Considering the Presence of Christ in the Supper


With John 6 ahead of us on the lectionary docket -- at least those of us preaching from the Gospel this Sunday, we get to consider the body and blood -- actually flesh and blood of Christ.

As we consider this idea of the presence of Christ with us in the sacrament, we must admit that there is likely no more divisive doctrine in the church than how we understand the presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. Is it memorial, metaphor, "in, with and under," or transubstantiated? We've been having these debates for centuries. Luther and Zwingli really went at it, arguing over the meaning of the word "is." Transubstantiation, which marks the Roman Catholic understanding works well if you start with Platonic categories of substance and accidents. But if you're not working from a Greek philosophical angle, it becomes rather ghoulish.

As we consider this idea, I'd like to throw out a quote from a Disciple theologian, Joe Jones. Jones is concerned about the grammar of our faith -- and thus concerned about how we use words. He writes:

At the table Jesus Christ is encountered as the living, risen Lord. He who died for all on the cross under Pontius Pilate is raised and alive with the heavenly Father and is freely present in the elements of the bread and cup. These corporeal elements of the earth are the deputized signs of Christ's living presence, even if Christ's presence is not a property of the elements as such. The bread of the meal is the sign of Christ's body broken for the world and raised from the dead for redemption. The cup of the meal is the sign of Christ's blood shed for the world and the source of new life in the Spirit of Christ. Here in the bread and cup, Christ is encountered and the church knows Jesus Christ as the Victor over the world and the true Lord of history. (Joe R. Jones, A Grammar of Christian Faith,Rowman & Littlefield, 2002, 2:674).


I think Jones has laid out for us a helpful way into the conversation, one that recognizes Christ's presence by the Spirit in the Supper, without trying to force a particular means. I also find it helpful here that he makes clear that whatever presence there is -- is freely chosen by Christ, who is the host of the meal, and not the result of human machinations.

Comments

John said…
Bob,

Thanks for continuing the discussion. But I think Jones does force (or preclude) a particular meaning when he repeatedly calls the elements signs, and most specifically when he says the elements are "signs ... even if Christ's presence is not a property of the elements as such."

There is a continuum of ways to perceive the Eucharist, ranging from the transubstantiated substance of God to simple meal in remembrance of Jesus, from a direct encounter with the substance of Christ to an obedient act in memory of the risen Lord. Depending on one's theology you may not expect to encounter the risen Lord just one another at the table.

I think people need to be encouraged to reach into the Eucharistic encounter and receive as much as they can from it, to make every connection available to them, to be open to as much of the Presence as their soul can accept.

John

Popular Posts