Anglican
Eucharistic Theology
Session 1: The Integrity of the Discourse?
Anglican Eucharistic Theology
Anglican eucharistic theology has a long, complex
and serious history which did not begin at the time
of the English Reformation - several Reformations
in fact are found
Anglican eucharistic theology draws on biblical,
theological and philosophical traditions dating from
the earliest Christian times until the present
In the time we have available we can explore some
of these traditions and their impact on AET
The Discourse of Anglican
Eucharistic Theology
Rowan Williams asks an important question,
that is:
•
‘What makes us say of any discourse that it
has or that it lacks “integrity”?’ (2000: 3)
For Williams a discourse lacks integrity when it
‘steps back from the risks of conversation’ (4)
that is, not allowing critical and reflective subject
to subject conversation and dialogue
Does the discourse of the AET
lack integrity?
At times it may when it functions as a closed and
predetermined or exclusive discourse so typical
of church parties - both Catholic and Evangelical
Integrity is lacking when the discourse presents
‘to the hearer a set of positions and arguments
other than those that are finally determinative of
its workings’ (3)
Hermeneutic Idealism
Habermas notes the presence of ‘hermeneutic
idealism’ which is interpreted as:
•
‘Conceptualising of reality that is totally
dependent on one’s own (or one’s ‘communal
groups’) beliefs, values and interpretations,
whilst at the same time remaining blind to their
causes, backgrounds and those wider
connections that would contextualise them and
help those holding them to see that they are in
fact just one set of beliefs, values and
interpretations in a sea of related and unrelated
sets’ (Lovat and Douglas, 2007)
It is contended therefore
where hermeneutic idealism remains the focus of
the AET the integrity of the discourse is
threatened
where more critical methods of approaching the
AET are used the integrity of the AET is
enhanced
where conversation is encouraged the integrity of
the discourse can be recovered
Philosophical Assumptions
I want to suggest that when we are prepared to
engage in the discourse of the AET we limit
hermeneutic idealism
We do this by critically reflecting on the tradition and
the multiformity of the AET both in terms of its
expression and the philosophical assumptions which
underlie it
This will be a major part of our task today
For more detail see Douglas and Lovat (2010)
Some Examples of these
philosophical assumptions
William Temple - 1881-1944
Spoke of true reality
realising “its various
forms through
embodying itself in
things - or through the
creation of things for
this purpose of the
Divine Will” (Christus
Veritas, 1924: 11)
Reality embodied in
things - a sacramental
universe
George Herbert - 1593-1633
Suggested God was
seen in natural
things
‘Teach me my God
and King in all things
thee to see’ (Works
of George Herbert,
1994: 171)
John Macquarrie - 1919-2007
‘Perhaps the goal of all
sacramentality and
sacramental theology is to
make the things of this
world so transparent that
in them and through them
we know God’s presence
and activity in over very
midst, and so experience
his grace’ (A Guide to the
Sacraments, 1997: 1)
Lancelot Andrewes - 15551602
Spoke of sacraments as
‘conduits of grace’
‘Grace and truth now
proceeding not from the
Word alone, but even
from the flesh thereto
united; the fountain of the
Word flowing into the
cistern of His flesh, and
from thence deriving down
to us this grace and truth’
(Works, I, 100).
These Anglican thinkers
speak to us of what
philosophers call realism
Realism argues Signs represent and
present the Signified
For many within the discourse of the AET this
thinking has been important
Signs are seen to represent and present what
they signify
The incarnation is a supreme example of this
Philosophers call this realism
Realism well represented in the AET
But there is another
philosophical stream in AET
which philosophers call
nominalism
William Perkins
c.1558-1602
‘We hold and teach
that Christ’s body and
blood are truly
present with the bread
and wine, being signs
in the sacrament: but
how? Not in the
manner of place or
coexistence: but by
sacramental relation
on this manner.’
William Perkins
‘When a word is uttered, the sound comes to the
ear; and at the same instant, the thing signified
comes to the mind; and thus by relation the word
and the thing spoken of, are both present
together. Even so at the Lord’s table bread and
wine must not be considered barely, as
substances or creatures, but as outward signs in
relation to the body and blood of Christ’ (Works, I,
590)
Sign and signified are linked in enquiring mind
only through language - philosopher call this
nominalism
Benjamin Hoadly - 1676-1761
‘The very essence of this Institution
[the Eucharist] being Remembrance
of a past transaction, and this
Remembrance necessarily excluding
the Corporal presence’ (A Plain
Account, 1735: 54)
Eucharist was a means of ‘publicly
acknowledging Him to be their
Master, and themselves to be His
disciples’ (58)
Eucharist figurative only as ‘a token
or pledge to assure us of what it
calls to our remembrance’ (131)
Charles Ryle - 1816-1900
•
‘It was ordained ‘for the continual
remembrance of the sacrifice of the death
of Christ, and of the benefits which we
receive thereby’. The bread which in the
Lord’s Supper is broken, given, and eaten,
is meant to remind us of Christ’s body
given on the cross for our sins. The wine
which is poured out and received, is meant
to remind us of Christ’s blood shed on the
cross for our sins. He that eats that bread
and drinks that wine is reminded, in the
most striking and forcible manner, of the
benefits Christ has obtained for his soul,
and of the death of Christ as the hinge and
turning point on which all those benefits
depend.’ (Practical Religion, 1878: 140141)
William Griffith Thomas
1861-1924
‘The idea of a “sign”
is not that of a
channel or pipe, but
that of a seal, or
pledge, or
guarantee’. (The
Catholic Faith,
1904/1966: 104)
Robert Doyle - Born 1947
‘Christ does not work
in the world by way of
sacraments or signs,
but ... works directly,
by his word’ (Lay
Administration, 1998:
2)
For Doyle the
Eucharist is a sign of
Christ’s promises and
not the means of his
grace
Peter Jensen Born 1943
Eucharist is ‘a sort of
perpetual wake’ which
functions as ‘a perpetual
and effective reminder of
the sheer stature of
Jesus Christ’ (Come to
the Supper of the Lord’s
Table to share a meal,
2002: 1 and 2)
‘The Supper is not above
the word, or even on
parity with the word’ (The
Gospel and Mission,
Nominalism argues that Signs do
not present the Signified
For a significant group within the discourse of the
AET this thinking has been important
Signs are pictures, pledges or tokens of what
they represent but do not present what they
signify
Philosophers call this nominalism - the relation
functions in the enquiring mind only as a naming
process but not in any real way as a vehicle or
means of grace such that Christ is really present
The Integrity of the Discourse
If the discourse of the AET has integrity then we need to recognise
the multiformity of the philosophical assumptions underlying it
If hermeneutic idealism rules in the views of Church parties then
integrity is threatened by closed, predetermined and exclusive
discourse
As Williams argues integrity depends on conversation and
dialogue in the discourse of the AET which is critical, reflective,
unfinished, open and allows for correction
This of course does not mean we have to surrender the
authenticity of our tradition - merely acknowledge others and
expect the same from them!
In the next session
•
We will do some more philosophy
•
If you want some more to read:
•
More case studies available in depth at:
•
http://web.mac.com/brian.douglas/Anglican_Eucharistic_Theology/Welcome.html