On the Eucharist

I'm lying in bed tonight and I just can't sleep until I post this so it'll be quick. As I was lying in my bed I couldn't help but think about the day and how it was a great day. While it may be the great weather, the fact that I didn't do anything, or any combination therein, I firmly believe it is because today I had the Eucharist for the first time since the summer in Duluth.

Surely God must meet us in this Holy Sacrament. I can't explain it fully, but my countenance is lifted, my heart is more joyous, and my outlook is more positive than it has been in weeks (a much needed thing). Glory to God forever for giving us this Holy Gift - for giving us himself in this glorious actions.

Oh, that I could avail myself of this grace more often than once a week!!

I know that I'm firmly alienating myself from most of protestantism with these thoughts, but I can't deny the clear teaching of the Church for centuries and I can't deny my experience today.

Glory, praise, and thanksgiving to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit!! Amen.

Summer thoughts

Before I jump into the heart of the post (which as usual will be an assortment of randomness) allow me to do a quick update on my life. I'm not four weeks into my summer job with Youthworks (www.youthworks.com) in which I am the Site Director for their Duluth, MN site. This means that I manage a site staff of three college students (who are all awesome by the way) and together the four of us facilitate groups of about 60+ junior high kids and chaperones on week long missions trips into Duluth. While I don't get a lot of time to relax my job isn't that hard because my staff is incredible. While in Duluth we are living at a Lutheran Church which has been more than welcoming. They have lavished us with love and hospitality since the first day we stepped in the door. I will finish up with Youthworks on the 14th of August and then will leave MN after spending a couple days with my cousin Tony.

Now to the randomness.

Concerning the Eucharist:

I guess this sort of jumps off my last post. Since I am currently living in a Lutheran Church (ELCA not Missouri Synod) I have had the delight of attending three Lutheran liturgies (two traditional and one contemporary). In all three of these liturgies the Eucharist was served and in each one I noticed that the prayer of epiklesis was not said. For those unfamiliar with this term the prayer of epiklesis is the prayer which is prayed before the elements are recieved in which the Holy Spirit is asked to change the gifts and also us. I'm sure there is a better text book definition but I don't want to take the time to look it up. From what I understand historically concerning the development of liturgies the prayer of epiklesis is pretty much and essential part of any eucharistic liturgy. While the words may be nuanced this prayer is included in the Eastern Orthodox rite, the Catholic rite, the Methodist rite and I'm sure in many others. It appears in some of the earliest eucharistic traditions. Since the Lutheran liturgy has many similar phrases to the Catholic liturgy I assumed that I merely missed this prayer the first Sunday. After it was omitted the second Sunday I though the pastor forgot it and then after the third Sunday I resolved that it must not be part of the liturgy. I thought this to be extremely odd since Lutherans traditionally have a high view of the Eucharist. I didn't get a chance to talk to the pastor of the church in which we are staying, but this past week we did have a Lutheran Pastor come with his group. I asked this pastor and he informed me that the prayer of epiklesis is indeed not part of the Lutheran liturgy.

While I do not know Lutheran theology enough to comment on the inclusion or omission of this part of the liturgy I do think that it is hard for one to have a eucharistic theology of real presence (which I think Lutherans do) without a prayer of epiklesis. I suppose one could still hold this theology without invoking the Holy Spirit to make the change (or bring the presence), but I struggle to comprehend how this would look. I also wonder why it was taken out of the Liturgy during the reformation era.


-----------------------------------

A couple days ago I was asked by my supervisor what God was showing me through devotions. I thought for a second and came up with nothing. I thought some more and then provided some generic answer to avoid any possible shame that may be seen in the lack of an answer to that question. I didn't really think much of this until the other night I was down on the banks of Lake Superior with my staff and I wandered off by myself to think. The above conversation came to mind and I thought about how awful I felt for not having an answer. I felt awful not because God isn't working in my life and not because he hasn't been showing me something, but because I couldn't sufficiently meet the paradigm out of which the question was asked. Let me explain.

