Sunday, June 23, 2013

Sermon at A Christian Commemoration for Those Lost at Sea



Why are we here?

What a strange thing to do, it seems, to meet together, as we have done today, to commemorate the loss of people who were strangers to us.

By what trick of the mind can we pretend that we are remembering those we never knew? And by what right do we say that these people were ours to remember in the first place? Is it not presumptuous of you and me to think that by meeting here and offering our prayers and consoling one another we might do some honour to those who have died?

Perhaps it is presumptuous. All I know for myself is that the news of the sinking of this boatload of people has left me with a deep sense of unease – an unease that has developed into a real sadness that surprises me. The people who drowned, and whose bodies were left to founder ungathered, seemed not to belong to anyone. There was no-one to claim them; no embassy to seek their welfare. Who would mourn them?

By now we know that the victims belonged to the Hazara people of Afganistan, a Shia minority persecuted by the same Taliban against which our own soldiers have been fighting these many long years of war. There is a Hazara community here in Sydney; they are, it turns out, our neighbours.

Even so: it was not deemed expedient, for whatever reason, to retrieve the bodies of the drowned.

One of the great poets of this city, Kenneth Slessor, served as a war correspondent in the Mediterranean during the Second World War. He wrote the poem “Beach Burial” as he watched as the bodies of dead sailors, both friend and foe, being washed in to the beach on the morning tide; and he wrote:
Between the sob and clubbing of gunfire
Someone, it seems, has time for this,
To pluck them from the shallows and bury them in burrows
And tread the sand upon their nakedness…

Even in the midst of war, the dead bodies of enemy and ally are honoured, revered and buried. Slessor writes:
Whether as enemies they fought,
Or fought with us, or neither; the sand joins them together…

War, so it seems, conveys a nobility and a dignity upon the dead, even upon an opponent. But nothing seemed to have conveyed that same sense of nobility and dignity upon the drowned Hazara – a people simply seeking a home where they would not be persecuted for their culture and beliefs. For many in the Australian community, I am ashamed to say, those who died lost their legitimacy as human beings the minute they set sail in a leaky boat. We would have preferred it if they had attacked us with guns, than that they tried to land on our shores merely seeking a peaceful home.

We did not know them, it is true. But they were known.

They were known to their creator. Psalm 139, the psalm we heard earlier, is an intimate picture of our dependence on God. He completely encloses us:
You hem me in behind and before,
    and you lay your hand upon me.
Such knowledge is too wonderful for me,
    too lofty for me to attain.

We are known by the Creator even more deeply than we know ourselves. We are encompassed by him:
Where can I go from your Spirit?
    Where can I flee from your presence?
 If I go up to the heavens, you are there;
    if I make my bed in the depths, you are there.
If I rise on the wings of the dawn,
    if I settle on the far side of the sea,
even there your hand will guide me,
    your right hand will hold me fast.

This is both comforting and disturbing. On the one hand, it is comforting because I am known by God – remembered in tenderness by him, even were I to forget myself. On the other, it is disturbing because that other person – those other people, who seem so alien to me – is also known by him. 

They too are created by God; they also, to use the Bible’s language, bear the image of God. They will give account to him as their judge, as we will. He takes them as seriously as he takes you and me. Though they carried no passports, and have no known grave, and are not it seems recorded in any ledger of the dead, they are not forsaken by God.

The psalmist knows too that, being known by God, he cannot then hide from God:
If I say, “Surely the darkness will hide me
    and the light become night around me,”
even the darkness will not be dark to you;
    the night will shine like the day,
    for darkness is as light to you.

This a God who sees even into the darkness of the waters.

But from the Christian point of view, our solidarity with the dead we mourn today has another dimension: for the Son of God took upon himself the human flesh that is common to us all. Jesus was, as the New Testament puts it, ‘like us in every way, but without sin’; which means, he was like them in every way. He was, as we know, hunted down in his childhood, and forced to flee as an exile to Egypt. He lived in a nation occupied by a foreign army, with all the humiliation that that entails. He suffered rejection in his home country – despised and rejected by those he came to serve to death, even death on a cross.

The New Testament tells us the coming of Jesus was the great moment when the tribes that so divide humankind are transcended. At one level this is not good news: the appearance of the Son of God among us in human flesh tells us that our common plight is deeply tragic. We have a common saviour because we share a common need. God does not have favourites: we are all, we may say, in the same, sinking boat, adrift at sea. The God of Jesus Christ is not some tribal deity, but the one with whom we all will have to reckon.

