Weekend Fisher summarizes Luther’s “odd argument for real presence” in the Eucharist, which builds on the idea of divine omnipresence. She writes,
There is no such thing as “making God present.” There is welcoming God’s presence or not welcoming God’s presence, but there is no changing the fact of God’s presence. There is no “practicing the presence of God”; there is only practicing being aware of the Presence which is already there. Those who do not see God in the tavern or the bar, who do not know God’s presence in their kitchens, if God is not with them doing rush-hour karaoke in their cars, if they have not looked at the homeless fellow under the bridge and seen Christ, then what hope is there that they will recognize Christ in bread and wine?
I never new Luther had taken this approach, which (as WF observes) seems to get to the heart of the matter in a way that even non-sacramental Christians should be able to affirm. And be sure to read to the end for the much-needed indictment of Zwingli’s Eucharistic theology on these terms (although the later Zwingli in fact toned down his “memorial” theory considerably, bringing it essentially in line with Calvin’s understanding of “spiritual presence”).
Hi there
I know this particular argument of Luther’s is one of his least popular, first because it’s theological rather than Scriptural, second because it stops short of what most Lutherans see as the point. The real beauty of the argument is in neither of those places, but how it opens up new possibilities of understanding between the sacramantals and the non-sacramentals in the church. For those non-sacramental folks who believe in Christ’s deity and God’s omnipresence, it then becomes a question of “How do you understand Christ’s real presence?” rather than whether Christ is really present.
Take care & God bless
Anne / WF