Worthy Reading Pt. 2

Hello All,

I thought I’d give you all an article that I found highly informative and good.  As a Presbyterian who loves highchurchmanship, this article from D.G. Hart is encouraging.  We need to hear this.

Here’s the link.

Enjoy

Caleb

A Case for Weekly Communion

The frequency of the Eucharist.  Perhaps you’ve never considered this as a pertinent issue.  Isn’t it enough to remember Jesus’ sacrifice once a quarter?  In fact, wouldn’t it be more meaningful if it is administered less frequently?  We wouldn’t want the Lord’s Supper to become cold habit, a dead ritual, would we?

If the subject of Communion’s frequency in the church comes up, these are some of the questions that I have heard.  In my own tradition, it is a hot topic and many churches are considering moving toward weekly administration.  So is this a big deal?  Should the Eucharist be administered every week in the local church?  What of the objection mentioned earlier and others?

First off, my thoughts are not original on this point (as usual).  Here is an article by D.G. Hart that deals with the historical nature of the debate and argues from that so I don’t have to.  Read that now, for it will frame the discussion that follows.

Allow me to again beat what has become a thoroughly dead horse on DiscoverOrthodoxy, that of the necessity of Biblical Sacraments.  Biblically, there are two Sacraments, baptism and the Eucharist.  We all know that and generally speaking, we Protestants are good at maintaining the importance of baptism, albeit with often less-than-ideal understandings (sorry Sean) but practically speaking, it is our only sacrament.  The Eucharist, something of equal importance, is often relegated to this once-a-quarter event; the other thing we do with plate-passing, only this time there’s juice and crackers.  Because after all, we’re remembering Jesus in a special way.  Special meaning that it’s once a quarter.  I am not faulting this view.  I am merely asserting that it is completely consistent that a church would feel it acceptable to administer the Eucharist so infrequently given that the memorial view.  The fact is that we remember, should remember, and be made to remember Christ’s sacrifice every week by virtue of the preached Word; we don’t necessarily need juice and crackers to facilitate the memory.  Consequently, with this view, the Eucharist inherently leans on the obsolete side of things.  This is especially true in our Western, modern view of things where Truth is conveyed intellectually rather than mystically as well.  All of that is to show that the prevalent view of the administration of the Eucharist is completely sensical and consistent with our common presuppositions.

One problem.  What if the Eucharist is more than a mere memorial?  Quoting the Westminster Confession, what if it is an actual means of grace?  What if the Eucharist is not only “for the perpetual remembrance of the sacrifice of Himself in His death” but also “the sealing all benefits thereof unto true believers, their spiritual nourishment and growth in Him, their further engagement in and to all duties which they owe unto Him; and, to be a bond and pledge of their communion with Him, and with each other, as members of His mystical body”?  Given this description, it becomes rather plain that more is resting on the administration of the Eucharist than just our thoughtful remembrance.

I don’t want to restate all the “why’s” over again but with the statements of the Westminster, the thoughts of D.G. Hart, and the thoughts of parts 2 and 3 of my articles on Sacraments, I will just rest my argument that the Eucharist should necessarily go hand in hand with the preached Gospel, both being administered every Lord’s Day.

Now what of the objection that weekly administration will make it less meaningful, that it will become just a mindless habitual church routine.  First I would say that given the rarity of administration that’s commonplace, there’s not much room to speak of it becoming less meaningful.  Secondly, I would go to a higher discussion that deals with the worldview of our culture today which is one that views things that are informal and spontaneous as that which is sincere, and things that are formal and ritualistic as dead and insincere.  It is the modern obsession with novelty that has unfortunately invaded the minds of many evangelicals.  It explains much more than just the issue at hand.  Everything from worship style debates to church programs often show this insatiable desire to be new and spontaneous because those are the categories in which we have placed the sincere, the meaningful, and the sacred.  I would argue that if administered with the correct understanding, the weekly partaking of the Eucharist would do more to make it more meaningful to the Christian than anything else.  But, the goal is not to make it more meaningful.  Christ gave it it’s meaning in the Upper Room.  I am merely calling for us to raise our unfortunately low view of the Eucharist to the standard it maintains in Scripture and this vast history of the Church.

