Blood is thicker than water

John 6:35-46
Jesus declares “I am the bread of life. Those who come to me will never hunger and those who believe in me will never thirst.” The intrinsic nature of Holy Communion should lead us to figure out that communion will not and cannot stop after the church service but is followed by creative action and engagement outside the church, in our own respective spheres of work and involvement. Poverty is a big problem in India and despite the effort to showcase India as a super power not much is being done to alleviate poverty in the Indian context. What can Christians offer in such a scenario?

Firstly, consider others as your own family. We do not help others because we simply do not feel anything for others. We do not feel anything for others because we are not in relationship with them. In a retreat two weeks ago a Catholic priest recollected his journey with Mother Teresa in Bangalore. She asked him to stop the car they were travelling in and gives her sandwich which she got from the plane, to the person asking for food and money on the street. Perhaps Mother Teresa saw what any of us usually do not see and that is to consider the other as family. This is easier said than done. But how do we consider others as family?

Last week the owner of a major South Indian conglomerate called for a press conference and declared that he had severed all ties with his adopted son. He was no more his son declared the father. The reason was that his son had fallen out of favour with him because he had taken over the empire built by his father and starting relieving his father’s helpers. His father then felt that his bond with his staff was more than the bond developed with his adopted son. He also went on to say that blood is thicker than anything else.

This then brings us to the next point of exploration. How can we help others when we simply can’t see them as family? Jesus’ declaration that he is the bread of life and that if we partake of him we will never hunger and thirst brings us close to the truth that if we can come into communion with each other, the blood will bind us together. Family is not just natural family but family built by this communion of trust and respect. When Jesus asks us to be in communion with him it is also to be in communion with each other. Holy Communion should lead to the alleviation of poverty because we should be encouraged to take steps to help our own extended family members, our own flesh and blood.

The beginning of this should be in one’s own church. Showing love and caring for others can take place only if we can trust one another. It can take place only if we bring the trust to the level of participating in each other’s lives. Many people come to church to experience the love of God and the strengthening presence of the Holy Spirit through the life and acts of Jesus. Showing love and caring for all people who come to church from whichever background is a way of being in communion with them through the strengthening and life giving communion we have received in church.

How far can we take this and how thick is the blood of our relationship? There was a street dog which used to live in our part of the city two years ago. The dog was familiar to me because I used to feed him bones every once in a while. He disappeared all of a sudden and I didn’t see him anymore. Last week I was in another part of the city buying some food. While I was waiting and talking to a friend, I realized that a dog was coming close to me. He started wagging his tail and then let out a howl in greeting. I realized that this was the dog who I thought I would never see again. One has to realize that relationships are forged in different ways and with different species of God’s creation. Feed each other, be in communion and bring about a bond which is thicker than blood and this will never go away.

This then becomes the deeper meaning of the Eucharist. It is a sharing that teaches us to share whatever we have with whoever we come across. It simply does not end and this becomes a part of our lives. It is indeed right when Jesus says, whoever will come to me will never hunger and whoever believes in me will never thirst. Amen.

(Excerpts of two sermons preached in the St. Ignatius JSO Church, K.R. Puram, Bangalore and the St. John's English Chapel, Lingarajapuram, Bangalore.)

Picture courtesy www.lynn-a.blogspot.com

An Ecumenical view on Churches view of Eucharist: A critical discussion .

Introduction
This paper is an attempt at looking at the Eucharist, its meaning and relevance for the church today. How relevant is the Eucharist when seen from the view of various churches? Is the Eucharist which is supposed to unite Christians also the divisive element among churches and people? What then is the future of the Eucharist in the context of the changing needs of the church in India? How should churches change in their view of the Eucharist and what changes should be made in the Eucharist so that both churches and the Eucharist complement each other?

