Tag: Common Ground

Don’t Discount the Ways

A beautiful and well-known poem of Elizabeth Barrett Browning begins with, “How do I love thee? Let me count the ways.”
   This could be a good description of the so many varieties of religious experiences, allegiances, and practices that we seem to have now and to have had forever!
   For example, we speak of Judaism and Christianity, but each includes many and differing doctrines and practices, both now-a-days and centuries before!
   Actually, Christianity itself—in all its varieties—is rooted in Judaism. Although it seems hard to recognize now, early Christianity was a variant among other versions of ancient Judaism. Contemporary Judaism itself still has different varieties, both from centuries long ago and also relatively modern times!
   Today we may speak about Orthodox, Liberal, and Reformed Jews (to name a few major varieties) and Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Christians (to name a few major varieties).
   At the time of Jesus, the major varieties of Judaism were Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes (besides, of course, the Messianic Jews who were the followers of Jesus).
   Pharisees were the remote ancestors of the Rabbinic Judaism that we know today. The New Testament refers to them often, usually as critics of the teachings of Jesus—although many Pharisees became his followers (e.g., St. Paul the Apostle).
   The Pharisees were active from the middle of the second century BC until the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. They were defenders of the laws and traditions of the Jewish people and had their backing.
   On the other hand, the Sadducees, during that same period, were associated more with the maintenance of the Temple, its priesthood, and its rituals. They were an elite group of priests.

   We know less about the Essenes than the Pharisees and the Sadducees. In modern times we’ve learned about them through archeological discoveries (e.g., Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls).
   The Essenes led a strict, communal life, similar to what we know about early Eastern Christian desert monasticism. Some suggest that John the Baptist may have been an Essene at first or have been influenced by them.
   In spite of the so many disagreements about what and how to believe and live that have characterized different religious sects and factions over the centuries, the important thing is to remember that there is only one and the same God.
   That means that in spite of internal divisions in and among, for example, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, we are all believers in the one and the same God, although we have deeply rooted practices and beliefs—even rules and regulations—that differ about how best to serve him.
   It doesn’t mean that we should pretend that we don’t have differences or try to “homogenize” our customs, rules, regulations, rituals, prayers, and practices—actually we should celebrate them and profit by them as best we can.
   The great “No, no!” in all this is the “I’m right, you’re wrong” mentality. There is not a one and only way to live a good and holy life.
   When it comes to religion, to knowing, loving, and serving God, we could all profit by remembering and adopting what Elizabeth Barrett Browning wrote:
   “How do I love thee? Let me count the ways.”


 30 July 2023

Translation Involves More Than Words

Translation usually implies the rendering from one language into another of something written or spoken. Fair enough!
   But, something written or spoken centuries ago—in the same language—can mean something entirely different today.
   For example, “varlet” could refer to an attendant; a youth serving as a knight’s page; a scoundrel; or a knave—depending on when and where the word was used.
   Another example: “bitch” could refer to the female of the dog, wolf, fox, etc.; a woman, especially a bad tempered, malicious, or promiscuous woman; a course term of contempt or hostility; anything especially unpleasant or difficult; or a complaint—also depending on when and where the word was used.
   Still another example: “damn” could refer to condemn as guilty; to condemn to an unhappy fate; to condemn to endless punishment; to condemn as bad, inferior, etc. (often used in the imperative as a curse); to criticize adversely; to cause the ruin of or make fail; to swear at by saying “damn”; to express anger, annoyance, disappointment, etc.—also depending on when and where the word was used.
   Reading the Bible has some challenges of this nature also. First, because the translation we are using may have words that used to be in common usage and may sound odd or perplexing to us today.
   Also, because the mentality of the particular author—for the Bible is a collection of writings by many inspired authors over a period of many centuries—may be somewhat foreign to ours or concern matters, places, and people that we do not understand or accept.
   That’s why there is always a need for new translations of the same ancient texts, since the meaning of our words is constantly changing as well as our worldview.

