yeah, Jesus certainly wouldn't want any riff-raff working against social and health problems having fun in his house or through the medium of worship...it would be as unseemly as hanging out with lepers

Polysemous

Where are you getting that there are a number of churches doing this (I don't doubt you, I'm more curious about how widespread this is), and that it's replacing the Eucharist?

Reading the link, it doesn't sound like it's a regular event, and reading the program itself, the service is still very much Christ-centered. I can see your objection if this was intended as a replacement; as a supplement, which is how I read it, I've no problem with it.

David, Mike: My concern is over the sacred nature of the venue and the name chosen for the event, namely, Christ's Holy Eucharist. Is it not the case that there is a season and time for everything? Maybe I should just get with it and hang out with lepers. As for the thought that it is growing, click below.

http://www.e4gr.org/pray/u2events.html

You're right, and I agree; the name itself, while a creative play on words, isn't particularly respectful to the idea of the Eucharist.

That said, we could have an interesting discussion on the nature of sacred spaces, Seth. I can't help but argue that no space is itself inherently sacred; I get the impression that you would disagree.

To me, it's what takes place that makes a space sacred, and to that end, the U2charist, awfully-named as it is, must be judged on the merits of its content. If it expresses the gospel message, respects the theology of the church, and communicates the solemnity and holiness of the occasion (that is, the gathering of Christians in worship), then I would be hard pressed to find fault with it.

Very well said, Mike. At least historically, Anglican altars have been consecrated, which leads me to the view that the space around that altar is not "our own" - so to speak - but rather Christ's. Now, it may be the case that every one of these churches hosting the U2 hootenanny do not have consecrated altars or a particularly high eucharistology, which renders my point moot.

Personally, I'm more offended by the use of U2 than anything. They haven't have a good album since the early 90s, and Bono is a pompous jerk (regardless of whether you agree with his politics, I think).

Why not something like a Beatlescharist?

"40" makes for a good praise song. My college fellowship group's praise band used it occasionally, and Christian artist Charlie Hall recorded a cover of it on his 1997 album "Joel's Widow."

I wouldn't be comfortable with the entire "U2charist," though. While part of the reason I like U2 is for the spiritual aspect of their music, most of their songs are just too secular to bring into a sacred setting.

Since the Council of Trent pronounced more than 100 anathemas against the beliefs held by the protestant church and these have never been rescinded, why would you consider the Anglican alters to be concecrated?

I have to agree with Eric here. The whole U2charist thing seems rather silly and a bit of a stretch to me.

On "40," I remember DC Talk covering it at one of their concerts in the mid-90s.

Mike O,

Seth may not himself find the altars consecrated, but I read him to mean that the Anglicans perform their own consecration; this may not be authentic to a Catholic, but one can assume for the sake of argument that the Anglican finds it authentic.

I will admit that I don't know the practical significance of consecration. Symbolically, I think I understand, but I detect from Seth that there's more to it than that.

"I can't help but argue that no space is itself inherently sacred; I get the impression that you would disagree."

Well, hmm, I'm pretty sure that a great many people who believe in a God rather like Allah or the Catholic-Orthodox-style version of the triune God think that some spaces are literally sacred. This is an instance where you have to justify your argument with reference to an external paradigm, not an ad hoc one of your own devising, and I'm pretty sure that the Anglicans have some notion of terra sacra (or res sacra) that would conflict with yours.

And I'm also quite sure that getting together and singing U2 isn't part of that. Cf South Park on Jesus rock; come to think of it, why not just use Al Green lyrics but change the words a bit? ("Ain't no sunshine when He's gone ...")

"This is an instance where you have to justify your argument with reference to an external paradigm, not an ad hoc one of your own devising."

I wasn't really raising the argument... I recognized it as off topic, pointed out that it would be a good discussion for another time, and moved on.