Has God been working in my life? YES.
Have I been growing closer to God? YES.
Have I learned to love God more over the past few weeks? YES.
Has God spoken to me in significant ways? YES.

Even with a resounding 'yes' to all of the above questions (which weren't asked in our conversation) I still feel as though I was unable to provide an appropriate answer to the question asked me. Why? Well it seems to me that the question that was asked begs for an answer that is significant. For example I think a good answer to that question is: "well, God has been teaching me that I'm self centered and here are 10 ways for me not to be" or "God has shown me that I need to do X, Y, or Z." These answers (and thus the question), while realistic at points in time, do not seem to do the Christian life justice. Sometime one cannot articulate what they are learning about God or what God is showing them. Sometimes growth happens in such a matter that we know we are growing but we are not sure how to articulate it. This is the process of the Christian life.

It seems to me that so much of protestantism focuses on the cataclysmic moments in one's faith and thus tends to error into heaping shame upon individuals or causing them to feel like no growth is occurring if there is not a moment of crisis. Will moments of crisis happen? Undoubtedly, but it seems that if we only look for crisis moments then we end up being blind to the working of God in all the normal moments of life.

All that to say that in retrospect I didn't like the question I was asked. God has been working in my life, but I'm not sure how to articulate it. I guess mostly I'm just learning obedience through the process and learning how to love him more and to partake in the divine essence.

-------------------------------------

One thing that I've noticed over the past few weeks is that I am slowly losing my longing for Sundays. Over the past few years I have come to love Sundays, not as sabbath, but as the Lord's Day. As a celebration of our Lord's resurrection. I have come to shift my eating and living happens to make Sunday truly a feast day that helps remind me that 'He is Risen.' While I still go to church and while I still celebrate Sunday, much of my Sunday is spend thinking about the group of kids that will arrive at the church at 4:00pm instead of thinking on Christ's Resurrection. Now I must be honest here over the past year some Sundays I just relaxed and didn't do much meditating and others I actually did homework, but on the whole I did at least consider one way or another to mark Sunday off as a celebration - as a mini-Easter. I find that since our Sunday schedule is packed I am not able to either relax or think about ways to celebrate his resurrection other than by attending church. I take joy in going to church but it seems that everyone around me perceives church differently than I do. I just heard one of my staff say that since she went to church tonight she doesn't need to go tomorrow (Sunday). While there is not much of an argument that can be built against that logic it makes me very sad that we have lost the meaning of Sundays. Why do we go to church on Sunday? To celebrate the resurrection with our primary family - the family of faith. Just thinking about Sunday in it's theological context gets me excited and makes me want to go to bed right now just so that when I wake up I can go to church. I'm not sure where I'm going with all this except that I'm sad that I don't get to enjoy Sundays as much anymore and I'm very sad that so much of the church (especially protestantism) has no clue what Sunday is even about or why we even do church or have it on Sunday.

----------------------

Well I think that's it for now. I hope I'll be able to blog a bit more this summer, but I can't promise anything.

May God bless you all,

Ben

One for the Road

I don't' know when I'll get the chance to post again and since it's 1:20am and I leave for the airport at 3:45am I thought that I would write a post instead of getting some sleep. As is usually the case with my longer posts, you'll have to forgive a lack of structure as I just string together a bunch of things I've been thinking about lately.

-----------

Today in church we sang a hymn that said "As many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." That is really apropos of nothing, except for the fact that it was really cool. I may have been going somewhere with that, but I'm not sure now so we'll move on.

