First off, why the term "sacrament"? Within my Christian background people have consistently called the Lord's supper and baptism "ordinances" rather than "sacraments." Lutherans, along with almost all other Christians prior to the time of Zwingli, view baptism and the Lord's supper in a sacramental manner. In a nutshell, the difference between an ordinance and a sacrament is this. An ordinance is an element of Law. We do the ordinances in obedience to God's command. There is no promise on God's part attached to the ordinance, but they are a testimony on our part. Every year in one or more of the classes I teach, I have at least one student who blithely asserts baptism is "an outward sign of an inward change." This is a typical view of an ordinance. But historically, baptism and communion have been viewed sacramentally. In a sacrament, God does something using some sort of earthly element, and accompanies that action with his promise. A sacrament is effective. So historically, again, prior to the radical Reformation which rejected sacraments, Christians by and large accepted that in communion God is feeding his people, nourishing them physically and spiritually, with his true body and blood, immortal food.
This idea is, no pun intended, a little difficult for our post-Enlightenment people to swallow. We are used to the idea that our reason guides what we are doing. In many ways we have cast off that "primitive" supernaturalism. We know what we are tasting. It's bread, normally the kind of bread you would never want to eat. And it's wine. (Don't get me started on the lunacy which has led to naturalist people purposely preventing the natural fermentation of wine in order to be more spiritual.) That's what our reason tells us. But what does the Scripture tell us? Something which runs just as counter to reason as salvation by grace through faith, Jesus' bodily resurrection, the virgin birth . . . Jesus tells us this is his body and blood. It is repeated in three Gospels and in Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians. How many times does God have to say it before we believe it?
Well, here we go then. God's people are assembled to participate in communion, also known as the sacrament of the altar. What happens? God gives his promise. The pastor and people proclaim God's word yet again, speaking of God's holiness. We respond to the proclamation of God's holiness by a prayer of thanksgiving, then speak the Lord's prayer. The pastor then goes on with the "words of institution" - normally a quotation of one or more of the four passages in which Jesus instituted the Lord's supper. The promise of God and the statements of Jesus about what we are doing are made very clear. This celebration is not a matter of personal interpretation. It is something which originates in God's will and revelation. Typically the congregation then sings a brief song, traditionally the "Agnus Dei" - Latin for "Lamb of God." The pastor then gives the bread, presenting it as "the true body of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" and the wine, "the true blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."
Once all the communicants have been served the service comes to a close rather quickly. The congregation responds, usually in the words of Simeon from Luke 2.29-32, we all pray, and receive a final benediction.
See once more, the "w" shape of this part of the service. It originates in God's promises. God's word is proclaimed to (and by) God's people. We receive something quite physical and obviously real from Christ. What do we give back? Our thanksgiving. God is nourishing his people through communion. What can we do but receive and give thanks?
So there we have it. We've walked through the divine service in four installments. We've seen how this traditional worship form has multiple elements, all initiated by God. What a comfort to be reminded that from beginning to end, God is the initiator of life, salvation, and hope. I pray we can all walk in that hope today.
--
Dave Spotts
blogging at http://capnsaltyslongvoyage.blogspot.com and http://alex-kirk.blogspot.com
--
Dave Spotts
blogging at http://capnsaltyslongvoyage.blogspot.com and http://alex-kirk.blogspot.com
1 comment:
It's one of the odd side roads of doctrinal history that gets us our theology of the Sacraments.
Start with the two general persecutions, first under Decian & then Diocletian. Stir up the hard feelings of those who have lost family members against those who have in some way "cheated" their way out of martyrdom, and add the veneration of martyrs. Try to sort out just how far the "Power of the Keys" extends -- what sorts of sin can and can not be forgiven in the life of a baptized believer. Add the question of whether a priest or bishop who has sinned can actually administer a sacrament. Bring the Donatist Controversy to a boil. Realize that the ACTUAL question (one not yet answered) is just what a sacrament actually is; just Who is doing something?
Answer: in a sacrament, it is God Who acts, not us. He acts through human agency, but it is He Who acts. And so (to answer the Donatist question) a sacrament is valid even if the one who administers it is not quite up to snuff morally.
We start with the fallout of persecutions and end with our feet on the road toward "a sacrament is a sensible sign instituted by God as a means of grace for our sanctification."
It's amazing how much theology gets done when we have to drop back from a pressing question and define some terms.
Post a Comment