Sermon:
October 3, 1999

Scripture:
Luke 24:13-35

Before I comfort you, let me trouble you just a bit. More to the point, let me trouble you with a pair of ways of viewing the Sacrament ... the Eucharist ... the Lord's Supper ... the Last Supper ... Holy Communion, if you will. The first will trouble you because it's a tad cynical ... although there is truth in it. The second will trouble you because it's a tad literal ... although there is truth in it.

The first "troubling" comes courtesy of Frederick Buechner (Bob's cousin), who has written as many words about Christianity as anybody I know, and who feels them, deeper than most. From him, I give you this ... concerning the Lord's Supper:

In the final analysis, it is make believe. You make believe that the one who breaks the bread and blesses the wine is not the plump parson who smells of Williams' Aqua Velva, but Jesus of Nazareth. Then you make believe that the tasteless wafer and cheap port (in our case, the bread cubelet and thimble of moderately priced grape juice) are his flesh and blood. And then you make believe that by swallowing them, you are swallowing his life into your life, and that there is nothing in earth or heaven that is more important for you to do than this. It is a game you play because he said to play it: "Do this in remembrance of me. Do this."

I suspect you are troubled by that. You are probably troubled by the words "tasteless wafer" ... "cheap port" ... "make believe" ... ."game that you play" ... and (perchance) "plump parson." No doubt you are also troubled by the underlying tone, which would seem to suggest that there is little about the Sacrament that makes ordinary sense. Still, there is truth in his words. The wafers (in churches which employ them) are tasteless. The port (in denominations where port is poured) is cheap. There is, about the Sacrament, an implicit necessity that one "make a belief" at the time of partaking ... or, at least, borrow one. And the whole thing is done (in part) because Jesus said to "do it."

But, somehow, none of this seems high enough ... or holy enough. Which is why, having troubled you with Frederick Buechner, I would further trouble you with the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215 AD), coupled with my last-ever eighth grade Confirmation Class (Farmington Hills, 1993). Said the Fourth Lateran Council:

At the time of their consecration, the "gifts" of the Sacrament (meaning the tasteless wafer and the cheap port) cease to be bread and wine in anything but appearance and, instead, become (in their entirety) the body and blood of Christ, himself.

To which my eighth graders, upon finally figuring out that this Doctrine of Transubstantiation meant exactly what it said, offered up (in most un-holy unison) a resounding "Yuck." Proving only that while most teenagers can't abide the sight of blood, they would rather see it than taste it, any day out.

As for the rest of us, we are far too polite to say "Yuck" in response to a doctrine that many in the Christian world still hold dear ... especially Roman Catholics, who have embraced this position officially since the Council of Trent in 1551. Yet I know precious few Roman Catholics who (today) would be able to explain "transubstantiation," let alone feel moved to defend it.

At the time of the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther broke from the position that (properly consecrated) the bread becomes Christ's body and the wine, Christ's blood. But Luther's break was far from complete. Luther decided that Christ's body and blood are present in the midst of the bread and the wine ... but are present "along with" (rather than "in place of") the bread and the wine. This doctrine came to be known as "consubstantiation" ... although there is no indication that Luther ever used the term, or felt moved to explain how both elements could co-exist in the same morsel of food or in the same swallow of wine.

Eventually, Ulrich Zwingli came along and said that the elements of the Sacrament do not change at all. What starts out as bread in the Sacristy remains bread in the stomach. And what begins as wine pouring out, remains wine going down. Ever since then, Protestants have been taking up positions between Luther and Zwingli ... although very few Protestants have chosen to re-cast their lot with the Catholics.

But if the Catholics are right, don't you see, there is no need to "make believe" anything about the Sacrament. For Christ is in it ... from the very first prayer of the priest, to the very last swallow of the supplicant. Which is why, if the congregation at Mass be slim some morning, the priest must drink every remaining drop of the consecrated wine. Because while Christ freely spilled his blood on the ground at Calvary, it would be utterly inappropriate for an agent of Christ's church to re-spill (even a drop of it) down the sink or the sewer. Why, I don't know. But then I've never served and volleyed from the Catholic side of the net.

I doubt if the next ten Roman Catholics you meet will be able to explain any of this to you. But they may understand it under a different name ... not "transubstantiation" ... but "the Doctrine of Real Presence." The priest serves. I consume. And Christ is there ... physically as well as spiritually.

Which has a certain measure of attractiveness, don't you see? For in a world where so many of faith's assurances are hard to locate, measure or pin down, there is a wonderful specificity about this one. Where is Christ? On the tongue, that's where Christ is. Whereas we Protestants sing, at the hour of the Supper: "Here would I feed upon the bread of God. Here would I touch and handle things unseen."

Do we believe in a Doctrine of Real Presence? Not as an organized body of believers, we don't. Historically, we cast our lot with the "it's bread all the way from store to stomach" people. But, yet, we say that "Christ is here" ... whenever we do this. In part, because Christ said he would be here. And, in part, because none of us is willing to settle for "a Doctrine of Real Absence."

I sometimes worry that we talk just a bit too glibly about our ability to have a relationship with Jesus Christ ... leading the unsuspecting to assume that relating to Jesus is, in every way, the same as relating to a spouse, a sibling, a neighbor or a friend. To be sure, there are some elements that are very common. But there are others that are very different.

Consider today's story. It is late Easter afternoon. Jesus is alive. But there are very few people who know it. Two, who do not know it, are walking away from "the scene of the crime" (as it were). They are walking to a village named Emmaus. Jesus falls in step with them. The three of them talk. About hopes raised. And hopes dashed. About confrontations ... condemnations ... crucifixions ... and unsubstantiated rumors of resurrections. Them complaining. Him explaining. But nothing connecting.

Until the village gets near ... the day gets short ... and they get hungry. He appears to be going further. Don't miss this little detail. Jesus is always going further. Jesus may companion our journey. But Jesus is not bound by our agenda. Most of the time, we want to stop before he does.

They say: "Stay and eat with us." And while he is at their table ... as their guest ... responding to their invitation ... "they recognize him in the breaking of bread." Then, suddenly, he isn't there anymore. But that glimpse is enough. Enough for them to look back down the road they have already come ... back down the steps they have already taken ... back down the stories they have already told ... back down the history they have already lived ... so as to enable them to say: "It was the Lord ... all along. And there were signs. But we missed them. `Til now."

* * * * *

I envy the people who can get Jesus ... every morning, if they like ... between the tongue and the teeth. And who know, with absolute certainty, who it is they've got, and where it is they've got him.

And I envy the people who can go to the garden (or to hymn 314) ... every morning, if they like ... and walk with Jesus while the dew is still on the roses (whenever that is).

But I am not those people. I am a little slow. Save for three or four occasions, most of my "Jesus sightings" have come after the fact ... figuring out that he has been with me, after he has moved on ... making sense of what he has said to me, after he's gone silent. It's kind of like a really great meal. Sometimes the aftertaste is the best.