----------------------------

A while ago I attended a training seminar for my summer job and they constantly emphasized that they do what they do because they "love the church." While I support their foundation of love for the church (because I do love the church) it started me thinking about what it means to really be the church. This is an issue I've been wrestling with for a while. I think I started to think about this during my time at Houghton and then it really started to take off since I started going to St. Athanasius. I know that many of my Orthodox friends will have ready answers for these questions as their tradition has a well developed ecclesiology, but I'm sure I'm not the only protestant who lays awake at night and thinks these thoughts (don't laugh because I really do lay awake and think stuff like this).

So here are some of the thoughts I jotted down while in my seminar.

1. Is the church primarily institutional?
   
   
2. If the church is institutional is that institution contingent on a constant line of Apostolic Authority (i.e. The apostle Peter lays hands on Jim, who lays hand on Bob, who lays hands on Jeffy, etc.) or is it primarily tied to the apostolic tradition and teaching?
   
   
3. How big of a role to authority play into where the church is? If Apostolic succession and authority are necessary for one to be in the church then are all of us in the west outside of the church because of the rebellious act of inserting the Filioque ('and the Son') clause into the Nicene Creed?
   
   
4. To be part of the visible church does one need to celebrate the sacraments? If so then are we forced to eliminate the Salvation Army and other non-sacramental groups from "church" status?
   
   
5. Does one need to affirm all 7 ecumenical councils to be part of the church? If so what about the groups that are ignorant of the councils or don't accept one or more of them, but are still orthodox in their teaching?
   
   
6. Is the church primarily visible or invisible? If it is invisible then what is the point of visible sign acts like the Eucharist and baptism?
   
   
7. Does one need to be baptized in order to be accepted into the church? (Necessary for salvation? - Talk amongst yourselves).
   
   
8. If we assert that celebrating the sacraments are a necessary action for the visible church (and I think they are) does authority then also become essential? (cf. St. Ignatius of Antioch [ca. 150AD] - "Do nothing without the Bishop")
   
   
9. If the sacraments are given to the visible church can they be celebrated and acted outside of the church? (i.e. can they be separated from the Liturgical and Authoritative acts of the Church proper?)
   
   
10. What doctrines are essential for one to be the church? Is Trinity (I think yes)? What view on predestination or other disputed theological matters?
    
    
11. If correct doctrine is essential then is correct action essential? Can action and doctrine (orthopraxy and orthodoxy) even be separated? (I doubt they really can.)

One may ask how we can truly love the church if we have so many "if" statements. I content that even if we're not sure (as I'm still working through this) we can still love the church by loving the people of God, or rather, loving those who call upon God in Trinity and profess to be the "church."

So there are some thoughts on the church. I hope this doesn't cause anyone to have an ecclesiological crisis but these are some things to think on for sure. I'm sure we could even add more to the list, but we'll let that simmer for a while.

-----------------------------------------


Laying aside my questioning I will not turn to some asserting. But first...a back-story.

When I went home for my Grandpa's funeral a few weeks back I was outside with my 10 yr. old cousin and we were talking away. He asked me if I was seriously going to be a Catholic priest like I had told him I was a day or two prior (I like to mess with him like that). I told him no, but asked him why he cared. Oh and I should note that he's a fairly smart 10 yr. old. He proceeded to tell me that all the problems with the Catholic church and how they didn't believe like "we" (i.e. protestants) believed and thus they probably weren't Christians.

Now, I don't want to pick on my little cousin, because he is after all only 10 and that's not really a fair fight (he'd probably own men). But I am fairly certain that these thoughts didn't originate within himself. In fact, to be honest, I had many of the same thoughts in myself before I went to Houghton.

I tried to tell him that Catholics really don't believe some of the things that he claimed, but the big question that came to my mind is why protestants have such a beef with Catholics. I'm sure they'd have beef with Orthodox too, if they actually knew what they were. As I thought about this I came to a few conclusions. I think that many of the protestants who rail against catholics have had very minimal interaction with catholics, catholic services, and catholic writings. I also think that protestants have unfairly characterized catholics. I believe this characterization stems from not knowing what they believe, but also from being intimidated by the authority structure that is in place within Catholicism. I am willing to contend (and to be fair I would need to do much more research) that much of the negative reaction to Catholics by protestants is not really concerning beliefs (because most protestants don't really know what Catholics believe) but because they don't understand authority and have been taught that to have any priest other than oneself is of the devil.

