Exorcizing the ghost of Zwingli

In a neat article titled "Books in search of an author" in the May 6 Christian Century (alas, no web link), John Wilson of Books & Culture wishes for someone to write a new historical theology of the Eucharist.  The not-so-hidden agenda of said book would be to make a plausible case to Evangelicals for the Real Presence, and invite them, and the rest of us as well, to clean up our slipshod approach to the Lord's Supper.

Lots of questions remain of course. Which theology of real presence?  Transubstantiation?  Consubstantiation?  Virtual representation?  Nonetheless, your mission, should you choose to accept it, is a worthy one. 

So, who's game for that?

Comments

[Jonathan Marlowe]

Wesley believed in real presence, but he did not nail it down to a particular theory of real presence, be it consubstantiation, transubstantiation, or others. (although he did reject transubstantiation)

It's kind of like what we have said about the atonement: we believe in atonement, but we do not necessarily pin it down to one particular theory about the atonement.

I would be all in favor of such a book. It would help us develop a more nuanced account of eucharistic theology. For example, many modern Methodists say things like "we don't believe it literally, chemically becomes the body and blood of Christ; we believe it is just symbolic." As if those were our only two options.

[Dave Bruner]

Hi, Marvin,

FYI, my old prof at Princeton George Hunsinger is coming out with a new book on the eucharist this August, I think. "Eucharist and Ecumenism" is the not-that-winsome title, undoubtedly stuck on by some editor. But I was in the course where he took the ideas out for a trial run, and it was a pretty fascinating proposal. Sort of bringing Calvin together with Eastern Orthodoxy to box Zwingli's ears. To a Lutheran it seemed pretty good.

Might be worth reading.

[Sam]

As a seminarian at a Methodist institution, I learned that Wesley's doctrine of the Lord's Supper mirrored Calvin's: The presence is spiritual, not corporeal.

Though I claim Calvin's view myself, I have no real problem with Zwingli's. To equate Zwingli's view with that of mega-churches who dish out hermetically sealed cuplets of grape juice with a tiny, dry wafer ingeniously attached to the top to worshipers before they even reach their seats is really quite unfair. Zwingli was simply an example of a reformer who wished to sweep the superstition out of the church. It could be argued that a true Zwinglian needs to take the Lord's Supper even more seriously, since its power lies within those who receive it, not in the elements themselves.