Firbush Retreats Firbush retreats are organized and led by Robert T. Walker. Firbush retreats are designed to make the best theology accessible to as many people as possible and especially those not trained in theology and often not familiar with routine technical terms. They combine times of worship and prayer with reflection on a theme related to Torrance theology. For more information see https://tftorrance.org/firbush. ----------- Firbush Retreat Fall 2016 Angus Morrison, "Eucharist and Renewal in the Church" https://tftorrance.org/firbushF2016 The audio recording for this presentation is available on the Firbush Retreat section of the website for the Thomas F. Torrance Theological Fellowship. The following AI transcript is too rough to rely upon, but perhaps useful for word searches and time-stamps. It is unretouched; if anyone wishes to listen to it and clean it up we will be happy to post an improved version (contact the webmasters). We invite speakers to send us slides for their talks, which we will post alongside the audios and transcripts. If any speaker wishes to have their talk removed from the website, just let us know and we'll take down both the audio and the transcript. ------------ 00:00-00:05 who in fact did have the graveyard slot today, but I think Jennifer's convinced she has, 00:05-00:15 I'm not so sure. There is a handout, it's not much of a route map, indeed it probably 00:15-00:21 needs to be revised such as it is, but it at least gives some indication of the direction 00:21-00:30 of travel. I don't know if everyone has one, there's a couple still down here. I'm very 00:30-00:41 conscious of coming after excellent presentations from four highly accomplished systematicians 00:41-00:45 and the voice that I've heard in my little head from time to time has been "What doest 00:45-00:55 thou here, thou little humble historian of even that?" But it's been good to be here 00:55-01:03 and my mind has been stretched and made me think of things I hadn't thought of before. 01:03-01:09 I suppose the fact that I am here is due to three things, the persuasive powers of my 01:09-01:17 good friend, our good friend Bob, my profound admiration for the theologian after whom our 01:17-01:24 retreat is named and with an abiding sense of gratitude indeed for Professor Torrance's 01:24-01:32 personal support and encouragement at a challenging stage on my own, a slightly unusual ecclesiastical 01:32-01:39 journey. Not to speak of the wonderful recipe he gave to my wife Marion when he came for 01:39-01:47 dinner one night to our home in Edinburgh, this involved cooking chicken breasts in Coca-Cola, 01:47-01:52 if you'd like to know, and I can recommend it. I'm not sure about the theological significance 01:52-01:59 of all that. And then, Marion and I, and Marion is sorry not to be able to be here tonight 01:59-02:07 for family reasons, for the conference I should say, we remember the warm fellowship and encouragement 02:07-02:15 of our brief visit shortly after taking up the Moderatorial Office last year and throughout 02:15-02:21 the year we have more than once, we more than once recalled the warmth of the fellowship 02:21-02:31 and the touching prayers that were offered for us in this room and we remain deeply, 02:31-02:39 deeply grateful for that. It is good to be here. Approaching the subject from maybe a 02:39-02:45 slightly different tack, I hope what's here will complement some of what we've already 02:45-02:53 heard very helpfully on the theme already and there will be some overlap. But the title 02:53-03:06 I was given invites reflection on ways in which our understanding and practice of the 03:06-03:15 Lord's Supper may further renewal in the contemporary church on both individual and corporate levels. 03:15-03:25 And we've heard already how central that was in the theology of T.F. Torrens. Reflection 03:25-03:30 along these lines is of course immediately beset by at least two major problems. First 03:30-03:38 of course the extraordinary and sad fact that an important element of Christian worship 03:38-03:44 clearly intended to be a focus of our unity and fellowship as disciples of Jesus has proved 03:44-03:51 over the centuries to be the cause of some of our deepest and most bitter divisions. 03:51-03:56 And then secondly we have to reckon with the sheer complexity of the Eucharistic theologies 03:56-04:03 that have been elaborated in our diverse traditions over the centuries and that's been mentioned 04:03-04:08 already. Now all of this could lead to gloomy thoughts about the possibility of the Eucharist 04:08-04:15 contributing anything to renewal in the church in our time but such a conclusion would I 04:15-04:23 believe be premature. While we have a long way to go there are real signs of hope as 04:23-04:31 we see increasing convergence across our traditions in respect of Eucharistic understanding and 04:31-04:38 practice. One of the most important contributions of the particular reformed tradition represented 04:38-04:44 by T.F. Torrens with its Semper Reformanda watchword must surely be to remind ourselves 04:44-04:48 and all other ecclesiastical traditions of the constant need to re-examine all that is 04:48-05:03 most hoary and to do so in light of a constant re-reading of our foundational scriptural 05:03-05:11 documents. So a difficult legacy as I said it's a sad fact of church history that a right 05:11-05:15 or ordinance which was intended to be a focal point of unity among Christian people has 05:15-05:25 occasioned such division and even continuing quarrels. I mean even the titles that we use 05:25-05:37 for this sacrament, the Eucharist, Holy Communion, Lord's Supper, each of them can be defended 05:37-05:44 from biblical usage as you know but too often even the terms we use are laden with freight 05:44-05:50 that is either acceptable or unacceptable depending on its perceived associations. I 05:50-05:57 am hardly out of nappies. I myself was quickly conditioned to regard with suitable theological 05:57-06:05 suspicion any person or body use the term Eucharist of the Lord's Supper. Eucharist? 