_This_ Is My Body

The utter tangibility of Christian faith.

Housekeeping
Thanks so much for the warm welcome back. Your encouragement is greatly appreciated. It’s helped fueled my life-long passion for writing.

Thanks too to those who now support me financially with a subscription or as a founding member. Weekly posts (mostly!) will continue to be sent out to everyone who subscribes, but paid subscribers will receive additional book and link reviews. Mostly it’s about supporting my writing, which does incur internet costs, subscriptions, and a few odds and end. Every little bit helps in retirement! So thank you so much!

This following post is more for those whose traditions teach that the eucharist stands at the center of the church’s worship precisely because, when celebrated, Jesus is present in a special way.  Many traditions talk about this as “the real presence,” some saying Christ is spiritually present, others (e.g. Lutherans) saying he is “in, with, and under” the elements of bread and wine, others still that the bread and wine “become” the body and blood of Christ (Roman Catholic and Orthodox).  While I naturally find the Roman Catholic and Orthodox views most compelling, I want to find common ground with other traditions that have a high view of the eucharist. I ask Baptists to read charitably….

This Is My Body
We live in an age deeply skeptical of the physical.  We see an extreme example among those convinced that their true sex has nothing to do with the body with which they were born.  One of the duties to themselves, for some the most important one, is to discover their true sex and to shape, even violently, their body to conform to it.  Their true self is an idea in their mind. 

But milder examples abound, even among many Christians.  Take the church, which for many is not so much a flesh-and-blood reality but an idea. It begins with this dissociation: “The church is not a building or an institution; it is people.” But after associating with people who are said to be “the church”—people who turn out to be divisive, hypocritical, self-centered, and subject to even horrific temptations—some begin to have their doubts.  Add to that the different denominations and their plethora of beliefs and practices. Thus some conclude that the church isn’t so much people as it is an idea, which is often talked about as “the church universal.”  The church doesn’t really exist except as an ideal in one’s mind. The tangible body that has an address and a building on a particular piece of real estate, operating by institutional customs and rules, is not the church, but only exhibits the qualities of the true church now and then. 

“Genuine faith” suffers the same fate. Often faith today is primarily located in either an idea or a feeling, in the Nicene Creed or in the internal, warm feeling of sensing Jesus’ presence in one’s heart.  In either case, faith is primarily a matter of intellectual conviction or a religious experience.  We doubt whether we have faith if we doubt some article of the creed.  We wonder if we are really Christian if we haven’t felt a warm spiritual moment in some time. 

James, among other biblical writers, reminds us that faith cannot be understood apart from tangible acts of love and sacrifice for other people. He gets that from Jesus, of course, who said true neighbor love is like the man who, spotting a victim of robbery by the side of the road, did what he could to help him. 

To be sure, sincere faith will include conviction about articles of belief, and a genuine faith will include moments of spiritual comfort and divine presence.  But given the cultural air we breathe, each of us is tempted to either become fideists or enthusiasts, relying on abstract ideas or emotions to gauge whether our faith is “real” or not. 

Jesus checks such temptations by repeatedly grounding faith in the concrete and tangible. Like the parable of the Good Samaritan. Like the repeated post-resurrection command to Peter that he demonstrate his love by “feeding” Christ’s sheep. Like the most important ritual he created for his followers. 

The tangible connection of the eucharist to Jesus was recognized early on in the church’s life. Even Protestant scholar, and early church expert, J.N.D. Kelly, notes in his Early Christian Doctrines, “Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood.” 

And the connection between the tangible eucharist and the nature of love was well expressed by C.S. Lewis in his Letters to Malcolm:  “Next to the Blessed Sacrament itself, your neighbor is the holiest object presented to your senses.”

The eucharist clearly is not an idea but indeed a ritual—an enactment using specific words and tangible objects in the presence of people bodily present, a people who with all their flaws and sins, are considered “the church.” It is a ritual that Jesus commanded we, the church, perform regularly “in remembrance” of him--meaning not merely remembering him in the mind but performing this tangible ritual in his name.

The crucial words in this ritual are “This is my body, given for you,” 

In the eucharist, we’re dealing with something specific, concrete, and near--a solid, physical item. Not an idea. Not a truth. Not something vague and intangible, like a feeling or a spiritual experience, but something solid and real that you can see with your eyes and grab with your hand. It doesn’t seem like much, this little piece of bread. But it is everything. 

This moment when the bread is introduced to us is also an intimate one. Not that bread over there, but this bread right here.  It’s the difference between pointing to someone across the street and saying, “That is my friend,” versus introducing the person right next to you with, “This is my friend.” Jesus ups the ante here by completely identifying with the bread: “This is my body.”

Faith in Jesus is grounded in the reality of bread, fruit of the earth, work of human hands. And this bread is identified with the physical manifestation of Jesus, God from God, yes, but also one who took on human flesh, was gestated in the womb, who grew in wisdom but also “stature” from childhood to adolescence to manhood, whose suffered among his people and upon the cross, and whose resurrection was a bodily one.  Along the way, he created a ritual of words and actions and tangible elements to drive home the utter physicality of faith in him. 

I know some believers will balk at all this, and I welcome constructive comments. But this is how I deal with the plain meaning of biblical verses like, “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ?” (I Cor. 16:13-14, NRSV).  I grant that traditions will differ how exactly Christ is present in the sacrament, but to me it doesn’t do justice to Paul’s or Christ words that were dealing here with a “mere” symbol.  (Besides, anyone who has studied the nature of symbols will recognize that symbols are anything but “mere”--a discussion for another day.)

At any rate, all this is part of a larger trend: more and more believers from various traditions are seeking to bring the eucharist more to the center of the church’s life.  It seems to be part and parcel of a faith that is grounded in the tangible and concrete. 

Grace and peace,

Mark

Image by RobertCheaib. J.D.N. Kelly quote is from here.  The C.S. Lewis quote is from here. 

Since I really don’t “do” social media, your shares are highly appreciated!