9 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
History of Different Lord's Supper Interpretations, November 13, 2008
This review is from: The Lord's Supper: Five Views (Paperback)
A couple of years ago, I did an indepth study of Luther and Zwingli's debate on the Lord's Supper in Marburg in 1529. Since then, I have been fascinated by the differing opinions among Christians as to what takes place at the Lord's Table.
Not surprisingly, I was highly interested in a book that Zondervan released in 2007 - a volume in their Counterpoints Series - that lays out four views of the Lord's Supper.
This year, InterVarsity Press has released a similar volume that includes five views instead of four (Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, Baptist, and Pentecostal). In both of these books, the representative of each view lays out the rationale and history of their respective position and then the other contributors respond with their own questions and comments.
Regarding the addition of the fifth view (Pentecostal), the new book from IVP is a step up from the Zondervan release. But if you are looking for stronger debate and for contributors who make their case from Scripture instead of history, the Zondervan book is better.
The Lord's Supper: Five Views contains a wealth of important information, especially in regards to the history of each position. But this historical research frustrated me at times. I found the Roman Catholic apologist, Jeffrey Gros, to be much too conciliatory. His chapter is less a statement on the RCC view and more of a history of ecumenical relations.
The Lutheran is the most passionate of all the writers. He tries to land knock-out blows to the other positions in his defense of Luther's view. Of course, as a Baptist, I remain unconvinced. But he at least kept me interested in his arguments.
Though this book contains helpful information about the historical discussions of the Lord's Supper between differing traditions, the authors of this book do not seek to make their case from Scripture. I kept waiting for the authors to crack open the Bible in order to prove their case. I hoped for a robust, biblical and charitable debate. But no deal. (I especially wanted the Baptist, Roger Olson, to make a Scriptural case. But he stayed in the safe territory of Baptist and Anabaptist confessionalism.) The authors of this volume assume that the reader is familiar with the relevant Bible passages. So they concentrate on the history of their tradition's view of the Lord's Supper.
So is this book helpful? Yes. Especially if you want a historical overview of the different traditional views on the Lord's Supper. But if you're looking for passionate argumentations from Scripture, you'll have to go back to Marburg.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
views repackaged, January 4, 2009
This review is from: The Lord's Supper: Five Views (Paperback)
Kudos to InterVarsity Press for continuing to pursue the market on multiple-views books even though it has become completely saturated and they (unlike Zondervan) do not have a specific series devoted to the publishing 'genre.' As I make this tongue-in-cheek comment I am again reminded why these books, while not without purpose or usefulness, have become rather dull in some of their effectiveness: it seems that we have developed an art form for writing and publishing in this style, tweaked it around what looks good to the average person and formatted it around what will sell in the marketplace. This is perhaps why the last few of these types of books have been boring to navigate and slow to excite.
These books seem to have three basic types of essays: 1) the dogmatic assertion that this view is the only way to possibly understand the issue, with interaction towards the other writers which comes in slightly above name-calling; 2) the position which figures this is but one way to take this issue and the others are adding valuable insights to the discussion, there is nothing negative at all in their responses; 3) the middle-road of offering what seems to be good and then giving broad strokes as to why the other positions just to cut the mustard - never inspiring, always inviting.
This short treatment on the Lord's Supper (a brisk 143 pages) is no exception. Five views are presented, and while the particular five could have perhaps been spread out a bit more there are a couple of perspectives that will certainly raise the interest of many (e.g. The Roman Catholic View and The Pentecostal View).
1) The Roman Catholic View is presented by Brother Jeffrey Gros, who is most concerned throughout the book with the unity of the Lord's Supper, at times bending over backward to envision this. He works from the perspective: "We will know that the biblical koininoa is restored when we able, again, to partake together at the one Table of the Lord" (21). He is certainly right in this view, but sacrifices space for dialogue with the other positions to promote his view.
2) The Lutheran View is given by John R. Stephenson, who emphasizes the christological focus of the event and works primarily through the lens of church history (catechism and Luther abounds). While reading Roger Olson's response I found echos of my own thinking after reading this view: that it was quite narrow in its scope and somewhat exclusive to other branches of Lutheranism.
3) The Reformed View comes from Leanne Van Dyk, who largely presents out of Zwingli, Bullinger and Calvin. This essay is fixed upon sacramentalism, working to explain what the commemoration of the Lord's Supper does and does not accomplish/represent. This was a difficult challenge for any author, and Van Dyk gives a very good overview of the historical perspective on the topic (despite the 'Argh!' of the Lutheran Response).
4) The Baptist View is given by Roger E. Olson who, as always, does a fine job in both presenting his case and interacting with the other ideas in play. Although there are a bazillion sections of Baptist theology, he does well to find the common threads and offer them in meaningful and succinct fashion. His approach is to emphasize the workings of the Lord's Supper in the community life of the believer: "Through the Communion service, then, God's people actually experience Christ's presence in their midst" (104).
5) The Pentecostal View is presented by Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen and seeks to discover a "Pentecostal Sacramentology" (117). Laying out the different strands of the Pentecostal perspective, one interesting addition to his essay is his discussion on the Lord's Supper and healing. He concludes with four areas of meaning attributed to the Lord's Supper: community edification, mutual service, evangelistic witness, worship.
While no essay is particularly bad, none is either especially inspiring. The responses are quite short (all shorter than two pages), which leaves the reader - especially the novice - wondering why these traditions are incompatible. They clearly are at some level, otherwise the community which Brother Jeffrey so desires would already be a reality. And such a more in-depth discussion would be fruitful for the book in taking steps toward this ideal becoming a reality. As with all of these books, other perspectives could have been included but there has to be a stopping point somewhere. Yet the range of diversity looks broader on the book's cover than in the words printed inside.
With two or three other multiple-views books already in existence, I remain curious as to what would make this one stand out. Perhaps a good read and resource, but probably not at the top of the list for the topic.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