06:05-06:12 Holy Communion was maybe marginally less doubtful. So you'll appreciate I've travelled a fair 06:12-06:18 journey when I'm happy to use the preferred ecumenical term Eucharist in my talk. The 06:18-06:24 Eucharistic meal separated Catholics and 16th century reformers and within the Protestant 06:24-06:31 movement itself widely differing views are held by Lutheran free reformed churches over 06:31-06:38 history. The very centrality of the Eucharist to the church has made it both a sign of unity 06:38-06:46 among Christians and yet a focus for the divisions that have arisen among them and such debates 06:46-06:52 have been of course wide-ranging with differences in understanding and practice as Jeffrey Wainwright 06:52-06:58 has said often symptomatic of other differences in doctrine and life that have arisen among 06:58-07:05 them. We're all familiar maybe too familiar with the hotly debated issues and we'll be 07:05-07:11 returning briefly to some of them in what way exactly is Jesus present in the bread 07:11-07:19 and wine what benefit comes to those who partake and who can preside or officiate communion 07:19-07:24 we've heard about that how frequently should the supper be celebrated who may fittingly 07:24-07:32 participate and so on. One example that comes to mind the the Argent Supper strife between 07:32-07:40 Luther and Zwingli and remember their famous meeting at Marburg in 1529 there was vigorous 07:40-07:48 debate over the meaning of the copula is in 1st Corinthians 11 24 this is my body and 07:48-07:54 Luther if holy tradition is to be believed writing with his finger on the table between 07:54-08:05 him and Zwingli using the froth of his beard. Hoch est kochus meum this is my body and he 08:05-08:13 would repeatedly point to the table and the foaming est encountering Zwingli's memorialist 08:13-08:18 arguments I assume that Luther would have had to reinforce the letters with each new 08:18-08:27 tankard of beer. Sadly he and Zwingli came to no agreement but really looking back over 08:27-08:34 Christian history it's quite extraordinary how a relatively few clear references to the 08:34-08:41 supper in the New Testament have generated such vast mountains of varied theological 08:41-08:48 superstructure. If you wish to absorb some sense of just how enormous and varied that 08:48-08:57 superstructure is I commend to you Bursma and Levering's new dictionary of sacramental 08:57-09:05 theology published last year it's over 800 pages and I'm guaranteed to give you some 09:05-09:10 feel that a good place to begin although it'll leave your times gasping for some good clear 09:10-09:18 taste side air. In terms of more recent ecumenical discussion across various ecclesiastical fronts 09:18-09:25 it is encouraging to witness some significant progress towards a resolution of these sad 09:25-09:33 and shameful divisions occasioned by the supper. In passing one of the most significant of 09:33-09:39 recent ecumenical documents is the 1982 World Council of Churches groundbreaking baptism 09:39-09:47 Eucharist and ministry. As in the case of baptism BEM sets out the main dimensions of 09:47-09:53 the Eucharist thanksgiving to the Father, an amnesis or memorial of Christ, invocation 09:53-09:59 of the Spirit, communion of the faithful and and we'll be coming back particularly to this 09:59-10:10 meal of the kingdom. As Kierkeanon says it's undoubtedly a mark of the wisdom of BEM that 10:10-10:16 it does not engage the theological controversies such as how to define Christ's presence but 10:16-10:27 rather concentrates on what Christians may be able to affirm together. In passing just 10:27-10:33 since it was mentioned earlier BEM argues that because Christian life is deepened by 10:33-10:40 the celebration of the Eucharist it would be good to enjoy it every week. Worthy of 10:40-10:45 mention also is the agreed statement by the Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission 10:45-10:54 Archaic 1971. Anglicans and Catholics here agree that Christ's redeeming death and resurrection 10:54-11:02 took place once for all in history, one perfect and sufficient sacrifice for the sins of the 11:02-11:08 world. No repetition of it is possible although in the communion there is indeed a making 11:08-11:18 effective of an event in the past. Antony Thistleton points out however that there appears 11:18-11:28 to be to remain some inconsistency in Roman views because Vatican II in fact still adheres 11:28-11:37 to Aquinas's doctrine of transubstantiation. If we want to speak in terms of ontology, 11:37-11:43 as we shall see maybe what the nature of the Eucharistic supper actually requires is the 11:43-11:55 replacing of all versions of substance ontology by an authentic relational ontology. I don't 11:55-12:01 intend spending a lot of time going down the philosophical route in this paper, you'll 12:01-12:07 be glad to know. In light of the long contentious history of the Eucharist, it's not surprising 12:07-12:14 that some contemporary churches such as the Salvation Army have dispensed with the Eucharist 12:14-12:24 altogether. It seems on the face of it a sensible solution. But despite holding the Salvation 12:24-12:29 Army, among whom I have good friends in great admiration, however what has been given to 12:29-12:36 us in the Eucharist and that's already been highlighted in our gathering and its potential 12:36-12:44 for renewal in the church is just too precious and wonderful a gift to take such a course. 12:44-12:49 The sacrament of new creation. What in short then is the Eucharist all about? A brief quote 12:49-12:55 to kick off from the Australian New Testament scholar Michael Byrd who's written some incisive 12:55-13:03 things about the Eucharist. I think this expresses it in a kind of nutshell. The meaning of Eucharist 13:03-13:11 is ultimately anchored in a story, in fact the story is a snapshot of the grand narrative 13:11-13:18 of God, creation, the fall, Israel, the exile, the Messiah, the church and the consummation. 13:18-13:22 Eucharist is ultimately a microcosm of our theology as what we think about gospel, salvation 13:22-13:28 and community impacts our theology of the Eucharist. The bread and wine tell a story 13:28-13:35 about God, redemption, Jesus and salvation. The Eucharist is essentially remembering Jesus' 13:35-13:43 death, re-inscribing the story of Jesus' passion with Paschal imagery, restating the promises 13:43-13:50 of the new covenant, rehearsing the victory of Jesus over sin and death and refocusing 13:50-13:57 our attention towards the parousia of the Lord Jesus. Living in the light of the church's 13:57-14:04 final destiny. Tom Wright has written, "The question for us must be how can we today get 14:04-14:10 in on this story? How can we understand this remarkable gift of God and use it properly? 