THE LAND OF UNLIKENESS

Per Caritatem has an interesting 3 part series on a Reformed View of the Eucharist by Mike Vendsel that just ended last thursday. Vendsel reviews Douglas Farrow’s article, “Between the Rock and a Hard Place: In Support of (something like) a Reformed View of the Eucharist”. I must confess, I didn’t know there was such a thing. Just goes to show the state of catechesis when I was growing up. Farrow’s article basically posits two views: 1.is the “traditional” reformed view that attempts to safeguard a notion of Christ’s ontological body, existing in space and time, quite distinct from the sacramental elements. This perspective reminds me of something a youth leader said to me back in high school: “We don’t have sacraments; we have ordinances.” At the time, I took him to be mincing words, but since then I have come to wonder if it really wasn’t just an excuse to not deal with the tensions of being in a rather new tradition that has failed to articulate a metaphysic. Anyway, the problem with this for Farrow is how it radically seperates our materiality from Christ’s, and the Gnostic connotation of the worshipper engaged in some mental/spiritual connection to Christ.

The 2nd view is is the RC perspective, best articulated by Thomas, summarized by Farrow:

“by virtue of His divine omnipresence and omnipotence as the Logos, Jesus is able to provide on earth a eucharistic form of His humanity under the accidents of bread and wine, making present (albeit non-spatially) the actual substance of His exalted body and blood” (p. 171)

Calvin provides the foil to this view. For Calvin, the power of the Eucharist is not in dilluting Christ’s humanity, but rather in transporting us to heaven in union with Christ – a kind of beatific experience, it seems.

I won’t summarize the rest of the posts from Per Caritatem here, but rather direct your attention to the links to each post: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.

The series followed a post on an article on the Eucharist by Catherine Pickstock, “Thomas Aquinas and the Quest for the Eucharist.” The post highlights Pickstock’s work with “Desire” and the allegory of the Grail. Here’s an interesting quote from Pickstock that seems to encapsulate most of the summary from Per Caritatem:

“Thus we can see that what the Eucharist is is desire. Although we know via desire, or wanting to know, and this circumstance alone resolves the aporia of learning, beyond this we discover that what there is to know is desire. But not desire as absence, lack and perpetual postponement; rather, desire as the free flow of actualization, perpetually renewed and never foreclosed” (pp. 178-179).

These posts got me thinking about how one might capture the distinctiveness of an Anglican view of the Eucharist. Rowan Williams talks about Hooker’s doctrine of Christology and Sacraments in his book, Anglican Identities. A major theme Williams brings out is Hooker’s emphasis of the incarnation as the redemption (or “restoration”) of humanity via the work of the Holy Spirit, not simply a relationship of solidarity by virtue of his being human: “it is a relation with a humanity itself already transfigured (not annihilated)by the outpouring of a divine gift.” The Holy Spirit can act upon and through us in multiple ways, including by not limited to the Eucharist – however one may theorize the relationship of Christ to the elements.

“Papist error about the Eucharist is less in the doctrine of transubstantiation as such than in the insistence on this as the only legitimate account of how Christ acts… Hooker can say, boldly, ‘there ensueth a kind of transubstantiation in us (67.2, p. 358); [similarly] Herbert argues that Christ died for humanity, not for bread, so it is the former that needs changing…”

While Hooker doesn’t seem to want to spend a lot of time fleshing out the metaphysics of the Sacraments, the point is clear: Christ acts on us through his gifts. “Receive the gift of divine action and the effects of divine action follow – in Christ’s humanity, in the bread and the wine, in the holy person.”

Like

Unlike

Aron is in Seatle with his family this weekend (Bon Voyage, Aron), and I’m dealing with a broken AC and refrigerator, and one hot, uncomfortable baby. So, if we are a little scarce this weekend, I apologize in advance. While you await the advent of our next burst of posts, please go see Into Great Silence, and check out the First Thing’s Blog’s post on Bob Dylan’s theological relevance. Here’s a little teaser:

It would be interesting to know what message Pope Benedict thinks Bob Dylan’s songs espouse.

