Confessing Evangelical

Thanks to Tom R for drawing my attention, in the comments to my previous post, to remarks made by Tony Payne in the latest issue of The Briefing. Payne writes (emphasis added):

The Reformers themselves famously disagreed about whether Jesus's words 'this is my body' should be taken literally ... Luther could not see any indication in the text itself as to why it should be figurative ... leading to the rather strange Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation in the Lord’s Supper.

Well, I wasn't about to take that lying down, so here is a response that I've sent off this morning (links added for this post):

Dear Briefing,

In his response on the "24x6" Interchange Special, Tony Payne refers in passing to "the rather strange Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation". As both a Lutheran and a long-time subscriber to the Briefing, I have to point out this is both factually inaccurate and a little unfair.

First, the factual inaccuracy: contrary to popular belief, the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper is not "consubstantiation". Lutherans reject all attempts to explain the Lord's Supper in philosophical terms, whether transubstantiation or consubstantiation. Rather, we take Jesus' words at face value and believe that, by virtue of Jesus' words of institution, the bread is his body and the wine is his blood - a belief often called "the real presence", but perhaps better described as "the real identification".

This belief in the "real identification" of bread and body, wine and blood, is what Christians have believed from the earliest times. What Lutherans firmly reject is the medieval innovation of "transubstantiation" as a purported explanation for this identification, and (even more strongly) any suggestion that the Lord's Supper is a sacrifice offered up by us to God. Rather, eating and drinking the Lord's body and blood in the Supper is a means by which, through faith, we appropriate the benefits won for us in the single sacrifice of Jesus on the cross: "forgiveness, life and salvation", as Luther summarises them.

Next, the unfairness, particularly Payne's description of the Lutheran doctrine as "strange". This doctrine may indeed sound "strange" to non-Lutheran evangelical ears. But, when placed in the historical context of how most Christians have understood Jesus' words at most times, it is less strange than Zwingli's doctrine. If Zwingli couldn't understand "how Luther could miss the metaphorical nature of Jesus' words", that's probably because this "metaphorical" understanding had eluded the entire church for the preceding 1,500 years. (Indeed, it appears to have eluded the apostle Paul, if 1 Corinthians 10:16 is anything to go by.)

Zwingli's doctrinal innovation was not only rejected by Luther, but also (though less vehemently) by Calvin and the Anglican Reformers. It was only with the coming of 18th-century rationalism that Zwinglianism began to sweep all before it among non-Lutheran evangelicals.

Indeed, even Zwingli might recoil from some statements made about the Lord's Supper by Sydney Anglicans, such as the assertion in the "Christian Worship" module of the Moore College Correspondence Course that "too much significance has been given to this rite" by Christians, or Dr John Woodhouse's bizarre suggestion in a Briefing article a few years ago that Jesus did not intend to institute a continuing rite at the Last Supper.

I'll let you know if it gets published (or perhaps Tom R could point it out to me, if I've once again failed to attend adequately to my own copy ...)

Regarding that last reference to Dr John Woodhouse - a former principal of Moore Theological College - the article to which I was referring can be found here (you'll need to scroll down a bit). Sample quote:

If, in Mark’s day, there was a sacramental meal which was understood to have been instituted by Jesus, it is remarkable that he chose to give no indication that, at the Last Supper, Jesus instituted a practice that was to be repeated.

The fact that the narrative is repeated by three of the four gospels - suggesting that it was seen as having at least some degree of continuing significance for the evangelists and their audience - and that the earliest account is found in a passage that is specifically concerned with the "repeated practice" of the Lord's Supper in Corinth, seems to carry little weight for Dr Woodhouse. A "strange doctrine" indeed.