   The understanding of the universe and the world we live in was very different in most Biblical days from the way it is now.
   We face a similar situation when we read, reflect, and pray using the Divine Office (the Breviary). We’re reading Biblical selections and reflections by ancient scholars and saints over a period of more than two thousand years. The meaning of words may have changed and evolved over the centuries as well as rules, regulations, laws, customs, and traditions.
   Some people are somewhat offended by what they consider to be annoying changes in translations and in rules, regulations, laws, customs, and traditions. But, for better or worse, there’s no escaping it. We always face a challenge of translation and adaptation, tiresome though it may be.
   The answer is not to criticize, condemn, and correct all changes but to adopt and understand the best and necessary of them.
   We each continually grow and develop—and so does the world we live in as well as everyone in it.
   It’s not just the Bible and the Breviary that constantly need updating and improved translations and interpretations—it’s everything, everywhere, and everyone.
   It’s okay to get tired of change and be reluctant to constantly modify and update your life—but, it’s not good to become a critic and opponent of all change.
   Each of us transitions from childhood to teenage to young adulthood and beyond—sometimes making mistakes and having regrets as our lives move on.
   Living involves constantly reacting to changes and challenges!



25 June 2023

Friends in High Places

To have friends in high places means that you know people in senior positions that are able and willing to use their influence on your behalf, that you know important people who can help you get what you want.
   Another way of describing it is to have a “patron” (which is related to the Latin word for father, “pater”).
   A dictionary definition of “patron” is 1. a person empowered with the granting of an English church benefice. 2. a patron saint. 3. a person corresponding in some respects to a father; protector; benefactor. 4. a person, usually a wealthy and influential one, who sponsors and supports some person, activity, institution, etc. 5. a regular customer, as of a store. 6. In ancient Rome, a person who had freed his slave but still retained a certain paternal control over him.
  In the days when people believed in many gods, most had a sort of “patron god” (somewhat like our notion of the later concept of patron saint).
   You can see this in the earlier books of the Bible with their dozens of references to personal and family gods (e.g., the god of Abraham, the god of Isaac, the god of Jacob) and later to tribal and national gods (e.g., the god of the Hebrews, the god of Israel).
   We still have a vestige of this way of thinking when we speak of different religions today as though each are worshiping their own, and a different, god.
   It’s okay to espouse different customs, religious traditions, forms of governance, and language, but we must not forget that we’re fundamentally referencing the one and the same (and the only) God!
   For example, Muslim or not, any believer can praise God in Arabic, saying “Allahu Akbar” (God is great)—and it’s the same God. And Catholic or not, any believer can thank God in Latin, saying “Deo gratias” (Thanks be to God)—the same God.

   In the words of Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s beautiful sonnet, all believers should be able to say to God, “How much do I love thee? Let me count the ways.”
   If you aspire to have a friend in high places, remember it’s not something exclusive, just for you. There will be a great crowd of others like you. Surprised you may be, but don’t begrudge them the reward they are receiving. Nothing of their gain has any impact on or diminishes yours.
   The metaphor Jesus used for all this was that of the shepherd and his sheep:

   . . . I am the good shepherd, and I know mine and mine know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I will lay down my life for the sheep.
   I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. These also I must lead, and they will hear my voice, and there will be one flock, one shepherd.
   This is why the Father loves me, because I lay down my life in order to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down on my own. I have power to lay it down, and power to take it up again.
   This command I have received from my Father. (John 10:14-18)

   Thanks be to God that, notwithstanding all our fumbling and bumbling, our failings and fallings, the love and mercy of God overrides them all.
   In spite of all of our limitations and imperfections and misunderstandings, we’re all still fortunate to have a friend in high places, in the highest of places, in the realm of God.




18 June 2023

Collaboration

My dictionary defines “collaborate” as: [from the Latin collaboratus, past participle of collaborare, to work together from com, with + laborare, to work] 1. to work together, especially in some literary, artistic, or scientific undertaking. 2. to cooperate with the enemy; be a collaborationist.
   Paradoxically, many a great writer, artist, or scientist apparently has worked alone, either because of a quirk of personality or even a selfish desire to be a solitary achiever.
   On the other hand, what accomplishments are the fruit of exclusively individual invention or creation with no reliance on or influence at all from the work of confreres, predecessors, or antecedents?
   Collaboration is not a mathematical concept, in the sense that one and one makes two—for frequently and often the work of two people together can reach a level and attainment that exceeds the capacity of either separately!
   A collaborationist, literally, doesn’t have to be an enemy (the current usage of the word), but could refer to any group of people, joined together to some extent in seeking a solution to a common problem or working together to complete a common task.
   Further, collaboration certainly could include collaboration in the quest for meaning in our lives, knowledge of the will of God, faith, and religion.
   Genesis tells the story of Creation:
   In 1:26 it says: “Then God said: Let us make human beings in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the tame animals, all the wild animals, and all the creatures that crawl on the earth.”
   In 2:15 it says: “The Lord God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it.
   “Have dominion” and “cultivate and care for” are collaboration mandates!