Definition
“The Holy Eucharist is a sacrament and a sacrifice. In the Holy Eucharist, under the appearances of bread and wine, the Lord Christ is contained, offered, and received.”1 Furthermore “The Sacrament of Communion is a Holy Sacrament by which the believer eats the Holy Body and Precious Blood of Jesus Christ, presented by the Bread and Wine. This Sacrament has the greatest importance among the Seven Church Sacraments. It is sometimes called the ‘Mystery of Mysteries’ or the ‘Crown of Sacraments’; for all the Sacraments are crowned by the Eucharist.”2

How the Eucharist is interpreted
Eucharist is the Lord’s table or the coming together of people around the Lord’s table commemorating the event of the sharing of bread and wine by Jesus Christ with his disciples. The event is also given importance because it is about the transformation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. The commemoration present in the verse “Do this in remembrance of me” suggests that we have to come together and partake of the elements (the body and blood) to be one in Christ. In the early church there was an understanding that “Thus the bread and wine in the celebration actually united the participant to Christ and to all true Christians. In this way, the eucharist not only symbolized but actually effected the unity of Christians in Christ. Participation in the eucharist, therefore, was the appropriate ritual of adherence to the unity of the church. Those who refused to accept the behavioral obligations which accompanied eucharistic fellowship were outside the church and would be excluded from the kingdom of heaven.”3

Eucharist also suggests a faith proclamation or expression whereby the church declares what it believes and how it believes. The dogma or teaching of the church is expressed clearly and the eucharist forms a clear form of this expression. In this sense the eucharist is a clarity of where one stands (which side of the fence) and what one is prepared to do. The eucharist has become limiting because it is now institutionalized in and therefore only available within gated communities or denominations. What was earlier available in open, free spaces (as in the feeding of the four thousand and five thousand) is now available in limited spaces which are not fit for such eucharist events. Philip Sheldrake explains this phenomenon and says “The trouble is that some versions of a theology of spirituality of the Eucharist concentrate on building up the community of the Church in and for itself. In this case the Eucharist ends up as the celebration of the spiritual equivalent of the well secured “gated communities”…”4 He further says “To live eucharistically beyond the church doors commits us to cross the boundaries of fear and prejudice in an embrace of strangers in the public square in whom we are challenged to recognize the Real Presence of God.”5 In a positive way Eucharist is also a celebration or coming together whereby the people who belong to a particular group or community commune together to celebrate the oneness they possess and the one they believe in. This is a celebration of their history, tradition, story, and growth.

Eucharist is a food for the way whereby church members are given strength to do good and profess their mission statement to the world. The eucharist becomes a great opportunity whereby the people are called forth to do this good by being part of a community of faith. “Whoever eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life and I will raise him up at the last day. He who eats this Bread will live forever”6 As food develops the body and keeps it healthy, so too the spiritual food, which is the Holy Body and Blood of Christ, strengthens the soul so that it may grow continually in grace. “It provides remedy to the soul, body and spirit, as we say in the Offertory Mystery: “That they (Holy Body and Precious Blood) may become to us all for participation and healing and salvation for our souls, bodies and our spirits”.7

Eucharist is a memory. Memory can be selective but it is still memory. It is a memory of what has happened. This memory is kept alive so that no one forgets what happened and how we are linked to that. It is a memory that Jesus Christ lived, died and resurrected for us. This has been initiated into our collective memory and the eucharist keeps this memory fresh and alive by making us repeat what we have learnt as children. It is also a memory of the sacrifice through protest of Christ and the similar protests that are present in our own society. The Eucharist becomes a time when we then link the past, present and future through this memory.8

The eucharist is also associated with food and with the great commission of sharing food. Limited means are not the problem but the mind to share what we have makes the eucharist a beautiful act which teaches us that poverty and hunger are human made and not natural. It also teaches us that Christians are called to do away with poverty and hunger and not accentuate it and increase it. Those of us who think that poverty and hunger are not the concern of the church have got the commitment and call of the church totally wrong. One has to therefore know that the act of the eucharist strengthens us to do good and this meal for the way keeps us in the path of goodness. It gives us the promise of eternal life : It provides growth in the Spirit and spiritual perfection and life in Jesus Christ, for He said: “For My Flesh is food indeed and My Blood is drink indeed .... As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me”.9 Jesus was quite explicit with this attitude to share. “When people do come together for a meal, it’s not just to nourish their bodies but to enjoy each other’s company, to build up their relationships, to share what’s been happening in their lives. Food gives life, so the sharing of food is the sharing of life. Jesus invites us to share in his divine life when we accept the sacred food he provides for us. Jesus ate meals with people of all levels of society though he showed a preference for eating with the lowest classes. Not only was this most unusual it was breaking one of the strict taboos of Jewish culture.”10 Monika Hellwig says that “The simple, central action of the Eucharist is the sharing of food- not only eating but sharing.”11

