Comments for Out of Bounds

Comment on Lecture Notes: Regent College Pastor’s Conference on the Lord’s Supper by Jon Coutts

Jon Coutts — Thu, 16 May 2013 14:43:41 +0000

By “the form Jesus’ presence takes” I’m gesturing at the event of the Lord’s Supper, the actions which it calls for and compels, rather than simply the elements themselves. This brings to mind not only the hospitality and social-leveling of a shared meal but also the rhythms of confession and the ministry of reconciliation that it ought to perpetuate. However, I’m not sure I’ve been to many churches where there is much of any of this.

Comment on Lecture Notes: Regent College Pastor’s Conference on the Lord’s Supper by AT

AT — Thu, 16 May 2013 08:27:45 +0000

Jon,

Thanks for your reply. Your clarification about ‘sacramental time’ is illuminating. And I do agree with the basic thought by it. But I can’t help doubting whether such a phrase only posits the fact of Christ’s presence, instead of explaining it partially or at least clarifying it.
I like the way you takes your tradition into account of how Christ’s presence can be emphasized. I’m not sure whether I grasp what you mean by the ‘form’ of Jesus’ presence. Do you think of the Lord’s Supper being a meal?

Arjen

Comment on Lecture Notes: Regent College Pastor’s Conference on the Lord’s Supper by Jon Coutts

Jon Coutts — Mon, 13 May 2013 23:55:05 +0000

Thanks for your comments.

AT: I agree that the “sacramental time” stuff seems a bit ambiguous, but I took it to refer to the availability and openness of each “measure” of our chronological time to the pervading presence of the ascended Christ. In which case we can conceive of the meal as a special participation in the past, wherein we “partake” in the sacrifice of Christ, who is actually present to us in the meal as he was present on the cross.

I share your general observations about common approaches to the Lord’s Supper. It is often perceived as little more than an element in an otherwise more amenably experienced worship service, rather than the central orienting act of the worshipping community. No doubt the community’s convictions about Jesus’ special presence in the meal are a huge factor in the seriousness with which they take the meal. I venture to guess that where the meal is but a symbol—or at least not far removed from any other worship events in terms of the degree or significance of Jesus’ being present to us—then it can tend to take a backseat to whatever symbols happen to be speaking more loudly to our sensibilities at any given time.

I don’t know if my tradition is ready to speak of it as being that much more than a symbol, and this presents a dilemma for me. I’ve begun to wonder if I can recapture the significance of this meal not by emphasizing real presence, but the specific mode that Jesus’ presence in this event (as opposed to a song or prayer) is meant to have. So instead of bogging down in debate over “presence” or “symbol”, talk instead about the form Jesus’ presence takes with us as we join him at this Table.

Comment on Lecture Notes: Regent College Pastor’s Conference on the Lord’s Supper by AT

AT — Sat, 11 May 2013 21:18:14 +0000

Thank you for this post. Nice to read your brief summaries of the lectures. The way Boersma opts for a ‘sacramental understanding of time’ doesn’t quite convince me. It seems to be ‘en vogue’ to call all sorts of things ‘sacramental’. But that kind of speech often seems to conceal more than it reveals. Like in Boersma’s case. How are we to understand a conception of time ‘wherein past, present and future can be simultaneous to one another in the eternal Word’?
Your remark about the second lecture of Alan Torrance is intriguing. I mean his account of a Barthian view of thinking ‘revelation in a Trinitarian frame, complete with the point that revelation has not fully occurred until it is successful, which means that it must involve the transformation of eyes and ears and lives’. That, I would suggest, parallels Calvin’s understanding of a sacrament. A sacrament can’t be viewed without its effect. Only if the sacrament is received as such we can properly speak of a sacrament.
Finally, I fully agree with your comment on Christ’s presence and his absence, in a certain way. That is the scope of the extra-calvinisticum. Far from flatly denying Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper, it adds a qualification to that presence.
I wondered if you could say a few words whether the way the Lord’s Supper is experienced these days was discussed during the conference. It seems to me, that the mystery of Christ’s presence in the Supper certainly isn’t shared in the same way by all the participants. To put it blandly: not a few concregation members do long more for a worship or praise event, then to a communion service. At least, that’s my impression in the Netherlands.
Arjen

Comment on Lecture Notes: Regent College Pastor’s Conference on the Lord’s Supper by Ruth Shareski

Ruth Shareski — Sat, 11 May 2013 05:48:19 +0000

Thanks so much for this…I would have loved to have been there. I also appreciate your comments. I taught on Sunday at a Women’s Retreat on coming to the table and was so moved by the truth that Jesus is Himself both Provider and Provision and so as you say surely the One who enables reconciliation between us, which in turn enables us to discern His Body. I also like your thought about the real absence / presence through the Spirit….so many facets of truth made accessible through the everyday elements.

Comment on Out On the Web: Links for April 19 by Bobby Grow

Bobby Grow — Sat, 20 Apr 2013 23:48:02 +0000

I look forward to reading Travis’ book, just as I look forward to reading yours (dissertation), one day, Darren, when it is published .

Comment on Lecture Notes: Hans Boersma on Embodiment and Gender in Gregory of Nyssa by Jon Coutts

Jon Coutts — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 19:11:42 +0000

Thanks Kevin, I will check that out.

Jon

Comment on Lecture Notes: Hans Boersma on Embodiment and Gender in Gregory of Nyssa by Kevin Davis

Kevin Davis — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 14:12:36 +0000

Jon,

If you google “gender theology barth,” the first link should be a blog article that I did on this topic. It is part of a larger series on Gender and Theology that I did in January. I still have more work to do in this area, but I am rather certain that Barth has been misjudged on this topic, thanks in large part to a dubious “apocalyptic” over-reading of Barth’s rejection of natural theology. It would not hurt to read or re-read CD III.1 on the covenant form of creation.

Happy studying!

Comment on Lecture Notes: Hans Boersma on Embodiment and Gender in Gregory of Nyssa by Jon Coutts

Jon Coutts — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 00:25:26 +0000

Hmm, yes, I’m not sure I want to go with Coakley (haven’t read her on this) but I’d have to hear more about the essentialism grounded in christology. I’m not altogether happy with Barth on this either. Its something I wrestle with directly in another post on this blog actually.

Comment on Lecture Notes: Hans Boersma on Embodiment and Gender in Gregory of Nyssa by Kevin Davis

Kevin Davis — Thu, 18 Apr 2013 11:53:16 +0000

Thanks for the write-up. Not surprisingly, Coakley has also utilized Gregory of Nyssa for her own theological work to “destabilize” gender. Of course, I reject both Nyssa’s platonic urges and Coakley’s revisionist account of gender identity, in favor of an essentialism grounded in christology (a la Barth) as scripture testifies. Anyway, I’ll have to get our seminary library to purchase this book when it is released.