And yet, in his love for all those he has made, the God of Jesus Christ extends his offer of reconciliation to all those he has made – to those of each and every tribe, and nation, and tongue.

And this fellowship of all people is not defeated even by death. ‘Even if I go down to the depths, you are there’, said the Psalmist. Jesus’s resurrection from the dead was not some conjuring trick, but a picture of our common future beyond death. As the Book of Revelation depicts it, on the final day, the dead will rise, and ‘the sea will give up the dead that are in it’ that they too may stand before God. 

The Christian, therefore, dares to hope that the tragedy in the sea is not the end; even as the people we remember today disappear from our view, because of Jesus Christ, we know that God has a much wider horizon than our own.

Why are we here?

Firstly, because the gospel of Jesus Christ overthrows our tribalism. From a merely human point of view those lost at sea were not our people; they did not belong to us. However much they wanted to belong to the Australian community, they did not achieve it – and so they are not our responsibility. 

And yet, in the gospel of Jesus Christ we find that they do belong to us; they are our responsibility. We find ourselves at one with those who died because we were made by a common hand, known by a common mind, answer to a common judge, and loved by a common Lord. It is right to mourn their loss, since they were in fact ours.

And secondly, we are here because in Jesus we can say that the lonely verdict of the remorseless sea is not the last word. In our second reading we heard John’s vision, from the Book of Revelation:
Then I saw "a new heaven and a new earth," for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Look! God's dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."

There is something not right about a world in which this tragedy could happen. There is something badly broken about a world in which a group of men, women and children are hounded by the human community into the mouth of the sea, despised and rejected.

But there is something new coming: the old order of things is passing. There is a home, and there is a homecoming: a place where people will live together with God and God with them, and so, they with each other; a place where human beings find that harmony that seems to elude us at the moment; a place in which all that human life promises us is made good, and all that threatens it is removed. The people on the boat were right to long for a better world; yet they would not have found that world here with us, however good it is. That better world is still to come.

We are here then, you and I, because we ought never to be satisfied with a world in which a boatload of people perish for want of a home. Woe betide us if we ever find ourselves unmoved by such events. Whatever you have found in your heart today that has brought you here, do not let it pass. Do not let that uneasy feeling fade away. Your heart is telling you true: you are sad for the lost, because it is sad that they are lost. We should grieve because it is tragic.

But there is a hope given to us to cling to amidst the despair. This broken world has not been forsaken by its creator. He has remembered it; and he is coming to make all things new. There is a new home, and a new land. Our sorrow should be profound; but in God a deeper joy awaits.

Friday, May 31, 2013

Groupthink, and the church

Reading a couple of books on communication recently, I have been struck by the powerful way in which group identity shapes the ideas we hold - above even self-interest, or reason, or idealism. You can convince someone to believe or do something if you convince them that 'this is what people like me think/do'. I wonder about this in church circles, since on the one hand I think that we are meant to think in groups - that's who we are made to be. That doesn't make it wrong. But on the other, in a group that claims to be open to self-criticism, and aware of the human tendency to perpetuate sinful patterns of thought and living, this 'ideas = identity' thing has a tendency to shut down important debate. Not thinking XYZ means you are not 'one of us', since thinking XYZ is what 'we' think.

Sunday, May 26, 2013

Househusband observations


12 months ago, my wife went overseas for three weeks during my long service leave. I did single parenting for three weeks. Full respect to anyone who is a single parent all the time - I don't know how you do it.

Here's some observations I put on Facebook at the time:



