Customer Reviews

The Banquet's Wisdom: A Short History of the Theologies of the Lord's Supper

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Having been studying the eucharist, this book was a triumph! I had difficulty getting a copy in the UK so it was the last I read of the suggested reading list at college. Very good on the historicity of the eucharist and of the development of traditions. Eminently readable - for a theologian Macy had a 'common touch' when writing. Many theological books are best kept for periods of insomnia - I read this one in the same way I eat chocolate - always ready for the next bit! Buy it, lend it, but make sure it comes back to you. It's a book I will look at often. (And not bad for sermon material either!)

Dr. Macy begins his book by insisting that history is never disinterested and that his concern is to show that there has always existed diversity of views regarding the Holy Eucharist and that this is a good thing. In his book he hopes to affirm the value of diversity. Unfortunately, Macy never tells us his own theological and ecclesial commitments. He may be a liberal Roman Catholic. He may be a liberal Anglican. Or just a good ole liberal Protestant. But he's definitely on the "liberal" side of eucharistic theology, which is to say that, despite his knowledge of the medieval period (which is his specialty), he does not sympathize with traditional realistic affirmations of the eucharistic presence. What he is most interested in is ecumenical reunion. This is best accomplished, in his judgment, by mutual acceptance of each other's views on the Eucharist.

Chapter 1 is titled "The Early Church: Origins of Diversity." The subtitle says it all. Macy wants us to believe that in the early Church there existed a wide gamut of beliefs regarding the Real Presence. Thus on the one hand, we have Irenaeus, representing the realistic position, and on the other hand, we have Origen and Clement, representing the spiritual-symbolic position. But what is not clearly stated is the profound consensus among virtually all the Church Fathers that the consecrated elements simply and truly _are_ the body and blood of Christ. This is why there were no serious eucharistic disputes among orthodox believers during the first 700 years of the Church. Macy does not make this clear, presumably because he wants us to believe that our present day diversity of beliefs is simply a replication of that diversity found in the early centuries of the Church.

Macy emphasizes the platonic worldview of the Mediterranean world. What is real is unseen; the visible world does not count much at all. And he applies this to theological explications of the Eucharist--what is important is not the outward visible realities of bread and wine but the spiritual realities that they signify. But I wonder how accurate this is. There is no doubt that the Church incorporated Platonism, in various forms, into its theological explication of the Gospel; but it also dramatically altered neo-Platonic philosophy in at least two ways: (1) by its insistence that the world is created ex nihilo and therefore enjoys its own creaturely integrity and goodness, and (2) by its assertion God is not a part of the world and that divinity does not exist in a continuum of being. What Macy does not bring out clearly is that during this period of time, the understanding of "symbol" was quite different than our modern understanding. In the patristic period, a symbol is understood as containing or participating in the reality that it symbolizes. This understanding of symbol is so very different from the understanding of symbol that developed with Berengar and has continued to the present.

Macy is embarrassed by all "materialistic" expressions of the Real Presence. He cites Berengar's first oath, with its affirmation that the body of Christ is "crushed by the teeth of the faithful" is a prime example. Yet he ignores the precedents for such language in Scripture, specifically John 6, and in the early Church, especially in St. John Chrysostom, nor does he mention Luther's strong support for this oath.

Macy's presentation is also confused by his use of the phrase "Real Presence." His idea is that everyone agrees on the Real Presence of Christ in the sacrament. It's just that this faith is expressed in different ways. But the crucial issue is not the presence of the risen Christ in the Eucharist. The crucial issue is the Real Identity, i.e., the affirmation that the consecrated elements are indeed the body and blood of Christ.

This is very readable, accessible book; but it needs to be complemented by James O'Connor's *The Hidden Manna*. Best of all, borrow from the library Darwell Stone's classic *History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist*.

I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Kimel's review above. While this book is very much worth reading and keeping on hand for reference, it is not exactly what I would call honest in regards to the unpopular view among certain types of "modern" Christians that the bread and wine are also the body and blood of Jesus, which is the universal belief of the early Church and the unbroken teaching of the Church (East and West) until this very day. Everyone in the early Church, except for some heretics (but not all), received the Eucharist as the body and blood of Jesus Christ What does differ, and what this book is useful for, is the differing explanations of the "how" and "what" of the presence and identity of Jesus in the consecrated elements.

As I read this book, one thing I had to remember about theological study is that very often people are debating and discussing not the accepted reality of what is believed, but the why and how, as is often the case with dogma. In this sense, theology is a footnote to the lived reality of the worshipping Eucharistic community. To this end, I feel that Mac does a decent job. It seems, however, that there is a subconscious Docetism at work in his sacramental theology. Matter is bad, or not quite good. But it all goes back to Christology. Christ is both/and, not either/or in terms of his full divinity and humanity. The symbol is also the reality. The early Church is not Zwinglian, although much of modern evangelicalism functions out of such a paradigm! Another not so subtle theme is an assumption (totally unproven and our current situation disproves it) that if we are open-ended with our sacramental theology we can have more Christian unity. I could write volumes on how this does not pan out, but suffice it to say that if you are interested in this topic, see Kallistos Ware's Communion and Intercommunion and my review of it as a critique of the modern false teaching from Zwingli.

Other books that I would recommend on this topic from a biblical/traditional perspective are: For the Life of the World: Sacraments and Orthodoxy, Beginning Apologetics 3 : How to Explain & Defend the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Eucharist: Theology and Spirituality of the Eucharistic Prayer, Eucharist and Church Fellowship in the First Four Centuries, The Hidden Manna: A Theology of the Eucharist, The Lamb's Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth and McPartlan's The Eucharist Makes the Church and Sacrament of Salvation: An Introduction to Eucharistic Ecclesiology. Jordan Bajis' Common Ground: An Introduction to Eastern Christianity for the American Christian covers tis material is a very compact and detailed manner.