So, I was reading in Revelation last night...you know, like people do...and I noticed the phrase "blot you out of the Book of Life". In this case, Jesus was saying that he wouldn't blot out the faithful ones. Nevertheless, I started wondering about this whole Book of Life business. I proceeded to look up (on Google, of course) the several other places where "Book of LIfe" is mentioned and found a similar tone throughout the Scriptures. So, this is what I'm thinking:
If Christ is blotting out names at the end of days, when he's coming to judge the world, then that would tell me all names are in this Book and some are removed for different reasons. In other words, it's not as though this eternal book was written outside of time with only the names of certain people that would remain in the Book forever. If this is the case, if everyone is written in the Book, couldn't it also be the case that Christ truly did die for everyone and that God truly does want everyone to come to Himself? Can this logic co-exist with Reform doctrine? In other words, can God still be a calling, predestining God while maintaining an incomplete Book of Life? I think so. I certainly can't explain how, but I think so.
I mean back in the day with the golden calf ordeal, God pretty straightly says that disobedience equals death...and proceeded to kill people. Then we learn through the eyes of Christ that the death was ultimately a spiritual one. So, sinners are, then, as in Exodus, blotted out of the Book of LIfe. But Christ's justifying death, once and for all (for all people?) allows us to maintain a stance in the Book of Life despite sin.
Anybody have an opinion on all this? I welcome any thoughts.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Monday, August 2, 2010
Bread and Wine = Jesus
I'm in line waiting for food. The people that surround me either wear somber faces or dramatic smiles. Both symbolize their response to this act of communion. The somber face indicates a regret and conviction of sin and a sorrowful remebrance of a bleeding savior. The smile indicates a joy of salvation, a joy that such a man died for sin many years ago so that the masses may live in freedom and family with God. As I step up for my turn in line, the men distributing the foodstuffs whisper "body of Christ broken for you, blood of Christ spilled for you" in an eerily serious tone. As I return to my seat, I try hard to understand this truth and to love God better because of it. I try to thank God, to admit wrongdoings, to...form some sort of makeshift meaning.
The preacher tries to help me understand this meaning. He recites passages from Corinthians and Mark, he explains that I am to remember Jesus. He sometimes uses historical symbols to reveal the meaning of the bread and the wine. He then proceeds to guide me through the consumption of these foods through prayer and scripture.
But, I still don't understand. I'm stumped...and a little wigged out by the whole thing. I feel as though the whole thing is forced, as if I'm not truly making contact with God but rather just simply eating with a strange ritual attached. Plus, after skipping breakfast this morning, I'd really rather eat a steak instead of a thimble of cheap wine and a mouse-portion of bread. So, it's not even really eating either.
And, honestly, as I plan to be a pastor, I'm wondering how I can continue this necessary, mandated-by-Scripture practice when I can't seem to muster up any kind of authentic feeling or appreciation.
It got me thinking about Catholics. Catholics get so much out of the stinking Eucharist, its like the bread and butter (no pun intended) of the ecclesiastical structure. What does Catholocism teach regarding the Eucharist? Well, to be perfectly honest, I don't know much (because I've grown up in a protestant church) but I do know that there's this word, Transubstantiation. In my understanding, transubstantiation is the "process" by which simple bread and wine become the literal body and blood of Christ. Not that the bread and wine take the form of body and blood, but that they are, by the Priest's blessing, acting "en persona Christi".
I believe this practice comes from (well many places, but primarily) John 6. In John 6:32-60 or so, Jesus talks about himself being the Bread of Life. Shortly after Jesus "feeds the 5 thousand", some of them find him and ask him to perform more signs and miracles to show that he truly is God. They say "like Moses, you know, God gave him bread in the desert so that the Israelites could live" and Jesus goes "woah woah woah now, you don't get it...I AM the bread of life, I'm the only bread you'll ever need...that bread in the desert was purely physical...I'm the bread that doesn't spoil, that can't be devoured, that fully and eternally satisfies the soul." Then he says "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."
So, what he's saying is...unless you drink me, eat me...you got nothing. Now, I believe, Catholocism practices the Eucharist (a tradition passed down from the church fathers) by saying, "we're gonna take this bread and wine and ingest it as the body and blood of Christ because apart from Him there is no eternal life, no salvation, no nothin". And so, literally, Catholics partake in the ritual, acknowledging that without it there is nothing good in their own mortal bodies to bring about the righteousness that God requires.
But, what about a figurative interpretation? Is it possible? I believe so. Now, I'm not arguing "figurative vs. literal" because I'm just not qualified to do so. What I am saying is that IF we are going to participate in a figurative interpretation, we may want to heed these verses.
What I see in these verses, what I see in Communion, is a symbolic acknowledgement of the whole gospel. Not just the cross, not just the death of Christ...but the whole package, that the death and ressurection of Christ means that we are called chosen and beloved, means that we are called righteous because of Him. We are no longer dependent upon our own nature to live righteously, but rather upon Christ and his perfect nature. So, when Christ says "I am the Bread of Life, unless you eat it you're dead and can't truly live", I think he's talking about Communion. I think he's alluding to this future "last supper" act, and I think the words in these verses directly mirror those found in Luke 22 or Paul's instructions in Corinthians.
