House Church Talk - Passion --> in remembrance of Me

David Anderson david at
Tue Mar 9 18:15:24 EST 2004

>David, with regards to the link you provided about remarks on this film.
>You said you hadn't listened yet?  I would tell you not to bother.  It is
>nothing but anti-Catholicism, making mountains out of molehills, and full of
>weak arguments.  The speaker says that the Bible doesn't talk much about the
>suffering and therefore believes it is disproportional to make an entire
>movie filled with it.  Well, how much more could the Bible say than it does?
>It describes what happens, but this is one area where a picture is worth a
>thousand words.  Oh people, we CAN NEVER THINK TOO MUCH OF

Thank you, Janet M, for the review - and that with laser sharp accuracy. 
Way to go.

Your line about never thinking too much of Jesus and his sufferings is 
truly of divine origin, think I. Is every thought to be brought captive 
to the Christ? Are we to pray without ceasing? Are we to rejoice always 
in the Lord? Are we to give thanks to Him in everything? God truly has a 
very comprehensive plan for our thought-lives - a Jesus-centered one.

     <gear change>

One of the most fascinating questions, to me, is whether our Saviour, in 
saying the words "as oft as you do this, do it in memory of me" is 
speaking of a ceremony OR merely referring to the simple act of eating 
and drinking (which really can be done in remembrance of his sufferings 
and death at anytime). The latter view would certainly give new meaning 
to the words "as oft as ye do this." If Jesus were referring to a 
ceremony, he would not have said "as oft as you do this" (i.e. a 
ceremony), do it in remembrance of me" (another ceremony) for such a 
statement would have been entirely redundant.

1 Cor. 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had 
supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, AS 
OFT AS YE DRINK IT, in remembrance of me.

If the unusual view of "every meal as a reminder" is sound, it would 
explain why, when we come to the book of Acts, there is no mention of a 
sacrament known as the Lord's supper (I am aware that the phrase "Lord's 
supper" is used elsewhere but not as a proper name.). All were Lord's 
suppers whether private or public! Imo. For more on this totally radical 
idea, check out:

Is He not the Bread of life? Is He not the Water of life? Could not the 
daily intake of food and drink remind us that spiritual nourishment comes 
only from Him? I need not remind you that some branches of the church 
have given the "Eucharist" an aura of magic. Most institutional churches 
regard it as the main thing that they can use to "excommunicate" the 
erring. Most require an administrator lest layman corrupt the "elements." 
Some "priests" celebrate it in the presence of onlookers. Some use Latin. 
Even Reformers clashed over it. Surely, something is amiss. And surely, 
it was never meant to have been a micro-meal.

John 6:53-56 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, 
Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have 
no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath 
eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 
For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth 
my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 

Might not our daily bread and drink (as well as our corporate church 
meals, of course) symbolize these very words or.... am I out to lunch?

    David Anderson

House Church Talk is sponsored by the House Church Network.

House Church Talk has been renamed. These discussions, via the web, now occur at the Radically Christian Cafe.