Communion too rushed?

[RomansFiveEight]

Just to throw a comment out about "wine", "wine" could in many contexts indeed mean grape juice. No, I'm not about to go down the factually incorrect "The wine they used back then was very weak" rabbit hole. Just that "unfermented wine" was a thing until we decided to stop calling it "grape juice". In fact, "Welches Grape Juice" was originally marketed as "Dr. Welches Unfermented Communion Wine".

The juice of the grape and bread I think are the essential elements. It seems slippery to me; should we only use the kind of bread Christ used? Was it white wine or red? What of churches that use white instead or red or red instead of white? The list can become endless; of just how specific of unspecific we can go. I think the juice of a grape (fermented or otherwise) and bread; intentionally simple and vage; is a sufficient expectation. After all, it's the Holy Spirit; not the yeast, that has power is it not? (For full disclosure: I use grape juice because it's the tradition of my church; but would use wine if it was their tradition. I'm not usually a fan of 'buffet style' communion, wine here, this type of bread here, grape juice here. I think the symbolism of sharing together is absolutely important; so that is a 'point' for grape juice; it's a bit more universal)

Agreed. It's a bit of a curiosity that the socially liberal, millennials, college-educated crowd, etc., prefer a liturgically conservative church, while political and social conservatives tend to delight in the oohs and aahs of the high-tech, sensationalized, contemporary mega-church experience.

Absolutely. I think it has less to do with ideology and more to do with age and what matters. The oohs and ahs are cool; and plenty of young people are attracted to it. But there needs to be some genuineness. I believe that many young Christians are seeking a faith that's real, not some synthetic advertisement for Jesus played for an hour on Sunday. But that's in liturgy; not music. The music of the 1960's or 1800's is not any more sacred; the church didn't screw it all up and finally get it figured out when someone wrote "Trust and Obey". Excellent, liturgical worship can be done with contemporary OR "traditional" music.

 

[revanneosl]

I believe that what young people for the last 40 years (so some of them are no longer young) have been wanting from the Church is some recognition of mystery.

 

[Cappadocious]

I do not think Saul/Paul could ever be described as "hellenized," even though he was originally from Tarsus. He says he studied under Gamaliel the great, who was the grandson of Hillel. He was the foremost Torah scholar of the day and ran the School Beit Hillel in Jerusalem. Saul would have started there at about age 9 or 10 after studying with a local rabbi from about age 5. His training in Hebrew thought and language would have been 24/7. (Torah study is absolutely allowed on the Sabbath) He also said in Acts 23.6 he identified as the "son of pharisees," so his father and other relatives/ancestors would have been thru the same rigorous training at either Beit Shammai or Beit Hillel.

You're assuming that the Judaism and culture Paul was raised in was not itself Hellenized. It was 1st century Pharisee sect, Hellenization was already a done deal.

 

[Albion]

Absolutely. I think it has less to do with ideology and more to do with age and what matters. The oohs and ahs are cool; and plenty of young people are attracted to it. But there needs to be some genuineness. I believe that many young Christians are seeking a faith that's real, not some synthetic advertisement for Jesus played for an hour on Sunday. But that's in liturgy; not music. The music of the 1960's or 1800's is not any more sacred; the church didn't screw it all up and finally get it figured out when someone wrote "Trust and Obey". Excellent, liturgical worship can be done with contemporary OR "traditional" music.

I disagree. The reason that conservative young people seem attracted more to the light shows and Christian bands, etc is most likely because they are not simply "conservative" as was said, but, rather, are products of Evangelical, Fundamentalist, or non-denominational church bodies whose style and doctrines we often label as "conservative."

The other young people who are attracted to "mystery" instead, as has been speculated, may be seeking some sort of mystery, all right, but they also have come, much more often, from the mainline churches which retain vestments, liturgy, ritual, conventional hymns, and so on. Both sides, IOW, are twigs that have been bent in their respective directions from some time back.

 

[circuitrider]

That is all based on you wanting to separate "conservative" Christian from "Evangelical, fundamentalist, etc."

It all rides on one's definition of conservative. I was called a liberal when I was a Baptist because I didn't believe that infant baptism was wrong. Now that I'm a Methodist, there could be nothing more conservative than holding the same position on baptism that John Wesley does, which supports infant baptism.

 

[Dave-W]

You're assuming that the Judaism and culture Paul was raised in was not itself Hellenized. It was 1st century Pharisee sect, Hellenization was already a done deal.

Actually that cannot be correct, as Pharasaism was started to counter the increasing Hellenization of the Priests who stopped doing their biblical job of teaching the Torah to the population.

In the first century they had taken over all the synagogues in the entire diaspora, and linguistically had to adapt, using the LXX in some cases and in others writing the Targums. (Aramaic translations/commentaries of Torah). IT also led to an uneasy alliance with the party of Zealots. (who were VERY opposed to Hellenization)

 

[Dave-W]

It all rides on one's definition of conservative. I was called a liberal when I was a Baptist because I didn't believe that infant baptism was wrong.

From a technical standpoint, "conservative" means to preserve the status quo or seeking to return to an earlier status quo; while "liberal" means desiring to change the status quo.

So you were quite liberal in that sense.

 

[Albion]

That is all based on you wanting to separate "conservative" Christian from "Evangelical, fundamentalist, etc."

No, it's based upon wanting to pinpoint what was meant by "conservative" here...and then understanding what accounts for such people having that leaning.

"Nik Onder" said that the hip, college-educated liberal millennials were inclined towards a conservative church, and that this is a "curiosity," while the rest of them (!) are inclined towards the "oohs and ahs of high tech." If so, it's not because they're conservative or liberal in the social sense or in the political sense or even in the doctrinal sense, but it's because of the denominations that their parents raised them in and the kind of worship that describes those denominations. You just don't find a lot of Episcopalians preferring the high-tech stage shows or, for that matter, a lot of young people raised in Pentecostal households flocking to Midnight Mass.

It all rides on one's definition of conservative.

Yes indeed.