Househusband observation no. 1: If you put the telly on in the mornings, you have less tidying up to do.
Househusband observation no. 2: porridge sticks to plates in the dishwasher.
Househusband observation no. 3: children are at their hungriest at about 4pm.
Househusband observation no. 4: pre-empting hunger and boredom takes enormous mental energy.
Househusband observation no. 5: doing girl's hair is really difficult if you've never had long hair yourself.
Househusband observation no. 6: socks can walk without feet in them.
Househusband observation no. 7: Ants love muffins if you haven't wrapped them up tightly.
Househusband observation no. 8: If you want to feel like a superhero and giant, go and help with kindy reading groups.
Househusband observation no. 9: Apparently putting margarine on salami sandwiches is a no-no.
Househusband observation no. 10: kids will eat it if you put it in a) a wrap b) a cardboard box takeaway style.
Househusband observation no. 11: Donna Hay brownies for afternoon tea can't fail
Househusband observation no. 12: the school day seems to go a lot faster than it used to when I was actually at school.
Househusband observation no. 13: I am more stressed about the kid’s homework - and certainly more interested in it - than they are. Who is it for again?
Househusband observation no. 14: The number of showers a 14 year old boy thinks he needs is inversely proportional to the number he actually needs.
Househusband observation no. 15: there's no such thing as the 'easy' dinner, because everyone wants something different: baked beans, noodles, boiled egg, toasted sandwich. You end up making four different dinners. Hard dinner is in fact easier.
Househusband observation no. 16: cats don't like vacuum cleaners.
Househusband observation no. 16a: After a day either with kids or on my own, I am tending to verbally download on any grown-up I meet...
Househusband observation no. 17: the chirpiness of the morning people is directly proportional to the grumpiness of the not-morning people.
Househusband observation no. 18: a seven year old really can cover every surface of a bathroom with toothpaste.
Househusband observation no. 19: if you have doonas, making beds is a waste of time.
Househusband observation no. 20: the Simpsons is not a kids' show
Househusband observation no. 21: someone always squeezes the popper drink.
Househusband observation no. 22: if you flick, hang properly, and fold straight off the line, there's no need to iron.
Househusband observation no. 23: if there were more stay-at-home dads, there'd be more beards.
Househusband observation no. 24: ...the smell of the lunchboxes after the long weekend... why did I give them cabanossi on Friday?
Househusband observation no. 25: there's no disappointment quite like getting your child to a 7am music rehearsal that has been called off.
Househusband observation no. 26: nobody ever admits to being the one who pooed in the bath...
Househusband observation no. 27: the comic potential of the English language is endless is you are under 10. 'Would you like butter on your sandwich?' 'ha ha, you said 'butt' '.
Househusband observation no. 28: I wish my wife were here. On the other hand, this is my first State of Origin live for years.
Househusband observation no. 29: typical household conversation: 'Dad!' 'Yes?' 'inaudible'. 'What?' 'Mumble'. 'Excuse me?' 'blum blum bllum' 'I can't hear you. What are you saying?' ...
Househusband observation no. 30: there doesn't seem to be a company that does a 'my wife's been away for three weeks and I need to have the house spotless' cleaning service. Why is that?
Househusband observation no. 31: we are never going to see that school hat again.

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

Baptism in Reformation Anglicanism - a sketch



As in so many things, with baptism the Reformers could agree on what they denied but found more difficulty in agreeing on what they would affirm. There were of course the so-called ‘anabaptists’ of the radical wing of the reformation who insisted on ‘believer’s baptism’ as against the practice of baptizing infants. Cranmer included in his liturgy a service for the baptism ‘of those who are of riper years’ alongside the service for the baptism of infants, but with the expectation that the baptism of infants would be the norm. But what did it mean, and did baptism of infants signal that they were regenerate? Does it work in some automatic sense, ex opere operato? 

At the time of the New Testament, the Greek word ‘baptizo’ had both a religious and a mundane sense. The word could simply indicate washing or immersing or soaking in water – something you might do to your hands, or to the cups and plates. But the ritual of water baptism had a long history in Judaism prior to the birth of Christianity. There were ritual washings mentioned in the Old Testament code as acts of purification. Any reader of the New Testament would of course be aware of the proto-Christian baptismal ministry of John ‘the baptizer’. John was not practicing something unfamiliar to the Jews, but a practice that had become common as a rite of entry into the community of God’s people – one that signified repentance and purification. The relationship of this ritual to circumcision is unclear – why was it practiced when circumcision already existed as a rite of entry and a mark of membership? 

But John’s ministry was radical because he was suggesting that even Jews who were already Jews needed to ‘repent and be baptized’. What’s more, he foreshadowed one who would come after him who would administer a baptism with ‘the Holy Spirit and fire’ (Luke 3:16). Here something crucial is being said about Christian baptism: that it is an immersion not in the first place in water but in the Holy Spirit. The external washing of water baptism serves to point to the inner transformation of baptism in the fiery Spirit of God. Jesus also makes a shocking metaphorical use of the idea of baptism in his words to his James and John in Mark 10:38: "Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?" The picture of baptism he is here evoking is something like drowning. His ‘baptism’ is his atoning death. This strange, metaphorical use of the word to refer to Jesus’ death is picked up by Paul in Romans 6: ‘We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.’

