I'm not terribly familiar with Francis Chan and I must
confess that I've never been particularly motivated to look into him or his
teachings. However I've noticed his name being recently tossed about regarding some
comments he made on the topic of Communion and an apparent favourable
disposition toward the Roman Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation.
First, it must be noted that Chan is apparently unfamiliar
with the topic, which given his position is a bit startling. He referenced his
own ignorance of historic positions regarding communion and yet after some
recent study (after more than 25 years?!) he came to the conclusion that the
symbolic view is recent, something that's only been around for the past five
hundred years or so, or in other words since the Reformation. He seemed to
suggest that the overwhelming historic testimony is in favour of
Transubstantiation which ought to give us pause and should (it would seem)
carry some weight in how we approach the issue.
As one who absolutely rejects the symbolic view I also take
issue with his statement, or at least in how it was reported.
Transubstantiation arose in the Dark Ages (about the 9th or 10th
century) but was not made official until the 13th century and wasn't
emphatically affirmed and formally elaborated upon until the 16th
century. This has led to confusion and even some misleading commentary from
some Reformed Confessionalists who want to push their own meta-narrative with
regard to the 'True Church' status, something they believe Rome only abandoned
during the period of the Council of Trent (1545-1563). Some have disingenuously
argued that Transubstantiation was a creation of the 16th century
which conveniently fits their narrative of Magisterial Protestantism taking up
the mantle (as it were) of the Church (and Christendom) in the 16th
century.
This is of course misleading as Rome's views on soteriology
and sacramentology were long in practice, often centuries before it was given
the stamp of 'dogma'... and any other reading is frankly dishonest.
That said, to imply that Transubstantiation was 'the' view
going back to the Early Church is not correct either. We could safely say the
Real Presence was certainly embraced and was the commonplace view (even among
many of the dissident or proto-protestant groups) until symbolic views arose in
the 15th century and again during the Reformation. That said even
Zwingli's view is not quite as extreme as what one finds in most contemporary Evangelical
churches.
Of course there's debate over what is meant by the Real
Presence. I would argue (and many Calvinists would disagree) the Early Church
position was actually closer to Lutheran or Anglican views than the Calvinistic
concept of the Real Presence. In fact Confessional Lutherans are insistent that
the Calvinist view is not an affirmation of the Real Presence at all in that
its view is not objective but instead represents a type of spiritual-subjective
presence at best. And of course to many Calvinists, particularly those during
and after the 19th century, the Lutheran view (and even Calvin's own
view for that matter) seem to stray perilously close to Rome.
The Early Church certainly applied the robust language and
concepts of John 6 to their discussion of the Lord's Supper in addition to the
doctrines laid out in the 1 Corinthians 10 passage. Most people pick up the
discussion in 1 Corinthians 11 which is unfortunate because they're missing a
great deal of the context. Once again the chapter divisions all too often
divide the flow and thought process of the apostle's argument. They're helpful
for finding verses and as a system of reference but unfortunately the chapter
divisions in many case help to shape doctrine.
The conversation begins in chapter 10 and there we're told
that we (the Church) partake of the same spiritual meat and drink as the Old
Testament saints, the cup being referred to as the 'cup of blessing' and by
implication in the larger discussion, the bread can certainly be referred to
(via the analogy of the manna) as the Bread of Heaven and as a means of
partaking of or participating in Communion. Through the Spirit-wrought
instrument of faith, there is benefit, growth and certainly grace imparted and
yet many modern soteriologies cannot accommodate these categories and thus they
are explained away. Others are careful to restrict the grace to 'sanctifying'
grace as a means of retaining a Sola Fide (Justification by Faith Alone)
construct.
It is in the context of the Hebrew defection and apostasy at
Shittim in Numbers 25 that a warning is given in 1 Corinthians chapter 10 and
this helps us to understand the nature of the warning in chapter 11 and the threat
of death associated with a sacrilegious treatment of the Supper, an implication
of its holy (as opposed to mere memorial) status. Because the context has been
divorced from the larger discussion and analogy many strange and ultimately
misleading notions have developed with regard to the New Covenant rite and
these are further confused by the questions of discernment and examination. The
Old Testament analogy dispenses with the modern subjective and individualistic
notions of what sort of examination is required for those who would partake.
The threat of death, the covenant notion of both blessing and
curse gives credence to the fact that Christ is indeed objectively present and
not just spiritually present for those who take the elements by faith. Those
who partake 'not of faith' also receive Christ (as it were) but at that point
He is Judge and no Saviour.
Transubstantiation of course takes things a step further in
that the doctrine is tied in with what's taking place in the Roman Catholic
mass. Christ is bodily present, the bread and wine are no longer bread and wine
(but instead only appear as such) and his body is being sacrificed by a priest
on an altar. The Catholic notion of Real Presence is of a different order and
cannot be divorced from the larger sacerdotal system. Non-Catholic formulations
with regard to the Real Presence (whether Calvinist, Lutheran, Anglican or
other) do not imply a belief in transubstantiation or the mass. Those who insist
on such a connection are guilty of a fallacy, perhaps in some cases a bit of hysterics
and are certainly ignorant of historical theology and in some cases their own
tradition. It can be safely stated the Zwinglian view is a minority view in Church
history, and even within Protestantism itself.
So ultimately Chan has a historical (if slightly less than
accurate) point and if he wants to make a doctrinal point, there is a case to
be made. And the reaction to his statements is also telling. The Baptistic
subjective-minimalist hermeneutic reigns supreme and is even dominant in
Confessional Calvinist circles. Many paedobaptists and professing adherents of
the Real Presence are (when pressed and examined) revealed to be memorialists
and Baptists at heart. Their larger systematic theology and the commitment to
coherence not only trumps the New Testament text but large sections of it are
marginalised or relegated to being 'problem passages'. The New Testament's
doctrinal spectrum and its means of interaction are vast and well beyond their
reckoning.
The rationalistic tendency which dominates modern
Confessional and Evangelical theology struggles to embrace Biblical concepts
such as mystery, the notion of temporal-objective means, signs and seals and it
is certainly hostile to the concept of duality... a concept replete throughout
the Scriptures but something modern theologians reject and frequently confuse
with absolute metaphysical dualism. An embrace of duality is essential if one
hopes to apprehend doctrines such as the Incarnation, the many facets of
soteriology and yes, Baptism and the Lord's Supper.
Chan's own admission of ignorance shouldn't surprise us as modern
Evangelicalism has all but ignored significant swathes of New Testament
doctrine. They simply don't fit with the assumptions, central doctrines and the
goals and strategies of the Evangelical system. Additionally Evangelicalism has
generated its own set of traditions and a theology to accompany them.
While Evangelicals are generally hostile to the Real Presence
in Communion (or for that matter any kind of sacramental efficacy), they have
instead developed a theology of worship which ranges far beyond anything found
in either the New Testament or in the testimony of Early Church history... or
any Church history at all.
In fact it could be argued that for many Evangelicals, music
(and in particular some form of 'praise' music) has become their sacrament, the
means by which they experience grace. They often speak of it in transcendent
terms and clearly for many of them it has become the central or focal aspect of
their meeting. It is for them the Word made tangible, a spiritually enriching
experience and yet the notion of such sanctifying means being tied to music is
actually foreign to the New Testament and can only denigrate and lessen the
means God has actually provided and ordained.