Is life sacramental?

Today was communion and the sermon was on the meaning of communion. Now Barry talked about communion as a symbol, a metaphor. He had been talking about… food, just as he talked about water. He is the true food and true drink. And he got annoyed with people arriving to be physically fed instead of being spiritually fed

Now, at the end of the Passover meal, he instituted communion. The Passover meal (for that is what the Last Supper was) commemorated the deliverance of Israel from Egypt and the judgement Egypt was to have — if you did not mark your lintel with the blood of the passover lamb you would — at that first passover — lose your first-born.

So this addition — the bread as the body, the wine as the blood — foretold what would happen but one day later, where Jesus would be broken on a cross and shed his blood. From the Westminster Confession.

CHAP. XXVII. – Of the Sacraments.

1. Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and His benefits; and to confirm our interest in Him: as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to His Word.

2. There is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.

3. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it: but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.

4. There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained.

5. The sacraments of the old testament in regard of the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance, the same with those of the new.

The previous chapter of the  Confession states that by sharing in this sacrament we are not partaking of the actual body and blood of the LORD as

This communion which the saints have with Christ, doth not make them in any wise partakers of the substance of His Godhead; or to be equal with Christ in any respect: either of which to affirm is impious and blasphemous. Nor doth their communion one with another, as saints, take away, or infringe the title or propriety which each man hath in his goods and possessions.

So this is a symbol. And the good Presbyterian divines took, as usual, a minimalistic approach. The sacraments are few, because a sacrament refers to a covenant with God. The signs and seals are holy. It therefore behooves us to respect this, and be gentle with our brothers who argue for the real presence, for consubstantiation, and transubstantation. They may be reading too much into this, but the sign remains holy, and should be held in deepest respect — and here we can divide finely and then more finely, to the point of ridiculosity.

Now what is holy is holy, and what is not holy is secular. And within the secular realm, there are institutions and covenants — from those which we have no choice in (as in respecting our parents ) to those which must be chosen freely and without coercion, particularly marriage. Now, that does not mean that there is  no teaching on marriage, or property. But let’s take the former example, for the confession notes:

Marriage was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife; for the increase of mankind with a legitimate issue, and of the Church with an holy seed; and for preventing of uncleanness.

Please note that the increase of mankind… implies a children. And that there should be bounds on sex — yet within marriage it is clean.  Now this is something many people forget. Instead of being encouraged to not withhold, remaining celibate in marriage is seen as good. No divine from previous generations would have argued for that.

We have lost the sense that the daily disciplines of life matter. (Interestingly, this point was also made by Barry, today, same sermon.  There are many reasons I go to kirk….)

The Society of Phineas says this well.

Men typically do not recognize the bondage that they are in, to whatever the things might be. These things can be multiple and varied, but all is classed under the term “sin”, which is anything that removes rightful honor from God. Scripture classes them into the three broad categories of the flesh (Romans 8:1 among others), the world (1 John 2:15-17 among others), and Satanic influence (1 Peter 5:8-9 among others).

Anything that presents a loss of control over one’s life where good formative values can’t be enforced can present a problem. One thing I’ve observed about the injunctions of Scripture is that they represent a guide of principles (or values) that are watches against going down a path that represents a loss of control. Control is preserved when you follow good self-interest (The Christian disciple’s is following Christ) and serve thatinterest accordingly. Good values are preserved by serving the right thing in your life and partaking of things under control with the proper moderation.

A great example of this is the use of alcohol (wine). Despite the work of the Abolitionists (mainly of Methodist and Presbyterian influence) to paint any alcohol use as a sin, it should be noted that the Bible addresses wine as a blessing from God which cheers the heart of man and God (Judges 9:13, Psalm 104:15, Proverbs 3:10, among others) and advocates it use throughout the Old and New Testaments even in the mandated rituals (Numbers 15:5-10, Matthew 26:27-29, among others). However, it also paints drunkenness (lack of control of alcohol) as a problem as well (Proverbs 20:1, 21:17, 23:29-32; Ephesians 5:18 among others). It’s not that one shouldn’t partake alcohol, but one should control alcohol and not let alcohol control him.

Sex is the same way. Like no one “needs” alcohol, no one “needs” sex (oddly enough, perhaps the only thing I agree with here). If sex controls you to the point that you are compromising your values and bowing down at the altar of the woman’s nether regions and supplicating yourself to women as many do within Churchianity and without, you’ve got problems. If you’re supplicating yourself to women in the hope that they’ll have sex with you (married to her or not) like most men are erroneously told to do, you’ve got problems. Like alcohol presents consequences if you get to the point of “needing” it, so does sex.

The solid man who holds to his values and desires self-control (or self-respect) does not compromise them in order to get women interested in them. It’s been documented much that in the end women respect men who stand on their values and will not depart them to supplicate to anyone. A man who knows what he stands for and doesn’t waver from it projects strength and confidence. To use my prior example, if every available woman to me smokes, then I guess I’m not going to have a woman. A man doesn’t “need” a woman, either. It’s his choice of whether to marry and if he doesn’t find that a woman before him that’s consistent with his values, the good man sends her on her way. Not “needing” a woman gives a man power, and doesn’t force his hand to make a poor decision and compromise his values. A man who upholds good values in the face of all, including the women he pursues, is a good man. A man who supplicates to women to get their interest is a nice guy. And we all know nice guys finish last. Women are repulsed by nice guys. Rightfully so.

Now, in communion, wine becomes sacramental. You drink it, not because it is good wine (The Anglicans advise that it should be of high quality. Unfortunately, as a Presbyterian, the stuff we get is frequently horrid) but because of what it stands for. For the single man, sex should be off the agenda: you should not be ruled by a desire for your inamorata’s loins. But within marriage, sex becomes something more than assuaging an appetite. it becomes part of a one flesh covenant.

Which brings me to another point. I know many couples who have divorced, and I note that a large number of men find themselves with another woman — in another relationship — on the rebound, frequently to a woman with the same strengths and weaknesses as their spouse. One can call this the Tom Cruise or Rod Stewart effect — Stewart famously married Rachel Hunter, an NZ girl, who looks remarkably like the wife before her and the  wife after. And Tom seems to trade them in at 30. But the miss the point about covenant. The covenant is one flesh. And when it breaks, something inside you rips. It bleeds. For a long, long time. Any sensible woman stays well away from you during this period — you are looking for the lover you had, and you have no longer. No woman can compete with the idealised version you remember from that period of falling in love.  And you need to learn how to be independent after being part of a couple (which involves being mutually dependent).  It takes years.

Marriage may not be a sacrament, nor being a father or mother, but there are sacramental elements to what we do. We are built in the Image of God, after all. And a society that breaks these things, grinds them down, and destroys them, will fail and fall, probably from within. For the desire to procreate — even that earthy imp lust — will fade due to anomie.