If you would like further explanation as to why the Eucharist is understood in this way as opposed to the memorial view, or why it should then be celebrated weekly, then tell me so I can write a follow up post.  The lack of detailed analysis was due to my desire not to restate many things I’ve already said in previous articles.  However, if that is necessary, I will gladly write more on this topic.

Thanks for reading guys

Godspeed,

Caleb

PS:  Oh, and while we’re at it, after we get our understanding of the Eucharist correct, let’s continue the correction and ditch the Welch’s or at least make it a secondary option to the proper element of wine.

Shh… Listen to it. Part Four.

Hello everyone,

Just a little update, I am so sorry for verging on becoming one of those annoyingly stagnant blogs that clutter the internet.  I do have some things going right now as I am currently waiting on a possible interview that will be posted on DO if all goes well.  But I again want to link up another series of worthy lectures.  These are by a symphony conducter named John Hodges and are titled “Beauty in Music: Toward a Christian Aesthetic”.  They have been entirely fascinating and insightful not only in their educational value in music but also in their clear outlining of the truly Christian view of beauty in music and worship, etc.

Here is the link

Caleb

Shh… Listen to it. Part Three.

At the most recent Desiring God conference, Rev. Doug Wilson gave a lecture titled “The Sacred Script in the Theater of God”.  In it is a message that all of us who consider ourselves conservative Christians must here.  Hence, I post it for you.

Also, fear not, we haven’t vanished.  Midterm season is drawing to a close and disposable time will then be had.

Here is the link.

Caleb

Who’s to say? Part 2

I thought that last post was getting a little long so I am wrapping it up in this one.

How do we bring this idea home to  a more practical level?

Well, one application is our relationships with other people, especially other believers.  If we believe the gospel then we ought to realize that we are just as damned as our neighbor. This plays itself out especially in conflict.  Neither person in the conflict has rights. Both deserve hell. We have to humble ourselves under the gospel, acknowledge that truth about ourselves, and seek reconciliation around the cross. When we stop claiming our rights and start seeking forgiveness, restoration of trust and love, and we extend mercy, we are living out God’s standard instead of ours.

Sean

Who’s to say?

As a student of history it is sometimes hard to deal with opposing views on different events. One major player you thought was for sure the worst person you had ever heard of, turns out to have had good intentions, or to have been misunderstood. Your favorite historical figure did so many things right but then has that one issue that just gets to you. This moral ambiguity in history exists, as it does in current events, as it always has in society.

We meet it in our daily lives. There is always two sides to every story. A differing perspective that might change your view if you took the time to think about it. As the book of Proverbs even says: “The first to plead his case seems right, until another comes and examines him.”

This ambiguity is present in all of the wisdom literature of Scripture. Job’s story, for instance, leaves us wondering for much of the book if Job is in the right or his friends. And Ecclesiastes is riddled with this idea of what one might call a lack of absolutes and surety in our lives.

Now those of you who know me will I hope not think I am a relativist in anyway, nor am I arguing that relativism is biblical. Please read on.

What are we to do with this gnawing sense that maybe the post-modernists have a point? How can we reconcile our belief as Christians that there is a moral standard with the ambiguity of right and wrong that is plain in the world, and even true from a human perspective?

Thank God for the gospel. The gospel confronts this issue as it does everything else in our human experience and slays us and then brings us back to life in the image of Christ. In the gospel we learn that there are none good in this world. Everyone is wrong. No one on earth has rights that can be argued nor do they deserve justice nor can they define that justice. No one can set the standard of how we ought to think. No cultural perspective is better than another. All are damnable because they have rejected the living God. And please don’t freak out about that word damnable. I am using it in the biblical sense.