Read the rest here

Like

Unlike

If only I had unlimited funds and unlimited time, I’d probably forgo schooling and just read journals, attend conferences, and scope out local restaurants in the world’s great cities. As it seems improbable that any of you, our dear TLOU readers, are in the position to become my patron, then I must ask that whichever of you are nearest to St. Andrews must attend and record/videotape/take the best notes of your life, especially at Nick Wolterstorff’s talk. I would pay good money to have that session. really.

Like

Unlike

While I don’t usually subscribe to the Action Hero genre, I did attend the newest instalment of Sam Raimi’s SpiderMan series. Back in 2002, Kate and I were looking for something fun to see as a date, not that we’re that typical in our dating habits… ok, we are. Anyway, since then, each new Spiderman has been something of a tongue-in-cheek event for us. So, before my memory of the movie evaporates into the vacuous wasteland in which I put most other Hollywood spectacles, a few thoughts.

This Spiderman is certainly more adventurous that the first two in 2 ways (or, at least, I only noticed two – remember, it was a date). From the beginning of the movie, the audience is introduced to classic music and staging, recalling the age of Swing and Fred Astaire musicals. Raimi even goes so far to have Mary Jane walking down a circular staircase in a white satin gown, a hat tip to era pieces like Ziegfield’s Follies. And the swinging-ness doesn’t end there.

Enter the New Goblin, and then Sandman, and then Topher Grace, and then problems with Mary Jane… blah blah. Anyway, the second theme of the movie – memory – makes its first entrance with its dissappearance, that is Harry Osborn’s amnesia from his short fight with Spiderman. This amnesia leads to a complete turn in Harry’s behavior: he takes up painting, smiling, cooking, anything lighthearted enough to make him seem happy-go-lucky enough to distinguish him sharply from his father’s alter-ego.

Whereas Harry forgets, Peter’s memory haunts him. He seems incredulous that Harry has forgotten his former hatred. Then, he becomes obsessed with finding his uncle’s killer. He has visions of his uncle’s death, and his culpability in it. His vices win out when finally they congeal, represented by a substance from space that looks conspicuously like the X-Files‘ Black Oil. His clothes himself in his guilt, becoming the audacious Black Spiderman. He initially finds the increase in testosterone, or real-super-powers, maybe both, exhilirating. However, it blinds him to the plight of others. After he thinks he’s killed the Sandman, he looses all sense of himself and becomes a cabaret-esque jigilo.

The dance scene is amazing; not so much for its artistry. Rather, this entire segment (on Peter’s new, hubristic relationship to the world) seems so incongruous to the rest of the trilogy. Peter’s dance is so frenetic, so Disney, that I couldn’t help but laugh through the whole thing. It’s at the same time both ridiculous and radical, like a scene from Jim Carey’s Mask fused to a dance in Cabaret. Of course, Peter becomes disgusted with this new self, and attempts to shed his guilt by ripping the black suit from himself. However, the suit won’t be silenced, and latches on to another, one so obsessed with revenge that he is in a church praying to God that he kill Peter Parker.

While the movie is clearly cheesey at times, and indulges in the spectacle throughout, there are certainly some insightful elements (I guess I’m thinking like a high school teacher here) that could be useful for demonstrating sometimes hard to grasp concepts like the communal nature of sin, the long term effects of habits (Peter’s increasing aggression and jigilo-ness as he chooses to use the black suit more often), and the power of memory in making ethical decisions… and maybe the importance of real church bells instead of recordings in fighting off evil black substances from other planets!

Like

Unlike

It’s worth it just to see them sledding
Or to see a spider moving its foreleg
How moving! Its going to get something to eat!

These monks are as close to children
As spiders are to the grass
Around the vegetable garden

And when they speak. . . .
But they have forgotten exchange
But prayer is changing

A reviewer said that they were aliens
The Word comes from outside us
The Bell clangs from other side of galaxy

Like

Unlike

Many of you will enjoy this, especially if you’re familiar with my and Aron’s sunday morning routine.

