The "Tangible Presence" of God: Questions and Musings

Here’s a question that I have been mulling over for a couple of days:

How much of the modern charismatic movement’s stress on the "tangible presence" of God in the form of signs, wonders and individual manifestations is the result of a non-sacramental theology?

For some context for this question let me tell you a brief story. A couple of weeks ago I was hanging out with a twenty-something friend of mine who I’ve known since he was a sweaky 5th grader. My friend is on a spiritual pilgrimage. He grew up in a traditional evangelical environment that while not closed to the more sensational gifts of the spirit, did not promote or facilitate them. After graduating from an evangelical college he has decided to spend a year on the west coast attending a supernatural boot camp of sorts. He was on a couple week break visiting his folks and we caught up at a coffee shop. In the course of the conversation I queried what his motivation was for studying at this institution and what about the expression of Christian faith so appealed to him. He said some interesting things (these are my report of what he said so there is certainly an interpretive layer to the quotations): “I long for intimacy”. “You don’t have much of a relationship with out intimacy”. “I have longed desired the tangible presence of God in my life”. "My Christian discipleship was focused on doing and not on being or experience". I asked him about this “tangible presence”. He said “it can manifest in different forms, but it is often a warm pressure in the middle of my hand or a pain in my leg, or something like that”. What it seemed he was saying was that this "tangible presence" of God is God’s way of being physically present to him.

I really enjoyed the conversation we had together and I was moved by the conversation and found myself reflecting since then on a couple of elements. One of them was the question  with which I opened this post and to which I’ll return shortly. Before I do, the conversation caused me to think about my lack of desire for intimacy with God. When he explained what he meant by "tangible presence" I thought to myself: "I have no desire for that". I don't even think about that. This however was not always the case. When I was in my late teens and early twenties I remember this was a essential pursuit in my spiritual life. I desired and tried to maintain intimate contact with God. However, in my late thirties this pursuit is foreign to me. I don’t seek intimacy with God and I don’t feel compelled to. It’s not that I don’t want relationship with God certainly or that I don’t have what I think is a good relationship (although of course it can always be improving); it’s more that intimacy is not a central element of the relationship nor is it a central desire. Is this possible? Is it possible to have a very deep and sturdy relationship without a lot of intimacy? It must be. Generally speaking I’m not a very “touchy-feely” kind of person. I express my commitment in relationship, say in my marriage, through faithfulness and service not by gushing with emotion—I’m sort of an emotional rock. (I'm sure there is a psychological reason that years of counseling could surface). This is who I've become. So is it so surprising that that is how my relationship with God is characterized. But is this OK? Is it best? Or do I need to repent and pursue such? I'm not really angling for a reponse these are just my musings. Contact with God is essential, I'm convinced, but what that looks like is diverse as my opening question I think reveals.

Back to the question: how much of the modern charismatic movement’s stress on the tangible presence of God in the form of signs, wonders and individual manifestations is the result of a non-sacramental theology? When I was talking with my friend I thought about the manner of contact that he was describing and that of the great traditions of the church like the Eastern Orthodox, Catholic and Anglican traditions that are highly sacramental. The tangible presence of God exists in the sacraments and the liturgy of the church -- not in individualistic forms as with the Charismatic movement, but in the communal experiences of liturgy and sacrament. What strikes me is that though so different, the sacramental theology and the theology of signs and wonders (or however one labels it) are after the same thing: God’s tangible presence.

Two sources I’ve been reading recently bring this home. One is the recent and excellent book Worshiping With the Church Fathers (IVP, 2009) by Christopher Hall. The purpose of the book is to introduce an evangelical audience to the worship life of the Church Fathers. It deals with the Sacraments, Prayer and spiritual disciplines. I think this is an important book. Hall states,

The church fathers view life sacramentally, while many evangelicals have found and worshiped Christ in a nonsacramental tradition. Hence, the idea that God uses tangible, earthly means such as wine, bread and water to communicate blessing and nourish fellowship will strike some readers as farfetched, implausible, superstitious and a misreading of Scripture that has warped the church’s tradition (13). 

The other source is Scott Hahn’s recent book on Pope Benedict’s biblical theology Covenant and Communion: The Biblical Theology of Pope Benedict XVI (Brazos, 2009). In discussing the central place of the Word in the church, Hahn describes Benedict’s perspective on the role of the priesthood. He writes,

But the apostolic Word abides in power through the priestly ministry established by the apostles. The priestly ministry . . . is central to Benedict’s understanding of the Church and its role in salvation history . . .Through the priestly ministry, the revealed Word becomes sacrament, bringing forth the kingdom proclaimed by Christ and bringing the world into communion with the divine (50).

One last thought: Is there some biblical diversity in the New Testament witness about how contact or intimacy with God is characterized? For example, John's Gospel is no doubt a favorite for those seeking tangible intimacy for both sacramental and nonsacramental approaches. John presents an intimate Jesus. This can be contrasted with Matthew's presentation. Jesus is much more intellectual and one's relationship with Jesus while no less devoted is much more dutiful. These are generalizations, but it is no wonder why my favorite Gospel is Matthew!

