The Sacred Meal By Nora Gallagher is an odd look at the Lord’s Supper. The traditional and Biblical meaning of the Eucharist — Jesus’ sacrifice on a cross to pay the penalty of man’s sins– is sorely neglected. Instead Gallagher sees the Lord’s Supper as a humbling method God uses to thrust Christians together in fellowship through this shared ritual. Trying to shed light on the Lord’s Supper, she brings insights from Buddhist yoga teachers and from her experiences praying with Muslim women during Ramadan. It was all so totally unusual to me, a conservative Protestant. (Nora Gallagher is an Episcopal.)
The book certainly had nuggets of inspiration that resonated with me. But there were some key areas where Gallagher veered so far from Biblical orthodoxy that I just can’t recommend the book as a whole.
1. Her view of sin is post-modern.
She says that sin is not so much about personal conduct but about justice. Therefore she delves into topics such as global warming, soup kitchens, sweatshop factories, and AIDS patients. She compares America with the corrupt Roman Empire and warns of a coming day of judgment. But there is nothing said about the punishment of hell for an individual sinner.
In speaking of her preparation for taking the Lord’s Supper, Gallagher says, “I try to bring my whole self to the table. All the good stuff and the bad.” There is no mention of repentance of sin (or even of accepting Christ at all) as a prerequisite to partaking of the Sacred Meal. This is contrary to Biblical teaching.
Because of her post-modern view of sin, her humanistic Christianity is merely a social gospel.
2. Her view of Jesus is incorrect.
Whenever Gallagher spoke of Jesus, it reminded me of the Jesus in The Last Temptation of Christ – a confused teacher who slowly discovers his calling. Again, this is simply not Biblical. Jesus is fully man and fully God. A mystery, yet a truth.
3. She rejects the total depravity of mankind.
Gallagher puts far too much hope in man. These passage shocked me, “Jesus. . . . puts great faith in us. Jesus puts great faith in our ability to change course and to answer his call.”
Really? If Jesus had such great faith in man, why did He have to die for them? Why did he come to this earth at all? Why did He give us the Holy Spirit to enable us to obey if we already had this ability?
Later she even goes farther to say, “The things he [Jesus] did could not have been done without them [the disciples].”
I totally disagree. We need Him. He does not need us.
I’m glad this book was free. Thanks, Thomas Nelson, for letting me read it and giving me the freedom to write a negative review. If I had paid $18 for The Sacred Meal, I would have been very, very disappointed.
I’m also reading a book that I’m struggling to enjoy whole-heartedly. While there are some wonderful nuggets, I wrestle with the author’s post-modern feminist theology. Fortunately, I think I’m finding more gems than duds with my book – I just hope it continues.
For there record…the Orthodox church does not agree with the theology of total depravity. That is a late addition. But, I don’t think we would agree with Ms. Gallagher’s take either. We certainly do need a Savior!
.-= DebD´s last blog ..Around the House =-.
@Deb — 🙂 You know I’m a die hard Protestant. Human depravity is one of the five pillars of reformed theology.
I appreciate your input. You are my “resident expert on the Orthodox church.” I’d love to hear what you think of this particular book if you read it. In fact, as I read it I thought of YOU and wondered about your take on it all. The things she described in taking communion were very far from the Methodist and Baptist (and even non-denom, Charismatic) styles of partaking.
Thomas Nelson has had some, um, interesting, book review choices lately. Glad I didn’t choose this one. That’s for the review.
.-= Kristen´s last blog ..Do you have a song in your heart? =-.
Yikes! Glad to hear this!
.-= Jolanthe´s last blog ..Handbell Strikeforce =-.
LOL just the title screams Episcopalian. I knew the author was Episcopalian long before you said she was!
I’m a life-long Episcopalian and that means I have some very specific views on what the Eucharist means. Think of a very Roman Catholic tradition with a Protestant theology.
There are many conservative Episcopalians with a healthy protestant, Biblical perspective. So, please do not associate this point of view as true of the entire church at large.
That is why the Episcopal Church USA is at such odds- those who are more liberal minded and those more conservative Biblically are at huge odds right now.
Heather
@Heather,
Thanks for your input. Now you can serve as my resident Episcopalian. 🙂
You give a good reminder not to associate N. Gallagher’s view with that of the Episcopal church as a whole. (I don’t BTW.)
Thanks for the honest review. There are many books in a “Christian” bookstore that are far from Christian! We should all compare the books we read to the ultimate authority– God’s Word!
.-= Marsha´s last blog ..The Jacket =-.
Having been Episcopalian for my whole life, up until just before I was 30, many of the things that you said about this book sounded very much like the feelings at the parish that I was at for the last 15 of those 30 years. (Not to say all parishes are like that, but the one I was at definitely was.) It was the very kinds of things that made it to where we were dragging ourselves to attend church, even though we were only going about once a month. Then, we finally just decided that enough was enough, and we converted to Catholicism. My only regret was that I put it off conversion so long just because I was scared to leave what was familiar.
Sorry that you had to make it through the whole book!
.-= Angie @ Many Little Blessings´s last blog ..A Guide for 2010 =-.