14:10-14:17 How can we make the best of it?" I should say that a good deal of what I want to share 14:17-14:25 with you takes its cue from Wright's ecclesiology and sacramentology partly because I find it 14:25-14:32 extraordinarily suggestive and essentially true to the scriptural witness and helpful 14:32-14:40 than reflecting on the place of the Eucharist in the renewal of the church today. Those 14:40-14:45 here who are more familiar with T.F. Torrance's ecclesiology and sacramentology will be able 14:45-14:55 to highlight points of correspondence and divergence later. Wright discerns in the New 14:55-15:01 Testament a deep and a rich ecclesiology and argues that allegiance to the visible historical 15:01-15:07 church is part of allegiance to the gospel itself. Paying attention to both the story 15:07-15:13 of Israel and God's purpose for the world are vital steps to appreciating this. For 15:13-15:19 Wright, the gospel or good news at core refers to the royal proclamation that in and through 15:19-15:26 Jesus declared by his resurrection to be Messiah and Lord, Yahweh, the God of Israel, has become 15:26-15:32 king and begun his process of putting his world right. Through the coming of God's 15:32-15:38 spirit, everyone without restriction is summoned to be part of this renewed world that he is 15:38-15:46 remaking. And in that context, every aspect of building for the kingdom, everything done 15:46-15:51 in the name of Jesus, whether evangelism, the seeking of social justice and care for 15:51-15:57 the environment and creation is equally gospel work. In this perspective, the calling of 15:57-16:03 the people of God can be understood as to live in the light of Easter by seeking to 16:03-16:10 anticipate in the present as much as possible of the future resurrection life. The church's 16:10-16:17 role is to proclaim that Jesus is Lord and it does this through its words and deeds, 16:17-16:23 imagining and embodying the reality of the new creation that Jesus Christ has come to 16:23-16:30 bring. The church's worship and mission can therefore only be properly understood in light 16:30-16:37 of its final destination. And worship is fundamentally about the church being led by the spirit to 16:37-16:45 live in ways that anticipate the reality of God's future age. Within this broad ecclesiological 16:45-16:53 context, we can begin to grasp the appropriate and valuable role of the sacraments. For Wright 16:53-16:59 himself, the sacraments are to be understood as special points established by Jesus and 16:59-17:06 used by the Holy Spirit to bring God's presence and new creation into the world. This is a 17:06-17:14 sacramental theology as Kurt says, based on the biblical worldview of heaven and earth 17:14-17:22 being understood as interlocking dimensions of the created order, and there was reference 17:22-17:29 to that last night, rather than distant from one another. It also rests upon continuity 17:29-17:34 with the presentation of salvation in the Old Testament and the process towards God's 17:34-17:41 ultimate intention to fill the whole of the world with his presence, as in Isaiah 11.9. 17:41-17:49 Old Testament presentations of this can be seen in the establishment of the temple as 17:49-17:55 the place where heaven and earth were joined and Yahweh could be met, 1 Kings 8, and the 17:55-18:01 connection made particularly in Isaiah between the future renewal of the covenant and the 18:01-18:08 renewal of creation, Isaiah 54 and 55 particularly. In this light, by the power of the Holy Spirit, 18:08-18:16 the Eucharist is made not a bear, but an effective sign of God's salvation. It is given to bring 18:16-18:24 the Messiah's risen body as that part of God's creation that has already been renewed into 18:24-18:31 the world, Christ's presence. It's important to recognize that the presence of Christ in 18:31-18:40 the Eucharist has been a constant confession of the church throughout its history. Where 18:40-18:47 Christians have differed sharply is in accounts of how he is both host and food. If Eucharist 18:50-18:57 then is all about, in a very deep way, about presence, how should we think of the presence 18:57-19:03 of the living Christ in relation to the Eucharist and the elements of bread and wine? At the 19:03-19:10 risk of bringing coals to Newcastle or kayaks to Furbourg, let me quickly remind you of 19:10-19:15 the principle understandings held within the church on this subject, offering in each case 19:15-19:22 a very brief assessment in light of the ecclesiology we've just sketched. There is first the historic 19:22-19:27 Roman Catholic view, the doctrine of transubstantiation. I think the first thing that we have to always 19:27-19:34 note about that doctrine is its extraordinary philosophical and theological sophistication. 19:34-19:41 In this tradition, transubstantiation is the term employed for describing the process that 19:41-19:48 takes place at the Eucharistic consecration. The bread and wine undergo, we'll come back 19:48-19:54 to that, the bread and wine undergo a metaphysical change into Christ's blood and body. It follows 19:54-19:59 that the Eucharist is a sacrifice. It was of course the great Aquinas who formulated 19:59-20:04 this official teaching. In seeking to explain the real presence of Christ's body and blood 20:04-20:09 in the sacrament, Aquinas drew on the main school of philosophy that was available to 20:09-20:16 him, that of Aristotle, with its distinction between substance and its properties. Plaschia 20:16-20:23 explains quite well what that means. In the normal course of things, he writes, properties 20:23-20:30 change, but the underlying substance remains the same. I paint a red box blue and its colour 20:30-20:36 has changed from red to blue, but it remains a box. In the Eucharist, Aquinas said the 20:36-20:43 properties remain the same, but the substance changes. The elements still look and taste 20:43-20:48 like bread and wine, but the bread and wine have been transubstantiated into the body 20:48-20:55 and blood of Christ. And of course in 1215, the fourth Lateran Council affirmed transubstantiation 20:55-21:02 as the doctrine of the Church. Interestingly, like Catholics, the Orthodox regard the Eucharist 21:03-21:10 primarily as a sacrifice. The Orthodox believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, 21:10-21:17 but unlike Catholics or Lutherans for that matter, Orthodox tradition generally refrains 21:17-21:25 from human conceptual attempts to describe it. Michael Byrd describes a conversation 21:27-21:34 that he had with an Orthodox priest, the language is slightly un-Presbyterian. "Nico's mate, 21:34-21:40 how can the bread and wine be bread and wine and be Christ at the same time?" After a brief 21:40-21:46 pause he looked me in the eye and replied, I'm changing the word, "Dashed if I know, 21:46-21:53 mate, it's just a mystery." As Byrd in my view rightly says, the fact is we do not know 21:55-22:02 and we cannot know. It's sophisticated, a doctrine of transubstantiation has been with 22:02-22:09 its philosophical underpinnings in Aristotelian ontology, it certainly feels a very, very 22:09-22:16 strange notion today. And apart from this Eucharistic context, no one I think holds 22:16-22:23 by an Aristotelian ontology any longer. Catholic theology itself has been aware of the problem 22:23-22:30 , not least transubstantiation's apparent detraction from the uniqueness of the incarnation. 