   Notwithstanding the many great writers, artists, scientists, and other specialists, from the beginning the plan of God for us involves and has involved collaboration—collaboration in the work of creation and in the care and shaping of the created world.
   Collaboration is related to “synodality” defined as: [from the Greek συν, together + ὁδός, way or journey] 1. The specific modus vivendi et operandi of the Church, the People of God, which reveals and gives substance to her being as communion when all her members journey together, gather in assembly and take an active part in her evangelizing mission. 2. the involvement and participation of the whole People of God in the life and mission of the Church.
   The mission of the Church then is not merely the concern and responsibility of the clergy and the religious but includes the “laity” also—that is, it includes each and every one of the members of the Church!
   It’s an aberration if we’re all not involved in collaboration! Just because this may have been the practice for a long, long time doesn’t mean it’s right.
   Now, we’re trying to revise and restore the correct order of things and of responsibilities in the work of God.
   Is it disturbing? Of course, all radical change is disturbing!
   Do we get it exactly right? Hopefully, but, remember, we’re used to progressing through a process of trial and error.
   Don’t become frozen in place, but beware of thin ice as you try to get moving again!
   You’re not meant to be a monument to the past but may be challenged to be a pioneer—one of those who dare to go or lead the way to where few have gone before!


2 April 2023

Forming a More Perfect Union

The opening words of the constitution of the United States of America are:
   We the people of the united states, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.
   Notice that the first of the six stated purposes of the constitution is “to form a more perfect union”.
   Since the goal was to form a more perfect union, presumably what union that then existed was less than perfect. And, in spite of all of our efforts over all the years to form a more perfect union (since the constitution was ratified in 1788), the union now existing is still less than perfect.
   The United States—like most great enterprises—is still a work in progress. In that sense a country is just like you and me and every other human person. We are all works in progress.
   We are still striving to form a more perfect union, and we shouldn’t be so surprised that we haven’t achieved it yet.
   All our goals and ideals are, so to speak, carrots on the stick in front of us. We must never neglect striving to attain them and never despair that we haven’t yet fully attained them.
   This applies to each of our lives, plans, projects, and institutions.
   We’re good Americans if we defend and follow our agreed upon constitution, laws, and customs—even if we personally don’t entirely agree with every detail and aspect of them. And, we have the right to argue in favor of what we think is right and against what we think is wrong.
   We’re all engaged in the never-ending struggle to form a more perfect union.

   The struggle to form a more perfect union applies to many things besides the political organization of the United States.
   Presumably it applies to all countries and governments in one way or another—as well as to all organizations and corporations, all common human enterprises, religions, associations, and families. It’s part of the human condition, of your life, my life, and that of each and every one of us.
   A familiar and vitally important technique and tool for forming a more perfect union is to compromise—to settle differences and disagreements by mutual concessions, to reach agreements by adjusting and modifying conflicting claims and demands.
   When you compromise, it doesn’t mean you’ve changed your mind or abandoned what you have been struggling to achieve. It means you’re striving to reach some common agreement, to achieve what is possible, even though it may be less than what you want, or what you aspire to, or what you believe is right.
   Politics is sometimes referred to as the art of the possible. In that sense, we are all challenged to be “good politicians”. A fanatical attachment to the impossible may, at first blush, appear to be exemplary, but it really isn’t.
   We are all engaged, ever engaged, with a persistent, ongoing struggle to form a more perfect union.
   We all need to constantly examine the ideals and beliefs that motivate us and the behaviors that characterize us, accommodating them to the real situation.
   Paradoxically, we need to keep struggling to achieve the “impossible dream” and trying to be politically correct in the process!


18 September 2022

Male – Female

Male: a person bearing an X and Y chromosome pair in the cell nuclei and normally having a penis, scrotum, and testicles, and developing hair on the face at adolescence; a boy or man.

