It's in there. (Ruminations on Real Presence)

Click to enlarge: Prego used to use the tag line, "it's in there," which meant it was made with authentic ingredients.

Jesus is not in a Baptist church in quite the same way he is in a Catholic church.

That is because the doctrine of Real Presence means Jesus is literally, physically there, and not just in the omnipresent "God is everywhere" sense, but in the very same way he was here 2,000 years ago, literally and physically.

 

Click to enlarge: This is the inside of a typical Baptist church. This happens to be Berean Baptist Church in Belleville, Michigan. I have not been there and cannot say if the beliefs are as typical as the architecture.

If you believe that, then communion becomes not just a symbolic gesture, but a channel of grace. Ie, when you participate with a penitent heart, you receive something as real to the spirit as vitamins are to the body.

(I'm not talking about a cognitive difference, but a responsive one. People behave differently when they think someone they are talking to is literally nearby. Compare Baptist and Catholic communion services just after, when the pastor dismisses the congregation. What happens?)

 

Click to enlarge: This is the inside of a Catholic church. I don't know if it's typical because I've only seen the inside of two, and that is hardly a basis for deciding what is typical. (This happens to be St. Joseph’s Catholic Church, Detroit area, picture obtained here > ) However I do know that if you attend a Catholic church, you hear the same doctrine as any other Catholic church. I come from the GARB Baptist tradition (General Association of Regular Baptists), and within that tradition, you can be sure that one church to the next also professes similar if not identical doctrines. I suspect Catholics have the same expectations, which are sometimes (if rarely) not met.

I do not believe taking communion saves you by itself any more than the body can survive on vitamin supplements.

Nor do I believe that what you believe regarding this doctrine makes you a better or worse person.

But I do believe one view is more right than the other.

And I believe Jesus meant what he said in John 6:53-56.[1] Four times, Jesus speaks of eating his flesh. He doesn't say "Oh by the way, I'm speaking metaphorically," and he uses visceral words that mean to chew or gnaw. This was so troubling to some listeners, who understood him literally, they stopped following him.

 

 

c0

 

Click to enlarge: A 1975 Chick comic titled "Chaos" from when I was a boy. This one happens to feature the Rapture, an element of evangelical theology in which the redeemed are taken up into heaven at the Second Coming of Jesus.

What recommends a blog post that more or less updates my developing theology? A biographical note, perhaps: When we were kids, we regaled each other with stories of a certain occult stripe that invariably involved exorcisms, ghosts, and other unworldly things. Fellow 7th grader Peanut Smith[2] at Bethel Christian School said that he knew for an absolute fact that a priest "serving communion" spilled the wine and when it hit the floor it was real blood.

Most of what we knew of Catholicism unfortunately came from stories like that, nominal Catholic friends, and Chick comics. An exception was Fred Faulk and his family. Fred was a devout Catholic and worked at Loblaws in Erie with Dad. He gave my family a very nice nativity scene one Christmas that is now with me.

It's probably unfair to brand most Catholics I knew as nominal; that's an evangelical description. Baptists expect a more overt expression of faith if it's genuine; that's why, for example, Baptist Mid Missions, the missionary arm of the GARBC (General Association of Baptist Churches) will not bring medical assistance if they cannot also bring religious education along with it, at least, that was a condition of their missionary work when I was a boy, and I felt then, as I do now, that that was somehow unfair. The reasoning was that there are only so many dollars to go around and Baptists should use every penny to spread the Word.

The distinction is an unfortunate byproduct of the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity, in which works are eyed suspiciously when they are an expression of piety.

[2103-05-13]

c0

[1]
John 6:53-56

Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

The only evangelical objection to a literal interpretation that has any merit (that I can see) is that Jesus made no indication he meant to be understood literally, but there are a couple problems with this:

1. Assuming something from what someone didn't say is dangerous. Evangelicals should especially be wary of this since they use it to counter Catholic arguments for Marian veneration, among other things.

2. Jesus not only repeats himself, he goes out of his way to make it clear he's talking about "true" food and drink, that he's not being metaphorical.

You can reject John 6:53-56, but I don't think you can say it's metaphorical.

[2]
I don't remember his real name, but we all called him Peanut.
 

c0