22:30-22:38 And particularly under the impetus of late 19th century liturgical movements, modern 22:38-22:44 Catholic theologians like Karl Rahner, Hans Kung and Edward Schillebeck have attempted 22:44-22:51 to produce a better formulation of the classic doctrine. In addition to re-establishing the 22:51-22:57 integral link between the word and sacraments, these theologians through the notion of symbol 22:57-23:04 embodiment and relationality have conceived of the presence of Christ and the effects 23:04-23:10 of the sacrament in a way that's more in keeping with the general move away from a substance 23:10-23:17 ontology to a relational ontology. And there have been discussions notably in the work 23:17-23:23 of Pannenberg of the value of a term such as trans-signification, which simply means 23:23-23:30 a change in the meaning of an act, such as when a piece of paper is changed into a letter. 23:30-23:39 And there's clearly much potential ecumenical mileage in these discussions and things are 23:39-23:44 moving forward. Turning to the Lutherans, they of course in substituting consubstantiation 23:44-23:51 for what Luther saw as the crudity of transubstantiation, still trying to secure the idea of Christ's 23:51-23:58 real presence. With his doctrine of consubstantiation, Luther retained a bodily presence of Christ 23:58-24:04 in, with and under the sacramental elements. And this was based in part on a literal reading 24:04-24:11 of John 6 and the "This is my body" affirmation already referred to, and partly on his view 24:11-24:17 that a proper understanding of Orthodoxy's communicatio idiomatum, the communication 24:17-24:24 of attributes, the human nature of Jesus must share in the divine ubiquity. Personally I 24:24-24:31 find it difficult to disagree with the view that the difference between the Catholic and 24:31-24:37 Lutheran positions is much more than a matter of semantics. 24:37-24:43 For Zwingli, in reaction to the perceived Catholic approach to the sacraments, which 24:43-24:48 for him involved a little less than the performing of sympathetic magic, there was simply no 24:48-24:55 question of her real presence, despite Luther's protestations to the contrary. For Zwingli, 24:55-25:02 the Eucharist, it was a bare sign, a simple reminder of the historic fact that Christ 25:02-25:09 had died for our sins. Christ's body was present only in heaven, and that was that. The Eucharist 25:09-25:14 was an act of pure remembrance and nothing more. 25:14-25:21 For Calvin, as in subsequent Reformed tradition, as we've been reminded already, the sacraments 25:21-25:29 related closely to the preaching of the Gospel. A sacrament, he said, is never without a preceding 25:29-25:35 promise but is joined to it as a sort of appendix. But when joined to the word, sacraments have 25:35-25:42 the same office as the word of God, to offer and set forth the Christ to us, and in him 25:42-25:49 the treasures of heavenly grace. The sacraments do what the word does only better, because 25:49-25:56 they also contain a visible component. The sacraments bring the clearest promises, and 25:56-26:02 they have this character over and above the word because they represent them for us as 26:02-26:09 painted in a picture from life. They do not work ex operi operato, but let's say automatically, 26:09-26:17 but to be effective must be received by faith on the part of the participant. 26:17-26:23 For Calvin, the supper is essentially a banquet at which we feed on Christ. While he agrees 26:23-26:29 that the supper is a memorial, he rejects the notion that it's a bare sign, affirming 26:29-26:34 that while it's proper to distinguish the sacrament from the reality it signifies, one 26:34-26:40 must not divide them, for the sign and the signified belong together. Calvin recognized 26:40-26:47 that in order to feed on Christ in the supper, Christ must be present. His controversy, for 26:49-26:54 example, the Roman Catholic Church, was not about the fact but the mode of that presence. 26:54-27:01 For Calvin, union with Christ was central to his understanding of the supper. While 27:01-27:08 Jesus' risen body in the between times is located in heaven, nevertheless he is not 27:08-27:15 absent from us, but dwelling in us by the Spirit, he raises us up to heaven to himself, 27:15-27:22 transfusing into us the vivid, vivid vigor of his flesh. We've tried this, we've tried 27:22-27:28 this ground already. The reality of union with Christ by his Spirit makes his physical 27:28-27:33 presence in the bread and wine absolutely unnecessary. On Calvin's understanding in 27:33-27:39 the supper, we are raised up to heaven by the Spirit to feed spiritually on Christ, 27:39-27:46 even as bread and wine keep and sustain natural life. So, even in light of this little sketch, 27:46-27:56 it seems clear that further progress in our understanding of the Eucharist must involve 27:56-28:03 a rereading of the relevant biblical material. I think it was Peter Lighthart in that connection 28:05-28:12 who made the point that if a Martian were to read the medieval scholastic discussions 28:12-28:21 of the Eucharist, he wouldn't have the slightest idea that he was reading about a meal. 28:21-28:32 Fizotan has pointed out that in the synoptic gospels and in Paul, the context of the administration 28:32-28:39 of the Last Supper and Lord's Supper is crucial to its understanding. Although this has frequently 28:39-28:45 been neglected in the history of sacramental theology, fresh attention to the context of 28:45-28:51 the Supper and the gospels and Paul seems the root of greatest potential for the effective 28:51-28:58 reinstatement of the Eucharist in the life of the church today. Significance of the Passover 28:58-29:05 community. That context was of course Jesus' observing of the Jewish Passover meal. Bob 29:05-29:14 spoke earlier of Torrance's understanding of the Lord's Supper as the reconstructed, 29:14-29:24 I think the phrase was reconstructed, messianic Passover. The preparation of the meal as a 29:26-29:33 preparation for the Passover is made explicit in each of the synoptic gospels. In Judaism, 29:33-29:41 the Passover literature is known as the Seder, and this takes the form of reliving the narrative 29:41-29:51 world of participants in the Passover. In effect, participants relive the Passover events 29:53-29:59 of the deliverance from their bondage to Egypt and the beginning of a new life as the redeemed 29:59-30:06 people of God. And with regard to our understanding of the Eucharist, Thistleton makes some important 30:06-30:14 points, establishing the point that both Exodus 12 and the Jewish Mishnah make clear that 30:14-30:22 the Passover is a dramatic event, he says in terms of the way in which the Passover 30:23-30:30 the way in which Urs von Balthaser and Kevin Van Heuser for example describe doctrine, 30:30-30:38 the drama of doctrine. Thistleton offers a quotation from Exodus 12 and from the Mishnah. 