Horton on Reformed View of the Eucharist

I've enjoyed reading Michael Horton's People and Place and particularly interesting was the chapter on Eurcharist (amazing still to see a conservative Reformed theologian even call it "Eucharist"). Horton wants to avoid the errors of transforming the sign into the signified (Rome) or completely separating the sign from the signified (Zwingli). Horton, pretty much piggy backing Calvin the whole way, asserts that the spiritual presence of Christ is not spatial nor imaginary, but relational and eschatological. The earthly sign has a heavenly reality and the supper if a fissure in the present age that has been opened up by the Spirit for our semirealized participation in the consummation. Horton detects in Calvin's eucharistic theology something of Patristic writings of the East whereby the Spirit communicates the energies of Christ's life-giving flesh in the sacrament. Horton qualifies that by saying that the East's category of energies is better translated into the covenantal idiom of the worksings of God, specifically, the redemptive speech-act of Father in the Son by the Spirit. While the person of Christ cannot be communicated through the sacament, the workings of Christ can be. Horton states: "It is through the working of God through Word and sacrament, received in faith, that the Spirit clothes us with Christ inwardly in this age and outwardly adorns us with righteousness, beauty, glory, and immortality in the age to come. Once more we recognize the point ... the emphasis on the sacraments as mediating God's presence-in-action rather than naked manifestation." Finally, Horton quotes B.A. Berrish about how Calvin's eucharistic theology has been received in the Reformed churches:

'Calvin's eucharistic piety has repeatedly been lost, or at least curtailed, in the churches that officially claim him as their Reformer but in fact have moved closer in their sacramental theology to the Zwinglian view, which Calvin rejected as "profane." it has even become commonplace to make a sharp distinction between "evangelical" and "sacramental" piety. The distinction, as such, could hardly find support in Calvin, for whom the Supper attested a communion with Christ's body and blood that is given precisely by the gospel.'

It's the best non-NT book I've read for a while!

Michael Horton on the Sacraments

I'm reading through Michael Horton's People and Place and came across this interesting quote about the Sacraments:

"Alongside preaching the word that is delivered in baptism and the Supper creates the world of which it speaks. Preaching does not simply refer to an extra linguistic reality, but is indeed the linguistic means through which the Spirit brings it about. Even the sacraments, then, obtain their efficacy from the word that they ratify ... At the same time, they are also visual - indeed, tactile and edible, words. Since the word creates community beyond indvidual consumerism, it gurantees the efficacy of the sacraments not only as means of grace, but also as a means of grace-enabled communion with human strangers. God does what he says. Because his word is no mere sign, but powerful ("living and active"), in the hands of the Spirit the sacraments also truly communicate God's saving grace." (p. 106).

Thought provoking stuff!

Evangelicalism: Sacrament and Word

Is evangelicalism too logocentric in its worship services? In Tom Wright's lecture at Calvin College on the Sacraments (see the clip below), he makes an interesting point that in some churches there is such a focus on the preached Word and on the centrality of the pulpit that the sacraments are pushed to one side with the result that the service becomes more like that of a Mosque with all Word and no Sacrament! Now, Wright can't be accused of having a low view of preaching, consider the following quote: "A church without sermons will soon have a shrivelled mind, then a wayward heart, next an unquiet soul, and finally a misdirected strength" (Following Jesus: Biblical Reflections on Discipleship [London: SPCK, 1997], xi). I do get what he's saying since I've been in (= orchestrated and lead) services where the whole worship and prayer session is merely an extended overture to the sermon. I've also been in churches where the eucharist or Lord's Supper is served at every service (esp. Anglican and Church of Christ congregations) and if often becomes very mechanical and meaningless. I've also noticed that some liberal churches include more Bible readings than some "Bible believing" churches. I do wonder then how one integrates this all together: Prayer, Sacrament, Praise, and Word. Perhaps it's time that evangelicals (re)discovered liturgy.

Ben Witherington on the Lord's Supper

Ben Witherington introduces his new book Making a Meal of it: Rethinking the Theology of the Lord's Supper. Here's his description:

In this study I argue that the Lord's Supper was originally part of a large meal, not a separate ritual or ceremony, and as such brought into play all the ancient understandings about hospitality, the welcoming of people to the table, and the like. I am also arguing that the early church did not see the Lord's Supper as merely a symbolic memorial ceremony. They actually saw some sort of spiritual transaction happening in the partaking of the Lord's Supper, and believed that partaking in an unworthy manner was spiritually dangerous, as Paul suggests in 1 Cor. 11. But what sort of spiritual transaction is going on in the Lord's Supper? This is discussed in some detail in the book, and I won't spoil it for you by dealing with that here.

Sounds interesting. I think Protestant churches should turf out their morsel of bread and drop of juice and its accompanying three minute guilt-trip sermonette in favour of a communal love feast instead.