St. John 17:20-23: “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me."
So we see, Jesus prays for unity. And, we should add, He will get it. But why doesn't He have it yet? Hint hint, we're sinful and stuff...
Anyhow, one of the major dividing doctrines in Christianity are the Sacraments. Baptism divides churches, but so does the Sacrament of the Altar, aka Holy Communion or the Eucharist.
Is the Eucharist worth dividing over? Absolutely yes, and here are some reasons as to why.
What is the Eucharist?
The three common interpretations of this (and this is simplified) are:
The Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ given for the forgiveness of sins. This interpretation is the traditional Christian one that went virtually unchallenged for the first 1500 years of the Christian Church. Whereas the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church dispute on how that happens (we Lutherans refuse to go beyond the Word here, Rome has transubstantiation), the Real Presence is affirmed. The Eucharist is the real bodily presence of Christ.
Enter Ulrich Zwingli. Zwingli was a pure memorialist. In simple terms, the bread and wine are nothing but a bare sign, done by us as a thanksgiving unto God. To put this bluntly, Zwingli denied the Real Presence. Communion is just bread and wine. This was THE issue that disallowed unity between Luther and Zwingli at the Marburg Colloquy.
And then there is John Calvin, who strove to concoct a via media between the two systems. Calvin tried relentlessly to be faithful to both the ascension of Christ as well as the Words of Institution. What he came up with however was quite novel: The Holy Spirit carries us by faith into the throne room where Christ is in heaven to feast on His body and blood. Some theologians have accused this view of being Nestorian.
So different views of the Eucharist create division between churches, that is true. And I think, rightfully so. This is why:
First of all, the memorialists accuse the Real Presence advocates of worshiping an idol and holding to a superstition. The charge of cannibalism has even come up. The memorialists also accuse the non-Roman Catholic defenders of the Real Presence as being Romanists or hanging on to a holdover doctrine from Rome.
Another accusation made by the memorialists is that the Real Presence as a Sacrament for the forgiveness of sins (like baptismal regeneration) is a denial of sola fide. The Roman Church outright rejects sola fide anyways, but the accusation is a huge one to Confessional Lutherans who hold to the true bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, as well as sola fide.
So, how can us Real Presence folks be in communion with the memorialists. Obviously, the theological differences are too great to overlook. From their end, we are idolaters who add works to grace and reject sola fide.
On the flipside, the Real Presence adherents have serious problems with the memorialists. At the Marburg Colloquy, Luther even implied that Zwingli and his ilk were not brothers in Christ, despite reaching agreement on many things!
But why? Is the Real Presence that important? We think so for many reasons.
First and foremost, we believe the Real Presence is the clearest meaning of the text, not to mention the Church has always held to it. Therefore, we argue that the memorialists don't even have the Lord's Supper. They tinker with the elements a lot. Many churches use oyster crackers and Welch's grape juice. By doing this, they're essentially allowing Pietism, Legalism, and the women's temperance movement of the early 20th century to determine what elements are used in communion.
Second, from our perspective, they are guilty of rejecting what the Lord's Supper is. In short, when St. Matthew records the following:
St. Matthew 26:27-28: And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
We argue that the memorialists are guilty of rejecting this. This too is no small charge. If we, the Real Presence advocates are correct, and the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ given for the forgiveness of sins, then the memorialists are guilty of rejecting a means of grace and therefore a Gospel promise. That's a big deal.
Those issues are but a few, but they are big ones.
We must have unity, but we cannot have unity in the midst of grievous error. The Eucharist is one of those huge dividing points in the church. And so it shall be until Christ returns.
No comments:
Post a Comment