word here: this of-my is the body. Word order may imply an emphasis on the word “my.”