“I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.” (John 6:51)

From this verse we find that Jesus’s flesh has the same value to us as the Tree of Life would have had to Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:22). Those who eat of it live forever.

Now, if all we had was John chapter six, I would say that we could take believing as being the one and only way of receiving this (John 6:47). But He didn’t leave it there.

When He instituted the Supper, He said to them, “Take, eat. This is my body” (Matthew 26:26). Given what He had said of his body, that eating it would make someone live forever, it stands to reason that eternal life was offered here.

To say otherwise means saying that by eating, you can sin against the body and blood of Christ, even though what you are eating is not the body and blood of Christ. This is odd. Why would He say you could have eternal life by eating His body, offer us something saying it was His body, attach curses to eating it wrongly, but not have eating do for us what He said eating would do?

As a Lutheran I can approach what happens at the Baptist altar in one of two ways. I can either say that what is offered is present whether they accept it or not. In which case they are all sinning against the body and blood of Christ by not discerning His body. Or I can say that what they confess they are doing as a body determines whether or not the sacrament is present. In which case they have the memorial they confess. And in which case they are not sinning against the body and blood of Christ, since it is not there to be discerned in the first place.

But as harsh as that can sound, I think other Protestants have to answer another question. Why would God would put curses on something that had so little power to do good? In that view, you can end up getting sick and dying over not paying attention to an object lesson. What does that say about childrens’ sermons?

Lutherans and Baptists and other Christians are all given this way of receiving Jesus. But if they confess that they are doing something else when they gather, I have to wonder what happens. And I’m not the one introducing the doubt into it.

I do know that my communion experiences as a Presbyterian are different from my communion experiences as a Lutheran. As a Presbyterian, the elements were an occasion for meditation. I was picturing something happening long ago. Perhaps I would even picture myself at the cross. But when I picture myself there, I don’t know how to receive it. When what is offered is given in the present, I know. The answer to how to receive it is “Take, eat.”

As a Presbyterian I was always subject to the temptation to go forward at an altar call. (I knew, though, that once would never solve it.) I was always saying the Sinner’s Prayer several times on an airplane ride. Why? Because the act was so intangible, how could I ever know I had really done it? If what was really going on was internal, how would I ever be sure? That’s like trying to grab a hold of fog. Now I have a better way of going to the altar. I can eat from it.

It is not Lutheran to focus on the theological term “real presence” as much as “This is my body”, etc. Is it His body? The word “union” is a good translation of KOINWNIA from 1 Cor. 10:15. So the bread is the union.

Which of the scriptures about union with Christ would be affected by one’s view of the “real presence?” All Christians that I am aware of believe Christ is “really” present to his people.

But by non-Lutherans, I would mean those who do not recognize the Real Presence.

Do you believe non Lutherans are missing God himself?

Imagine you got into a discussion with a well-meaning Unitarian. He would label your Christological squabbles as taking away from time we could spend meditating on God. For the Unitarian, Jesus may be a pointer to God. But a pointer will always be secondary to what it points to. But in our thinking, we say Jesus is no mere pointer. He is God Himself. To miss this is to miss God Himself.

Likewise for us on the Lord’s Supper. Many will try to sidestep the question of the identity of the Lord’s Supper and Jesus. If it is a mere pointer, then yes, these questions are taking our focus off Jesus Himself. But if He has really offered us His Body and Blood to eat and drink, then it’s all different. Picturing the cross as you partake of bread and wine is not the same as believing you are being offered His Body and Blood to eat and to drink. So many times people want to know that the blood is actually applied to them. In our teaching it is. Physically. Poured into the mouth.

I want more than a Jesus-centered spirituality. I want a Jesus-centered physicality. Spirituality is all we would have if God hadn’t become Incarnate.

Don’t want to start too much of a ruckus, but I figure I ought to explain my particular issues with the idea of “reducing to Jesus.” Perhaps itll give you a better idea about the heart of certain criticisms.

