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.

Unity

So after numerous posts documenting what I consider to be weaknesses in the state of Evangelicalism at the beginning of the 21st century, and enumerating a number of divisive incidents which have caused me to rethink my association to the evangelical movement, the question could legitimately be asked of me, does any of this rambling contribute at all to unity in the church, and if so how?

And I would suggest as an answer that I am not suggesting any magic fix to disunity in Christianity, but I am seeing a path toward it.

Unity cannot be achieved by the power of the human will. Nor can it be achieved by constantly reinventing Christianity with each generation. It cannot be achieved by blindly and legalistically insisting on the distinctives of a particular denomination or movement. It is not achieved through a particular organizational structure.

Unity begins by listening to a single voice. What is clear and undisputed among Christians of most all stripes and backgrounds?

The Succession of Bishops - Part 5

After wrestling with the question of leadership in the church and examining oft cited quotes from the early fathers, I felt it necessary to gravitate away from the view that the local church is completely autonomous and that leadership is something which merely arises out of personal giftedness and and local church elections. Clearly the early church did not function that way. A few summary thoughts:

1. The key role of the church leader is to defend, teach and preserve apostolic truth. Whatever authority he possesses is for that purpose and that purpose alone. Of course other responsibilities go with that key role, but the teaching of the apostles is the absolute foundation of every ministry, every program, every initiative. To fail on this point is to erode the stability of everything else.

The Succession of Bishops - Part 4

An additional issue related to the “succession of Bishops” is the strongly held belief that there is a unique spiritual continuity that is ceremonially carried forward by the act of consecrating bishops and presbyters. Both Catholics and Orthodox refer often to the “unbroken succession” of bishops from the apostles to the present, sometimes displaying the particular lists which connect a particular bishop to the past. Apostolic authority is, it is believed, granted through the ceremonial “laying on of hands” of one or more bishops consecrating a successor.

The practice of laying on hands is found in numerous places in scripture. In some cases it is not related to a transfer of authority, but rather a transfer of sin. Leviticus 16:21 says of the Hebrew priest Aaron, that on the day of atonement, “He is to lay both hands on the head of the live goat and confess over it all the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites—all their sins—and put them on the goat's head. He shall send the goat away into the desert in the care of a man appointed for the task.”

Quote of the day

Quote of the day.

"A tolerance which allows God as a private opinion but which excludes him from public life, from the reality of the world and our lives, is not tolerance but hypocrisy. When man makes himself the only master of the world and master of himself, justice cannot exist. Then, arbitrariness, power and interests rule."
Pope Benedict XVI