Serena

If you don't want to take Communion then don't.

As far a God allowing your father to die - it was very likely your father's decision, not God's. That is the way I view life. We constantly have choices even though it often isn't obvious. But then I don't know any of the details of your father's passing.

So what is Communion in Jamesk's book?

The bread should start as a loaf and then be ripped into little pieces. That symbolizes to me that all of humanity was one, and then we separated. This is the Genesis story. Sorry, I don't like all of that "body broken for you" stuff.

The wine (wishful thinking) represents the Holy Spirit that still flows though us all. Again, I'm not into drinking blood.

Communion, to me, is union with God, and is constant. The communion in church is just a symbolic reminder of that union.

But this is easy to say for someone who regards God as the self-creative totality of being. For those who regard God as a separate, supernatural deity, communion is more difficult.

Yes, that's what it means to me as well.

If you're not a Christian. If you are a Christian and you're fighting with another Christian. In some cases if you're a visitor at a church and unknown to the pastor and elders.

i am sorry for your loss.

Sometimes when we're angry or feeling hurt, sitting down to a meal with others is a first step in reconcilliation.   

My sympathies on the loss of your father. if you don't want to take communion, just don't take it. Sounds like you are still sorting out some grief issues, which is normal.

You know Serena, some one and I don't know who, a long time ago in Wondercafe said Communion " table of new beginnings". This  resonated with me and I wrote it down. Maybe it will be new beginnings for you as well but if you don't want to take communion - don't.

I remember that crazyheart, but I can't remember who said it either.  But it resonated with me also.  You've referred to it in a few other posts.

I agree with others who have posted to not take communion if you don't want to serena.  To me the only requirement is a desire to become in deeper communion with God.

To me communion is mostly about remembering CHRIST's sacrifice on the cross. I think it should be available for all who believe. Obviously if it doesn't feel right for you don't be shy about standing up for yourself.

I rejected the old body and blood symbolism quite while back.  Now I think of Communion as my communion with the Divine, which I find in others.  In our church, we say "Bread for the Journey"  and "Cup of Joy".  That works for me because we are all on a journey and we all seek and sometimes find joy.  We also say that everyone, no matter their politics, age, gender identity,sexual orientation or faith are invited; it is open to doubters and skeptics, traditionalists, progressives and on and on.  For that one moment around the table, we are all really sisters and brothers.  But, no pressure :)  You should do what feels right.   I like the idea of Table of New Beginnings too.  It could mean that if you take a chance and accept the invitation, something might happen.

Mo, you do realize that you are rejecting the meaning of Communion established by Jesus?

Berserk,

you do realize that there are a variety of interpretations of communion within Christian theology?  ANd that not all of them highlight the body and blood?   AS I said above I use that language when the story is told.  But since my communion theology is focused not as a memorial meal or as a re-enactment of sacrifice but more as the foretaste of the eschatological banquet I do not generally use body and blood language when I break and pour or when I happen to be serving.

Edited to add:  And because there are varied meanings and theologies of communion as well as varied rhythms and needs in the life of faith, the richest way to celebrate the meal is to highlight different interpretations at different times.  And so (for example) a communion during Lent should have a different focus than one on Easter Sunday.

For me communion is part of the mystery.  In that act I experience the real presence.  I don't try to explain it but simply accept it.

Shalom

mate

[quote=GordW]

Berserk,

you do realize that there are a variety of interpretations of communion within Christian theology?  ANd that not all of them highlight the body and blood?   AS I said above I use that language when the story is told.  But since my communion theology is focused not as a memorial meal or as a re-enactment of sacrifice but more as the foretaste of the eschatological banquet I do not generally use body and blood language when I break and pour or when I happen to be serving.

So what you are really saying is that you correct Jesus' focus on body and blood symbolism in favor of later tradition that ignores Jesus' wishes?  And of course, you ignore Jesus' teaching in John 6:53-48 about achieving mystical union with Him by eating His "flesh" and drinking His "blood?"  So you are joining the throngs of diisillusioned disciples who turn away from Him because of this teaching and then you are using tradition to recreate Jesus according to your own preconceptions? 

I think the better way to put that, is people realize how stupid the flesh eating and blood drinking stuff sounds, and while some churches will catch a few crazies with it, the rest of Christians who are slightly less impressed by ritualistic cannibalism will extract a different meaning from Communion, which I'm sure is also biblically-based.  Somehow.  Not that it matters.

No what I am saying is that Christian tradition expands on the Gospel writers' (and Paul's) understanding of the meal.  I don't know what Jesus might hve thought the meal was all about.

Further I also pointed out that the full richness of the meal is only found by using different focii at different times and places.  Sometimes the memorial meal and/or re-enactment of the sacrifice (which is really a classic understanding of body and blood language) can be what is needed.  Sometimes the foretaste of the eschatological banquet is needed.  My preference is for the latter.

On what basis do you imagine that the eschatological banquet language is separable in Jesus' mind  from the bread/cup body/ blood symbolism?   Or that  Jesus' "blood shed for you" image can be thus marginalized in view of its evident atonement implications?   

I am saying there is more than one "right" interpretation.

ANd |I would point out that I said I use that language--and unlike some of our colleagues I use it every time.  I just also use other language.  My theology is not b ased on blood sacrifice.  I see how it is helpful for some people and so can speak to i.  But it is almost meqaningless for me, and certainly not what brings me closer to GOd.

If you want to stick with your interpretation fine.  All I am saying is that there is more than one.