30:38-30:44 The Exodus 12 quotation goes like this, "When you come to the land that the Lord will give 30:44-30:51 you as he has promised, you shall keep this observance. And when your children ask you, 30:51-30:58 'What do you mean by this observance?' you shall say, 'It is the Passover sacrifice to 30:58-31:05 the Lord.'" The Mishnah adds, "In every generation, a man must," and in the following words are 31:05-31:15 italicized, "a man must so regard himself as if he came forth himself out of Egypt." 31:19-31:26 Now theologians like Yeremias and Leenhardt have demonstrated that the Last Supper dovetails 31:26-31:33 with observance of the Passover. To offer one significant example, it's been shown that 31:33-31:39 there are close parallels between the Seder and the words of institution of the Lord's 31:39-31:46 Supper. The Seder begins with the doxology, "Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of 31:47-31:54 the universe, Creator of the produce of the vine." Yeremias and Leenhardt link Jesus' 31:54-32:00 blessing of the bread and wine with this. Now those of us who have raised on the good 32:00-32:07 old authorized version will recall that the bread, not God, is made the object of Jesus' 32:07-32:15 blessing. And the version that maybe some of us use most of the time, the New Revised 32:15-32:22 Standard Version, unfortunately, follows suit by inserting an "it." But if Yeremias is correct, 32:22-32:33 and almost certainly seems to be, there's no thought at all of consecrating the bread. 32:33-32:41 In line with the Seder parallel, it is God who is the object of blessing. Food for thought. 32:45-32:51 The Seder then reads, "This is the bread of affliction that our forefathers ate in the 32:51-32:57 land of Egypt." And as Leenhardt points out, it would have come as a tremendous surprise 32:57-33:04 to the disciples when Jesus suddenly departed from the expected words in their place, pronouncing 33:04-33:13 "This is my body." Now this apparently is a very interesting example of the bread of 33:13-33:19 Jesus. This apparently deliberate, conscious linking by Jesus of the Last Supper and the 33:19-33:25 Passover liturgy has important implications for our understanding of the meaning of "This 33:25-33:32 is my body." Referring to the endless debates about whether the sentence is literal, fully 33:32-33:39 ineffective, symbolic, metaphorical, Thistleton argues, persuasively I think, for a different 33:39-33:46 understanding, drawing on the use of "dramatic" by Balthazar, Van Huzer and Paul Ricoeur, 33:46-33:53 he makes a case for "dramatic" being a more appropriate word. And for this he finds confirmation 33:53-34:01 in an examination of remembrance and amnesis in the Greek, "dzekeher" in Hebrew. "Do this 34:03-34:10 in remembrance of me" reads 1 Corinthians 11, 24-25, "tuto poiete, eis tien emen anamnesin." 34:10-34:20 He points out the Greek and Hebrew verb doesn't just mean "to call to mind" in the sense of 34:20-34:27 purely intellectual recollection. His further comment is illuminating, "A generation ago 34:27-34:33 the objective force of the Hebrew was probably overstated as if it were an objective, virtual 34:33-34:39 repetition, of a past event. Today most or probably all traditions recognize that the 34:39-34:46 work of Christ on the cross remains in principle once for all." "Epipax" the Hebrew and Greek 34:46-34:55 usage implies both this and also middle course, that of dramatic participation. When believers 34:57-35:04 pray to God, "Remember the distress of your servants," as in lamentations by one, they 35:04-35:11 ask God to act as a participant in their woe. The purpose of dramatic symbolism is to create 35:11-35:19 a narrative world in which participants almost, but not literally, relive their part. It's 35:24-35:31 the notion maybe conveyed best by the black spiritual, "Were you there when they crucified 35:31-35:39 my Lord?" Now the meal nature of the Eucharist as initiated by Jesus is, I think, that a 35:39-35:46 reappropriation of the Eucharist in the context of church renewal requires to be focused in 35:46-35:53 our time. Across societies and cultures of all times and places, meals have been crucial 35:54-36:01 as the development of relationships, crucial to the development of relationships, an absolute 36:01-36:08 key contribution to social well-being. Food connects, as Tim Chester says in his book, 36:08-36:18 A Meal with Jesus. And in each of the Gospels, particularly in Luke, we see meals imbued 36:20-36:27 with a deep theological significance. As Chester says in Luke, the sentence, "The Son of Man 36:27-36:36 came," is concluded in each of three ways. First, the Son of Man came not to be served, 36:36-36:47 but to serve and to give his life a ransom for many. Second, the Son of Man came to seek 36:47-36:54 and to save the lost. Third, the Son of Man has come eating and drinking. Now, if the 36:54-37:06 first two are statements of purpose, the third is a statement of method. Jesus came to create 37:15-37:20 fellowship. That's what he did as he went about Galilee. He created fellowship wherever 37:20-37:27 he went. He always sought out company, and the effect of his presence was to create a 37:27-37:36 celebration to bind people together. He was seriously into eating and drinking as the 37:44-37:51 accusation of his enemies to the effect that he was a glutton and a drunkard suggests. 