Many Salvationsists are unclear about the status of the sacraments
in the church. Major DEAN SMITH (Australia Territory) brings the topic to the table in a theological reflection on the subject.
Is it any wonder that we Salvationists are at times confused about our stance on the acraments? On the one hand it is claimed that we are non-sacramental in our observance yet on the other that we are a sacramental community. What are we to make of such a seeming contradiction?
Perhaps the problem lies in our use of the terms. The word sacrament can be used to refer to historical rites or practices of the church like baptism and the Lord’s Supper. In this sense it is acknowledged that we are non-sacramental because we do not observe these rites or practices.
The word sacrament may also refer to a theological principle. In this sense we are indeed sacramental because we do embrace a sacramental theology. Or, to put it in the language of our doctrine book, we are a sacramental people because we are in communion with Jesus Christ the one true sacrament. As I will argue, not observing particular sacraments is perfectly compatible with being a sacramental people.
Now the debates within Salvation Army circles over the sacraments have traditionally centred not on the use of the term sacrament as a theological principle, but rather on the use of sacrament as it refers to the historical rites or practices of the Church. More specifically I am referring to the practice that has come to be known as the Lord’s Supper or Communion.
Much heat has been generated over the years as Salvationists worldwide have sought to understand their position on ‘non-sacramental’ observance as a legitimate response to the Biblical revelation. More often than not the justification for non-sacramental observance has focused on the Scriptural warrant for such a stance. The problem here is that the great majority of Christians throughout the world believe there is strong Scriptural warrant for that same sacramental observance.
If history has taught us anything it is that there are no winners in a debate that is dependent on Scriptural proof-texting to settle a matter. Combatants in such a debate simply end up talking past each other and there is nothing gained on either side. I don’t think in any case that arguing over different church practices really gets us to the heart of the matter.
Incarnation of Christ
I believe that there is more to be gained, both in our own understanding of our position, and for our contribution to the church universal, if we take as our starting point for reflection on the sacraments the Incarnation of Christ. By beginning here we will find ourselves on ground shared by orthodox Christians everywhere. Here we move away from debating Church practices and instead focus on the theological principles underpinning such practices. If we can find common ground here then we might be surprised to find that we have been arguing against a straw man all along.
The traditional definition of a sacrament is ‘an outward and visible sign
of inward grace’. Jesus Christ is himself the sacramental reality par excellence. It is in the humanity of Christ that we have the outward and visible sign of inward divine grace. In Christ we have the most profound sacramental reality. As Salvation Story affirms our life centres on Christ ‘the one true sacrament’.
Now the Church has always been careful to protect the real connection between the humanity and the divinity of Christ, between the outward and visible sign and the inner divine reality. The technical term for this connection is the hypostatic union. What this means in the case of Christ is that the outward and visible sign (the humanity of Christ) not only stands for or points beyond itself to another (divine) reality, but it is ‘tied’ to that reality in such a way that it actually is the mediator of grace to the world.
Signs of love
The Catholic theologian Karl Rahner provides a beautiful analogy from everyday experience to explain the importance of a real connection between a sign (the outward manifestation) and that which is signified (the inward reality). Rahner offers the kiss or the handshake as examples of the outward signs of love. It would make very little sense for us to think of love without its physical or ‘outward’ manifestations or signs. We show love (an inner disposition) by way of physical signs (outer manifestation).
Psychologists have conclusively shown that without human touch infants simply do not develop properly and may even die. It would be no defence for a parent up on a charge of neglect to say that although they offered no physical signs to their child they nevertheless really loved them. It would also be a most unsatisfactory situation if one of the partners in a marriage were to suggest to their spouse that henceforth the marriage would be conducted on a purely ‘platonic’ or ‘spiritual’ plain without the diversions of physical signs. I am not just referring here either to the sexual union of husband and wife, but rather the entire range of physical signs of love and affection.
Nobody would seriously consider this as a legitimate course of action, yet it is sometimes imagined that when it comes to divine reality the outward sign or mediation of this reality is somehow unnecessary. It is only when we lose sight of the Incarnation as our model for sacramentality that we can fall into the trap of thinking that a real connection between the outward and visible sign of inward divine grace is not important. To do so, however, is to sever the connection between the human and divine in Christ and to call into question the very act of Incarnation itself.
Sacramental debate
In the debate over the sacraments there are those who do reject the notion of a real connection between the outward and visible sign and the inner grace that is ignified in the Lord’s Supper. This in fact was the position of the Reformer Huldrych Zwingli who believed that sacraments were nothing more than memorials and so no real means of grace.
The other Reformers, it must be pointed out, rejected this view and retained the more traditional understanding of Christ being in some sense present in the act of communion. We come close to the view of Zwingli whenever we make the claim that outward signs are no more than pointers to grace. Indeed this distinction has sometimes been emphasised to the point where one is encouraged to focus on the purely ‘inward’ experience of grace without the outward sign or symbol being necessary.
