These comments are offered by way of explaining why I regard the ceremony of foot washing as inappropriate liturgically, offensive theologically, and, despite the permissible rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer, subversive of the central emphasis of the Maundy Thursday observance.

That service is primarily a time to celebrate the institution of the Holy Eucharist (and the priesthood). This theme is clearly articulated in the Collect for Maundy Thursday:

"Almighty Father, whose dear Son, on the night before he suffered, instituted the Sacrament of his Body and Blood: mercifully grant that we may receive it thankfully in remembrance of Jesus Christ our Lord, who in these holy mysteries gives us a pledge of eternal life ..."

Nothing should occur to obscure that focus. Introducing the foot washing ceremony does just that.

What, then, are we to make of the optional reading from John 13:1-15, especially 13:12-16 (foot-washing), instead of Luke 22:14-30 (Eucharist)?

"If I, then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you."

The Johannine supper pericope makes no reference to the Eucharist, and the appointed lection does not extend to 13:34: "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another," the omission of which undercuts the designation of the day as Maundy Thursday (from "novum mandatum," - "new commandment").

The eucharistic significance of Jesus' body and blood is suggested in other ways in the fourth gospel: "I am the bread of life" (6:35); "I am the true vine" (15:1); et al. A careful reading of the Gospel of John readily discloses the importance which the Johannine communities attached to the Eucharist. The authors/editors apparently felt this conviction was sufficiently preserved in the text without an explicit narrative of the Eucharist itself, and that a foot-washing passage could be introduced into the supper narrative without doing violence to the eucharistic climate of the text as a whole.

But when we attend to the foot-washing passage out of its context in the gospel as a whole (by reading or ritual) we confuse an example of Christ's humility and service with the self-offering of Christ in the broken bread and out-poured wine - a constitutive act of a radically different character than the foot washing.

What then, are we to do about the words ascribed to Jesus: "For I have given you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you"?

Unlike eating and drinking (eucharistic actions), foot washing is a culture-specific, non-universal, action. We do not live in a time and place where we regularly wear sandals and walk on dusty paths. In first-century Palestine, that was the case for most people, and washing one's feet before reclining to eat would have been a perfectly normal practice. To expect contemporary women and men to relate positively to this situation and to adopt this practice ritually requires an extraordinary act of the imagination.

In the homes of the Palestinians wealthy enough to have slaves or to employ servants, the foot washing would customarily have been done by these slaves or servants. In the Johannine narrative, these expected roles are reversed. The master of the house performs the work of the slave/servant. As Jesus says, "For the Son of Man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mark 10:35).

The medieval observance of the foot-washing ceremony, as well as most contemporary Roman practice symbolically replicates this reversal of expected social roles of master-slave/servant. Even the highest, even those of most exalted station, are to be servants of the servants of God.

The presupposition of this picture is clearly a hierarchical model of the Christian community. Indeed, the words of the priest as representatives of the congregation are invited to come forward reinforces this model: " ... that I may recall whose servant I am by following the example of my master" (Book of Occasional Services, p. 93).

The hierarchical character of this model can, of course, be qualified by the change to " ... that we may recall whose servant we are by following the example of our master," and then having each person wash the feet of another. But unless the whole congregation personally, not vicariously, participates, it becomes an action to watch, not a ritual to share - a deficient picture of Christian worship.

There is no gainsaying the presence at this point in the Johannine text of an explicit command ascribed to Jesus: "For I have given you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you." How is this directive to be regarded as no longer binding on the church?

1. One way might be to consider it as unhistorical; that is, absent any synoptic parallel, it is unlikely to have been issued by the earthly-historical Jesus of Nazareth. The many differences between John and the synoptics have long been recognized. An early explanation discerned a distinctive spiritualizing/interpreting strategy in John, in contrast to the more straightforward narrative style of the synoptics. While not rejecting this observation, most contemporary New Testament scholars regard this way of understanding the contrast as over-drawn, recognizing a clear historical layer in the fourth gospel.

2. A second way begins by acknowledging that there are several explicit commands ascribed to Jesus whose literal meaning no longer has binding force, but whose metaphorical significance has continuing power: "If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also ... If any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles" (Matt. 6:39, 41). The command about foot washing could be regarded metaphorically in a similar way, that is, as a kind of enacted parable, whose literal meaning can be disregarded for the sake of living out its inner meaning and intent. In this way, to engage in any act of humble service is to follow the inner intent of the command, while setting aside its more literal sense.

3. A third way begins by acknowledging that there are many specific commandments in the Old and New Testaments that we simply no longer regard as binding, literally or metaphorically: commandments with respect to levirate marriage, usury, divorce, among many others. The command with respect to foot washing might well be added to this list.

The presence of an explicit command in the Bible then is never sufficient reason in itself to require us to conform to its mandate. Such a judgment means that we must seriously address the problem of selective criteria. On what basis do we identify some commandments as binding? The criteria must be consistent with two principles: the language of the baptismal liturgy, in which we promise to "respect the dignity of every human being," and the injunction that what we do ought to contribute to building up Christ's body.

The foot-washing command fails to meet both of these criteria. Its literal meaning can thus be dismissed while honoring its symbolic power. Introducing the foot-washing ceremony into the Maundy Thursday observance literalizes a parabolic or metaphorical action, ignores its culture-specific character, and confuses the liturgical emphasis on the institution of the Holy Eucharist. q