purity

Communion is Disgusting on Purpose

I no longer see a barber or hairstylist. I don’t think that I am too good to see a professional, but even a professional pianist cannot do much with piano that only has ten keys.

However, when I used to have a full keyboard, one of my favorite questions to ask the barber was, “If you see hair in your meal at a restaurant, would you send it back?” I have not done a scientific study of the number of people I asked and their responses, but the majority of barbers I asked said they would not send their food back. The reason? They shared that it is was more likely that they were the ones who had loose hair on them that fell into the meal. The vast majority of barbers said they would just pull the hair out and keep on with their meal.

Like it is no big deal.

Doctors talk about blood stuff with family members over dinner while everyone else gets queasy. Vets talk about lancing wounds on an animal, ranchers speak of pulling calves as they are birthed, and plumbers talk about the stopped up pipes they had to endure.

Like it is no big deal.

For so many of us, these topics trigger a sense of disgust, but these folk have crossed some disgust bridge. These topics are no longer disgusting. They are not a big deal.

Disgust is an “expulsive” response. It is that feeling of pushing things away or expelling them from your body. Humans are disgusted by so many things and sometimes, unfortunately, we feel disgust toward our fellow sisters and brothers. We push away the smelly, dirty, and unkept. We expel those who we think are unclean in some way. It can manifest in ways like pushing those who are sick away from us so we don’t get sick to pushing those who have a different culture away from us out of fear they will freeload. Disgust is a powerful influencer of our behavior and left unchecked it harms.

Christians have a sacrament called communion or the eucharist or the Lord’s supper. In a sacrament in which we say that the bread is the body of Christ and the juice/wine is the blood of Christ. Taken at face value, it makes sense why early Christians were accused of being cannibals.

This sacrament is mysterious and has a lot going on, but at a fundamental level communion addresses our disgust. We are associating bread with flesh and wine with blood. We make food associations all of the time. Many foods we don’t eat, not because they do not taste good but because of the texture (I struggle with eating the delicious lychee fruit).

The associations made at communion are intentional to aid and push us to encounter our disgust. If we can overcome the disgust of eating and drinking while thinking of flesh and blood then, surely we can overcome the disgust we feel toward our neighbor. Christians take communion as much as possible, in part, to practice confronting our own disgust toward each other. The more we confront the disgust we feel the more comfortable we are with these matters and the less expulsion we feel we need to do.

In this way, Christians are like the barber who is no longer disgusted with unknown hair in their food. There is no longer a need to push the food (or people) away, but rather bring it in close. Communion helps us invert our disgust and see that Christ does not call us to expel one another. That purity is an abstraction. That holding to what is clean only creates division among the body.

All of which to say that when a church leaders push for a “better” or “more faithful” or "traditional” or “prophetic” expression of the church, this is a nicer way of speaking about disgust. Disgust is always an expulsive response. We can expel others or we can expel ourselves. We can spit the food out (expel others) or we can avoid the restaurant entirely (expel ourselves). We can kick people out of the church who are unfaithful or we can remove ourselves from a church we “know” is unfaithful. Until we address the disgust we Christians have yet to overcome we will find that the denominational splitting will never end. Until we have a church of one.

Communion is disgusting on purpose.

Uniting Methodist Conference - Holiness not Purity

During the course of the Uniting Methodist Conference, author David N. Field, lead the group by lecturing from some of the material of his book, Bid Our Jarring Conflicts Cease: A Wesleyan Theology and Praxis of Church Unity

One of the key points Mr. Field unpacked was the role of holiness in the Wesleyan theological framework. For the sake of brevity in this post I wanted to highlight one major clarification about holiness in the Wesleyan tradition. 

Photo by Milada Vigerova on Unsplash

Growing up I was told that holiness was meant to mean "that which is set apart". So holy things are things that are set apart for a special use. The Bible is holy and Sabbath is holy. Objects and places can be holy, but so can God. And since God is holy, God is "up there" separated from us. There are spirits but there is only one Holy Spirit, which is a part of God but we talked about the Holy Spirit as though it was separated from God in some way. The things that are holy are the things that are set apart and to be treated with reverence. It was not too far off the mark that holiness was just another word for complete and pure.