Church and churches in India
The church is a gathering of people who belong to a subscribed faith proclamation. The gathering will be a part of what the group stands for and is a visible union of people. The church also suggests that there is but one church and therefore divisions are not part of this. It also means that there is an attempt to make the church as part of a visible union and all people are brought under this union with or without their permission. The usage of church also suggests that there is a union of different people and communities who are in different places and under different cultures. The usage then could be misleading and will cause a misunderstanding as to what the church actually means. It could also be that several denominations will use it very loosely but actually only mean the existence of their own denominational church.

Churches on the other hand suggest and explicitly state that there are not one but several churches. This could also mean that every church has truth present but will also have things which may not be accepted by other churches. This means that there are several representations of one truth. Just like we try to get an inter-religious understanding of life, we then try to get an inter-denomination, ecumenical view of life. It is also argued whether the churches come under the church.12

Churches in India are divided into the mainline, traditional, ritualistic, free, protestant, Orthodox, Catholic, Pentecostal, free and various other groupings.13 Some accept others unconditionally, conditionally and in and for certain things. In many cases a total coming together and working with each other happens in the time of some sort of persecution from other religions or from the government in the form of any legislation or special measure being followed. Each church then has its own set of beliefs, traditions, liturgy and Eucharistic model. Each church has its own understanding of the nature of the bread and wine during the eucharist and its transformation and the extent of the transformation. Every church also then has the case of acceptance in which some condition is put forth to be a part of the eucharist undertaking whereby the body and blood of Christ is given and shared on the completion of a particular clause. The belief in the nature of the bread and wine and its transformation into the body and blood of Christ itself forms a basis of division instead of unity between churches. This division is played out very strongly in the case of different churches where this becomes a very emotive and strong case of how people understand the very concept of unity.

Churches are also divided on the lines of caste and colour whereby this becomes a basis for exclusive churches which then do not accept people who they feel do not fulfill certain conditions for membership and communion during eucharist. The concept of church brings everyone under one umbrella but the challenge is that it is a concept which is hollow and not true. Unless everyone is brought under the one umbrella, it cannot be one church. The other way of looking at it would be to say that everyone is different in their own way and the struggle is to bring about unity in this diversity. Church, ecclesia and communion becomes a way of understanding the possibilities offered by the church/churches but it also brings out challenges which ask for a critical view of the church as well. This is the case in India as well where there are so many different churches. Each church is unique in its own way and people of one church do not necessarily have much idea of people of other churches and their eucharist service. This short coming many a time prevents any actual ground unity.

Challenges facing the church and possibilities for the future
Can the eucharist lead to unity rather than being a divisive element? Should we thus broaden the very horizon of the eucharist as an official act in the church or should it be seen as much more expansive and elaborate? Has the eucharist from being an act to instil the habit of sharing in people become an act which is a part of institutionalized religion? This is now further and farther from sharing and does not truly and fully make people understand the concept of sharing as part of Christian witness.

As part of the commission of Jesus to his disciples to do this in remembrance of him, the passage in the bible is referred to as the last supper. One critical part of this was the feet washing which Jesus performed. In it he tells Peter that unless Peter allows him to do this, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. This then suggests that feet washing becomes the epitome of humbling oneself and therefore without this humbling and humility one cannot hope to be a part of the true Eucharist experience. Even when we do feet washing it is limited to men and to certain men only. The true spirit of the feet washing goes much beyond this and is suggestive of washing the feet of a representation of people belonging to all genders, communities, regions, and caste.

Eucharist today also has some problems with the concept of purity and untouchability. Purity and untouchability form the basis of caste and race divisions. Anyone who comes to the Lord’s table should be given the body and blood. It is not our decision and prerogative as to who should be given and who should not. We are not supposed to decide the fashion of distribution too. The problem of purity existed in the early church as well. “When Christian rituals of baptism and eucharist were performed outside and in opposition to the unity of the church, however, they not only failed to sanctify but polluted their participants in the same way as the idolatrous ceremonies of Roman polytheism.”14

Different denominations are comfortable within their own comfortable spaces and do not want to risk any sort of problem by thinking outside the box. This forms a problem as it only brings about name sake ecumenism without really taking any risks as far as property, churches and wealth is concerned. The challenge of full unity and the fear of failure prevents small attempts at church unity. “Sykes suggests that Christianity is an 'essentially contested concept' and that what Christian unity amounts to is 'contained diversity'. He characterises Christian identity in dynamic terms: 'Christian identity is … not a state but a process; a process, moreover, which entails the restlessness of a dialectic, impelled by criticism. ' For Sykes, it is imperative that the community in which this process is worked out is a community held in unity by common worship.”15 On the other hand “for Chretian Duquoc, the churches are 'provisional societies', whose provisionality consists in 'the condition of innovation, of continual creation, of presence in changing situations'. He finds that it is 'in the positive acceptance of plurality that the churches, by their capacity for communion, bear witness to the ultimate.”16

Eucharist does bring about the possibility of commonness and unity among churches when common causes are taken seriously. “One of the major concerns of the early Church was for the Eucharist to be a sign of unity, especially when persecution threatened to divide the assembly. Eating from the same loaf, drinking from the same cup, gathered around the same table – these were symbols of a united people. This sense of belonging is still very important today.”17 Communities have to work together for this. “The liturgy is an act of the community. This is even indicated in the etymology of the term "liturgy" - leitourgia - service of the people. It is not a clerical solo performance but a concert of the whole Christian community, in which certain of its members play a special part, in accordance with their different charisms and mandates.”18

Eucharist also shows Jesus breaking himself and showing his brokenness for the sake of people. Unless we break bread we are not the true followers of Jesus. Breaking bread and ourselves is possible when we stand for the right causes. This can be done through liberative ecumenism. Such ecumenism looks at various challenges like caste, gender and ecological violence that face us today. We then come together in a unified expression against such violence.19

Conclusion
One can look at the future from the perspective of what can be done. Stanley Harakas suggests “that the main aim of ecumenism should be to bring about unity and not anything else. It does not involve human knowledge, ground realities but the unity which exists in God.”20 He suggests a moving beyond a dogmatic rigid model for ecumenism through the Eucharist. Gideon Goose on the other hand suggests using emancipatory theory for disassembling structures of dominance, dependence and inequality.21 Erin Michelle Brigham uses the communicative action theory of Jurgen Habermas to suggest how change can be brought about. “Habermas suggests that communicative rationality avoids the pitfalls of relativism and positivism, providing a helpful framework for addressing our post-metaphysical age. On one hand, the framework of communicative rationality acknowledges that truth is historically located and open to critique. On the other hand, it affirms the rational character of knowledge, opening the possibility for reaching a shared truth through inter-subjective understanding.”22 The concept of a people’s Eucharist may also suggest a future course of action. This may come about by a movement from below which has the blessings of the church hierarchy as well.23

1. http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/eucha1a.htm

2. http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/thecopticchurch/sacraments/4_eucharist.html

3. J. Patout Burns Jr., Cyprian the Bishop, Routledge: London, 2002, p. 172.

4. Philip F. Sheldrake, Explorations in Spirituality. History, Theology and Social Practice, Paulist Press: New Jersey, 2010, p. 176.

5. Ibid.

6. John 6: 54, 58.

7. http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/thecopticchurch/sacraments/4_eucharist.html

8. Margaret Scott, The Eucharist and Social Justice, Paulist Press: New Jersey, 2009, p. 76.

9. John 6:55,57

10. http://theeucharist.wordpress.com/index/chapter-11-eucharist-as-nourishment/

11. Monika K. Hellwig, The Eucharist and the Hunger of the World, Sheed and Ward: Lanham, 1992, p. 2.

12. G.R. Evans, The Church and The Churches, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1994, p. 29.

13. M. Thomas Thankaraj, Indian Christian Tradition in Religions of South Asia, An Introduction, Sushil Mittal and Gene Thursby (eds), Routledge: New York, 2006, p. 195.

14. J. Patout Burns Jr., Cyprian the Bishop, Routledge: London, 2002, p. 132.

15. Nicholas Sagosvy, Ecumenism, Christian Origins, and the Practice of Communion, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2000, p. 201.

16. Ibid., p. 202.

17. http://theeucharist.wordpress.com/index/chapter-1/

18. http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/wcc-programmes/unity-mission-evangelism-and-spirituality/spirituality-and-worship/the-eucharistic-liturgy-of-lima

19. Martin L. Daneel, Liberative Ecumenism at the African Grassroots, in Fullness of Life for All: Challenges for Mission in Early 21st Century, Inus Daneel, Charles Van Engen and Hendrik Vroom (eds), Rodopi: Amsterdam, 2003, pp. 324, 325.

20. Stanley Harakas, What Orthodox Christian Ethics Can Offer Ecumenism, Journal of Ecumenical Studies, Volume: 45. Issue: 3, 2010, p. 376.

21. Gideon Goose, Ecumenism and Interreligious Dialogue Seen through an Emancipatory Theory, Journal of Ecumenical Studies. Volume: 42. Issue: 2, Spring 2007, p.280.

22. Erin Michelle Brigham, Communicative Action as an Approach to Ecumenical Dialogue, The Ecumenical Review. Volume: 60. Issue: 3, July 2008, p. 288.

23. A point in case is how the NCCI meeting in April, 2012 experimented with an unconventional method of the Eucharist which resulted in everyone partaking of it.



(This paper was presented in the Ecumenical Christian Centre (ECC), Whitefield, Bangalore to a group of theological students on 15-5-2013)

Picture courtesy http://resurrectionde.org/new/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/PrayBelieveLivetheEucharist-001.jpg

Food for Thought: From Charity to Parity- A sermon

Luke 9:10-17

We are commemorating World Food Day this month. Half the population in India do not eat food three times a day and India has 25% of the world’s hungry. The government, people, NGO’s and religious institutions have to work over time to ensure that everyone gets at least three decent meals a day. Even as FCI godowns hold rotting grains, food is wasted and thrown away, food is commodified and priced, even as food becomes a fashion statement, we fail to give food to the poor and continue to play the politics of caste, religion and gender in food and the right to food. On the bright side people help, noon day meal schemes are reasonably successful, food from five star hotels are routed to orphanages and rice and essentials are distributed to the needy. But is food all about charity or is food the right of people to exist, to be and to become? Does food also have a tinge of discrimination in the midst of the spices and condiments?

The media have now understood the commercial value of food and have several food shows, travel cum food shows, food competitions like Master Chef and festival coverage of food delicacies. There are also numerous cookery books, websites and blogs and thousands of restaurants catering to all sorts of palates and pockets. UTC also has a way where we get to discover new tastes and dishes. My exposure to different forms of food was through the many friends I had here. I was therefore introduced to different forms of South Indian, North East Indian and North Indian cuisine. It also dawned on me that that there were so many kinds and types of food. Friends were made and relationships cemented through this sharing of food. My earlier stint at one of our seminaries in Kerala also has several stories of sharing food. All strong relationships made here are relationships sealed by food and drink. The visits to Siddique Kabab Centre, Chandrika restaurant, railway canteen, several food carts in Vasanth Nagar and the numerous tea stalls in Shivaji Nagar also made theologizing strong, as eating from one another and with one another meant an acceptance of one another too. Spice or no spice, smell or no smell, bland or salty, each dish talked a story. The food sharing in UTC opened me up as a person and it became one of the key factors of whom I turned out to be. This then helped in forging a language of communicating with my mother in law. We started speaking the language of food and she accepted me not because I knew her language through words but seemed to show affinity and a liking to her language through food. This was a fundamental progress in my development as a human being. This same formula works for pastoral house visits as well where one becomes a family member if one eats the food given. I agree that there are certain privileges which make for this pampering. Otherwise theological students are not too lucky with food in houses always. There was a student who went to a house and was asked to finish a side dish that he was given. He initially thought it was out of love but later on was told by the old woman that she had made it a month ago and was waiting for someone to come and finish it. In school I would not eat all kinds of food, partly because my stomach did not agree with it and partly because I thought or was tutored to think it was not good for me.

We can have a different take of the feeding of the multitude by Jesus. Such a take concentrates on how it would be if we were the disciples in the story and in which way we would react. We can only assume how the disciples reacted to Jesus’ retort to “give them something to eat.” Any sermon usually goes the way of looking at who wrote the text, what was the context, when it was written and what could the text be speaking to us. But we can get newer insights by writing our playwright based on what we read into the text as well. The skit tried to do that by looking at what may be another way of looking at the same story. The disciples have already scripted their own ending even before Jesus tells them what to do. But they cannot tell Jesus about this as he won’t understand their inability to distribute. The interpretation is based on what we see in the church today.

The feeding of the multitude is found in all gospels and suggests an importance to the passage and what it seeks to tell us. This importance includes the Eucharistic symbolism especially with the symbol of the bread and fish, the tutorial to the disciples on what they are supposed to do with the people of God, the importance of fellowship and sharing and even Jesus the miracle worker. The church I belong to also gives much importance to the feeding account and we hear it several times round and it even comes to the extend that certain ministers then read a different portion and preach from it as they feel this is too monotonous. The similarity with the Eucharist which the minister also conducts and distributes is strong and in a similar understanding this also becomes monotonous for several.

The problem may actually lie in the fact that the interpretation has to be a bit more relevant for the present time. I propose five insights we could get from the passage. One, food is not just a crowd puller and stomach filler. Jesus was the numero uno crowd puller for the disciples. We usually think that Jesus chose his disciples. But it could also be that the disciples chose Jesus as well. But after being a part of the Jesus movement they also understood that he had a charisma to pull crowds. This was not something they could immediately substitute. But even Jesus understands that people can’t keep listening to him. They need rest, they need to be replenished, they need food. But the disciples could not completely come to understand this, partly because they panicked how so many could be fed and partly because there was a problem that the feeding would lead to other problems later. Food still remains a crowd puller. People are hired for political rallies with the promise of food, drink and money. Almost every meeting has some sort of snacks or ends with a bigger meal. It is part of our existence and without this we cease to exist. In UTC also food becomes an important component of our meetings and many a time that is the bigger crowd puller than the talk or sermon itself. Churches also follow the system of big and small meals to keep the crowd engaged. But one has to wonder whether food is used as a crowd puller in the passage as Jesus did not use it to pull crowds because they were already there. The basic characteristic of food is filling up the stomach. But the number of people in the Lukan account would have taken quite an effort to seat and to serve as well. The amount of food from which Jesus divides is also just too small to feed the people. And yet they are satisfied. This does suggest that instead of the amount of food that they ate it was the very act of eating which somehow satisfied them. Food as just a crowd puller and stomach filler is food given out of charity. But such giving is not complete giving as it only gives a temporary relief from hunger.

Two, food encourages group activity. It is something which people do in groups. The fellowship groups in UTC are evidence of that. We usually have several activities in groups and it includes singing, story telling, gossiping, and eating. To keep a group together, we need some activity whereby they will be interested to be together. Food sharing is such an activity which will keep people engaged. Jesus instructs the disciples to seat the people in groups of 50 and then distribute the food to them. The seating in groups may have helped in two ways. One, there was an anticipation as to what would happen next and two it brought a specific number of people together. For weddings these days also there is the style of being seated on tables and in groups. What happens is that there is the opportunity to converse and share the food at hand. The bible passage does say that the disciples were asked to give food and the crowd was seated in groups. But it could also be that the disciples distributed and then asked the specific groups to distribute among themselves. This gave the opportunity of conversing, distributing and sharing, and eating and conversing. The distribution of bread and fish leads to the people getting an opportunity to come together and be in conversation. This conversation may or may not happen otherwise. But when one is put into the face of the other there is likelihood to make an effort to converse or it may be that this will not happen despite looking at each other. Even if nothing of major importance would have been said, at least small talk was possible. If we see sharing of food as charity one does not need to see the face of the one on the other side. Faces then become only photo sessions which bring us glory. Trying for parity means an effort to see who and what the other person is.

Three, the Eucharist must go beyond symbolism. The feeding also symbolised the Eucharist especially because of the formula used while looking to heaven with the bread and fish. “He gave thanks and broke them” and the bread and fish used and the later symbolism of the bread and fish in the church suggest that the early church also understood this passage as a symbol of the Eucharist which was supposed to be followed by the disciples of Jesus. This has been continuing in the church till now. The Jacobite Syriac Orthodox Church which I belong to also gives much importance to the Eucharist with every service being a Eucharist service. The concept of sharing from the same bread is still followed in a tradition that has spanned for centuries. But critically speaking the problem would be that the church has continued to see it as a symbolism which many a time does not manage to go beyond the symbolism. This has kept the church wrangled in theological disagreements with other churches and has seen the limiting of the Eucharist as a church limited, church member specific sharing. The Oriental Orthodox churches including my church see the Eucharist as the centre, start and end of worship and spiritual life. Any decision to commune with others is also influenced by this. If then certain sections of the church continue to misinterpret the Eucharist as mere symbolism it will never fulfill what Jesus may have wanted us to learn in the passage we are looking at. The passage is not mere symbolism. It is a call to share what little we have with everyone, irrespective of caste, colour, class, gender and race. Any misinterpretation of passages like the feeding of the multitude by Jesus puts the church at risk of not holding hands and sharing what we have with people beyond our limited boundaries. Symbolism also leads to charity rather than parity. We try to fulfill certain standards which will give us a certificate of charity but will never bring parity to those who seek to come to the table.

Four, who feeds the world? The World Food day had as its theme in 1998 “Women feed the world”. The feeding of the multitude does have a missing link. They are the women and children. Other accounts mention there were so many in number, apart from women and children. Jesus’ call to feed includes all who were there. But women are then absent by a very inconsequential mention later on. This again is the next problem of not having the Eucharist as one which is conducted and led by women. This takes away the credit of women as feeders of the world. This World Food Day, there was a showcase of women dalit farmers in Andhra, who are working towards preserving traditional agriculture practices. They are using their knowledge of traditional seeds to encourage biodiversity and thereby counter malnutrition and hunger. The government and the church though do not see the wisdom of such women and keep the conduct of the Eucharist a traditional man dominated bastion. 45% of women and children are still malnourished in India. The change in how the Eucharist is seen therefore cannot just be a church related thing. It is much more than that as the effects are more far reaching in how hunger affects women and children more. The absence of women and children in the feeding of the multitude text or rather the feeble presence of women and children in other similar texts proves to be more harmful than just being a church dogma. The charitable face of the church shows itself again to suggest that women were there. But were there remains an ‘also was there.’ Women and children need parity.

Finally, the 2012 theme of the World Food Day is “agricultural co-operatives as a key to feeding the world.” This leads to my final assertion from the text. Food has been commodified and is part of a multi billion dollar industry where genetically modified food will be sold to us at a premium and traditional crops will be phased out and given an early retirement. In this context food co-operatives are an answer to how we will manage to find a solution to food shortage. It is not only big co-operatives like Amul but other small co-operatives which can make a difference. Churches, seminaries and theological colleges can show the way by encouraging farming practices among community members. But equal participation has to be a key component of such initiatives as otherwise one cannot bring about successful co-operatives but rather limited co-operatives which are then not co-operatives. Such initiatives can also become true witnesses to the feeding of the multitude narrative and to God’s plan in it for us. It will be an effort whereby we not only produce for ourselves but also for the neighbourhood. The Eucharist will then be a much more expansive and liberal act where not only do we relate with the problem of denominationalism, but also caste, colour and even religion. Now we are still in the phase of charity where we still give what remains to others instead of giving from our own plate. The text can be used to recommit our call in theological colleges and churches. We are not just supposed to be a charitable organization or church doing ‘some’ charity but a larger movement which seeks a total re-organization of society and the church. Amen.

(Preached this sermon in UTC for Sunday evening worship on October 28, 2012).