Thanks to Liquidoxology for the url.

Like

Unlike

Ch. 1 Q. 3 of Hall’s Theological Outlines gets into the relations of miracles to the natural order of things with Hall holding that miracles are necessary in order for evolution to take place:

The advance of the aion requires innovations, steps, and the entrance of higher forces than those previously resident in the kosmos. The evolutionary hypothesis requires this supposition; and, unless we become materialists, we must assume that the progress of cosmical development, however gradual, depends upon an involution of forces which are supernatural to the previously existing natures which undergo development.

Maybe someone (Janet?) can let me know if this is hopelessly out of date. . . . but I do like his his use of cosmos and aion, reminds me a little bit of the way the structuralists talked about synchrony (cosmos) and diachrony (aion). Again perhaps Janet can let me know if this is off or on, here or there, or neither. I am a little surprised that Hall considers these evolutionary advances to be miracles (supernatural events which inspire wonder) rather than events like the sacrament of the host, which is supernatural but invisible and thus not technically a miracle.

Like

Unlike

Thanks Dan for starting off our conversation of Francis Hall’s Theological Outlines. Lets have a go at question 2, on the supernatural. While I thought he opened clearly with his definition of theology, some confusion immediately comes in when he starts in on the supernatural , or at least some terms go by without being well explained. Of course, “the supernatural” is a huge topic, especially when we also look at philosophical concerns (which he apparently wants to do). I would like to quote this bit at the end though, and then make a brief comment: “Certain writers err in supposing that the distinction between lower and higher natures and between the forces resident in them (for this is what the distinction between natural and supernatural really means) has the effect of banishing God from nature and of reducing nature’s Divine significance. It is God that worketh whether He employs the forces resident in lower or higher natures, or dispenses with the use of means.” In other words, grace founds nature, as Balthasar and de Lubac stressed. And if we look at Hall’s definition of supernatural, which is anything the causation of which cannot be assigned to visible or human means, then obviously men and women are fundamentally graced, and all of the natural causes which they assign and effect come from grace. Balthasar makes the same point at the end of “Love Alone” and it really grounds his understanding of universal salvation. More on that later.

Like

Unlike

Very funny and, suprisingly, insightful results to Ben Myer’s “Worst Theological Invention” Poll on his Blog, Faith and Theology. In the couple weeks that the poll was open, 579 readers voted, with a resultant tie between “Biblical Inerrancy” and “Christendom”, each with 18% of the votes. The most interesting aspect of that result was that most votes for (or against?) Inerrancy came from N. America, and those for Christendom came from Asia and Europe. Talk about biting the hand that feeds and slaps you.

Like

Unlike

Thanks to links from Generous Orthodoxy and Medius Temporis, I direct your attention to a recent speech by Marily McCord Adams, Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford (Christ Church), on the fate of LGBT and female ordination in the wake of the recent Primate Meeting.

Adams offers a helpful, while opinionated, reading of the situation. I say helpful because she attempts to present a broad scope reading of the situation before launching into detailed critique and suggestions for ways forward. She also makes the theology behind many of her clear to the audience. However, she fails in one area: she begs the question about the equivalence between sexual identity and personal identity. Yet, I admit that had she stated from the get go that such was her presupposition, I believe I probably could hang with the arguments that she had built from the presupposition.

Nevertheless, I think its safe, and sad, to say that many will be drawn to the mercifully irenic tone of her argument when compared with the alternative offered by Forward in Faith, which spends much less time telling a convincing story and much more time bickering details.

Aron said the other day that he thought the way forward in this argument is not the political bashing and name calling that even the Anglo-catholics have resorted to these days. Rather, the solution must come from well-reasoned and charitable theological formulations. Hopefully, Adams can continue to move in this direction and encourage others to follow.

Moreover, as recently re-iterated to me by a much loved priest, the Church is once again becoming embroiled in another difficult controversy to which many are directing much attention when they should be attending to the details and needs of their own parishes and dioceses.

Like

Unlike