Communion. Even those who understand little about Christianity
know of this unique ritual. The Bible tells us the story of the First Communion
this way:
“ 23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.”
– 1 Cor. 11:23-26.
In her small volume The
Sacred Meal, Nora Gallagher outlines her beliefs in exactly what Communion
is and what purpose it serves. Unfortunately, after reading this volume, I feel
that Gallagher’s beliefs completely miss the true essence of what Communion is.
Instead of just saying this and moving on, I want to highlight a few of
Gallagher’s misguided beliefs and present to you the true purpose of Communion.
I first ran into an issue when she said that Communion was “all
about the body...eating what we call God.” (pg 14) She likens it to the “ingesting
of spirit” and compares it to other ancient non-Christian rituals. But the
Communion ritual was not for us to take “a bite out of infinity,” which if I interpret
her correctly (she’s rather vague here)is about acknowledging God in us. But
Jesus told us precisely what Communion was for “in remembrance of me.” Paul
elaborated “you proclaim the Lord’s death.” Communion is a time for remembrance
and proclamation, personal reflection and celebration. It is a practical ritual
made for a forgetful people; Gallagher reduces it to a mystical experience
wherein we ingest God in order to become more like Him.
A page later, I found something else I disagreed with. She
describes Communion as something “devised cleverly by and for human beings, to
help us get in touch with the holy.” (pg 15) But the Bible is clear that Jesus
Christ – God incarnate – was the Deviser and originator of the practice of
Communion. It was His way of giving a forgetful people a powerful and physical object
lesson about the sacrifice He would make.
Flip the page once more to where she calls Christianity,
Judaism, and Islam “the three Abrahamic faiths.” (pg 16) While not directly
applicable to Communion, I found it offensive to the uniqueness of Christianity
to be lumped in with these other two faiths, and I am sure that the leaders of
those other faiths would agree.
On another issue not related to Communion, on page 21 she
suggests Jesus came to act against the Roman empire and that “The cross stood
at the end of a long series of choices.” (pg 22) First, while Jesus’ impeccable
moral standard did call out the injustices of the Roman empire, the miracles
and compassion of Jesus were meant to show man’s depraved spiritual condition,
not its physical one. Second, the Cross was a foreknown conclusion from before
the beginning of time. To say otherwise undermines the omniscience and
eternality of God. Given such an obvious error, I would assume that this
statement – with whatever it was intended to mean – probably wasn’t meant to
give this impression, but it does.
There is no ambiguity about another one of Gallagher’s statements
though. She has that there is “Too much focus on personal sin…Jesus didn’t
spend a lot of time talking about personal conduct.” (pg 30) One wonders if
Gallagher has read the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7), Matthew 19 discusses how
to handle conflict resolution, and many more examples good be given.
Further on, I dislike the fact that she favorably mentions
Marcus Borg on page 37 as Borg denies the bodily Resurrection of Christ (see
his book Jesus pg 184). She
insinuates that parts of Christianity are mythical on page 55 when she says “The
three Abrahamic faiths are intertwined…sharing a nomadic past, myths and stories…”
(pg 55)
We finally get back to the subject of Communion (she
actually doesn’t speak too much about the subject, choosing instead to intersperse
stories about her personal experiences regarding Communion). She says: “The
practice of Communion reminds Christians of a meal and many meals shared.” No.
Communion is not the reminder of a meal. It is a reminder of Jesus (Do this in
remembrance of ME) and His sacrifice.
When we get to page 62, we encounter what I see as the most
egregious error in the book. Gallagher is speaking of the Canaanite woman in
Matthew 15. She completely misses Jesus’ point in His response to the Canaanite
woman and concludes that:
“He [Jesus], too, was ‘healed.’ He was opened. He was changed. He was no longer sure of what his job was, what he was meant to do. He met a blind man and was changed by the encounter; he met a woman at a well and Mary Magdalene and a tax collector. The difference between Jesus and us may not merely be degrees of divinity, but also his openness to others and their capacity to bend and awaken his heart.”
This theology is no real theology at all. One of the
differences between Jesus and us is degrees of divinity? Jesus was changed?
This completely undermines the whole of the Christian message. Jesus knew
precisely Who He was. “I and my Father are one.” (John 10:20)”Before Abraham
was, I AM.” (John 8:58) Read John 17 and tell me Jesus didn’t know what He was
doing. Gallagher’s implication is that Jesus was not divine. First Samuel
speaks of God saying “he is not a man, that he should change
his mind.” (1 Sam 15:29) Therefore, since Gallagher believes that Jesus “was
changed,” she must also believe that He is not God. And if Jesus was just a
man, then Christianity crumbles.
I could continue on, but I believe I have covered the major
errors in this book, with the most egregious being this last. After this last point of contention, I gave up on this book. I skimmed through the rest of it but only because I felt obligated for this review. I can’t recommend
this book at all unless you want to add it to the library shelf marked for
heretical books - that’s what I’m doing.







































































2 comments:
This is a comment I received from this same review as posted on Amazon. It came from David Ray Griffin, an eminent process theologian, and founder of the Center for Process Studies at Claremont School of Theology. Even though Dr. Griffin disagrees with my assessment, I am honored that he commented on my review:
Dear J. Olds,
You tell us what you "feel," what you "disagreed with," what you "dislike."
Although there have been many, many understandings of the purpose of Communion (or the Lord's Supper, or the Eucharist), you claim that one of those is "the true purpose of Communion."
Although there are many, many versions of Christian faith, you insist that your particular version, according to which Jesus was God, is the only legitimate one, so that any theology that disagrees is "no real theology at all."
Finally, although it is simply a historical fact that Christianity is one of "the three Abrahamic faiths," you find this notion "offensive."
These seem to be your main reasons for giving this book the lowest possible evaluation - the equivalent of an F.
Do you really consider this a fair-minded evaluation?
Cordially,
DG
The following is my reply to Dr. Griffin's comment:
Dr. Griffin,
I apologize if my review has offended you, and I wish now to speak on some of the issues you raised in your comment.
First, yes I am presenting what I believe is the true purpose of Communion. I completely understand that there have been different interpretations of Jesus' meaning of instituting this sacrament during the Last Supper, however the interpretation that Communion is a symbol for a forgetful people to be reminded of the sacrifice of Christ is the position that I hold.
Second, there is an abundance of evidence to suggest that Jesus claimed to be God, and that he backed up his claim through his life, miracles, and resurrection from the dead.
Third, the mentioning of the "three Abrahamic faiths" is a terribly ancillary point, so in interest of focusing on the topic at hand, I shall not consider it right now.
Do I consider my evaluation fair-minded? No, at least not in the sense that I am intellectually neutral on the position. Points 1 and 3 aside, point 2 - Gallagher's denial of the divinity of Christ - was enough for this book to receive it's rating. The question is not whether or not I am biased, the question is if I am biased with the correct bias.
Since you do not believe in the divinity of Christ, our conclusions are at natural odds. Yet you cannot say that you are not biased in the matter. You are merely biased with a different bias. The real issue lies not in the issue of Communion, as how it is practiced is not a central dogma to the Christian faith, but rather in the denial of the divinity of Jesus.
When a supposedly Christian author writing a Christian book on a Christian topic published by a Christian publisher denies the Godhood of Jesus, then in my opinion, that warrants a one-star review.
Thank you for comment. Hopefully I have clarified things for you.
Josh
Post a Comment