Female: a person bearing two X chromosomes in the cell nuclei and normally having a vagina, uterus, and ovaries, and developing at puberty a relatively rounded body and enlarged breasts, and retaining a beardless face; a girl or woman.

    These biological definitions are the fundamental meaning of the two words—and, based on these definitions, it’s hard to imagine changing from one to another.

Masculine: having qualities traditionally ascribed to men, such as strength and boldness.

Feminine: having qualities traditionally ascribed to women, such as sensitivity and gentleness.

    These behavioral definitions are not so clear and fixed as the biological—there are men with some “feminine” qualities and women with some “masculine” qualities.
    Remember when you were just a child? In my time (long ago!), if you fell, hurt yourself, and began to cry, usually it was your mother who held and consoled you. Dads usually didn’t do that sort of thing.
    If you wanted to use hammers and nails and other tools, usually it was your father who showed you. Moms usually didn’t do that sort of thing.
    Gentleness was considered feminine behavior and toughness, male behavior.
    Girls could play “house’” and have dolls, but not boys. Boys could have bats and balls to play with, but, traditionally, girls didn’t.

    In those days, a girl who had behaviors associated with boys was called a “tomboy”; a boy who had behaviors associated with girls was called a “fairy”.
    Now we have a far more varied and elaborate vocabulary to describe sexual behaviors and identities.
    It’s like shopping in a paint store. You may want blue paint, but you still need to choose what shade of blue you want from a color chart with far more possibilities than you may have expected.
    There are far more possibilities on the “Male – Female” chart or range, too, and some of the labels or names we use for them are pejorative and some are not.
    The behaviors associated with “man” or “woman” can vary from culture to culture, ethnic group to ethnic group, country to country, and age to age.
    In spite of biological, behavioral, and historical, and other differences, it’s clear that we are all human beings. It’s also clear that we may have different sexual identities, relationships, behaviors and moralities.
    Once, being questioned about divorce, Jesus said, “…Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’…” (Mathew 19:4)
    This was a reference to biological difference, not behavior, in answer to a provocative question about the Mosaic law, about husbands divorcing their wives.
    Years ago, the Heinz company had a popular advertising slogan on its ketchup bottle about its “57 varieties”.
    I don’t know if human beings are that diverse, but we’re all God’s children and, in spite of differences, belong to that one and the same variety!


28 August 2022

The Great King Over All Gods

For the Lord is the great God,
   the great king over all gods,
Whose hand holds the depths of the earth;
   who owns the tops of the mountains.
The sea and dry land belong to God,
   who made them, formed them by hand. (Psalm 95:3-5)

Once people generally believed in many gods, some greater and more powerful than others.
   The Jewish scriptures (“Old Testament”) tell of a gradual process, a growing realization, a kind of discovery, that the god of Abraham and his descendants is the supreme god, greater than all the others, and ultimately that there are no others.
   This means, for instance, that all the branches of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, no matter what their differences, are all worshiping the one and the same God.
   Accordingly, this implies that although Jews, Christians, and Muslims have many differences, they should fundamentally be one—i.e. they should treat one another as fellow believers.
   By extension, if there is only one God, this further implies that the same should apply to all other religious believers, no matter what their customs or beliefs.
   And, if there is only one creator, this still further implies that the same should apply to everyone, no matter whether they have religious beliefs or affiliations or not.
   A threat to all of this is giving exaggerated importance to structures of difference.
   For example, Hagia Sophia, the great church, then mosque, now museum in Istanbul: Why must it be one or the other? Why can’t it be a shared place for different styles of worship, reflecting its long history?
   Must strictly orthodox Jews, Christians, or Muslims—or followers of other religions—pray separately from less orthodox Jews, Christians, or Muslims?

   Another, parochial example: When Cardinal Francis Spellman was Archbishop of New York, he had to respond to a massive immigration of Puerto Ricans and, later, other Latin Americans to the archdiocese.
   Historically separate churches were built for each national/ethnic/linguistic group. He decided that the same church building should accommodate people of different customs and language and that the priests should know or learn the customs and language of the parishioners.
   Our contemporary society seems to place an exaggerated importance on differences and institutionalizing them. If you like chocolate and I like strawberry, we don’t have to go to separate ice-cream stores.
   Restaurants, stores, schools, churches, neighborhoods, apartment houses, police forces, political parties, nations, and every kind of structure or organization need to be aware of differences and respect them—but not institutionalize and segregate them.
   The 1964 New York World’s Fair had a great exhibit that taught this, “It’s a Small World”; it’s still seen in Disney parks. You ride through scenes of different parts of the world, where animated dolls dressed in different, traditional clothes, sing, and even dance, to the same song. Then the same dolls are shown all mixed together, dressed in their different traditional clothing, but singing together the same song.
   It was a fundamental lesson about life. Of course there are differences! You and I and everyone else—we’re all ultimately different from one another, each one of us unique, but we are all creations of the same God.
   You’re not a polytheist! No matter what, don’t be afraid to sing the same song!