37:51-37:55 In Chester's words, he did evangelism and discipleship around a table with some grilled 37:55-38:02 fish, a loaf of bread, and a jug of wine. Luke carries, maybe exaggerates only slightly, 38:02-38:08 when he says, in Luke's Gospel, Jesus is either going to a meal at a meal or coming from a 38:08-38:15 meal. Sounds good. I think it's Rowan Williams who makes the point that for a time in Galilee, 38:15-38:33 whenever you go and come across celebration, laughter, sharing, feasting, the chances were 38:33-38:40 that Jesus was at the center of it. When Jesus wanted to encourage his followers to think 38:40-38:54 about his death, what he gave them was not an abstract theology of atonement. He gave 38:58-39:05 them a meal. Rowan Williams sets his discussion of the Eucharist in this wider context of 39:05-39:14 the many stories about Jesus and hospitality in the Gospels. It goes on to show that one 39:14-39:20 of the major themes of the resurrection stories is the way in which all this starts over again 39:20-39:26 on the far side of Jesus' death and resurrection. When the risen Christ eats with the disciples, 39:26-39:31 it's not just a way of proving he is really there. It's a way of saying that what Jesus 39:31-39:37 did in creating a new community during his earthly life, he is now doing with the apostles 39:37-39:44 in his risen life. Which is why throughout the centuries since, says Williams, Christians 39:44-39:51 have been able to say exactly what the apostles say. They are the people with whom Jesus ate 39:51-39:58 and drank after he was raised from the dead. Holy Communion makes no sense at all if you 39:58-40:06 do not believe in the resurrection. In Holy Communion, Jesus Christ tells us that he wants 40:06-40:13 our company, says Rowan Williams. That is possibly, he says, the most simple thing we 40:13-40:20 can say about Holy Communion, yet it is still supremely worth saying. In Holy Communion, 40:20-40:27 we experience the call to a new level of life together, a new fellowship and solidarity, 40:27-40:33 a new willingness and capacity to be welcome ourselves, becoming involved in Jesus' own 40:33-40:40 continuing work of bridging the gulfs between people, drawing them into shared life in the 40:40-40:46 central task of bridging the gulf between God and humanity created by our selfish, forgetful 40:46-40:53 and fearful habits. So here we are being encouraged to think in more concrete ways about the Eucharist 40:53-41:04 as a sacrament of God's great project of new creation. We remember how Jewish sacred meals, 41:04-41:11 not least the Passover, were believed to function. As for Jewish families sitting around the 41:11-41:18 Passover meal for whom time and space telescope together, it's as if you came out of Egypt. 41:18-41:27 Within the sacramental world of the Eucharist, past and present become one and together they 41:27-41:34 point forward to the still future liberation. So it's a meal in three dimensions, past, 41:34-41:40 present, future. In this perspective, and to follow Wright's helpful line of thought 41:40-41:47 for a moment again, we may think of the Eucharistic meal in terms of these dimensions. We break 41:47-41:54 this bread to share in the body of Christ. We do it in remembrance of him. We become 41:54-42:00 for a moment the disciples sitting around the table at the Last Supper. But in saying 42:00-42:05 this, we've only said half of what needs to be said. In Wright's words, "To make any headway 42:05-42:10 in understanding the Eucharist, we must see it just as much in terms of the arrival of 42:10-42:16 God's future in the present, not just the extension of God's past or of Jesus' past 42:16-42:22 into our present. The Jesus who gives himself to us as food and drink is himself through 42:22-42:28 the resurrection, the beginning of God's new world. And so at communion, we are like the 42:28-42:35 children of Israel in the wilderness, tasting fruit plucked from the promised land." 42:35-42:41 It is the future come to meet us in the present. 42:41-42:48 Wright, I think, is onto something important. You may disagree in holding that this eschatological 42:48-42:53 perspective is a far more helpful way to talk about the presence of Christ in the Eucharist 42:53-42:59 than any amount of redefinitions of the old language of transubstantiation. Such language 42:59-43:04 was, he says, not so much the wrong answer as the right answer to the wrong question. 43:04-43:09 That was one way of saying what needed to be said, that's to say, insisting on the true 43:09-43:15 presence of Christ in language that some people, at least in the Middle Ages, could understand. 43:15-43:22 But it has produced, and this is a big understatement, all kinds of misunderstandings and abuse. 43:22-43:28 As we've already seen, the Eucharist is a sacrament of new creation. The only part of 43:28-43:34 the old creation which has yet been transformed and liberated from bondage to decay is the 43:34-43:39 body of Christ, the body which died on the cross and is now alive with a life that death 43:39-43:45 cannot touch. Jesus has gone ahead into God's new creation, and as we look back to his death 43:45-43:50 through the lens he himself provided, that is the meal he shared on the night he was 43:50-43:56 betrayed, we find that he comes to meet us in and through the symbols of creation, the 43:56-44:02 bread and the wine which are thus taken up into the Christ story. The event of new creation 44:02-44:07 itself and become vessels, carriers of God's new world and the saving events which enable 44:07-44:14 us to share it. In this light, every celebration of the supper is a breaking in of God's future 44:14-44:22 into the present, and the supper is most fully understood as the anticipation of the banquet 44:22-44:29 when heaven and earth are made new, the marriage supper of the Lamb. And a fully biblical eschatology 44:31-44:38 makes clear that we anticipate not a disembodied future existence as in much Christian folk 44:38-44:46 religion but in terms of for example Revelation 21 and 22, a renewed physical world transformed 44:46-44:55 from top to bottom. So what's wrong with bread and water? That's a reference to a very helpful 44:57-45:04 thing that Peter Leitard, I think, has pointed out. That is the significance of the Eucharistic 45:04-45:14 elements of bread and wine. He's suggesting that we think less about the physics of the 45:14-45:23 bread than of the simple fact that Jesus chose to use bread rather than, for example, roasted 45:23-45:30 grain or red meat. Pointing out that we are bread making humanity and that bread production 45:30-45:42 requires the presence of a variety of moral, cultural, social, political, economic and 45:42-45:49 technological conditions. Leitard argues that when Jesus offered bread at his feast, he 45:50-45:57 was taking up this whole system into the kingdom as well. He was not denying all that was there 45:57-46:08 in human life, in secular life, if you like. And he's in a way implicitly incurring us 46:08-46:18 to value all that is good and creative in this world in which we live. Similarly, at 46:18-46:23 the Lord's Supper we drink wine. Jesus didn't give his disciples grapes, he says, but the 46:23-46:30 blood of the grape. And that's the creation transformed by creativity and labor. Like 46:30-46:38 bread, wine assumes a degree of technological sophistication as well as a measure of social 46:38-46:44 and political formation. Leitard notes, however, that in the case of wine, we are dealing with 46:44-46:51 a drink not merely of nutrition but of celebration. The vision of life implied by the use of wine 46:51-46:59 is not purely utilitarian, bread and water in that case would have sufficed, but celebratory. 