ABSTRACT A Re-membering Sign: The Eucharist and Ecclesial Unity in Baptist Ecclesiologies Scott W. Bullard, Ph.D. Mentor: Barry A. Harvey, Ph.D. This dissertation argues for the Lord’s Supper, or eucharist, as a vital basis of the church’s unity as the body of Christ. It focuses especially on the theology of James Wm. McClendon, Jr., who, though a member of a largely non-sacramental (“free church”) tradition, nonetheless insists upon Christ’s presence in the eucharist and that through the eucharist God “re-members” the church as the body of Christ. While the study lauds McClendon’s foresight and direction, it also argues that he ultimately shies away from a sacramental understanding of the Supper and that he skims over the unitive function of the eucharist. Added to the discussion, then, are two voices from outside the free church tradition: Henri de Lubac, a Catholic, and Robert Jenson, a Lutheran. Together with McClendon, these twentieth century figures and their theologies have had an enormous impact on contemporary discussions about ecclesial unity. In a final chapter, therefore, the study illustrates how they have influenced a number of contemporary Baptists dubbed “new Baptist sacramentalists,” a younger group of Baptist theologians who offer a fresh approach to the ongoing puzzle of the church’s disunity through the eucharist. A Re-membering Sign: The Eucharist and Ecclesial Unity in Baptist Ecclesiologies by Scott W. Bullard, B.A., M.Div. A Dissertation Approved by the Department of Religion ___________________________________ W.H. Bellinger, Jr., Ph.D., Chairperson Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Baylor University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Approved by the Dissertation Committee ___________________________________ Barry A. Harvey, Ph.D., Chairperson ___________________________________ Ralph C. Wood, Ph.D. ___________________________________ Scott H. Moore, Ph.D. Accepted by the Graduate School December 2009 ___________________________________ J. Larry Lyon, Ph.D., Dean Copyright © by Scott W. Bullard All rights reserved TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS v Chapter ONE Introduction 1 Purpose and Significance of the Project Methodology Overview of Chapters Concluding Note of Clarification TWO James McClendon: The Supper as a Re-membering Sign 19 Introduction “baptist” Backgrounds A symbol, but not merely Sign Leading to Sacrament Signs in the Theology of James McClendon Sign-acts The Lord’s Supper as a Sign Act Scripture, the baptist Vision, and Real Presence The Matthean Account of the Supper 1 Corinthians and the Supper in McClendon A Remembering and Re-membering Sign Sin and the Signs of Salvation The Supper as a Powerful Practice The Supper as a Practice of Witness Analysis of the Supper and the Unity of the Church Analysis of McClendon’s Account of Presence Herbert McCabe and “Signs Of” vs. “Signs For” Christ’s Presence and the Unity of the Church Conclusion THREE Henri de Lubac: The Eucharist Makes the Church 84 Introduction The Unity of Scripture and Tradition in Henri de Lubac The Eucharist Makes the Church iii The Threefold Body The Inversion and Individualism The Humanity of the Church De Lubac and the Eucharist as Productive in Other Contexts Laurence Paul Hemming Joseph Ratzinger William T. Cavanaugh Conclusion FOUR Robert Jenson and the Gathered Body 140 Introduction Scripture, Tradition, and the Body of Christ The Body of Christ The Ecclesial Body The Eucharistic Body Why “body”? Conclusion: Wholly Present FIVE Does the Eucharist Make the (Free) Church? 176 Introduction The New Baptist Sacramentalists McClendon’s Influence Baptist Sacramentalism and the Supper as a Sign McClendon and Freeman McClendon and Newman McClendon and Medley Conclusion: The Future of Baptist Sacramentalism BIBLIOGRAPHY 222 iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I have slowly come to love the exercise of writing and editing a theological book, seeing it as a very small contribution to the upbuilding of the body of Christ. I have many to thank for this positive, if naïve, outlook. Knowing that many will be left out, I would first like to express my deepest thanks to Barry Harvey for encouraging my studies and enriching my life. Without his patience, encouragement, and insight I could not have completed this task. He is an excellent mentor. I would also like to express my gratitude to Ralph C. Wood, who first as teacher then as supervisor introduced me to the work of Henri de Lubac and eventually even allowed me to teach de Lubac to his finest undergraduate students and seminarians. Not long after this development, as churchmate and friend, he and a small group of others from DaySpring Baptist Church in Waco, Texas, became for me the corpus verum. I would also like to thank two of my friends and writing partners, Marc Nicholas and John Inscore Essick. Their role in completing this project can hardly be overstated. They helped me understand the Catholic Church and Baptist churches, passing along nuggets of theological wisdom from their research and their lives. For the encouragement I received from them while in places like