Real Presence a Stumbling Blocks to Faith?
I have been asked how can I believe that bread can become flesh and wine becomes blood? In fact, by believing such an illogical and unscientific idea don't I just prove that my whole religion is illogical?
So, let's get this straight. I do not believe that there is some alchemical transformation taking place during Lord's Supper. I do not believe that the blessing of a Christian minister or priest causes bread and wine to change their atomic or molecular structure.
I have changed denominations a few times and so as time went by I was influenced by these different denominations and my own personal beliefs on the subject evolved over time. While Roman Catholics have a doctrine which says the body and blood change their "substance" without changing their physical form ("transubstantiation"), this was rejected by Protestants.
Among Protestants, the term "real presence" is often used by people who do not want to put too fine a definition on what they believe except that somehow in some mysterious way Jesus is supposed to be present in the eucharist.
I wonder if the term "real presence" is worth holding onto if it becomes a stumbling block to belief, because it is not mentioned in the Bible and is often not explained adequately. Some Christians reject it, particularly Baptists. Baptists use the term "ordinance" for baptism and the Lord's Supper instead of "sacrament", because they see the rituals as an expression of faith and not a means of grace.
In any case, when Jesus broke bread and said "this is my body" it is more natural to assume he did not mean it in any literal sense. If the gospel writers had intended it to be taken literally surely they would have specified that a miracle had taken place.
To adequately explain how I think of the "real presence" of Christ in the eucharist I have to go into a bit of philosophy.
Modern educated people know that according to science everything in the universe is matter or energy. Those are the only two categories of "real" that make sense. For most people the word "real" refers only to physical things. Belief in spiritual things is considered superstition.
However, in philosophy the idea or "form" of a thing is sometimes considered another category of things that are "real". "The theory of Forms or theory of Ideas is a philosophical theory, concept, or world-view, attributed to Plato, that the physical world is not as real or true as timeless, absolute, unchangeable ideas. According to this theory, ideas in this sense, often capitalized and translated as 'Ideas' or 'Forms',are the non-physical essences of all things, of which objects and matter in the physical world are merely imitations. Plato speaks of these entities only through the characters (primarily Socrates) of his dialogues who sometimes suggest that these Forms are the only objects of study that can provide knowledge." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms]
As a computer programmer I work all day with programs and files that exist on disc or in the cloud. It is natural of me to think of these programs and files as real although they are only a pattern of ones and zeros. Even if I delete a file I may be able to restore it from backup or if it is a small enough file I might be able to recreate it from my memory. I can copy the file as many times as I want and it is the same regardless of where I copy it. Therefore, in a sense the file is real and yet transcends its physical media.
So, perhaps it doesn't matter that there is no alchemical transformation of one substance into another during the Lord's Supper. Maybe what is important is that the communion ritual invokes the timeless, unchangeable idea of the Christ in the mind of the believer which could perhaps be considered even more real than an actual material presence.
So, let's get this straight. I do not believe that there is some alchemical transformation taking place during Lord's Supper. I do not believe that the blessing of a Christian minister or priest causes bread and wine to change their atomic or molecular structure.
I have changed denominations a few times and so as time went by I was influenced by these different denominations and my own personal beliefs on the subject evolved over time. While Roman Catholics have a doctrine which says the body and blood change their "substance" without changing their physical form ("transubstantiation"), this was rejected by Protestants.
Among Protestants, the term "real presence" is often used by people who do not want to put too fine a definition on what they believe except that somehow in some mysterious way Jesus is supposed to be present in the eucharist.
I wonder if the term "real presence" is worth holding onto if it becomes a stumbling block to belief, because it is not mentioned in the Bible and is often not explained adequately. Some Christians reject it, particularly Baptists. Baptists use the term "ordinance" for baptism and the Lord's Supper instead of "sacrament", because they see the rituals as an expression of faith and not a means of grace.
In any case, when Jesus broke bread and said "this is my body" it is more natural to assume he did not mean it in any literal sense. If the gospel writers had intended it to be taken literally surely they would have specified that a miracle had taken place.
To adequately explain how I think of the "real presence" of Christ in the eucharist I have to go into a bit of philosophy.
Modern educated people know that according to science everything in the universe is matter or energy. Those are the only two categories of "real" that make sense. For most people the word "real" refers only to physical things. Belief in spiritual things is considered superstition.
However, in philosophy the idea or "form" of a thing is sometimes considered another category of things that are "real". "The theory of Forms or theory of Ideas is a philosophical theory, concept, or world-view, attributed to Plato, that the physical world is not as real or true as timeless, absolute, unchangeable ideas. According to this theory, ideas in this sense, often capitalized and translated as 'Ideas' or 'Forms',are the non-physical essences of all things, of which objects and matter in the physical world are merely imitations. Plato speaks of these entities only through the characters (primarily Socrates) of his dialogues who sometimes suggest that these Forms are the only objects of study that can provide knowledge." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms]
As a computer programmer I work all day with programs and files that exist on disc or in the cloud. It is natural of me to think of these programs and files as real although they are only a pattern of ones and zeros. Even if I delete a file I may be able to restore it from backup or if it is a small enough file I might be able to recreate it from my memory. I can copy the file as many times as I want and it is the same regardless of where I copy it. Therefore, in a sense the file is real and yet transcends its physical media.
So, perhaps it doesn't matter that there is no alchemical transformation of one substance into another during the Lord's Supper. Maybe what is important is that the communion ritual invokes the timeless, unchangeable idea of the Christ in the mind of the believer which could perhaps be considered even more real than an actual material presence.
Comments
Post a Comment