“…please don’t think that that Lord’s Supper discrepancy is just something we shouldn’t worry about too much. If you’re a real Calvinist and you really understand what Lutherans teach about the Lord’s Supper, you should flee from us. We’re heretics. I’m worshiping bread and wine on Sunday morning. Really. I know I’m saved because I eat bread and wine. ‘Cause it’s God. I’m an idolater or Christianity is about eating the flesh and blood of Jesus. Literally.”
-Pastor Jonathan Fisk, Worldview Everlasting 9/3/10
Careful. That can be overstated. Adoration (i.e. worship) of the Sacrament. 100% absolutely legit. Because the Sacrament of the Altar is the very body and blood of Jesus, who is God. But to use the language “I’m worshiping bread and wine on Sunday morning” is to open up a whole can of worms that the Formula of Concord explicitly sought to close. To use specifically that language is to transgress the clear boundaries of the Formula of Concord when referring to the adoration of the Sacrament. It can lead to misunderstanding of Lutheran Sacramental adoration as so-called artolatry, anb because of this, the framers of the Fomula quite pointedly censured speaking of sacramental adoration in terms of “die Element, sichtliche species oder Gestalt des gesegneten Brots und Weins” that is the visible forms, the bread and wine. (See the Epitome, 7th article). Taken as a whole the quote certainly wants to express the right understanding, and I sympathise with it. But that particular sentence can be problematic. “Adoration of the Sacrament.” Yes, “Worship of Christ who is wahrhaftig und wesentlich gegenwärtig. Yes. “I’m worshiping bread and wine.” No. Can’t say it in that manner.
So…what does “wahrhaftig und wesentlich gegenwärtig” mean? My German is pretty much limited to “sprechen sie Deutch?” “Nein.”
@ J. Random I’m responding here because Dawn asked me too. I hope it clarifies.
In it’s context, with a full understanding of our confessions, there is nothing wrong with my statement. It’s important to notice that I have not advocated “adoration of the host.” To assume that means to read into the words much more than is there. I have rather pointed out to the Cavlinist that, based on his own theology, he should consider what Lutherans confess in the Book of Concord to be the same equivalent, and so he should not consider our view to be “no big deal.” Lutherans believe that because we eat what Calvinists believe to be *only* bread and wine, we are saved by graceful forgiveness delivered to us directly in that oral meal. That it is a few Lutherans who have been the *only* online dissenters of the statement, blowing it out of proportion and without context, only displays how much we have been influenced by the Protestants, especially in the use of that little word “worship.”
The Augsburg Confession and it’s Apology make it quite clear that for the Lutheran, to “worship” is to receive the Words of God in faith. Nothing more, nothing less. To receive the Divine Service of Bread and Wine under the words of God is to “worship” bread and wine by *receiving them* as the New Testament in his blood. This is not to adore in any papistic fashion, but to eat in faith.
Of course, such worship is a million miles from the protestant version which can only conceive of the two way street of doing *for* God, (which, ironically is much more akin to adoration – only, without the host!) So Rome adores the host, Protestants adore the absent Christ, Lutherans receive, eat and believe in the present flesh and blood of Christ which *is* (Sacramentally) the bread and wine.
That is all I have said. Nothing more. Nothing less.
The problem is not with our Confession, or our theology, but with our importation of protestant definitions into our Lutheran language. Sadly, when I say worship, most Lutherans do not hear “believe the Word of God.” But because this is the clear confession of our faith, we cannot abandon it and adopt the protestant language wholesale. We must recover it.
This is not to advocate the adoration of the host (apart the faith which marvels at the reception of it to eat and drink). The Formula did indeed close the door on any human actions/traditions established to use the elements of the Supper apart from the Word and promises. But it did not condemn faith in the Words, nor the simple reverence which is found in all the liturgies of the era, which flows from faith in the Words.
Nonetheless, I will maintain that a Calvinist ought to consider all of this a total error, and, in fact, the “worship of mere bread and wine.” That I put my faith in that food which I eat, that I believe my sins are forgiven because this bread *is* Jesus, does in fact show us where the line really lies between those who confess the Sacramental Union and those who are Sacramentarians.
The can of worms is the word “worship,” and it has long been opened. What we really ought to do is close it by recovering the confessional meaning: “to believe these words.”
Anyhoo, I’m not really hear to get into a deep debate, just to clarify. I hope these words are received in the spirit they are given.
Oh, sorry about leaving that German untranslated. What is says is that the body and blood of Jesus are “truly” and “essentially present”.
Rev Fisk, Thank-you for your thorough response. I’m not of course, taking issue with the sacramental theology you are articulating, rather the clause as it stands which can be problematic from the perspective of the perennial danger of inner-Lutheran fracture on the right way to speak about eucharistic worship, not Lutheran-Calvinist polemics. The whole point of e.g. SDVII p.126 was to resolve fraternal dispute regarding so-called artolatry. Appropriate use of the English term “worship” is a whole other matter as well.
Pax
Help me understand- When you say you worship bread and wine, what you essentially are saying is that you believe the words spoken regarding the bread and wine, that they actually are true body and blood?
This quote is obviously intended to draw a distinct line between Calvinism and Lutheranism, and I am glad you are willing to do that, else we would all believe we fall under the same big happy reformation family albeit with slight differences. You make it clear that the differences are by no means slight.
On the flip side, to the non-Lutheran reading the quote, the divide goes beyond being distinct and immensely important (which it is), to being absolutely jaw dropping. As I read the quote I instantly assumed Rev Fisk was speaking of adoration of the host, and have assumed since I first read this post that Lutherans affirmed adoration of the host, that’s been 4 months or so now.
Glad to see this hashed out a little better in the comments. Obviously there is an immense difference between Calvin and Luther here that should never be minimized, it just seemed the quote used a distinctly Lutheran understanding of worship that did nothing more than confuse me as someone who doesn’t yet understand many of the Lutheran distinctives.
When we say we worship bread and wine, we are saying that not only do we believe that the bread and wine are Christ’s true body and blood but that we place our faith in them for the forgiveness of our sins, per Christ’s words. Part of Rev Fisk’s original quote was “I know I’m saved because I eat bread and wine. Because it’s God.” This is the key, I think. We don’t set out the bread and wine and pray to it or sing songs to it or bow down to it. The worship is in the eating and drinking in faith for the forgiveness of sins.
Lutherans will certainly show reverence in various ways in the process of taking the Lord’s Supper (e.g. kneeling to receive the elements, bowing, making the sign of the cross etc.) but these things are done only in connection with and in recognition of the fact that Christ is coming to us there for our forgiveness, life and salvation. Christ said “take, eat” and “take, drink.” He didn’t say “take, parade around the city” or “take, pray to.”
I hope this helps…I apologize for the confusion. In the future I will try to be more mindful of how things might be misunderstood by those who are not Lutherans.