Waco, Telephone, Tuscaloosa, and Lexington, I am forever grateful. A special word of thanks also must be extended to William H. Bellinger, Scott and Natalie Bryant, John and Kay Bullard, Burt and Julie Burleson, Jeff and Amy Cary, Dan and Debbie Desmond, Wes Eades, Amber Inscore Essick, Cameron v Jorgenson, Nathan and Kristi Lane, Nathan and Kathy Maxwell, Dean M. Martin, Tayla Nicholas, Randall O’Brien, Samuel “Dub” Oliver, and Jason Patrick. Like those mentioned above, each of you – professors, colleagues, friends, and ultimately brothers and sisters in Christ – in your own way played an enormous role in helping me complete this project, and, most importantly, in helping me to understand what a faithfully Christian life entails. Thank you. Most importantly, I thank my loving, loyal, and patient wife Shannon, who along with my children Judson, Desmond, Campbell, and Walker sacrificed much so that I could take the time to pursue something as odd as writing about a Louisiana Baptist and a French Catholic and their influence on a movement sometimes referred to as Baptist Sacramentalism. We had heard of none of the aforementioned characters or “movements” when our marriage began, but because they have become a concrete reality in all of our lives through the Church, this project has (strange as it seems) served to enrich our lives, our care for one another, and our conversations. Truly, as the passage which undergirds this entire work states, in our experience “we who are many are one, for we all partake of the one loaf.” iii CHAPTER ONE Introduction The Eucharist and the Unity of the Church in Three Ecclesiologies This dissertation is a study of the eucharist, or Lord’s Supper, as a vital basis for the unity of the church as the body of Christ. Down through the centuries, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and many Protestants have said that this sacrament,1 in some sense, pulls members of the church “godward,” but also together as the body of Christ.2 In the pages that follow, I shall argue that the latter aspect has often been 1By “sacrament” the church has historically meant a “visible word,” a sign which is symbolic of grace which in some sense has already been conveyed, but which conveys grace to the participant by incorporating the participant into the Christian church, therefore putting her/him into a proper relationship with the Divine and, importantly, with her/his fellow members Christ’s body. A sacrament, then, is a practice which both signifies grace and is itself a mediator of the grace which is signified. Robert Jenson draws upon Augustine, Luther, and several other important Christian theologians to describe the term “sacrament” in this way in his Visible Words. See Jenson, Visible Words: The Interpretation and Practice of Sacraments (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978), 10-11. 2Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, V.2.3. (Migne: Patrologia Graeca 7:1125-27; hereafter cited as PG); Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book 3, chapter 9; Augustine, Commentary on Psalm 33; Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Tertia Pars, Question 75, especially articles 1-5 (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1914), 262- 266; Martin Luther, The Large Catechism. Translated by Robert H. Fischer (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959), 92; Luther, “The Babylonian Captivity of the Church,” in Martin Luther: Selections from His Writings, edited by John Dillenberger (New York: Doubleday Press, 1962), 256-7; John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, IV.17.14, IV.17.33. Edited by John T. McNiell. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. 2 volumes (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960); Alexander Schmemann, The Eucharist (Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1987), 28-29, 194. 1 overlooked. As Henri de Lubac has said, the social aspect of the Supper “is the continual teaching of the church, but in practice it is too little known.”3 De Lubac’s critique is true of Baptists as well. Indeed, against the grain of the larger Christian tradition, Baptist and other “free church” theologians have not only traditionally neglected the unitive function of the Supper,4 they have largely denied that anything “happens” in the Supper at all, positing a purely (or “merely”) symbolic role for the Supper wherein the Supper has no unique power in pulling members of the Church either godward or together.5 A few important Baptist theologians, however, insist that the Supper is more than symbolic. In the words of James Wm. McClendon, Jr., one of the most important Baptist thinkers in the twentieth century, 3Henri de Lubac, Catholicism: Christ and the Common Destiny of Man (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), 82. 4Definitions of “free church” vary widely. In this study, in addition to taking into account the manner in which theologians identify themselves, I follow the definition offered by Curtis Freeman, who says that “the Free Church tradition possesses at least five traits that may be understood negatively and positively: 1.