I think that when Christ is inviting us to remember Him, to eat and drink, He is inviting us to remember once again that "Christ in me is the hope of righteousness, the hope of life and truth", he's inviting us to actively partake in the gospel through this symbolic meal. So, I believe that when we take Communion, we reflect upon the gospel and we ask Christ, through the symbolism of the elements, to continue to reveal to us his power in us, his status as the Bread of Life. That we might remain in Him, that we might see Him as our only hope...and, at that, the supreme hope.
So, I guess communion just became a lot less ritualistic to me and a lot more meaningful. I don't feel the pressure to cry while thinking of the cross or to feel disgusting about my sin. I don't have to explain it away with metaphors about Christ's cup sharing as a marriage symbol or his napkin folding as a symbol of justification, etc. I can just eat and drink, abiding in the truth of the gospel, that God has given Himself for us that we might have life, His life in us, His strength and purpose in us.
Anyway, probably nothing new to others, but for me its powerful. For me, this view of "figurative transubstantiation" has changed the way I view communion.
The preacher tries to help me understand this meaning. He recites passages from Corinthians and Mark, he explains that I am to remember Jesus. He sometimes uses historical symbols to reveal the meaning of the bread and the wine. He then proceeds to guide me through the consumption of these foods through prayer and scripture.
But, I still don't understand. I'm stumped...and a little wigged out by the whole thing. I feel as though the whole thing is forced, as if I'm not truly making contact with God but rather just simply eating with a strange ritual attached. Plus, after skipping breakfast this morning, I'd really rather eat a steak instead of a thimble of cheap wine and a mouse-portion of bread. So, it's not even really eating either.
And, honestly, as I plan to be a pastor, I'm wondering how I can continue this necessary, mandated-by-Scripture practice when I can't seem to muster up any kind of authentic feeling or appreciation.
It got me thinking about Catholics. Catholics get so much out of the stinking Eucharist, its like the bread and butter (no pun intended) of the ecclesiastical structure. What does Catholocism teach regarding the Eucharist? Well, to be perfectly honest, I don't know much (because I've grown up in a protestant church) but I do know that there's this word, Transubstantiation. In my understanding, transubstantiation is the "process" by which simple bread and wine become the literal body and blood of Christ. Not that the bread and wine take the form of body and blood, but that they are, by the Priest's blessing, acting "en persona Christi".
I believe this practice comes from (well many places, but primarily) John 6. In John 6:32-60 or so, Jesus talks about himself being the Bread of Life. Shortly after Jesus "feeds the 5 thousand", some of them find him and ask him to perform more signs and miracles to show that he truly is God. They say "like Moses, you know, God gave him bread in the desert so that the Israelites could live" and Jesus goes "woah woah woah now, you don't get it...I AM the bread of life, I'm the only bread you'll ever need...that bread in the desert was purely physical...I'm the bread that doesn't spoil, that can't be devoured, that fully and eternally satisfies the soul." Then he says "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."
So, what he's saying is...unless you drink me, eat me...you got nothing. Now, I believe, Catholocism practices the Eucharist (a tradition passed down from the church fathers) by saying, "we're gonna take this bread and wine and ingest it as the body and blood of Christ because apart from Him there is no eternal life, no salvation, no nothin". And so, literally, Catholics partake in the ritual, acknowledging that without it there is nothing good in their own mortal bodies to bring about the righteousness that God requires.
But, what about a figurative interpretation? Is it possible? I believe so. Now, I'm not arguing "figurative vs. literal" because I'm just not qualified to do so. What I am saying is that IF we are going to participate in a figurative interpretation, we may want to heed these verses.
What I see in these verses, what I see in Communion, is a symbolic acknowledgement of the whole gospel. Not just the cross, not just the death of Christ...but the whole package, that the death and ressurection of Christ means that we are called chosen and beloved, means that we are called righteous because of Him. We are no longer dependent upon our own nature to live righteously, but rather upon Christ and his perfect nature. So, when Christ says "I am the Bread of Life, unless you eat it you're dead and can't truly live", I think he's talking about Communion. I think he's alluding to this future "last supper" act, and I think the words in these verses directly mirror those found in Luke 22 or Paul's instructions in Corinthians.
I think that when Christ is inviting us to remember Him, to eat and drink, He is inviting us to remember once again that "Christ in me is the hope of righteousness, the hope of life and truth", he's inviting us to actively partake in the gospel through this symbolic meal. So, I believe that when we take Communion, we reflect upon the gospel and we ask Christ, through the symbolism of the elements, to continue to reveal to us his power in us, his status as the Bread of Life. That we might remain in Him, that we might see Him as our only hope...and, at that, the supreme hope.
So, I guess communion just became a lot less ritualistic to me and a lot more meaningful. I don't feel the pressure to cry while thinking of the cross or to feel disgusting about my sin. I don't have to explain it away with metaphors about Christ's cup sharing as a marriage symbol or his napkin folding as a symbol of justification, etc. I can just eat and drink, abiding in the truth of the gospel, that God has given Himself for us that we might have life, His life in us, His strength and purpose in us.
Anyway, probably nothing new to others, but for me its powerful. For me, this view of "figurative transubstantiation" has changed the way I view communion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)