In Matthew’s gospel, Jesus’ final words to his disciples are
“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
Did he have in mind a water ceremony here? Which baptism is he talking about – the Holy Spirit baptism, or an immersion of the body in water? At one level, the behaviour of the early church tells the story: in answer to this command, they immediately continued to symbolize the baptism of the Holy Spirit by the rite of water baptism. The direct result of the preaching of the gospel by Peter at Pentecost was that ‘Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day’ (Acts 2:41). Peter had called them to ‘repent and be baptized’. The Ethiopian eunuch asked to be baptized in water when he heard the gospel explained to him by Philip. In Acts 10, Peter encounters a group of Gentiles who evidently have experienced the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and immediately exclaims: ‘Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water?’ (Acts 10:47). This verse is particularly interesting because of the way in which the baptism by water follows the Spirit baptism. Water does not serve as the instrument of the Spirit in a direct way, but as a recognition of the Spirit’s work.

While the Jewish ceremony of water baptism had been adapted as a way of speaking about the death of Christ, Christians would not do away with the ceremony of baptism with water. It would become a symbol of baptism with Holy Spirit. A later development, first expressed in the second century by Justin Martyr and others, was the idea that the water baptism was in fact the same thing as baptism in the Holy Spirit. The sign had in fact become the thing which it symbolized. As we have just seen, the New Testament does not teach this at all. As Pascoe and Howe write: ‘…the typical pattern was that people came to faith and were then baptized in water as a public demonstration of their faith’.[1]

But if faith precedes baptism, why then has the church practiced the baptism of infants since the earliest times? In a number of places in the book of Acts, Luke makes reference to the fact that a believer along with his or her household would be saved. Lydia (in Acts 16:15), the Philippian gaoler (Acts 16:31-33) and Crispus (Acts 18:8) were all baptized together with the members of their households. It is a reasonable inference that these included children along with the members of the other generations usually found living together in a Greco-Roman household. In its Jewish mode, baptism was customarily administered to children;[2] so it would make sense if it was also administered to the children of Christian parents. Furthermore, the practice of circumcision, though not a complete parallel to that of baptism, was administered to baby boys.

There was no sense in which circumcision was held to work automatically – as if, by itself, the seal of circumcision was sufficient to make one a Jew. It was a symbol of reality into which a person would grow, or else the symbol would be rendered empty. But what was declared by the inclusion of children in the sign of baptism was the inclusion of children in the promises and saving purposes of God in Jesus Christ. And naturally, it meant that the child was to be brought up in the faith, just as Israelite children were to be. Of course, an Israelite child could grow up waywardly and in no sense accept the promise of which circumcision was a sign. Likewise, Christian baptism is not a guarantee that the child will be saved. As Cranmer himself said ‘…in baptism those that come feignedly and those that come unfeignedly both be washed with sacramental water, but both be not washed with the Holy Ghost.’[3]

This leads us to somewhat of a thorny issue in Anglican theology and history – the problem of baptismal regeneration. There is no question but that the Baptismal Service has a form of wording that seems to state quite baldly that baptism works in an automatic sense. The minister declares: ‘Seeing now that this child is regenerate…’. ‘Regeneration’ is simply the term for new birth, which is that decisive event that the Holy Spirit works in a person that brings them conclusively into the Kingdom of God. It is, that is to say, Holy Spirit baptism.

In the nineteenth century, this phrase in the Prayer Book was the centre of the famous ‘Gorham Case’. In 1847, a country parson named George Gorham was recommended for the parish of Brampford Speke in Devon. The Bishop of Exeter, Bishop Phillpotts, examined Gorham and declared that his views on baptism were at odds with the doctrine of the Church of England. Gorham held the position that a child’s baptism was a statement of regeneration conditional on their acceptance of the promises later in life. Refused his post by the Bishop, Gorham took the matter through to the (secular) Privy Council and narrowly won.

The Articles are quite explicitly against the idea that Baptism works in an automatic way to regenerate the infant. Despite the stringent efforts of the Tractarians since the middle of the nineteenth century, it is impossible to read the Prayer Book as expressing unambiguously the view that by dint of the sacrament of Baptism the child receives regeneration, since it was not Cranmer’s personal view, nor was it the view expressed in the other formularies. Therefore, the intention of the author of the BCP cannot have been to express the theology he elsewhere expressly repudiated.

