The Lord's Supper - Part 4

Scripture offers many examples of things which Christians are to accept as true even though they are spiritual realities which cannot be perceived by the senses. We are buried with Christ in baptism, raised as believers with him into the heavenly realms. We are citizens of heaven, eternal beings. We are to reckon ourselves as being dead to sin and alive to God.

None of these things can be subjected to scientific analysis, which is not to say Christianity is irrational. It is built on eyewitness accounts of miracles, an empty tomb and a risen Christ. But we cannot test these propositions about our own spiritual state scientifically. When we begin to try to rationally explain spiritual truths in natural terms, we come up short and cause far more problems than we solve.

In modern times, the effort to provide tidy explanations for spiritual things has led to outright denial of the supernatural in liberal theological camps and to wooden symbolism and denial of the sacramental in more conservative camps. But it is possible to live with the apparent contradiction.

And it is clear from the reading of the early church documents that the apparent contradiction was something that remained. It was not necessary, for them, to explain the unexplainable in modern, watertight terms. Hence, such a notable figure as Cyril can make two seemingly opposite statements in the span of a few sentences.

Referring to John 6, (which Catholic apologists insist must be taken literally), he argues: "Once when Christ was discoursing with the Jews, He said, 'If you do not eat my flesh and drink my blood, you do not have life in you'. Not hearing his words in a spiritual way, they were scandalized and went away to the hinterlands, believing that he had exhorted them to the eating of flesh. (Cyril, Catechetical Lectures - Mystagogic 4,4)"

Note that his point is that the Jews failed to see a spiritual truth behind the words. They were scandalized because they believed he literally meant the eating of human flesh. Cyril says, very simply, that if they thought he referred to literal flesh-eating, they misunderstood. This coincides well with Jesus' explanation of his words later in the chapter, where he says, "The spirit gives life, the flesh counts for nothing".

Yet Cyril, just slightly farther on in his Catechetical Lectures, says something definitive and seemingly contradictory: "Do not regard the Bread and Wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master's declaration, The Body and Blood of Christ." (Cyril, Catechetical Lectures - Mystagogic 4,6)

How are we to reconcile these two statements? On the one hand, we could take the Roman Catholic position of the 12th century to the present, and argue that the bread and wine are wholly transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ. But to do so, would be to render Cyril's previous statement meaningless, and would require us to re-interpret numerous other statements of the church fathers as well. It would require us to force fit transubstantiation onto the whole of the post-apostolic record.

The Lord's Supper - Part 3

I spent a number of years in churches that taught polar opposite views on the Lord's Supper. The Catholic understanding that the Mass involved a transformation of the whole substance of the bread and wine into the flesh and blood of Christ conjured strange images in my head as a youngster. Then as a teen I embraced the evangelical view derived from Zwingli's influence, that the bread is just bread and the grape juice (no wine) is just grape juice, but we are to be obedient in "remembering" the sacrifice of Christ periodically.

Reading church history has forced me to rethink that common evangelical viewpoint, yet I don"t see that the Catholic view is quite tenable either. But as I looked at the writings of the early church, certain passages in scripture started to take on a richer meaning

The Lord's Supper - Part 2

Christian worship in evangelical circles has become something of a never ending attempt to stay hip. As a result of the Reformer's emphasis that teaching of the Scripture should be central, the pulpit became the primary focus of Protestant free church worship. But as a result of the well intentioned seeker approaches to making church relevant to the unchurched, the pulpit was replaced by the powerpoint screen and the "worship" band. As outreach became the purpose of the Sunday morning service, the whole emphasis of Sunday morning was radically altered - the purpose of worship was no longer worship. Now, in the emergent church movement, there is often a very eclectic hodge-podge of elements ranging from Celtic influences to street graffiti to chant, icons and liturgical formulas, street graffiti and performance art. All of this is still called "worship" - but is it?

Evangelicals have long spoken of wanting to emulate the first century church. But what was the first century church really like? It is simply undeniable that two elements in particular were essential to worship in the early church. First, the reading and teaching of scripture, and second, the celebration of the Eucharist. Both of these elements have fallen from prominence as the pursuit of relevance has replace the pursuit of God.

The Lord's Supper - Part 1

I recently started to understand that though the battles which led to the Reformation were about salvation by grace vs. Salvation by sacramentalism, the roots of the issue went back a bit further. There would be no debate on the issue of faith over works had Pasaschius Radbertus not proposed the theory of transubstantiation in the 9th century.

Radbertus attempted to explain how Christians could partake of the "flesh and blood" of Christ in the Eucharist by appealing to rather literal and metaphysical explanations. In stating that the bread and cup are actually physically transformed into the body and blood of Christ, he set in motion an unfortunate chain of events. The Roman church officially adopted transubstantiation as a doctrine in the 12th century. As this became a central tenet of the church, certain side effects were felt.

The role of the priest was inevitably elevated as he presided over a real and miraculous sacrifice. Masses were said in the absence of laypeople on behalf of others living or dead as this sacrifice was increasingly seen as powerful to remit sin. Since Christ was physically present in the bread, his body and blood were both taken to be present in the bread, so laypeople were no longer offered the cup in communion. The meaning of the Lord's supper became increasingly mysterious, fearsome, beyond the reach of the laypeople and effective in the forgiveness of sins. This effect of elevating the priesthood and making the mass a mysterious miracle was exacerbated by the fact that the mass was said in Latin at a time when the people no longer understood Latin. It was inevitable that many would see participating in the mass as a direct means of salvation. Hus and Wycliff recognized the change in understanding of the Lord's Supper long before Luther came on the scene.

It is odd, however, that such a literal, physical view of the sacrament of Holy Communion came to be applied only to this sacrament. Jesus said, it is argued, "this is my body". He said, "unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you". So, it was reasoned, and still is in Roman Catholic circles, the bread and cup literally become the body and blood and we truly eat his flesh and blood.