© 1996 Meredith Sprunger
© 1996 The Christian Fellowship of Students of The Urantia Book
Long before I read The Urantia Book I realized the picture of God implied in the Pauline blood atonement doctrine was not the view of the heavenly Father that Jesus taught. Some aspects of the communion liturgy bothered me: “Eat this, for it is the body of Christ, broken for you,” and “Drink this, for it is the blood of Christ, shed for you,” didn’t seem to harmonize with the spirit of the life and teachings of Jesus. This concern was heightened when in the church I was serving a perceptive woman, who had a transubstantiation view of the Eucharist (Roman Catholic doctrine that the elements are changed into the actual body and blood of Jesus) told me, “I refuse to participate in the communion service because it is suggestive of cannibalism.” I was shocked! But I understood the logic of her reasoning.
It was time, I decided, to take a serious look at the semantics of the communion liturgy which implied the blood atonement doctrine. I experimented with changes in the liturgy which implied a blood atonement doctrine. In partaking of the elements I used statements like: “Take this bread of remembrance, for our Lord is the true Bread of Life;” and “Take this cup of remembrance, for our Lord is the Cup of Love who is present with us through his Spirit of Truth.” Various other statements can be used that do not imply a blood atonement doctrine. The Urantia Book version of establishing the Lord’s Supper contains the following statements:
“Take this cup, all of you, and drink of it. This shall be the cup of my remembrance. This is the cup of the blessing of a new dispensation of grace and truth. This shall be to you the emblem of the bestowal and ministry of the divine Spirit of Truth…”
“Take this bread of remembrance and eat it. I have told you that I am the bread of life. And this bread of life is the united life of the Father and the Son in one gift. The word of the Father, as revealed in the Son, is indeed the bread of life…”
In the establishment of the only ceremony or sacrament associated with his whole life mission, Jesus took great pains to suggest his meanings rather than to commit himself to precise definitions. He did not wish to destroy the individual’s concept of divine communion by establishing a precise form… Of all Jesus’ teachings none have become more tradition-standardized.
This supper of remembrance, when it is partaken of by those who are Son-believing and God-knowing, does not need to have associated with its symbolism any of man’s puerile misinterpretations regarding the meaning of the divine presence, for upon all such occasions the Master is really present…
“And as often as you do this, do it in remembrance of me. And when you do remember me, first look back upon my life in the flesh, recall that I was once with you, and then, by faith, discern that you shall all some time sup with me in the Father’s eternal kingdom.” (UB 179:5.1-9)
It is my hope that mainline Christian ministers will recognize the well-meaning but erroneous implications regarding the nature of God implied in the Eucharist liturgy and change it to harmonize with Jesus’ teachings regarding the heavenly Father.