8 May 2022

Superus, Superior, Supremus

Positive: superus -a -um, situated above, upper, higher.
Comparative: superior -ius, of place: higher, upper; of time: earlier, former, past: of rank: higher, greater.
Superlative: supremus -a -um, of place: highest, uppermost; of time or succession: last, final: of degree: highest, greatest; of rank: highest.

   As you can see from the Latin above, the similar words in English haven’t changed in meaning very much over the centuries. For instance, supreme is defined as:
   – highest in rank or authority; paramount; sovereign; chief.
   – of the highest quality, degree, character, importance, etc.
   – greatest, utmost, or extreme.
   – last or final; ultimate.
   Although sometimes we over-use the word or its derivatives, we’re always ranking things, places, ideas, values, scores, athletes, office-holders, and whatnot. But, no matter what we’re ranking, you can’t have more than one supreme at a time!
   Sometimes we speak of God as the Supreme Being. That sort of presumes that on a scale or ranking of gods or divinities, there’s one on top!
   Actually, in ancient times it was common among many peoples and in many places to worship multiple gods or divinities and to rank them. For example, for the Romans, the highest ranking, most powerful god was Jupiter. (That why the biggest planet in our solar system was named after him!)
   When you study the Bible, you learn of the gradual development of monotheism—the realization that there is only one god.
   Abraham and his immediate descendants worshiped and obeyed a god they thought of as their personal or family or tribal god. He was theirs and guided and protected them.

   It was a long, slow development to arrive at the belief or realization that there is only one God and that no other gods exist at all.
   Even so, still among monotheistic believers there are some lingering, sort of polytheistic attitudes.
   For example, Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believe that there is only one God, the Supreme Being—and there can’t be three different Supreme Beings.
   So, if all three are worshiping the one God, they are worshiping the same God.
   If good Jews, Christians, and Muslims aspire to live on with God someday, they will be living together. If their destiny is to be living together, why have they treated each other so badly so often?
   They are fellow creations of the one and same God, even though they may use different names for God, worship God in different ways, and have different customs.
   And, of course, there are other religions and other ways of worshiping the one and same God, and the same applies to them.
   We shouldn’t disparage worshiping the one and same God in different places or using different languages and practices.
   We shouldn’t consider people who misunderstand or betray the teachings of the one and same God as though they were the truest and best exponents of the one God’s values and teachings.
   We shouldn’t keep fighting over possession and control of parts of the one world, if we truly believe that the one and same God made it to be shared by all.
   Above all, we should treat every other person as a brother or sister, created by the one and same God to live with us in the one and same world.


13 February 2022

The Jewishness of John

In the beginning was the Word,
   and the Word was with God,
   and the Word was God.
He was in the beginning with God.
All things came to be through him,
   and without him nothing came to be.
What came to be through him was life,
   and this life was the light of the human race;
the light shines in the darkness,
   and the darkness has not overcome it.
                        (John 1:1-5)

   In 2011, a first-of-its-kind book was published by Oxford University Press, The Jewish Annotated New Testament. It utilized the New Revised Standard Version Bible Translation, but all the footnote commentaries and additional essays were the work of Jewish scholars.
   For me, this brought a deeper and challenging understanding of the richness of so many familiar verses of the New Testament, especially the words of Jesus.
   Professor Daniel Boyarin’s essay, “Logos, a Jewish Word, John’s Prologue as Midrash,” really struck me.
   He explained that “Word” in John was not merely the obvious translation of the original Greek word, “Logos,” but also expressed a then very current concept in some Jewish philosophical circles.
   The Word was understood as a kind of link between heaven and earth, between the divine and the human. The Word was the instrument of the Creator.
   Remember the preamble of Genesis, the story of the creation of the world? Each action of the Creator is presented as “Then God said: Let there be…” and then it happened. The spoken Word was the agent of creation.
   The Jewish philosopher, Philo, explained that, although the word of mortals is heard, the Words of God are seen as light is seen.