When we conflate holiness with completeness and purity then we are off the mark. Holiness in the Wesleyan tradition is not an adjective that describes an object, but a verb that describes the Christian life. The holy life is not a pure life but a life that is driven by love. Thus the holy one is the one who moves toward others. When holiness is seen as something that is set apart so in order to avoid contamination, we confuse holiness with purity. 

To quote Field's book:

Holiness is that which distinguishes the Christian community from the broader society. Paradoxically, when the core of holiness is love, then that which is to be the primary distinguishing marker of the Christian community is that which directs the Christians, as individuals, and the church, as a community, away from themselves toward God and others. 

Or more acutely: "Holiness can only exist and grow in the context of relationship with other people" and "we can only grow in holiness as we interact with diverse people." 

And so sitting in the Uniting Methodist Conference it was made even more clear that when we call for a personal holiness and/or a social holiness we are often talking about a personal purity and/or social purity. 

Traditionalists tend to elevate personal holiness, which is great. However, when we talk about personal holiness it sounds a lot like personal purity. Personal holiness means you read your Bible and attend worship but you also don't cuss, smoke, chew drink, have pre-marital sex, etc. If you read your Bible all day long but then cuss while you have a drink at night, your personal holiness (read: purity) is at stake.

Progressives tend to elevate social holiness, which is great as well. However, when we talk about social holiness it sounds a lot like social purity. Social holiness means you march in the streets and advocate for the marginalized, but if you step out of line on a liberal platform you are cannibalized (just google examples of "liberals cannibalizing liberals" for endless examples). If you march all day for equal treatment but then support a candidate who is pro-life your social holiness (read: purity) is at stake.

When the Church confuses holiness as purity then we really all have lost our way as a Church. Holiness is a verb. Purity is adjective. 

Christians live verbs not adjectives.

Uniting Methodist Conference - Alternative to Purity

The Uniting Methodist Conference in early November 2017 was filled with a great number of teachings and fellowship opportunities. I heard once again the ways the Church is following and not following the three rules of the Church (Do no harm, Do good, Stay in love with God). I am thankful to have been there. 

Photo by Jamie Templeton on Unsplas

Like all movements there are those who feel the movement is not what it should be. Some feel the movement is too bold and others feel it is not bold enough. At the heart of this tension seems not so much a desire to do what is Right, but rather to do what is Pure. Traditionalists desire that there be a purity of standards and Progressives desire there to be a purity of justice. The striving for a "purer" expression of Church is one of the most illusive and sometimes most destructive endeavors we embark upon. In our pursuit of purity we can really do some great harm to others and our own selves. 

It is clear to me the "incompatablists" on the left and right are trapped by the same desire for purity. As one who upholds unity as a core value, I find the movements to embrace purity to be misguided and unhelpful. Frankly, purity hurts. It is why Jesus was less concerned about purity than about healing. 

Purists would desire a church that is free from whatever it is they find less than pure. And if there is a blemish in the church then the blemish is to be removed. The efforts to create a pure Church ultimately lead to a Church that is the whitewashed tombs Jesus spoke against. A charge against the Uniting Methodist Movement is that centrists do not stand for anything, that they are lukewarm.

So let me be clear, centrists in the Uniting Methodist movement stand for mercy over purity (Matthew 9:13). 

The pursuit of purity in the church reminds me of the great work of Carlo Carretto. Specifically how, without calling it purity, he calls out the idolatry of a Church where purity is promoted:

How baffling you are, oh Church, and yet how I love you! How you have made me suffer, and yet how much I owe you! I would like to see you destroyed, and yet I need your presence. You have given me so much scandal and yet you have made me understand what sanctity is. I have seen nothing in the world more devoted to obscurity, more compromised, more false, and yet I have touched nothing more pure, more generous, more beautiful. How often I have wanted to shut the doors of my soul in your face, and how often I have prayed to die in the safety of your arms. No, I cannot free myself from you, because I am you, though not completely. And besides, where would I go? Would I establish another? I would not be able to establish it without the same faults, for they are the same faults I carry in me. And if I did establish another, it would be my Church, not the Church of Christ. I am old enough to know that I am no better than anyone else. - 

I invite anyone who understands that a pure church is less a church of Christ and more a church of ego, to join the Uniting Methodist Movement.