I am sure this is not an orginal idea, but Jesus included Judas in the last supper, even though he was about to betray him. What does this say to the exclusive way we often choose to do communion nowaways?
SUNDAY PAPERS – THE SUPPLEMENT
A CO-OPERATIVE LOOK AT LIFE, MISSION, EMERGING CHURCH AND ALL THAT
interesting. thing is, the way most churches currently ‘do’ communion is so far removed from that last supper, imho, that i’m really not quite sure what it’s all about!
it’s very ‘token’ and very… well, boring.
i wonder what jesus actually meant when he asked us to ‘do this in remembrance of me’. i don’t know the answer, but it frustrates me that not many christians seem interested in asking the same question. they just go along with the ‘traditional’ style communion christians have done since…well, since when the catholics ruled OK, i assume.
if christians share a meal together, and at the same time say some prayers, thanking Jesus for what He did for us… is THAT communion? does it NEED to be defined in such a way, or can it just be whatever we want it to be?
but as to your original question re inclusion… no idea!
apart from the thought that although judas was going to betray him, he hadn’t done so yet.
when jesus asked us to ‘do this in remembrance’ was he talking to all people everywhere, or his committed group of followers (which, yes, included judas).
hhmmmmmm.. dunno.
annie
http://www.annieporthouse.com
Judas was a disciple. Sounds pretty a pretty exclusive bash to me. Of course, I can’t remember the last time we had exclusive communion on a Sunday morning. Instead we try to embarrass ‘outsiders’ by recommending that they take grapes instead of wine!
If I didn’t feel I was right with God I would exclude myself from communion (and indeed have done in the past) – better than bringing judgment on myself through my own hypocrisy (which is bad enough without compounding it).
Bring on exclusive communion!
Mark I dont think the disciples were an exclusive bunch in the way you seem to interprit. Ithink your view just the masculine interpritation perpritrated through the ages that corrupted the inclusive Jesus formed as such the disciples included women, and outsiders.
Oh, I’m not trying to say that the disciples were exclusive in their practices. I’m just saying that the last supper was exclusively Jesus and his 12 disciples (who, for whatever reason happened to all be men). I get the strong impression that the disciples (12 and wider – yes, women and children) spent most of their time doing inclusive mission. Good on them – we could learn a lesson or two there!
mark the last supper was part of the passover meal, which would have included women and children, a family group large enough to consume the whole lamb, an under jewish law if the family was not large enough then they would join with others. So I cant see thelast supper being all men. Also not sure what basis you use to to say the disciples were all men yes the 12 named were but that is the point the women could not have been named in that way to the culture of the time but jesus never treated them as anything other than disciples. Hence my point about the disciples being all male being a corruption of the inclusive ministry and a product of a masculine dominated histrocity!
You said that you thought that because one of the disciples (a man) was at the last supper that that showed inclusion. There is no other evidence of inclusion at the last supper as nobody else is mentioned other than Jesus and the 12. Of course there may well have been others, but we can’t take an absence of evidence as evidence.
The only historic evidence we have points to the 12 being men. We can of course speculate in any way we like. Yes, the historic evidence available may be a product of masculine cultural dominance, but the inclusion of women in important historical roles in the Bible would tend to put that speculation into serious doubt – even if it didn’t it would still be speculation.
It seems to me that the accounts of the 12 male disciples are more likely to be a true product of the culture of the time than the culture of the historians – i.e. Jesus choose men to be the 12 because of cultural conditions of the time, he was culturally aware and adaptive just like we try to be today.
What is sad is that some people use the account of 12 male disciples to promote male domination today.
it is not that Judas was man as evidence of inclusion but that he had already betrayed Jesus and was still invited to the table and give the bread and wine. yet we have an exclusive approach to communion
That’s an interesting point. What is particularly interesting is that Jesus had just told Judas how it will become better for him not to have been born! What an outrageous judgement – and then he tells Judas (in fact tells them all) to drink of the cup. I wonder if that somehow sealed the judgement against him? This would measure up to 1 Cor 11:27-34 which includes “For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself”.