You believe What?!

Towards an Understanding of the Eucharist Part 2: Anglican Understandings of the Lord's Supper.

Following up on my previous post about the nature of a sacrament, let's look more specifically at what the 39 Articles say about the Lord's Supper.

The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ. Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.

To translate this into colloquial terms, on the one hand the Articles reject the “Memorialist” view first espoused by Swiss Reformer Huldrych Zwingli. This is what I like to call the “real absence” model. Nothing spiritual or supernatural is thought to be happening here. Churches that hold this theology go out of their way to communicate that absence too. It is seen merely as a visual aid in contemplating Christ’s death in this view.

But for Anglicans that view is simply out of bounds. We hold that the Sacrament of the Table is definitely more than just a mere token. It is a Sacrament – so there is, by definition, an invisible grace being imparted. It is a true partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ – an experience of spiritual union not only with one another but with our Lord. Yet, the Roman Catholic idea of Transubstantiation[1] goes too far in the other direction. Here again, as the Article says this view, “overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament.” The means by which we receive is faith, it is spiritual food, the substance of bread and wine does not change. So, both memorialism must be rejected on the one extreme and transubstantion likewise rejected on the other. Both though are rejected for the same reason, they do violence to what a sacrament means by definition.

Anglicanism on the other hand seeks to preserve that definition and fit our understanding of the Sacraments to it. Anglicans espouse what I prefer to call the Buffalo Springfield view, “There’s somethin’ happenin’ here. What it is ain’t exactly clear…”[2] Do you see the theme of known unknown reemerging here? We know what the Sacrament is not – it’s not real absence, and its not transubstantiation. We know it is a means of communicating spiritual grace in some way. But as Anglicans we consciously choose not to define it any further than that. This theological view is most often called, the “Real Presence” view. Christ is really and truly present in the Eucharist. We know not how, we simply receive it as a mystery and partake of it by faith.

This view leads to a great deal of freedom and several valid sacramental sub-theologies within the Anglican view. There are “high church” subscribers who hold the actual substance of the sacrament in higher regard for they feel that the Presence of the Spirit is somehow attached to the bread and the wine itself. This view, high though it is still distinguishes itself from Transubstantiation because the high church Anglican should still maintain that the Presence is a spiritual and not a literal one.

On the other hand there are those who hold to a more receptionist model. In this view the Presence comes to the heart of the believer as they are receiving the Sacrament. This emphasized the work of the Spirit in the heart upon reception (thus the name) rather than attaching the Presence in a tangible way to the elements themselves. Here too they do not go to the extreme of Zwinglian “real absence.”

---

[1] This is the view first proposed by St. Thomas Aquinas and it is based on the Aristotelian metaphysics which divide the essence of a thing from the accident. In other words, the essence of the bread and wine is changed though the accident, or form, appears unchanged. Through this view the Roman Catholic holds that they are actually eating the literal flesh of the Lord and literally drinking his blood because though the elements still appear as bread and wine, their essence is changed into the actual Body and Blood.

[2] From the sixties protest song, For What It’s Worth by the band Buffalo Springfield.

You Believe What?!

Crazy Uncle Fester

Every family has that relative they frankly sometimes wish they didn't have to claim. You know the uncle or cousin who shows up at EVERY family event and just says the rudest, or the most inane thing, or just doesn't pick up on the social cues or whatever. Well, the Anglican family too has such a relation. But nevertheless, if we fail to claim him we will doubtless do ourselves a disservice and fail to live up to everything the Lord wants His Church to be.

Contemporary Anglicans, self included, make much of the three streams that flow together to form orthodox Anglicanism. Much has been written and discussed about the nexus of the catholic, Evangelical and Charismatic traditions as they converge in contemporary Anglican movements. But there is a fourth stream that we need to remember, however uncomfortable it may make us. Because traditionally within Anglicanism there has always been what Anglican Historian, The Rev. Dr. Leslie Fairfield has called, "a legitimate liberal impulse."

Throughout the history of the Church believers have taken seriously the call to remain engaged with the surrounding society. Whether that took on the form of early Christians caring for the victims of famine and plague or Evangelicals working tirelessly for the abolition of slavery. However, as Evangelical Christianity has come in recent centuries to lay greater and greater emphasis upon the salvation of one's eternal soul, it has unfortunately come at the price of de-emphasizing the "salt and light" role of the believer within her society.

As a response to that sad exclusionary motion the liberal church emerged. Now, I would be quick to follow Dr. Fairfield in pointing out that his language was carefully selected - there is a legitimate liberal impulse. This does not claim that the liberal church is legitimate, lock, stock and barrel. Unfortunately, alongside social engagement this movement within the Church also came to embrace the worst of German higher criticism, secular humanism, Eastern religion and the theology of men like Marcus Borg, Bishops John Shelby Spong and JAT Robinson before him. Sadly today many liberals have departed from the fold of orthodox, biblically based, credal Christianity.

Nevertheless, whether we get along with Uncle Fester or not, he has something legitimate to say. As Christians who are obedient to our Lord to seek His Kingdom first, we do have a role in declaring and even enacting that Kingdom in the midst of this present age. So for my part, it is my prayer that we as Anglicans would be a truly Three Streams Church which remembers the small but mighty tributary of legitimate social engagement as well.

You Believe What?!

Toward and Understanding of the Eucharist Part 1: The Nature of a Sacrament

Frankly, the theology of the Sacraments is what simultaneously places Anglicans squarely in the stream of the ancient holy, catholic and apostolic Church; and yet it is also in some ways what marks us apart from both Roman Catholics and a good number of our fellow Protestants. So it is important to understand just where Anglicans come from on these issues.

This leads us back again to our trusty guide the 39 Articles and Article XXV, Of The Sacraments, in particular.

Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God’s good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him.

That is a dense statement which requires some unpacking. The Sacraments are not just external signs. They are not just tokens of our faith like a Redwings T-Shirt is a sign of my team loyalty. But they are witnesses of God’s grace – that is they speak to us of our cleansing from sin, they speak to us of the reality of our Union with Christ and one another, they speak to us of the Covenant that God has formed with us through Christ’s blood, they speak to us of the great sacrifice that Christ made on the cross to purchase all of that. But we cannot stop even here. For they are not witnesses only – they are also effectual signs through which God works invisibly within us to quicken, strengthen and confirm our faith. In other words, if you asked me – does baptism leave a person different after the fact than they were before they entered those waters, I would respond absolutely. Does receiving communion leave a person different – to be sure. It is the spiritual food that feeds and nourishes our soul just as natural food feeds and nourishes our bodies.

We will look more at the specifics of the Sacrament of the Table in a future post.