Then the gospel tells us about this Almighty God, Maker of Heaven and Earth, who stands above, outside, and apart from his creation. He is holy. In His love for His creation He is involved in the flow of history and human events, but as I once heard it put “God is other.” As my old mentor used to explain God’s holiness to his children: “God is the only person who is like himself.” This God stands as the source and standard of all that is good. While we His creation stand as the source of all that is evil in the world because of our sin. He, as the Creator, the Holy One, gets the last word on what is right and wrong. No human institution, culture, or individual person can claim that. God can. And in His infinite mercy He sent Christ to this world to live a perfectly righteous life and to die as an atoning sacrifice for our sinful ideas of morality and sin in general. And then, by Christ’s resurrection, when we believe we are raised with Him to walk in a new life, clothed in His righteousness. Now by the dear sweet Holy Spirit we are being conformed as His people into His very own likeness. His standard becomes our standard. His ways become our ways. His cultural dynamics shatter and overtake and change ours. We can claim moral absolutes because we have received them from God through the work of Christ, by which the Law is written on our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33). “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Corinthians 5:21).

The previously mentioned wisdom literature confirms that God is the end all of ethical theory. The book of Job concludes with God speaking and declaring that neither Job nor his friends are correct, but He is. And Ecclesiastes finishes with the preacher saying: “The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person. For God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil.”

Thank God for the day when Christ will be all and in all.

Sean

Worthy Reading: Pt. 1

Hello everyone,

Since the current topic at hand at DiscoverOrthodoxy is the nature of the Eucharist, I’d like to post a link to a wonderful article pertaining to it.  My good friend Stewart linked it in one of his comments and after reading it, I find it highly valuable to the present discussion.

I must say that I don’t know anything about the author or the source of the article, just that I like it; it’s good stuff.

Here’s the link.

Enjoy reading it, and I am sure that all us Presbyterians will read it with hearty nods.

I have not forgotten about part two of my previous post, so fret not, for upon completion of mid terms, I shall complete my thoughts.

God Bless

Caleb

Concerning Transubstantiation: Part One

This blogging endeavor, among other things, has afforded me the opportunity to have discourse with Roman Catholics both on campus and in the blogosphere.  The Catholic Student Association on campus recently gave me a free copy of their Catechism and I have curiously read parts of it.  Also, some of my new blog buddies are Roman Catholics and I have greatly appreciated their thoughts and feedback on my past writings.  As a result, I have been re-aquainted with the doctrine of transubstantiation in Catholic sacramental theology.  Not surprisingly, I have some major questions and concerns about the doctrine in its implications for not only the Person of Christ, but His Gospel as well.  Therefore, I decided to set out with a little research to write a post presenting my issues and disagreements with the idea.  So, to my online Catholic friends, LuceMichael and Disciple, I’d love some feedback answering my questions and concerns.

I’ll begin by quoting a section from the Catholic Catechism on the Eucharist to officially establish the doctrine.  In paragraph 1374, it is said that,

The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as “the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend.”²⁰¹ In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist “the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.“²⁰² “This presence is called ‘real’ – by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.”²⁰³

And in paragraph 1376:

The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.”²⁰⁶

My first question may be overly simplistic, but it intrigues me nonetheless.  Did the sacramental elements “substantially contain” Christ when He Himself first offered the Supper to His disciples?  If my understanding is correct, Christ would had to have miraculously transformed the bread and wine into “extra Jesus” if you will.  Could He do this?  I know He performed miracles of multiplication, but could He multiply himself?  Beyond the first Eucharist, this problem seems to most fully manifests itself in the very fabric of transubstantiation which requires that the Body and Blood of Christ possess the properties of divine infinity. This enables the universal and perpetual administration of the Eucharist in every Catholic mass on earth until the Second Coming. Again, Christ performed several miracles involving the multiplication of physical things, such as in the Five Loaves, Two Fishes miracle and at the Wedding at Cana.  And I also know that in paragraph 1335 of the Catechism, it is said that…

The miracles of the multiplication of the loaves, when the Lord says the blessing, breaks and distributes the loaves through his disciples to feed the multitude, prefigure the superabundance of this unique bread of his Eucharist.¹⁵⁸ The sign of water turned into wine at Cana already announces the Hour of Jesus’ glorification. It makes manifest the fulfillment of the wedding feast in the Father’s kingdom, where the faithful will drink the new wine that has become the Blood of Christ.¹⁵⁹