Bascially, the very idea of reducing everything to Jesus begs the question of what exactly “reducing to Jesus” is. I doubt anyone would take issue with “reducing everything to Jesus.” Those who make accusation against you of ‘reduction’ would probably make the same claim of the goodness of “reducing to Jesus.” The issue I tend to have when discussing these matters with those who take the sort of position you have is that the wording of your stance automatically discourages any opposing view. Since you have the “simply Jesus” position other positions would have, by default, something more than Jesus, and thus would be an inferior sort of position.
Of course, the idea that your position is “simply Jesus” is not self-evident, but rather something that needs to be defended (Im not saying you don’t defend it). Those who call you a reductionist probably feel they have a “Jesus centered” position and that your “reductions” cause you to have something that is less than Jesus.

The following are prime examples of this kind of discourse:
“My attempts to go back to Jesus, to bring my faith out of a foundation of New Testament texts and teaching/actions of Jesus, are “reductionistic.””
“I also believe that reducing my evangelicalism to a vital connection to Jesus is a worthy quest that I invite all of you on without embarassment. ”
This is real disengenuous to your critics as they most certainly consider “a vital connection to Jesus” a key to their evangelism, and that to “bring my faith out of a foundation of…teaching/actions of Jesus,” is very honorable. The particular critics you are mentioning probably would take no issue with the ideas put forth in these quotes, but rather, with the idea that this is what you are actually doing.
Make sense at all?

Some quick notes:
Im not sure but it seems when you talk about the eucharist that you seem to be saying, “just listen to what Jesus says,” but then, “it doesn’t matter what the heck Jesus is really saying.” You show some scorn about theological issues concerning the eucharist, but the theological questions are concerned precisely with what Jesus meant. To say “just listen to Jesus,” and then “it doesn’t matter what the eucharist is really,” seems to indicate that it doesn’t matter what Jesus words meant. But to get anything out of anything Jesus says, you of course have to understand what he means.
To say it doesn’t matter is particularly disengenous to Catholics as Im sure you know (or don’t) that the eucharist is the summit and peak of the sacramental life. The meaning and significance of the sacrament hinges on the very concept of the real presence, and without that, the whole picture is completely changed. Also, the fact that only Catholics partake in the eucharist at a Catholic service is supposed to be a sign of unity (the way we understand it), not a way to flare up sectarian issues or to stick it to non-Catholics. Technically, though, we also do it for your sake, since if you don’t believe in the real presense, you’ll end profaning the body of the Lord and you’ll bring judgement upon yourself, and we wouldn’t want you to hurt yourself now
In this case, the theological issue certainly means something. Furthermore, there are usually implications from peoples thoughts on the eucharist that touch on issues concerning the incarnation and of the relationship between the spirit and the material, and these theological issues can really affect ones dispostions towards a great number of things they will encounter in this life. In fact, concerning any theological issue, your view can have a great impact on how you go about doing a number of things.

I think those who feel theology is pointless probably don’t realize that they hold a great deal of theological positions and that such positions really do effect your dispostions, how you relate to God, the World, and others (for example, the anti-intellectualism you mention in your next post is probably a result of theological positions). Im sure you all know that such doctrines as the Trinity, and original sin were developed through theological discourse well past the time recorded in the New Testament, and they are absolutely central to any Christian worldview. Hey, maybe Arianism was more simple than Trinitarianism, who knows, but the formulation of the Trinitarian doctrine was extremely important and it affects a person greatly whether they believe it or not (even if they don’t understand it). It could also be stated that theological development in the Christian world probably helped to create a hospitiable environment for the development of Science (ie: challenging Aristotilian claims, secondary causes, impetus, rationality and its relation to God, etc). This is often taken for granted among Christians but your belief in these is a direct result of certain Christian Theology being passed onto you.

Well, I hope I didn’t sound like too much of a fool. Take care.

Sincerly,
Mike

P.S:
“Religion is for those who think they can do something 4 God.Grace is 4 those who see the futility of religion.”

Whoever wrote this, perhaps you can tell me what you mean by Religion here? I hear this often from a number of people, but it often sadly means, “I believe my [?non-religious?] expression of Christianity is superior to X. So I’ll say religion is bad and say that X is religion.”

John 1
17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
Hebrews 7
18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless
19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.
Hebrews 8
13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
Hebrews 7
20 And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath,
21 but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him: “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: `You are a priest forever.’”
22 Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.
Hebrews 10
1 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming–not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship.
2 If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins.
3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins,
4 because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
Romans 3
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God.
20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.