Anti-meal?

Why do liturgical churches practice kneeling at the table for the Eucharist?

Kneeling at the Table is defended by virtue of the Real Presence. But why should this matter? If God invites us to sit and relax in his presence, it is a strange form of devotion that says we must disobey him in order to be properly humble and pious. Did the disciples kneel or sit or stand for the Last Supper? They reclined on couches as they did for every meal.

And that’s the point. They were really eating a meal. They weren’t performing a special ritual in the sense that we think about. The ritual was an ordinary meal. Paul told the Corinthians that they could partake with just bread and wine and not the rest of the regular meal, but the fact remains that the Lord’s Supper is a supper.

Jesus didn’t demand that his disciples wait on him at the Supper. He didn’t demand they kneel. He elevated them by eating with them and even serving them.

In the OT, kings had cupbearers to serve them wine. Yet instead of a ritual in which we somehow give wine to Jesus, ministers serve the people in his name and stead. If we no longer recline, so be it. We should, however, assume whatever posture is really appropriate for a meal!

What I want to argue–though I’m not sure how–is the rhetoric of “real presence” and “incarnation” masks a truly Gnostic and perhaps Docetic impulse. The Church seems to be at war with the idea that God would actually condescend to use a mere meal as a means of grace. Instead we make it into this strange, meditative rite in which one is really just in prayer and grace is inserted while one maintains this devotional posture. One sees the same thing in low-church congregations when the participants have time to hold the elements and hunch over them in prayer, almost going into the fetal position, bodily denying the community that has gathered with them.

Far from affirming the “real presence” or the “incarnation,” crippling the actual meal that we have been given only turns it all into an abstraction. Jesus has invited you over to eat with him. That is not the time to be on your knees.

7 thoughts on “Anti-meal?

  1. Valerie (Kyriosity)

    It’s funny…the congregation I most associate with kneeling during communion is St. Peter in Va. And it’s also the congregation I most associate with joy and community during communion. The congregation sings through several hymns and Psalms as folks go forward to receive the elements. It’s almost like a dance. There is reverence and solemnity, but also a deep, strong gladness. They kneel because Jesus is there, but there’s not a sense of groveling.

    Of course I have no idea what’s perfectly theologically correct, and I’ve no complaints that my church does things differently, but there’s a quality about the Supper at St. Peter that is different from anyplace else I’ve ever partaken, and very, very good.

    How’s that for a vague, intuitive, insubstantial comment? 😉

    Reply
  2. stlouisiana

    I think my church (a PCA church) engages in a much more “meditative” and noetic form for the Lord’s Supper than any church I have ever been to that requires kneeling.

    I completely agree with you that kneeling departs from the biblical example and is a liturgical abuse, but I’ve always been struck by the way in which the liturgical action during the kneeling-rites is so physical and involved.

    By contrast, my church plays very, very quiet, always doleful, music. As the communion trays slowly ebb and flow up and down the aisles, the communicants hold the elements in their hands, concentrating carefully on Jesus’ death. I love your description of this as “going into the fetal position” — so true!!!

    In short, while I agree with your disaffection for kneeling, and I also agree that this might reflect a need to make the meal and non-meal in order for us to be comfortable with it, I wonder if these are two *opposite* ways of committing the same error of denying the incarnation/actual meal.

    Reply
  3. Joel

    The historic Reformed practice was to go forward to the the Table in order to receive, whether the elements were received sitting around (e.g., Scotland) or standing around (e.g., France) the Table.

    When the innovation of receiving in the pews began in the early 19th century in Scotland, it was an occasion for bringing charges against the church so innovating.

    That’s not to advocate any particular practice, but it does suggest that there’s room for diversity on such issues and that there may not be only one “most fitting” way of doing things.

    Reply
  4. Garrett

    “but I’ve always been struck by the way in which the liturgical action during the kneeling-rites is so physical and involved.”

    Pain has the tendency of concentrating the faculties!

    Reply
  5. wyclif

    If it helps, the notorious “Black Rubric” in the Book of Common Prayer that is part of the Anglican tradition states that no adoration of the elements is implied by kneeling. IMHO, that should be enough to satisfy Knoxians who want to make a fuss over devotional posture.

    Reply
  6. Dave

    “What I want to argue–though I’m not sure how–is the rhetoric of “real presence” and “incarnation” masks a truly Gnostic and perhaps Docetic impulse.”

    I suggest that, if you’re “not sure how” you would turn the doctrine or the Incarnation — which has been deployed against gnosticism since the first century — into the basis for gnosticism, that maybe you should become clear in your thinking here.

    What is truly and completely gnostic is your idea of the Eucharist as a “mere meal.” This is contrary to Paul’s writing, to what we know about Eucharistic celebration from the earliest life of the church, and contrary to the very heart of Christianity. This reduces grace to some kind of supernal force, like an “invisible mist” that piggybacks on the atoms of the Eucharistic elements, an idea which is of course dualistic and gnostic to the core. Did Christ’s work on the cross have anything to do with what happened to His “mere” body? Why did He bother appearing in a body to begin with? Why doesn’t God just send the “mist” of grace down in a hot dog or Chips Ahoy? Or without any food at all?

    It seems to me you’re operating with some dualistic assumptions that have more to do with pagan Hellenistic thinking than Christianity proper.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *