Why do we focus on some significant acts and not others?
The act in question here appears in John 13. Jesus is preparing to eat His last Passover meal with the Disciples. As customary when entering a house, guests' feet required washing. This was typically done by slaves. As the Disciples enter, Jesus makes preparations as if He is going to conduct the feet-washing. Peter, ever bold and impetuous, questions the Lord, "Are you going to wash my feet?" (vs. 6)
You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand. (vs. 7)
He goes on:
A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean. (vs. 10)
He washes their feet, returns and says:
Do you understand why I have done for you? You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. (vs. 12-15)
So, why do we not wash one another's feet, just as we partake in the Lord's Supper?
I started looking into this by first asking, Did the early Church practice foot-washing? And, if so, why was it abandoned? Why is it not considered a sacrament as well?
Though I did not find an authoritative source, I found enough cross-references to believe that yes, it was practiced by the early Church, though how much so is unclear. And, that the common list of seven sacraments was not established until the thirteenth century. There are still some denominations that practice foot-washing today, primarily on Maundy Thursday.
My best guess for why foot-washing is not a sacrament is derived from the Reformed view that the two common sacraments, Baptism and the Lord's Supper, are both tied to Old Testament rites connected with the Covenant. Reasonable explanation.
All sacraments are seen as holy signs instituted by G-d; Christians have disagreed over the nature of these signs. Some argue they are mere memorials. Others that they are visible signs of invisible grace.
I understand the exclusion of foot-washing based on lack of evidence it is connected with any Covenant rites. My counterargument is based on vs. 10: A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean.
Calvin comments:
"G-d's children are not totally regenerated on the first day so that they only live a heavenly life. On the contrary, the remnants of the flesh remain in them, and they have a constant struggle all through their lives. For if the Spirit occupied every part of us, we should no longer have anything to do with the pollutions of the world. But as it is, in the part in which we are carnal we crawl on the ground, or at least our feet stick in the mire and we are to that extent unclean. Therefore Christ always finds something in us to cleanse."
I agree. Calvin takes this as a metaphorical cleansing. I'm not convinced either way. Any thoughts from the peanut gallery?
Merged like two competing paths,
Vying for dirt and grass.
With you I fold into the darkness
of a thousand shimmering stars.
5 comments:
I think that foot-washing was a metaphor for serving each other. In that day and age, foot washing was a duty for slaves. Nowadays, what would serving each other look like? Is it foot washing? Do we even have a context for that? I think Jesus wanted us to serve each other and he used a metaphor that his disciples would have understood. Nowadays, we would have to serve each other in a way that we understand as service. Does that make sense?
Today, one of my Muslim students asked me when Christians fast. Now there's a discipline that I do think we're called to continue. But how and when?
Shayna:
Thanks for sharing. Your position on foot-washing does make sense and we discussed just that in small group. (I still think it's something more than a metaphor.)
Just out of curiosity, what makes fasting different than foot-washing?
Ryann,
You've touched on this, of course, but might part of the answer lie in whether the value of foot-washing is primarily symbolic or practical? If its utility is chiefly as a symbol (as I think true of Communion and baptism), it might well be a practice to continue in obedience. Conversely, if its value was chiefly in its benefit to the recipient, the specific act doesn’t seem as relevant today (though its equivalents – perhaps helping someone pack and move, cleaning up a sick person’s vomit, etc. – might be).
I tend to think that the value was eminently practical. The disciples needed someone to perform that menial task, but it was time and culture bounded (just as was carrying the Roman soldier’s pack for two miles instead of one, perhaps).
But I might be wrong. ;-) Are there good reasons to think that its value would instead be mostly symbolic?
Best wishes,
Rob.
Rob: I'm going to respectfully disagree, based on a different understanding of the sacraments. I do not see Baptism and the Lord's Supper as chiefly symbolic at all. I view them as mysterion, 'secret' ways G-d makes us understand more clearly the promise of Grace.
Luther believed in the real physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist; Calvin disagreed but still felt it was a 'real means of grace with which the Holy Spirit nourishes believers.'
(This opens the debate for whether or not Christ's physical presence can be divided from His spiritual presence. I am not inclined to discuss this here. Yet.)
Neither is my point at present. My first point is that Baptism and the Lord's Supper are more than just symbolic acts. That being said, the more I've examined the reasons for why these two qualify and foot-washing does not, the more I do agree that foot-washing is primarily symbolic.
Here's why:
I mentioned that Baptism and the Lord's Supper both have parallels in the Old Testament. Baptism being the new Covenantal sign of circumcision, and Communion echoing the Passover. I now believe there is good reason as to why I could not find a foot-washing parallel to an Old Testament Covenant rites. Both circumcision and Passover were given by G-d for Israel -- by G-d for man. Same with Baptism and Holy Communion, which serve as direct conduits of Grace.
Foot-washing, as we are instructed by Christ, is by man for man. Aside from His initial example, it is only a relationship between man and man, and thus not a direct conduit of Grace.
Ryann,
Hmmm. You may be right about that. ;-) (That was H.L. Mencken’s response to any objection.)
But more seriously: What does it mean to say that Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are more than symbolic? The value of the acts really doesn’t seem to be in the physical washing or in the bread and grape juice consumed. (At least not today -- I understand that Communion for the early church was more of an actual meal, and I suspect that given the realities of pre-modern life, Baptism in the beginning was more of a real bath.)
Rather, the value is spiritual -- the testimony of the salvation experience and commitment in the case of Baptism and the reminder of our Lord’s sacrifice in the Communion elements that we then take into ourselves (a reminder that indeed is spiritually nourishing). Perhaps “symbolic” isn’t the perfect word here -- I certainly don’t deny that the acts help induct us into the mysteries of God’s grace -- but the acts don’t seem to have much inherent physical value in themselves.
I could be wrong, of course. We are physical creatures, and just as kneeling to pray emphasizes our subjection to God and probably affects the content of the prayers, perhaps getting washed in water or ingesting the bread and grape juice affects us in special ways. I don’t exactly see how (I don’t believe in transubstantiation), but physical acts certainly can help or hinder our spiritual lives, and perhaps I’m just missing the physical impact.
But more precisely on point, does foot-washing really fall into that category of historical physical acts that we need to perpetuate today? I’m not sure why foot-washing is of any greater value than any other act of physical humility. You’re right that the act is by man for man, and any flow of grace is through us humans, for our earthly benefit. If so, can’t we help each other in ways that are more practically beneficial?
That said, if people find value in washing each other’s feet, I’m certainly not one to object. My one experience viewing it in a service was not positive, but that may have been just a reflection of where I was spiritually or how it was done in that service. And I certainly don’t mean to criticize those who favor the practice. If people find it helpful, by all means, wash each other’s feet.
So we seem to agree that the practice is optional, but not required? See. I told you that you were right! ;-)
Rob.
Post a Comment