An Undefiled Sacrifice

In chapter 14 of the Didache, a work dating to about 100 A.D., we read the following: “On the Lord’s own day gather together and break bread and give thanks, having first confessed your sins so that your sacrifice [i.e. the Eucharist] may be pure.  But let no one who has a quarrel with a companion join you until they have been reconciled so that your sacrifice may not be defiled. For this is the sacrifice concerning which the Lord said, ‘In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is marvelous among the nations.’” (The citation is from Malachi 1:11.)

Note: “that your sacrifice may not be defiled”.  The Didache considered that an unresolved quarrel between church members “defiled” (Greek κοινόω/ koinoo, “make common, impure, profane”) the Eucharist— a phrase meaning that its salvific effect would be nullified if the church was rent and wracked by mutual rancour. 

St. Paul said the same thing a generation before— when the Corinthians gathered together for the Lord’s Supper with their cliques and quarrels, they “came together for condemnation” because then they were “guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11:34, 27).  The Eucharistic sacrifice offered by the Corinthian church was meant to bless, save, and sanctify them.  As it was, their mutual hostility meant that they came together at the Eucharist not for salvation and sanctification but for condemnation.  In the terms used by the Didache, their sacrifice was defiled.

We see here the supreme importance of love and church unity.  The Lord said it very clearly: “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:34-35). Love among the disciples is not a lofty goal to be striven for but not often achieved; it is not a heavenly ideal or a counsel of perfection. It is a command, an essential part of Christian discipleship.  A disciple of Christ that does not love his or her brother is a contradiction in terms.

That is why the Lord Himself gave instructions about resolving conflicts among His disciples and maintaining unity among them.  We find these instructions in Matthew 18:15f. There we read that if one disciple sins against his brother, the offended party should reprove the offender in private.  If the offender repents, all is well: you have won your brother.  But if the offender refuses to repent, the offended party must take two or three witnesses with him and try again.  If that does not achieve repentance and reconciliation, the offended party must then involve the entire local church in his attempt to resolve the matter.  If the offender refuses the entreaties of the community, he is to be expelled, becoming to the offended party and the church “as a Gentile and a tax-collector”— i.e. someone to be avoided.

We note that the offense under consideration here is a serious one, not a mere annoyance like taking someone else’s designated parking space or offering an insult.  But the goal of the legal proceedings is clear: the preservation of love and harmony among the disciples of the Lord.

The early church took the Lord’s counsels found in Matthew 18 with the utmost seriousness.   That is why we read in chapter 11 of the third century Syrian Didascalia the following about how the clergy should resolve disputes among church members: “If it happens that they have a lawsuit, let them not have their say before the heathen but before the Church… Let those who judge do so without respect of persons, with much caution, on the second day of the week [i.e. Monday]… If there are brethren who have an unavoidable quarrel with one another— which God forbid!— it is required of you that you immediately make peace that your rulers may know that those who venture to act like this are performing no act of brotherhood… Reprove [the one who is a hypocrite] and reprimand him, disgrace him and put him out of the church as a rebel… When you punish and rebuke those that are such, you will not have many lawsuits”.

Gregory Dix, in his book The Shape of the Liturgy, summarizes it like this: “The unity of the church as the Body of Christ which ever since S. Paul’s day had been understood to be of the essence of the sacrament [i.e. the Eucharist] can be violated by personal disputes among its members… It was the duty of the bishop and presbyters to mediate in all such disputes between members of their own church and regular sessions were held for this purpose.  The Syrian Didascalia of the Apostles orders them to ‘Let your judgments be held on the second day of the week that if perchance anyone should contest the sentence of our words, you may have time until the Sabbath [i.e. Saturday] to resolve the matter and make peace between them on the Sunday.’”

This a very different understanding of the nature and task of the pastoral office than currently obtains!  But we see here how important the early church regarded the maintenance of congregational unity, harmony, and mutual love.  It was so important that they had a process in place to resolve quarrels among the congregation’s members well before the next Sunday Liturgy.  Disharmony, hurt, and unforgiveness, even if silently existing between fellow communicants, were regarded utterly incompatible with the true performance of the Liturgy.

Note:  this harmony was not regarded as an ideal which they hoped would reign in the hearts of their members but about which they could do nothing.  It was not considered a private matter between individuals but the concern of the entire assembled congregation.  That is why the bishop (then the local pastor) and the presbyters were involved in the matter and tasked with resolving quarrels.  Allowing such rancour and disharmony to exist among the brethren damaged the common work of Liturgy.  Love and unity mattered.

It is very easy to ignore those attending church with us and to regard them as parts of “the crowd”, other individuals who we may or may not know or care about who just happen to be attending the same service as us.  This is all the easier if our church congregation is very large.  But the New Testament is clear that these individuals are not just faces in a crowd but fellow members of the same body. 

Paul is emphatic about this: those gathering together with us at the Eucharist share the same life as we do in exactly the same sense that members of a physical body (for example, a leg and an arm) share the same life.  What affects one, affects all: if the leg is broken, the arm (with the rest of the body) cannot hold itself aloof from the pain.  The leg’s suffering affects the entire body. In the same way, if one man in the church body is honoured, all should rejoice along with him; if one woman in the congregation suffers, all suffer along with her (1 Corinthians 12:26).

 This common membership in the body affects our behaviour too for it provides the motive for loving our Christian neighbour.  That is why Paul did not write to the Ephesians “let each one speak the truth with his neighbour, for that is the ethical and right thing to do” but rather “let each one speak the truth with his neighbour, for we are members one of another” (Ephesians 4:25).  In the Church I must live my life as someone who is part of the same body as those worshipping alongside me, as members of my own family.

That means that at the very least we should strive get to know our fellow parishioners better so that we might better bear their burdens— and ask them to bear our burdens in turn.  Do we even know all their names?  In the early church personalism was assumed.  Thus we see in the letters of John the assumption that church members knew each other well.  At the end of his third letter, John wrote, “The friends greet you.  Greet the friends by name.”  Note: “by name”.  If the church was truly a family, no one should remain anonymous or overlooked.

The Didascalia was written a long time ago and much has changed since those days.  The clergy no longer hold courts to resolve internal church disputes and it is supremely unlikely that such courts would be welcome now anyway.  We would consider such clerical attention as unconscionable meddling in things that are none of their clerical business and besides, if we are honest with ourselves, we do not regard harmony and unity within the congregation as all that important.

But it is.  We are come together on Sunday to offer an undefiled sacrifice, an offering to the Lord that comes from a family where love reigns.  That does not mean that if we find a fellow church member annoying all is lost and the Eucharist will not help us.  And it certainly does not mean that the objective sacramental power of the Eucharist depends upon our moods and weekly behaviour.  Of course the saving power of the Eucharist depends not upon us but upon the faithfulness and mercy of God who loves and sustains His Church.  Everyone approaches the Chalice confessing themselves to be the first of sinners, for the Eucharist is not for the sinless saints but for stained and repentant sinners.

But we are still called to offer an undefiled sacrifice, one that comes from a community united in love and forgiveness. This means that we should come to the saving Chalice having forgiven everyone as best we can, remembering that we are all parts of the same body, sharing the same life, and journeying to the same heavenly home.