But Christians of an orthodox stripe simply cannot make such a claim without falling into the not so uncommon dualistic heresy of docetism. Docetism was an early belief that Jesus was purely spiritual in his manifestation and only appeared to be a real human being. Some Christians, and dare I here include Salvationists, come terribly close to this view when they imagine that spirituality is some reality divorced from its historical and physical instantiation. This has for some become the rationale for not practicing the traditional sacramental rites. We can experience the inner grace, so the logic goes, without the outward sign. Again, to reach such a conclusion is to lose sight of the Incarnation as the basis of our deep sacramental view. If we accept the truth of the Incarnation then we cannot but be a sacramental people in the very deep sense. That is, grace is experienced through its outward manifestations or signs.
God’s grace
The difference between ourselves and other Christians then is not that we reject their signs or sacramental rites, only that like Oliver Twist we dare ask for more, more signs of divine grace in a grace-starved world. We differ not in our deep sacramental theology, but rather in the way in which we have interpreted our ractice in light of that theology. In this we are closer in our position to the Catholics and the mainstream Reformers. As Salvationists we believe that our entire reality can be the site or locus of God’s grace. Paul refers to believers as being ‘in Christ’ and Peter speaks of our participation in the divine life. Our life ‘in Christ’ is the sign of God’s grace because of our union with Christ the one true original sacrament. Here we share much with the Quakers. Consider the following profound passage by the pen of Quaker Thomas R Kelly.
I believe that the group mysticism of the gathered meeting rests upon the Real Presence of God in our midst. Quakers generally hold to a belief in Real Presence, as firm and solid as the belief of Roman Catholics in the Real Presence in the host, the bread and wine of the Mass. In the host the Roman Catholic is convinced that the literal, substantial Body of Christ is present. For him the Mass is not a mere symbol, a dramatizing of some figurative relationship of man to God. It rests upon the persuasion that an Existence, a Life, the Body of Christ, is really present and entering into the body of man. Here the Quaker is very near the Roman Catholic. For the Real Presence of the gathered meeting is an existential fact. To use philosophical language, it is an ontological matter, not merely a psychological matter. The bond of union in divine fellowship is existential and real, not figurative. It is the life of God himself, within whose life we live and move and have our being. And the gathered meeting is a special case of holy fellowship of
the blessed community.
Salvationists everywhere could say amen to this. We would want to add, however, that not just the gathered meeting, but also the sent or scattered community is the Real Presence of Christ in the world. As believers incorporated in spiritual union with Christ the one true sacrament, the body of Christ the Church, is God’s sign of atoning grace in the world. We are the Real Presence of Christ in the world.
Divine reality
This profound sacramental reality could be easily referred to as Life with a capital ‘L’. This is indeed the life of Christ. But let us be clear here, while we might recognise a real (ontological) connection between the divine Christ and his continued embodied existence in the world (the Church) there needs to be an actualising of the divine reality at the psychological level as well.
As the Wesleyan scholar Randy Maddox has made clear, our relationship with God is to be thought of in terms of both grace and responsibility. In our ongoing experience of redemption there is God’s part and there is our part. Our part is to consciously actualise the grace that in reality informs our life. Without psychological intention on our part the sacramental remains only a possibility for us and we live life with a small ‘l’.
It is intention that is the key to living the truly sacramental Life. And it is
discipline that helps us to train our vision so that we can learn to ‘see’ the reality before us as God’s redeemed people. Our Life, our activities our multifarious being in the world can be truly sacramental but only to the degree that we learn to ‘see’ things in a sacramental way.
The sharing of a meal at the family table can be a true sacrament, a true ‘breaking of bread’ or it can be simply individuals meeting their basest needs. Our work can be a sacrament if it is seen in the right way or it can simply be an encumbrance. It is important to realise that there is nothing automatic about living a sacramental life. Without intention there can only be for us an unrealised or impoverished existence.
Let us then not squabble over why we don’t observe the traditional sacraments of the Church. Rather, let us train our vision so that we will ourselves become the sign of divine grace in the world. Then we will not be focused on two or seven sacramental rites but rather on our entire being in the world. As Salvation Story puts it:
We observe the sacraments, not by limiting them to two or three or seven, but by inviting Christ to suppers, love feasts, birth celebrations, parties, dedications, sick beds, weddings, anniversaries, commissionings, ordinations retirements and a host of other significant events – and where he is truly received, watching him give a grace beyond our understanding. We can see, smell, touch and taste it. We joyfully affirm that in our presence is the one, true, original Sacrament. And we know that what we have experienced is reality.
Major Dean Smith PhD is the Dean of Higher Education at Booth College in Sydney
ONE of the reasons sometimes offered for not believing in God is that ‘religion causes war’. Some wars have indeed been waged in the name of Christianity. But atrocities committed in the name of Christ have been carried out by people who either were not really Christians or were not following the teachings of Jesus.
THE title of the sermon advertised on the poster outside the church caught my eye. It made me stop and think. It was: ‘Where was God in Auschwitz?’