So, why don't you celebrate the Incarnation?
I was asked this one year by a friend. It was asked in a non-hostile
spirit. This particular person comes from shall we say a rather High Church,
Anglo-Catholic position...as in Newman and Pusey. If those names mean anything
to you, you'll understand where the question was coming from.
I found the question interesting in how it was framed. My
rejection of Christmas was immediately assumed to be a rejection of the
Incarnation.
So we talked about the Sufficiency of Scripture, then some
history, and then since I sensed a loss of flow and/or interest I let it go.
But one line this person found striking, and had time and
interest permitted I would have liked to develop it further.
I said, "I do, every Sunday. We celebrate the Incarnation every time we
meet as a Church. We celebrate it every Sunday when we partake of the Lord's
Supper, His body and blood."
That's not verbatim but pretty close.
Of course most Protestants don't actually have the Lord's
Supper every time they meet or even every Sunday.
I don't mean for this to be a treatise on the Lord's Supper
but I'll touch on just a couple of the issues.
One argument is that if we have it too much...we'll treat it
as something ordinary and mundane.
Another argues, that if we have it too much...we're being
superstitious about it.
Of course in Reformed circles there has been a historical
tendency to build off the first argument and spend weeks in preparation
(usually evening sermons) before one can partake.
It's pretty clear in the book of Acts that they broke bread
every time they met. High Church circles can't really imagine a gathering without
it. Low Church circles have put the emphasis on preaching and the Sacraments or
Ordinances have taken something of a back seat. There are other theological
reasons for this as well, and I've certainly touched upon them in the posts
dealing with a Theology of Means.
And that's really the problem here...the whole concept of
Means.
Many Protestants reject the concept that God works through
external means, like the Covenant, it's signs and symbols. This theology
insists these are empty forms that ultimately convey nothing.
Of course to Sacramental or Sacerdotal theologies, the Means
become absolutely everything, virtually essential components to the faith.
Both the anti-Means and the hyper-Means camps greatly err.
Though it makes many uncomfortable the Scriptures use
language like...
The cup of blessing which we bless (1 Corinthians 10.16)
The manna and water of the Exodus are referred to as
Spiritual meat and drink (1 Corinthians 10.3-4)
Some might try and dispute that reading of the passage. But
why? Are you assuming something in your reading? Wasn't Christ the manna? (John
6)
What about Titus 3.5?
Is it possible to separate the work of the Holy Spirit from
the symbols and the language that accompany it? Is not baptism the washing of
regeneration?
Wait a second some will say...am I saying the Sacraments or
Ordinances are in some sense efficacious?
We could spend a bunch of time trying to figure how the
Lord's Supper is a 'blessing,' or we can just take it at face value and accept
what the text says.
Blessing implies something is given to us. It's not empty.
Was Christ 'blessing' the children an empty gesture? If they
benefited, then blessing by raised hand in person, or blessing by cup in absentia...what's the difference?
It must be mixed with faith.....of course. But since I can't
look into your heart and see if you're really and truly Born Again and you
can't look into mine, what are we left with?
The Means (signs and symbols in this case) God has provided.
If we are treating the elements of the Supper as mundane,
then the answer isn't to space it out so we appreciate it more. The answer is
to correct our understanding of what Communion really is and represents.