Thanks. This is very thought provoking for me. This makes a lot of sense!
It strikes me that the church is going through a period of convergence...that threads like the mystic, social action, priesthood of all believers (eg, all have gifts to be used for purposes of God), use of liturgy and a focus on the words of Jesus, are being brought together in balance.
Actually Calvin had a view similar to Luther, but based on the Holy Spirit’s action in the sacrament. Still, he strongly emphasized that in the Eucharist there is a very real encounter with Christ. (See my “Christ, Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper.”) it was Zwingli who real,y won the day in Protestantism, even among the Reformed. For him the sacrament was merely and only symbolic. The emphasis on faith subverts one of the things the sacrament accomplishes-- the tangible, physical gift of Christ in the Eucharist. I like to say that sacraments are the “handles of faith.”
I don't disagree that the Reformation had some kind of impact on the development of the western mind, and it seems to me that the Reformation and what you are identifying as the "subjectification" of religion was the consequence of a broader development in western civilization. Richard Tarnas in his book "the passion of the western mind" points out that the Copernican Revolution was simply a change in western mans anthropomorphisms. Instead of projecting our own importance physically as the center of the universe we traded that in for a projection of our own rational importance. Given the hubris of such a thing, it's no surprise that this would inevitably lead to the Enlightenment projects failure to shape reality after our own rational mores. The comment that "God is dead, and we have killed him", in my opinion, is less about the God who is and more about the humans we are. Which of course leads us to the post-modern mess we find ourselves in today. If John Wycliff could see us now I wonder if he would have been so vociferous against transubstantiation?
This is absolutely fascinating, and comes right back to your history of trying to make your theology palatable to atheists. Is it about going all in? Would this mean, in the twenty first century, becoming sort of deliberately mad? These feel like desperate times, so I wouldn't rule out a swing back towards this literal belief in Christ's body reappearing in the material world.
Being a bit of a disenchanted believer myself, I appreciate the tangibility of the Eucharist and other rituals. Not sure about transubstantiation, but ironically rituals seem to serve as something of a glue that helps hold my faith together and reorient myself to the divine.
I'm not sure about transubstantiation either, but I embrace "real presence." I find it important to recognize the enchantment of something "being there" beyond my own subjectivity. I need to escape the trap of my own mind.
Thanks. This is very thought provoking for me. This makes a lot of sense!
It strikes me that the church is going through a period of convergence...that threads like the mystic, social action, priesthood of all believers (eg, all have gifts to be used for purposes of God), use of liturgy and a focus on the words of Jesus, are being brought together in balance.
Potentially exciting times
Actually Calvin had a view similar to Luther, but based on the Holy Spirit’s action in the sacrament. Still, he strongly emphasized that in the Eucharist there is a very real encounter with Christ. (See my “Christ, Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper.”) it was Zwingli who real,y won the day in Protestantism, even among the Reformed. For him the sacrament was merely and only symbolic. The emphasis on faith subverts one of the things the sacrament accomplishes-- the tangible, physical gift of Christ in the Eucharist. I like to say that sacraments are the “handles of faith.”
I don't disagree that the Reformation had some kind of impact on the development of the western mind, and it seems to me that the Reformation and what you are identifying as the "subjectification" of religion was the consequence of a broader development in western civilization. Richard Tarnas in his book "the passion of the western mind" points out that the Copernican Revolution was simply a change in western mans anthropomorphisms. Instead of projecting our own importance physically as the center of the universe we traded that in for a projection of our own rational importance. Given the hubris of such a thing, it's no surprise that this would inevitably lead to the Enlightenment projects failure to shape reality after our own rational mores. The comment that "God is dead, and we have killed him", in my opinion, is less about the God who is and more about the humans we are. Which of course leads us to the post-modern mess we find ourselves in today. If John Wycliff could see us now I wonder if he would have been so vociferous against transubstantiation?
This is absolutely fascinating, and comes right back to your history of trying to make your theology palatable to atheists. Is it about going all in? Would this mean, in the twenty first century, becoming sort of deliberately mad? These feel like desperate times, so I wouldn't rule out a swing back towards this literal belief in Christ's body reappearing in the material world.
Become Orthodox.
Being a bit of a disenchanted believer myself, I appreciate the tangibility of the Eucharist and other rituals. Not sure about transubstantiation, but ironically rituals seem to serve as something of a glue that helps hold my faith together and reorient myself to the divine.
I'm not sure about transubstantiation either, but I embrace "real presence." I find it important to recognize the enchantment of something "being there" beyond my own subjectivity. I need to escape the trap of my own mind.
100%. Right there with you. Something to get out of my head. It’s what I deeply appreciate about tradition.