|
| Home > Books > More Interaction with Professor Harp |
| More Interaction with Professor Harp | | Date Created: Dec 09, 2004, 09:03 PM |
I intended to get to this earlier, but one thing or another kept me from it. Dr. Harp has responded to my response to his review, so now it's time for me to respond to his response to my response. Got it? Just so nobodies lost, I'll set off Prof. Harps comments as indented paragraphs with my thoughts after each paragraph.I agree with much of what Jeff says about offering our good works in union with our Savior. I agree that many Protestants (particularly some Lutherans) have undervalued the place of good works.
But the point here (it seems to me) is the proper place of our offering within the context of the eucharistic liturgy. Self-offering should indeed be expressed in our worship but when and how is the critical question. Yes, this is a good place to offer ourselves but we should take care to distinguish our offering from Christ's propitiatory offering of Himself on Calvary's cross. Our offering does not save us, it is not redemptive, it is purely responsive. Accordingly, the offering of "ourselves, our souls and bodies to be a reasonable, holy and living sacrifice unto Thee" (as Cranmer has it in the matchless 1662 BCP) comes AFTER the words of institution and AFTER the communicants have received the consecrated elements. Cranmer and the other Reformers were pretty keen about keeping these things distinct, especially in the context of the communion service.
Okay, I believe I see the problem. Let me clarify. The offertory is the place where we offer ourselves and our works to God. Of course, this offering is because of Christ's work for us and even "in Christ." God accepts us and our works "in Christ." The offering is our tribute offering. As it was placed on top of the animal that was brought near, slain, and then arranged on the alter, its place in the order is highly significant. Our works are presented after the slaughter and preparation of the animal, not before. We don't parade into the service saying, "Here I am, Lord, me and my works. Ain't they great." Rather we are drawn into God's presence through confession, absolution, and consecration; only after and because of what the Lord does for us in these gracious acts do we then present outselves and the works of our hands.
Our tithes, gifts, bread, and wine are then brought forward and presented to the Lord. The bread and wine for the Supper then become emblematic of our offering. How could it be otherwise--we made the bread and the wine. They are human artifacts. God then recevies these gifts.
But you are correct, Professor Harp--the major movement in the Supper is the Lord's gift to us of the Body and Blood of Jesus.
Since at least the 1950s, there has been an effort among mainline liturgical scholars to revisit the great Reformation debate re. Eucharistic sacrifice, tone down Trent's sacrificial language and try to fuse together what the Reformers had disentangled. Thus, some have looked to the liturgies of the 3rd and 4th centuries and seen there a sort of pre-Medieval doctrine of eucharistic sacrifice that could be salvaged perhaps to build ecumenical bridges.
Jeff refers to one of these early church practices in the following:For example, I have been assuming that the offertory and the Lord's Supper are connected, but this is not generally appreciated. The bread and wine ought to be brought forward with our tithes and offerings as symbolic of the gifts we offer in Christ. I talk about this a bit on pp. 208-9 in The Lord's Service, especially footnote #11. At this point in the sequence of God's service to us we are not merely to offer him praise and thanksgiving, but rather offer ourselves and our works. That includes the good deeds we have done that week. I am not sure that reviving such a practice is prudent. It has always struck me as best that the 'movement' within the Eucharist should be primarily from God to man and not man to God. After all, it is a sacrament and not an Old Testament sacrifice. Or, more precisely, it is a feast on a completed sacrifice. My thinking here has been shaped in part by John Stott's helpful treatment of this question his _The Cross of Christ_ (chapt. 10 if I remember correctly). I'm not sure that this is the real difference between a "sacrifice" of the OT and that of the new.
One final comment. I think that such an approach may highlight the danger of integrating OT models into New Covenant worship. They can be illuminating but one has draw some key distinctions (the sort of distinctions drawn by the author of the Letter to the Hebrews). The failure to draw such distinctions constituted one of the critical mistakes of the Early and Medieval Church and thereby presbyters became sacrificing priests.
In any case, let me thank Jeff again for a superb book. I only wish there were more pastors in conservative Presbyterian circles who were as thoughtful. |
|