46:59-47:08 And it was Calvin who claimed emphatically that the very structure of creation indicates 47:09-47:16 that it exists to be enjoyed and not merely used. In more directly biblical perspective, 47:16-47:24 Leitard argues that wine has both what he calls sabbatical and eschatological significance. 47:24-47:31 Wine is appropriate as a Sabbath drink because it induces relaxation. The priests of Israel 47:31-47:37 never did relax while they ministered, for the blood of their sacrifices did not atone 47:37-47:43 for sin. Hebrews 10. Under the terms of the old covenant, no one could enjoy the full 47:43-47:49 Sabbath. The drinking of wine in the immediate presence of God, Leviticus 10, was strictly 47:49-47:56 forbidden, prohibited. With the coming, however, of a new and better covenant in Jesus, wine 47:56-48:03 is not only permitted but required in God's presence. Jesus, the high priest of the order 48:03-48:09 of Melchizedek, has completed his work. Better blood has been shed and so the Lord invites 48:09-48:16 his people to a feast of wine in his presence. And you've got all these prophetic anticipations 48:16-48:23 of that, Isaiah 55 and so on. And because it is sabbatical, says Leitard, wine is also 48:23-48:30 eschatological. Wine is offered at the end of the day when the bread making work is done, 48:30-48:36 but at its beginning, the drinking of wine is therefore a wonderfully fitting anticipation 48:36-48:42 of the joy-filled coming banquet, the marriage supper of the Lamb, when heaven and earth 48:42-48:49 will at last be joined together in perfect unity. And that's my final point, final section, 48:49-48:55 unity. Before offering just a word by way of conclusion, it would be amiss not to say 48:55-49:02 something about the central blessing of this meal as the sacrament of the church's unity. 49:02-49:09 We eat bread and we drink wine together, together. And in a way we've come round full circle 49:09-49:16 here really for we began by highlighting the tragedy of the fact that this meal given us 49:16-49:22 by Jesus to express our unity in Christ has been so often the cause of our deepest and 49:22-49:28 most bitter divisions, with every side convinced that they have a uniquely accurate hold of 49:28-49:34 the scriptural teaching. It might be tempting to follow our salvationist friends and impose 49:34-49:40 a moratorium on Eucharistic celebration in all our churches until we've got this fully 49:40-49:47 sorted out, but we'd never agree on that either. We are certainly called to re-double out efforts 49:47-49:54 to maximize the practice of Eucharistic hospitality within and between our churches, and as we've 49:54-50:01 seen some progress has been made. In 1 Corinthians, Paul lays great emphasis on the fact that 50:01-50:08 the one loath is representative of the unity of one people with their one Lord. In the 50:08-50:14 only passage in his writings where Paul handles the Lord's Supper, it's significant that it 50:14-50:21 was a serious problem over unity that called forth his reflection. Some of us pointed out 50:21-50:27 that when it was not for 1 Corinthians, we wouldn't even know that the Eucharist was 50:27-50:33 practiced in the Pauline churches. But that probably just indicates that he would have 50:33-50:40 handed on the tradition to the churches that he founded and the Eucharist was celebrated 50:41-50:47 in the normal run of things without any problem apparently, but it was the problem that arose 50:47-50:53 in Corinth that led to all that he had to say to them. Remember, this was occasional 50:53-51:00 correspondence. Together is the way things are intended to be. God's ultimate purpose 51:00-51:08 is the bringing together of all things under the hedge of Christ. At the Supper, we are 51:08-51:15 reminded, as Leithart says, that the ideal world is not a world of atomized individuals, 51:15-51:22 but an irreducibly social reality because we eat together one loaf, we are one body, 51:22-51:29 members not only of Christ but of one another, called to radical Christ-like self-sacrificing 51:29-51:35 love to use whatever gifts we have for the edification of the body to live lives of forgiveness, 51:35-51:40 forbearance and peace. And it was at this point that things had gone so badly wrong in the 51:40-51:46 Corinthian church. Arguably the single most important thing about this passage is its 51:46-51:52 summons to the contemporary church as the right way forward for us all to reconnect 51:52-51:59 what we should never have allowed to come apart, the theological and the social dimensions 51:59-52:05 of the Supper. Ironically, it was probably the problem that broke surface in Corinth 52:05-52:12 that brought about that disastrous separation in the first place. Clearly the Lord's Supper 52:12-52:19 in the Pauline communities was celebrated in a social context as part of a regular meal, 52:19-52:26 as was appropriate. The churches were representative of every social class and what seems to have 52:28-52:32 happened, there are different ways of interpreting the evidence, is that at these shared meals 52:32-52:39 the rich members in the community were eating and drinking prodigiously while the poor were 52:39-52:44 not even getting enough to eat. Possibly the rich had arrived early in the evening, you 52:44-52:50 know, because they could arrive whenever they wanted. The poor, presumably the majority 52:50-52:54 of them slaves, couldn't get away until their work was done maybe late in the evening and 52:54-53:00 it was just too much for the rich to exercise patience, to wait for their poor brothers 53:00-53:04 and sisters to come and so they set about the meal and by the time the slaves are allowed 53:04-53:11 to knock off the rich have devoured most of the food available. Paul is absolutely livid 53:11-53:21 by acting in this way. What they're doing is preserving the distinctions characteristic 53:23-53:30 of pagan society. The rich are guilty of dishonouring God and humiliating the poor brothers and 53:30-53:38 sisters hence the urgency of Paul's 'Allelous ek tigheste', 'Allelous ek tigheste', 'wait 53:38-53:45 for one another' or if you prefer 'accept, receive, welcome one another' and that just 53:47-53:54 as I speak chimes with what Eileen was talking about earlier today about those with disabilities 53:54-54:02 in the church. There's a whole theology coming out of that. And