The Pillsbury Dough Lord

I grant that generalizations can be unhelpful; namely, they tend to over-simplify what obviously are matters of great nuance and deserving of long and careful study and explanation. It does strike me as I consider much of the conversations I’ve read between Lutherans and Calvinists boils down to a critical distinction between our respective theological points of view, our Weltaunschaung, as it were. And, again, at the considerable risk of over-simplification, it seems to me that it comes down to this: Lutheranism tends to focus on the “what” and “that” of the God’s Word, whereas Calvinism tends to move more toward answers to “how?” and “why?” In a certain sense, Lutheranism is more about declaration and proclamation of what has been revealed by God’s Word, but Calvinism wants always to move into an explanation of the what and that of Scripture, from a metaphysical or philosophical point of view. It strikes me that often Calvinism appears to be more concerned with answering questions posed by finite human understanding, than in asserting the “what” and “that” of Scripture. Add to this a disturbing and disquieting focus more on the “sovereignty of God” and less on the man Christ Jesus, His grace and mercy and you have in place a “system” that appears to me to be more about resolving logical conundra than in asserting the Gospel of Christ.

I grant that generalizations can be unhelpful; namely, they tend to over-simplify what obviously are matters of great nuance and deserving of long and careful study and explanation. It does strike me as I consider much of the conversations I’ve read between Lutherans and Calvinists boils down to a critical distinction between our respective theological points of view, our Weltaunschaung, as it were. And, again, at the considerable risk of over-simplification, it seems to me that it comes down to this: Lutheranism tends to focus on the “what” and “that” of the God’s Word, whereas Calvinism tends to move more toward answers to “how?” and “why?” In a certain sense, Lutheranism is more about declaration and proclamation of what has been revealed by God’s Word, but Calvinism wants always to move into an explanation of the what and that of Scripture, from a metaphysical or philosophical point of view. It strikes me that often Calvinism appears to be more concerned with answering questions posed by finite human understanding, than in asserting the “what” and “that” of Scripture. Add to this a disturbing and disquieting focus more on the “sovereignty of God” and less on the man Christ Jesus, His grace and mercy and you have in place a “system” that appears to me to be more about resolving logical conundra than in asserting the Gospel of Christ.

http://cyberbrethren.com/2009/11/25/lutheranism-and-calvinism-what-and-that-v-how-and-why/

Notice how he sets up the contrast. Over here we have the sovereignty of God. But over there we have the man Christ Jesus, His grace and mercy.

So, according to McCain, is Jesus less that sovereign? Likewise, if grace and mercy are less than sovereign, then what do they amount to, any way?

The doctrine of the Real Presence: Lutheranism asserts that the Word of Christ that “this [bread] is [is] my body [Christ's body]” is a statement of what and that. It is His Body, it is given for us to eat and to drink. Calvinism rejects this believe and predicates its position on trying to answer “how” and “why” type questions about the Lord’s Supper. It anchors its position finally in a philosophical/logical premise that the body of Christ can not be present under bread and wine, and therefore, Christ is not talking about an actual real, physical presence of His resurrection body in the Eucharist, under the elements of bread and wine…My “exegetical warrant” for the Lutheran confession of the Supper, is, and remains the words that ever stand sure. The words of our dear Lord Christ, “This is my body.”

What’s ironic about this exegetical appeal is the way in which McCain begins by quoting his prooftext, then instantly deviates from his prooftext without any awareness of the glaring difference between the wording of the text and his own construction.

Notice how he goes directly from “This is my body” to the “presence of His resurrection body in the Eucharist, under the elements of bread and wine.”

Stop and ask yourself how he derives those qualifications from the wording of his prooftext. Did Jesus say anything about his being “present” in relation to the communion elements? No. Did he say anything about his being “in” or “under” the communion elements? No. And when he spoke those words, was he in his “resurrection” body? No.

You couldn’t find a better specimen of the way in which a theological tradition conditions the adherent to unconsciously see things in the text that simply aren’t there.

If we were really going to take this text at face value, then Jesus would be a six-foot loaf of bread. Bearded bread. Bread Incarnate.

Does McCain think Jesus is a six-foot loaf of bread? If we went back in time to the Last Supper, would we see a six-foot loaf of bread celebrating communion with his disciples?

Real bread as empirical qualities. What does Jesus look like? Taste like? Feel like? Is Jesus a life-size version of the Pillsbury Dough Boy? Is the Incarnation really the Inbreadification?

McCain doesn’t take the text any more literally than Zwingli.