How then should this declaration be read? We could simply acknowledge an inconsistency – a slip of the pen, or an editorial lapse. But that seems unlikely. The best attempt to synthesize the statements of the prayer book and the formularies is that of Bishop J.C. Ryle, in his book Knots Untied.[4] This was fairly the knottiest of those knots. Ryle’s view is that the declaration of regeneration is ‘hypothetical’ on the basis of a ‘charitable supposition’. That is to say, the child is not automatically considered ‘regenerate’, and may indeed turn out not to be; but he or she is presumed so until otherwise. Ryle points to other parts of the BCP, including the funeral service, in which the same sense of a charitable supposition is accepted. Here also, then, the declaration that the child is regenerate is not, in fact, a denial that a worthy reception of the sacrament is essential to it. It is however a statement that such a worthy reception is to be prayed for and expected in the normal course of events. Baptism is in this way an anticipation of what God may do in a person’s life.When it is understood in the light of the central Reformation conviction about the gospel of free grace in Jesus Christ alone that is received by faith, baptism is a most apt and edifying practice. It is rightly described as ‘effective’ when a person takes hold of the promises of God declared and demonstrated


[1] John W. Howe and Samuel C. Pascoe, Our Anglican Heritage : Can an Ancient Church Be a Church of the Future?, 2nd ed. (Eugene, Or.: Cascade Books, 2010), loc 1472.
[2] See the Talmud
[3] Cranmer, TheTrue and Catholic Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper p. 221.

[4] Ryle wrote: ‘I cannot see that I ought to hold doctrines which make the Prayer-book clash and jar with the Articles and Homilies’ John Charles Ryle, Knots Untied, 10th ed. (Lond.: Chas J. Thynne, 1898), p. 158.

Monday, May 13, 2013

The effective Lord's Supper - a sketch



In the church that the Reformers inherited, the service of the Mass was central and ubiquitous. As we have seen, the assertion of a new theology of justification also meant a revision of the place and meaning of the Lord’s Supper in the life of the Christian. Grace was not, somehow a property or a thing that could be conveyed in the elements of bread and wine themselves. Divine grace is an attitude of God – the attitude he demonstrates in the redemption of sinners on the cross of Jesus Christ. Grace, the Reformers argued, meant that God was now disposed to forgive sinners and show them mercy. The sacraments, and especially the Lord’s Supper, were then a sign of the grace of God revealed in the gospel. And, as such, like the preaching of the Word,the Supper effects the very thing it points to. By speaking to the sinner of the grace of God, it enables the sinner by faith to enter in to God’s grace: to know it not simply objectively but subjectively. 

By translating the services of Holy Communion into English, Cranmer made a decisive statement about the nature of Christian faith. The meaning of the Eucharist was not hidden or mysterious, or magical. It was to be declared and remembered. It was to be species of the Word – an intelligible sign of the gospel. Those who attended the Lord’s Supper needed to know what it was that they were eating. 

The Lord’s Supper was classified along with Baptism as a practice commanded by Jesus himself and so held a privileged place as one of the two sacraments on the reduced list of Reformation Anglicanism. The words that Jesus used at his Last Supper ‘do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me’ indicate that he envisaged the disciples continuing to celebrate and remember his life-giving death. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians contains the lengthiest discussion of the practices of Christians as they gathered and in particular of ‘the Lord’s Supper’. The difficulty of course is that, as with almost everything else in the epistle, the discussion of the Lord’s Supper takes place in response to abuses of the practice. We have no template or manual for its performance. 

The particular context into which Paul speaks is the question about sharing in the pagan temple feasts. Can a Christian eat meat offered to idols?
14 Therefore, my dear friends, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.
18 Consider the people of Israel: Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar? 19 Do I mean then that food sacrificed to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons.
As usual, Paul deploys a complex layering of symbol and metaphor. The ‘one loaf’ in which Christians share is Christ’s body – a spiritual body, but one represented by the literal participation of Christians in eating the bread (and drinking the cup) that symbolizes that body. And that body is not only the broken body of Jesus of Nazareth, but it is also the ‘body’ of believers.  