so serious is this misbehaviour 54:02-54:11 that Paul denies that in fact they're celebrating the Lord's Supper at all. In conducting themselves 54:11-54:17 in this way the rich have failed to discern the Lord's body in both senses. The Supper 54:17-54:23 after all signifies Christ giving his life for the sake of others. By his death he created 54:23-54:29 one people and so when fellow believers are shamefully mistreated it demonstrates with 54:29-54:36 shocking clarity that those who mistreat haven't a Scooby. Why Christ died. True reminder of 54:36-54:43 why Christ died. True remembrance in the Supper invariably brings transformation of life. 54:43-54:55 I think it was Thomas Schreiner who said 'God has no place for sacramental devotion that 54:55-55:03 co-exists with social oppression'. Those who have truly experienced God's grace as mediated 55:06-55:12 in Christ's death long to bless others just as they themselves have received the blessing 55:12-55:19 of forgiveness through Christ's self-giving on their behalf. Does that maybe explain why 55:19-55:24 when those reading John's Gospel for the first time came to the bit where they expected to 55:24-55:31 be reading about the institution of the Lord's Supper instead found themselves listening 55:36-55:43 to the Lord's Supper. 55:43-55:50 Exemplifying service is exemplified in Jesus, modelled in Jesus himself. The sacrament someone 55:50-56:05 said teaches us the protocols of living in the kingdom of God. Just a word or two of 56:06-56:13 conclusion effectively bullet points can maybe take them as possible suggestions for discussion. 56:13-56:22 In thinking and discussing the place of the Eucharist in the life of the church today 56:22-56:30 must we concentrate afresh on the right as the meal that Jesus gave and seek further 56:30-56:37 to work out the implications of that for our Eucharistic theology and practice. We must 56:37-56:46 live with the mystery of the mode of Christ's presence in the Supper but also with the strong 56:46-56:53 conviction of the reality of his presence with us. Because that has been the experience 56:53-56:59 of Christians down through the centuries and I'm sure many of us here this evening who 56:59-57:05 have known in the celebration of the Supper an overwhelming sense from time to time of 57:05-57:12 the reality of the Lord's presence. Robert Bruce wasn't it who spoke of the way in which 57:12-57:21 we receive the same Christ in word and sacrament but in the Supper we get a better grip on 57:21-57:26 him. In the preaching of the word he said we get him as it were between our thumb and 57:26-57:33 our forefinger but in the Supper for all our senses are employed we get him as it were 57:33-57:40 in our whole hand. The Supper is a family meal. Thirdly, and the priesthood of all believers 57:40-57:49 and just throwing this out in the one family means that any Christian of good standing 57:49-57:55 in the community one who walks the walk as well as talks the talk may properly preside 57:55-58:02 at the Eucharist. Now that's controversial certainly in the Church of Scotland but we 58:02-58:10 may be about to take a step if I heard rightly what I heard this afternoon that by permitting 58:10-58:17 elders so to do it's extraordinary that we ordain readers to preach the word and yet 58:17-58:23 for all our tying of word and sacrament together they're not allowed to dispense the Lord's 58:23-58:30 Supper. Fourthly, as the Passover context suggests all baptized adults and children 58:30-58:37 really should be there. The practice of Eucharistic hospitality among all who are baptized whatever 58:37-58:45 denomination should be recognized as a Dominican authority. What about those who have not been 58:45-58:51 baptized who wish to partake of the Lord's Supper? We had that discussion earlier let 58:51-58:58 me leave it hanging but I've got a feeling that Acts 27 in Paul's account of the shipwreck 58:58-59:07 Malta might have something to say to that. The practice, fifthly, of celebrating the 59:07-59:15 Eucharist in the context of a normal meal should be reinstated as was the case so evidently 59:18-59:25 in the early church. Now that of course raises problems for our Sunday celebration of the 59:25-59:33 Eucharist but maybe our Sunday celebrations should just be a kind of formal expression 59:33-59:43 of what's going on informally at maybe our small group meetings or whatever in the church 59:44-59:50 week by week where we do this when we meet together as we should to eat together to share 59:50-59:56 table fellowship with one another and then what we do in church twice or four times a 59:56-01:00:03 year whatever simply an extension of that just a thought. And sixthly our sharing in 01:00:03-01:00:09 the Eucharist should be pervaded with a spirit of joy and celebration not of warning and 01:00:09-01:00:16 gloom while we are called to self-examination abusive forms of fencing the table with which 01:00:16-01:00:25 some of us grew up with its regular majoring on the miners successfully keeping many fearful 01:00:25-01:00:32 souls away from the Lord's table who ought to have been there should be shunned. The 01:00:32-01:00:39 great warning of 1 Corinthians 11 is not about our highly subjective spiritual experience 01:00:39-01:00:47 so often really when that's major it is about power plays and shows of spiritual superiority 01:00:47-01:00:54 the real warning of 1 Corinthians 11 is with regard to the way we treat our fellow Christians 01:00:56-01:01:03 may we hold them in his team and love or in contempt as was the case in Corinth. Seventh 01:01:03-01:01:13 in saying all this we must recognize that seeking to move forward in well-grounded Eucharistic 01:01:13-01:01:20 understanding and practice we are where we are and we have to begin where we are in the 01:01:20-01:01:26 spirit of our Lord and in the spirit of 1 Corinthians 11 we have to wait for each other 01:01:26-01:01:33 we have to seek to move forward together and we must be incredibly patient with one another 01:01:33-01:01:42 maintaining all the time the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace as we are able. 01:01:45-01:01:51 In light of what I've shared I believe the most urgent task before us is that of reconnecting 01:01:51-01:01:56 the social and theological dimension of the Eucharist as a means towards the renewing 01:01:56-01:02:03 of the church and the forward thrust of its mission and the church it seems to me is still 01:02:03-01:02:08 to discover the full richness and potential of this sacrament of new creation as we work 01:02:08-01:02:15 together for the building of our Lord's kingdom today. Thanks for your patience. 01:02:15-01:02:20 [Applause]