   Some even identified the Word as a second, more visible manifestation of God, a sort of second person in the Godhead.
   Official rabbinic theology was not so accepting of all of this, and some considered it the heresy of Two Powers in Heaven.
   On the other hand several Old Testament texts supported this understanding of the “Word” as a divine entity functioning as a mediator—for example, Proverbs 8:22-31:

The Lord begot me, the beginning of his works,
   the forerunner of his deeds of long ago;
From of old I was formed,
   at the first, before the earth.
When there were no deeps I was brought forth,
   when there were no fountains or springs of water;
Before the mountains were settled into place,
   before the hills, I was brought forth;
When the earth and the fields were not yet made,
   nor the first clods of the world.
When he established the heavens, there was I,
   when he marked out the vault over the face of the deep;
When he made firm the skies above,
   when he fixed fast the springs of the deep;
When he set for the sea its limit,
   so that the waters should not transgress his command;
When he fixed the foundations of earth,
   then was I beside him as artisan;
I was his delight day by day,
   playing before him all the while,
Playing over the whole of his earth,
   having my delight with human beings.

   Thank God for the Jewish scholarship that helps Christians better understand their faith!


16 May 2021

Remembrance Rituals

Passover is a divinely commanded remembrance ritual that celebrates the liberation of the enslaved descendants of Jacob/Israel—the Hebrew people.
   The Bible describes the repeated, failed attempts to convince the Pharoah to grant them freedom. Ten plagues or divine actions were meant to force his hand. He resisted nine, but with the tenth, the death of every firstborn son, he relented and allowed the Hebrews to leave Egypt.
   Through Moses and Aaron, God instructed the Hebrew people what to do to safeguard their firstborn sons during the final, dreadful, and decisive plague.
   They were to sacrifice a lamb, smear some of its blood on the doorposts and lintel of their dwellings as a marker to spare them from the angel of death, and make a meal of the sacrificed lamb.
   For centuries the key element of the Passover ritual was the actual sacrifice of a lamb followed by the sacrificial meal. However, after the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, it was no longer possible to have sacrifices according to the Law.
   Ever since that time, the remembrance ritual changed. The remembrance now includes that of the sacrificial lamb itself, but the meal, no longer actually sacrificial, became more symbolic, a reminder of the ancient salvific acts of God.
   The Passover ritual meal now called the Seder includes various other symbols that remind the participants of details of what they are remembering of the past with thanksgiving and hope.
   Jesus’s death is tied to Passover, and his last supper meal with his disciples before his death is usually identified as a Passover ritual—and anticipatory to the great sacrifice of Jesus’ life.
   For Christians, this ultimate sacrifice of Jesus is at the heart of their version of the ancient remembrance ritual, the Mass.

   Just as on the evening of the tenth plague a lamb was sacrificed and its blood became salvific, so the first followers of Jesus viewed his death on the cross.
   Just as in the Seder the sparing of the firstborn of the Hebrews and their liberation is remembered and symbolically celebrated, so too in the Mass, our being spared and liberated by the death of Jesus is remembered and symbolically celebrated.
   Jesus himself gave the remembrance symbols to his followers: the broken bread, shared by all at the table, this was his body, broken for their and our salvation—the cup of wine, shared by all at table, this was his blood, shed for their and our salvation.
   “Do this in remembrance of me.” he said.
   This remembrance ritual, rooted in the Passover and associated with the Resurrection, began to be enacted every Lord’s Day (Sunday), not just once a year at Passover (Easter) time. It even became a daily ritual for many.
   Because of centuries of theologizing and analyzing of the specifics of the ritual and the meaning of the Lord’s words, as well as great religious divisions about the matter, emphasis was placed on transubstantiation and real presence.
   An unintended consequence has been less attention to the significance of the remembrance ritual’s principal symbolic actions, the breaking of the bread and the sharing of the wine.
   Liturgical reforms in the last century were not so much refinements of complex ceremonials, elaborate vesture, and special architectural arrangements as a challenge to us to rebalance our understanding of this core remembrance ritual of our lives.


21 March 2021