I say this because one of the most common critiques of Catholicism that I hear is against confession. I am absolutely befuddled by the number of protestants who will go to their small group meetings and share that they are struggling with "sin A, B or C" and ask for prayer to help them, and then turn around and condemn Catholics for seeing a priest and confessing to him. What an absurd hypocrisy.

The more I think about it, the more I believe that much of protestantism has a sever problem with submitting to authority. It's sort of appropriate considering we still define ourselves as "protest-ant" (i.e. one's who are protesting against something - namely authority). Yes, authority can be taken too far. Yes, there have been some bad Popes, Bishops, and Priests. But there have also been some very godly and saintly Popes, Bishops, and Priests. In fact, one of the most saintly men that I have ever had the chance to meet was Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa. Fr. Cantalamessa visited Asbury in the fall and is the preacher to the Papal Household. Yes, that means he preaches to the Pope. Granted my interaction was limited, but I could tell from my limited interaction that this was a Saintly man who loved and served the Lord with great zeal. It was my delight to receive a blessing from him before he left.

So all that to say that I hope my cousin and most of protestantism will come around and appreciate the good that Catholicism (and Orthodoxy) has to offer. I think that this move has begun, but let us hope that it continues as good dialogue with Christian traditions and doesn't move into dialogue with non-Christian religions such as Mormonism and Jehovah Witnesses.

-----------------------------------------

Book Review:

I finished St. Cyril of Jerusalem's Lectures on the Christian Sacraments a few weeks ago and it was great. The lectures are relatively short and one could easily read them all in one setting. Cyril writes his lectures around 348AD and so these lectures are a great insight into early sacramental thought. Cyril writes on beginning Catechism, The Eucharist, Baptism, and Holy Unction (not in that order).

There were so many good things allow me to just quote a few passages:

Speaking to catechumens concerning preparation for Baptism:

And what Solomon spoke of others will suit you also; for he said, There is a time to bear and a time to die; but to you, on the contrary, the time to die is also the time to be born; and one and the same season brings about both of these, and your birth went hand in hand with your death.
O strange and inconceivable thing! We did not really die, we were not really buried, we were not really crucified and raised again, but our imitation was but in a figure, while our salvation is in reality.

Concerning the Eucharist:

Since then He Himself has declared and said of the Bread, 'This is My Body,' who shall dare to doubt any longer? And since He has affirmed and said, 'This is My Blood,' who shall ever hesitate, saying, that it is not His blood?
He once turned water into wine, in Cana of Galilee, at His own will, and is it incredible that He should have turned wine into blood?...
Therefore with fullest assurance let us partake as of the Body and the Blood of Christ: for in the figure of Bread is given to thee His Body, and in the figure of Win His Blood; that thou by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, mightest be made of the same body and the same blood with Him. For thus we come to bear Christ in us, because His Body and Blood are diffused through our members, thus it is that, according to the blessed Peter, 'we become partakers of the divine nature.'...
Contemplate therefore the Bread and Wine not as bare elements, for they are, according to the Lord's declaration, the Body and the Blood of Christ; for though sense suggests this to thee, let faith stablish thee. Judge not the matter from taste, but from faith be fully assured without misgiving, that though has been vouchsafed the Body and Blood of Christ.

I'm not sure what else to say concerning the book, except that it is a good read and sheds some very good light on early liturgical practice and belief in the early church in Jerusalem.

-------------------------------------

St. Cyril serves as a nice transition into the next (and likely the last) topic: the Eucharist.

