On the Eucharist: A Few Quandaries (9/16/08)

The topic of transubstantiation is a complicated one and has been creeping around in the recesses of my brain for the last several months. The purpose of this note is to hear the opinions of as many respected friends and elders as possible, because at this point in my research and meditations on the subject I’m still left with more questions than answers.

Lately I’ve been working from the (in)famous John 6 discourse. If you’re not familiar with it, I’d recommend reading 6:23-58 and the surrounding context. Generally what this comes down to in the never-ending historical debate is whether we are to take Jesus’ words literally or figuratively; and I’ll also go ahead and just posit my own opinion that verse 63, which is often argued as Christ’s clarification that he was speaking metaphorically, does not point to the use of language, but rather to the nature of faith.

What also strikes me about this passage is that Jesus, as he does often in his teachings, seems to be drawing a parallel between the words he is speaking and the Old Testament canon. In this case, at least as I read it, he wants his listeners to identify themes of the current topic—which is his claim that he is the bread of Heaven—with the events in Exodus 16 where God provides the Israelites miraculously with manna from Heaven.

I think it’s also important to note how confused his disciples were after this conversation, so when we look ahead to the Last Supper in Luke 22, I wonder if light bulbs were going off for them at that meal. While at the time it had seemed so strange for Christ to tell them that those saved by him would eat his flesh and drink his blood, it must have finally clicked to see him holding the unleavened bread and the wine, saying “This is my body, broken for you, and the blood that I will spill for you to establish a new covenant between you and God. Remember me and what I have done for you every time you have this meal.”

So here again we are faced with this same question as to what sense Jesus was speaking in. Yet, whether figurative or literal, it seems to be clear that we are to understand the bread and wine of Holy Communion in a similar sense as the manna from Heaven.

Beyond this, I also wonder how important this issue is to our theologies. It was expressed to me by one pastor that he would rather err to the side of transubstantiation because he does not want to limit the power of God to perform such a miracle. To me, the strength of such a position would be that it provides room for the mystery of our faith in which we so often hope against hope, as Paul put it, that the impossible will be made possible. On the other hand, I am sensitive to the concerns of many denominations about this; namely ramifications leading to the bloated role of the clergy in Eucharistic prayer, versus the priesthood of all believers. I think this is the issue most important to Protestant Christians since we would obviously reject the need for the historical Roman Catholic re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, which is often used as another argument against transubstantiation. This idea, to me, does not seem to be essentially tied up with the notion of transubstantiation. What I mean to say is that in this context, I think it is necessary to distinguish the notion of transubstantiation from a particular denomination and its associated doctrines or traditions.

At this point it is perhaps appropriate for me to lay out my current position, however shaky or unfounded it may be, for the sake of feedback. Furthermore, I won't even attempt to organize the following into an organized series of points.

I do think that the nature of our faith is mysterious and not propositional, so I think that to some extent any beliefs about the Eucharist must reflect that. I believe that there is a miracle that takes place in the sacrament of Holy Communion; perhaps transubstantiation is part of it. However I think more importantly, we are recipients of grace in that any actions which are in accordance with God's commands draw us closer to him. Beyond that, I think the Eucharist is unique in that there are such obvious communal ramifications; not only do we draw nearer to God, but we also can sense his grace in our drawing near to one another unified in thankful remembrance of Christ whose body was broken and whose blood was poured out; our only means of salvation. I also think based on John 6 and Exodus 16 that if a transubstantiation takes place, the miracle is not because of a prayer or a priest, but because of God's drawing us deeper into a faith that can move mountains...

...or facilitate Christ's presence in the elements we receive at the Lord's table.