This article uses the miracles as explanation of the infinite supply of Christ at the Eucharist.  However, there is a Christological flaw in this idea that seems to oppose the Hypostatic Union established by the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD and later defined by the Council of Chalcedon and its creed in 451 AD.  On this point, my question concerns the apparent infinity and “superabundance” of Christ’s physical Body and Blood required by transubstantiation.  Among its statements, the Creed declares that Christ is “consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood” and should be “acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably”.  If this is the case, if Christ is “consubstantial” with us in His humanity, then it would seem that the physical constitutions of Christ are subject to the confines of space, extension, matter, and location just as we are.  And where is Christ?  Mark 16:19 states that He ascended into Heaven and “sat down at the right hand of God”.

Now, I can already suspect a quick rebuttal on this point stating that the Protestant insistence of the merely mystical presence of Christ over the elements conflicts with the “inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably” clause pertaining to the unity of His two natures.  However, as I understand the nature of the Eucharist, the presence of Christ is according to His spiritual omnipresence as a member of the Trinity.  His humanity cannot possess the infinite properties of His divinity, for if so, He would not be consubstantial with humanity (“in all things like unto us” as the creed says) as His Body would be infinitely and spiritually dispersed throughout the cosmos.  In addition, the logical necessity of transubstantiation at the first Supper seems to detract from His complete humanity and “consubstantial” status with His disciples and all others as His physical self would have to be duplicated outside of Himself.  The concept of me holding myself as a separate object does not make much sense; if Christ was truly man, why would it make anymore sense in His case?

This is all extremely mysterious, as I have rubbed my eyes more than once whilst writing this, but in conclusion, I maintain that the Body and Blood of Christ do not possess the properties of infinity and omnipresence as expressed not only by logical necessity, but the Chalcedonian Creed, and in Scripture as well.  In the description of the Ascension in Mark 16:19, Christ’s own words regarding His ultimate location in Luke 22:69, and in Stephen’s sighting of Christ before his martyrdom in Acts 7:55, Christ’s Person is seen or expressed in a single location and according to His humanity.  I see it as impossible that His Body and Blood could be in several places at once and consumed perpetually.

In this regard, transubstantiation simply makes no sense to me given the historic understanding of Christ’s natures and common sense which clearly understands that something physical is by definition, bound to the characteristics of the corporeal.

Next, I will address the sacrificial and atoning aspects of the Catholic Eucharist according to transubstantiation.

Thanks for reading.

Discovering Orthodoxy, or, Forgive the Autobiographical Sketch at the Beginning

[Ben]

Our suggestive name raised my eyebrows at first, I must admit. Orthodoxy, I immediately felt, is not something one discovers for oneself, as if the way to orthodoxy was via some vaguely personal journey toward vaguely personal truth. Orthodoxy just is, it is given, and we only discover it by seeing that it is there. And that’s not discovery, any more than seeing what’s in front of one’s eyes is discovery.

But upon further thought, I began to see the matter in a new light. As I reflected on my own experience trying to understand what orthodoxy is, I realized my initial reaction to the name had been a little naive. After all, if orthodoxy was just there to be seen, requiring no effort to find it, wouldn’t I have seen it all by now? My experience just has been one of discovery, or attempted discovery. Orthodoxy is not just something to be seen; it is not given, except in the sense that it is handed down to us by the Church, through Scripture and tradition. But the Church has handed down a lot, and not all of it is orthodox. If we are to understand what orthodoxy is, it will require sustained effort, continued participation in the hard work of thought, reading, discussion….

I doubt this point will be controversial. If you find it so, then I expect you are one of those blessed individuals whose understanding of right doctrine just came to them one morning, over a plate of eggs and b. My congratulations. But the rest of us have had to search for right beliefs through much prayer, meditation and conversation, and many books, lectures and mistakes. The warnings that follow are for those of us engaged in the latter task.