Since my senior and maybe junior year at Houghton I have been rethinking and reforming my sacramentology. Much of this formation has occurred in my view of the Eucharist since it is one of the most important things the church does. Since Houghton my view of the Eucharist moved from a strictly Zwinglian/memorialist view of Communion that holds that it is just a time where I remember Christ, to a more Lutheran/Methodist view of 'real presence' meaning that God is truly present in Spirit and imparts some sort of grace during the act.

I have continued to think on this over the past year and have pursued the issue in my research into early Church history. Although I am not sure if I am 100% committed, I do believe that I am leaning toward a sacramentology that posits not only real presence, but also real Body and real Blood. You may be asking why I believe I am coming to this conclusion. Here are a few reasons:

• As Luther wrote on the table when arguing with Zwingly: "hoc est corpus meum" or "It is my body." Jesus Christ said in the Gospel accounts that it was his body. While this could be metaphoric it seems to me that the evidence points that it is not.
• The evidence in the earlier sources suggests a very high eucharistic view and probably that of literal body and blood. We saw above that this view is fully articulated in St. Cyril in 348AD, but I believe we can see traces of this in St. Ignatius, and other second century saints.
• There is no biblical argument against it.
• There is no reason why we should not accept it. A paradigm that rejects the transformation of bread and wine into body and blood is likely entrenched in modernism and in the enlightenment emphasis on the scientific method. This worldview leaves no room for miracles and thus one might as well reject the resurrection if one rejects the miracle that is the transformation of the elements in the Eucharist.
• The emphasis in the earliest liturgies is that the Holy Spirit is the agent of change within the elements. This places the emphasis off of humans and back onto the gracious action of God for his people.
• Receiving grace in the eucharist is not juridical grace (i.e. salvific) but rather the grace of God's presence. A view that posits all grace as juridical is highly Anselmic and is not founded in the biblical worldview of grace.
• Even though it doesn't taste like it, as St. Cyril says, we must believe in faith. To help address this 'problem' one of my Orthodox friends says that it is more of a revealing than a changing. That is: Is it still bread - Yes. Is it still Wine - Yes. Is it real body - Yes. Is it real blood - Yes. It seems that this view posits that it is body and bread, and blood and wine all at the same time.

The reasons given above are why I am very close to believing that it is literal body and literal blood. I say 'very close' because it is a big move to change a whole paradigm and changing my mind to this is quite a task.


-----------------------------------------

Today was Pentecost Sunday. How many of your churches celebrated that instead of memorial day? Probably not many. That makes me sad. Just FYI.

-----------------------------------

Well I think that is it. I can't think of anything else to write. I am leaving for Minnesota tomorrow to work for Youthworks for the summer. I will be living in Duluth, Minnesota and will return back to KY on August 17th. I will try to blog throughout the summer, but I'm not sure how much time I'll have. If you need to get a hold of me just call my cell (if you have it) or post a comment and I'll get it when I check my email.

Concerning the reading list: Kung, Dostoyevsky, JND Kelly, and Witherington aren't going to make the flight because the first three are too big and the last one is low on the priority list. Maybe I'll get at these during the time between the end of youthworks and the beginning of school.


Blessings to you all in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit!,


Ben

Flee to the Eucharist!

Is one of my favorite quotes by Robert Webber. I love the imagery and the power of thinking about fleeing to the cup and the bread to meet Christ and to partake in his suffering and death.

Today at our weekly mid-week Eucharist chapel I had an unusual experience concerning 'fleeing to the Eucharist.'

As a sound person I am use to getting neglected during most services and especially during communion. I rarely get served and usually end up having to serve myself after the service is over. Well today, like many others, i was forgotten and I planned on going to partake in the sacrament after the service was over. Well, just as I was walking down the stairs someone came and took all the bread and one of the cups away. So I had to hastily walk (cause i didn't want to make a huge scene) after her to get the Eucharist.

I just thought this was a funny story, especially when I remember Webber's quote. It turns out sometimes you have to literally flee after the Eucharist, as well as flee to it.