Tuesday, June 19, 2007
The Nature of Grace
Right now I am reading Leithart's new book, "The Baptized Body" (published by Canon Press). So far an excellent read, very thought provoking, and assumption shaking. One thing he reminds us concerns the nature of Grace. It comes as part of a discussion surrounding the usage of the phrase "means of grace" and its reference to the sacraments (which he is not in favor of, the phrase that is. He still likes the sacraments.) The complaint comes from the word 'means.' To speak of grace as needing means, he says, conveys a notion that grace is its own entity, needing transportation. Grace is a passanger in need of a car, such as the table, to get from God to us. But this is not biblical. Grace does not come through the table. Grace is the table. The fact that God dines with men, is Grace. More specifically, "in the sacraments, there is a personal encounter with the Triune God through the particular agency of the Spirit" (pg 18). God shows grace, through grace itself, not through some vehicle created solely for that purpose. The sacraments are holy not because they are tools, ordained by God, to transfer favor to us. They are holy because they are themselves the favors of God, given to His children to bless them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I think that most of the Reformers, and most of those in the so-called "reformed" school of thought (the ones who use the term 'means of grace') would whole-heartedly agree with Leithart on this point. None that I've ever read think of Grace as an entity or substance that needs a vehicle. God's redemptive activity with His people is Grace.
Historically, though, the phrase, "Means of Grace" came into use in response to the mysticism of the high Middle Ages. By mysticism I mean the pursuit of unmediated encounters with God. The Reformers (rightly, I think) saw this as dangerous and either as over-elevating man or denigrating God. They wanted to insist (biblically, I think - and I know Leithart would too) that God is the one who dictates the terms by which the Creator-Creature gap is bridged (not to mention the sinful man-Holy God gap), and that He does that through Divinely appointed means. Again, not that His grace needs a basket and a parachute to get to us, but that He communes with His people on His terms, according to His perfect, holy will, and not according to whatever terms we might sinfully and presumptuously dictate to Him. So, as your quote from Leithart says, "In the sacraments, there is a personal encounter with the Triune God through the particular agency of the Spirit." In the sacraments - in the things that God has chosen to encounter us through - not in any things (or in nothing, as the mystics would have it) that suits our fancy.
So, I'd agree that the term "means" could have connotations of grace being a substance, and that would certainly be unbiblical. But this is not the way that the phrase was originally used or intended. And the Reformers were always very careful to maintain that the means themselves (or, the sacraments themselves) were not the repositories of grace, such that we get the grace ex opere operato - through mere contact with the elements of the sacraments (water, bread, wine) - but through faith as we commune with God Himself, according to His divine prerogative.
What you say about the origins is true. 'Means' has not always been a confusing term. But still our understanding of these ‘means’ has become more confused. Looking around at the modern church, one cannot miss the lack of importance that we have placed on the sacraments. From quarterly communion, to none at all, to a strict Zwinglian approach, stripping the act of all its physical reality. The modern church, whether or not it understands the semantic debate here, has prized the content over the form, when it comes to the table and baptism. But to Paul, as well as with all of Scripture, that is a false dichotomy. The table does not, cannot occur outside the context of the Church, the Word, and the Spirit. Baptism cannot occur apart from the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The elements are uniquely tied to the sacrament. The Table isn’t the Table with Coke and Peanuts. Baptism isn’t Baptism with milk. Scripture uses certain elements, with certain contextual meaning, and the physical context make up part of the sacraments’ meaning.
All that to say, the modern Church has gone for the peach’s pit, without enjoying or finding meaning in the skin or the flesh. What that has effectively done is made the skin and flesh a vehicle for the pit. But God has given the entire peach for our blessing and nourishment. The two are not separate. Hence we have an impoverished bride, in need of her husband’s table, fit with His food.
I agree, the modern Church has lost their understanding of the sacraments. Sage, anything but blind here, and Minstrel have nailed it.
Just because the grace bestowed through bread and wine are not appropriated by the believer because of intrinsic value, in and of themselves(ex opere operato), doesn't take away from the fact that they are, in the correct sense as explained by Sage, true means of Grace. Just as faith is the instrument through which the merits of Christ are appropriated to the believer. It's not faith in our faith that is of any value, but faith, pointing to its correct object, Christ. Looking to Christ is faith.
In like manner, the sacraments are a real means of grace established by God through which God pours out his grace to us, via faith in communion with Him.
Post a Comment