As we seek out truth, the tendency toward gnosticism will be (for me, has been) immense. Gnosticism is one of those immediate TKO words in some circles, but I don’t mean to be tossing out theological epithets just to score points. What I mean is that the search for right beliefs can become so important to us that without realizing it, we begin to think that beliefs are all that matter, and that finding the complete collection of all the right ones is our highest obligation. If you don’t think that’s gnostic, that’s okay for now. Suffice it to say that this tendency is bad, and it is tempting. And I think it arises most easily and frequently in precisely those people who take discovering orthodoxy seriously.

To look for the truth invariably reveals both error in our own tradition and truth in other traditions. The more we see this, the more we can feel that no one is right all the way through, and the solution is to leave behind all these complacent, muddled people and go after the truth alone. After all, Aslan told Lucy that if her siblings didn’t believe that she had seen him, she ought to follow him by herself, right? Enticed by this noble conviction, too  many have found that the only way to be faithful to  the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is to start a new church, to found a new denomination, to reinvent Christianity if need be. Sometimes, then, the search for truth breeds error. The road to heterodoxy is paved with orthodox intentions. Other times it breeds division, and that is gnosticism: forsaking a real, concrete, material group of people so that one might discover The Truth, forsaking Christians in pursuit of Christianity.

This kind of gnosticism usually doesn’t manifest itself in the founding of new denominations, or anything else so noticeable. It usually creeps in when I decide that I am really the only one in my church, or one of a few, who really gets it, and so therefore I don’t really need the authority of my elders or the admonition of my ignorant fellow members. Maybe we should start a Bible study just for those who read the good stuff, or complain to each other about how irrational the General Assembly is for being such bad readers of So and So, Ph.D. Because we are the ones who have discovered orthodoxy, and we don’t need anyone who hasn’t.

It is good for us to search in other traditions and groups for good questions and answers, but this project can quickly become a mere affirmation of myself as an autonomous individual, capable of sifting, sorting, mixing and matching the doctrines and beliefs I do and don’t like until I find the perfect, eclectic collection of ideas. But in the project of reforming and edifying the community of Christ’s body (which is the point of discovering orthodoxy), I will fail if I take my leave of all real community in search of a rarified “truth”. Ecumenical conversation and crossconfessional learning are good and very much needed. But if I do this as an autonomous individual I will be just one more pope, alone in my ideology as well as in my pew.

We seek for a unified, comprehensive belief system concerning the revelation of God in Christ. This is a good thing, and God will use that search to build up his Church and his Kingdom. But the ideological unity we seek can only occur within a context of interpersonal and sacramental unity. The gospel is not advanced by lone ranger quests for correctness. It advances in relationships. This unity is more difficult and more rewarding, more costly and more valuable. Orthodoxy exists for the Church, and we will help no one by forsaking imperfect churches in search of a perfect belief system.

This is merely a call for a new Puritanism. The birth of the English Puritans was in their opposition to those who wanted to renew the church by leaving it and starting their own. The Puritans opposed this separatism by doing all they could within the broken, mistaken body in which they found themselves. More than a determination to go down with the ship, this resolve is the only orthodox way to discover orthodoxy. Only by adhering to the means of grace God has given – authority, sacraments, mutual submission, etc. – can we discover the truth God has given.

Announcements

Hey everyone,

I have some awesome news that I am really excited about.  In order to expand DiscoverOrthodoxy, I decided to invite to friends whose words and thoughts I wanted on this blog.  They are Sean Hails and Ben Pierce.  Sean is my roommate and my best friend and I can say that many of my posts come out of discourse with him.  Among many things, he will be the resident specialist on the evangelical subculture and all its wonders for he’s been there and done that more than anyone I know.  Ben is an old friend of mine from back in our days as the optimistic future of the Religious Right.  Now, we’d rather discuss the benefits of kneelers in a sanctuary.  Ben is sure to make you think hard about a variety of topics for he is a philosopher waiting to happen.

I hope you all enjoy the new and improved DiscoverOrthodoxy.  I know I sure do.

Oh, and we’ve got some great stuff coming up soon here so check back with us soon.

Thanks so much!

Caleb