The problem he then addresses in the next chapter shows that the symbolism of the meal is deeply compromised by the way in which it is done. The inequality and selfishness of the participants is unedifying. It destroys the very meaning of eating together in Christ, since they do not eat together at all. Instead, says, Paul, they should eat at home if they are hungry. The meal of the Lord is not for the indulgence of the physical appetites, but for spiritual nourishment. The consequences are terrible – for eating and drinking in an unworthy manner is tantamount to a sin against the body and blood of the Lord himself (1 Cor 11:27). The practice in the Christian church of having a purely token meal – a sip of wine and a small piece of bread, served in careful order - stems from taking good heed of the warnings here in 1 Cor 10-11.

Cranmer clearly made a careful study of these passages as he put the service of Holy Communion together. As he wrote:
Christ ordained the sacrament to move and stir all men to friendship, love, and concord, and to put away all hatred, variance and discord, and to testify a brotherly and unfeigned love between all them that be the members of Christ.[1]
The rite of Holy Communion is a sign of the unity of the church in Christ – a sharing by all in the fellowship, the koinonia, that comes with being bound into Christ. The oneness of the believers with each other is not achieved simply by dint of eating together, but it is both an expression of that spiritual unity and a means by which is in fact encouraged. The moment of the taking of the sacrament involves a reflection on the fellowship of Christ’s body – it takes a ‘discernment of the body’, as Paul puts it, such that those who eat and drink are not to do so as mere individuals. The Lord’s Supper should not be thought to substitute for fellowship, or to establish it on its own: to take the signs of the Communion and then not actually engage in the community of God’s people perverts the very nature of the rite – just as a wedding after which the couple refused to speak to one another would be marriage in name only. 

Paul warned the Corinthians very sternly about their abuse of the Lord’s Supper:
27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.
In the 1549 service, Cranmer had ensured that no potential communicant was in any doubt as to the seriousness of the rite, and the spiritual consequences of partaking illegitimately. But this had the unfortunate consequence of turning people away from the service. It had been intended for weekly use, but, as MacCulloch speculates, “conscientious or shy potential communicants may have felt that they were not worthy to receive”.[2] This led to the new emphasis on the services of Morning and Evening Prayer as the staple of the Church of England liturgy, with Holy Communion as a more occasional alternative. Only in the twentieth century was the Communion service returned to more frequent celebration – and, it is worth noting, contemporary revisions of the liturgy do not emphasize the Pauline warnings in the way that Cranmer did in 1549.

On the basis of this theological understanding of the rite of Communion, then, it is indeed possible to partake of the elements and yet not validly receive the Sacrament. Cranmer spoke of three ways in which the Supper may be eaten: “one spiritual only, another spiritual and sacramental both together, and the third sacramental only”.[3] As with baptism, it is important to grasp that Sacrament points to a spiritual reality. This means that it is perfectly possible to have the spiritual reality without partaking of the thing that points to it. One can easily ‘feed on Christ’ without eating the Lord’s Supper. It is also perfectly possible to consume the bread and the wine and for that eating to be not accompanied by a spiritual eating at all, or worse. The unrepentant evil-doer may come to the Lord’s Table and eat; but it will not be effective for them, except as a judgment on them. 

The form of eating, in which the spiritual and the sacramental coincide, is described by Cranmer thus: “…there is a another eating both spiritual and sacramental, when the visible sacrament is eaten with the mouth and Christ Himself is eaten with a true faith”.[4] The sacrament of the Supper enacts a spiritual eating, which is the true form of faith. But by being itself a declaration of the gospel, it will also enable that spiritual eating of the faithful. It becomes in itself the instrument of God’s blessing of his people in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. In this way, the sacrament can be understood as ‘effective’.


[1] Cranmer Works, Vol 1, p. 30
[2] Diarmaid MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer : A Life (New Haven, CT. ; London: Yale University Press, 1996), p. 510.
[3] Cranmer works, Vol 1, pp. 205. He went on: “I teach that no man can eat Christ’s flesh and drink His blood but spiritually, which forasmuch as evil men do not, although they eat the sacramental bread until their bellies be full and drink the wine until they be drunken, yet they eat neither Christ’s flesh nor drink His blood, neither in the sacrament nor without the sacrament, because they cannot be eaten and drunken but by spirit and faith, whereof ungodly men be destitute, being nothing but world and flesh...”
[4] Cranmer Works Vol 1, pp. 205