Symbol or Substance?
A Dialogue on the Eucharist with C. S. Lewis, Billy Graham and J. R. R. Tolkien
A Dialogue on the Eucharist with C. S. Lewis, Billy Graham and J. R. R. Tolkien
In this engaging fictional conversation, Peter Kreeft gives credible voices to C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien, and Billy Graham as they discuss one of the most contentious questions in the history of Christianity: Is Jesus symbolically or substantially present in the Eucharist? These widely respected modern Christian witnesses represent three important Western theological traditions. Graham, an ordained Southern Baptist minister who traversed the world and the airwaves to spread the good news of salvation, represents evangelical Protestantism. Lewis, an Oxford professor, a prolific Christian apologist, and the author of The Chronicles of Narnia, was a member of the Church of England. Also an Oxford don, Tolkien was a friend of Lewis, the author of The Lord of the Rings, and a Roman Catholic. While Lewis and Tolkien likely discussed the Eucharist during their long friendship, the conversation in this book never took place—but it could have, says Kreeft, who faithfully presents the views of these three impressive men.
Reviews with the most likes.
Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/RCCFLX71QGR9I?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp
The author, Peter Kreeft, has long demonstrated that he is a master at constructing intellectual dialogues between historical figures to explore particular topics. Previously, he has brought together John F. Kennedy, Alduous Huxley and C.S. Lewis in purgatory on the day that they shared in leaving mortality to discuss their philosophies.
In this one, Kreeft brings together Billy Graham, J.R.R. Tolkien, and C.S. Lewis to discuss religion, and particularly the Eucharist. Each represents a kind of position: Graham obviously representing mainstream Protestantism, with its view that the Eucharist is purely a symbol; Tolkien representing the Catholic position; and Lewis representing the Anglo-Catholic position, which, although the Lewis perspective claims to take a middle position, on this issue is consistent with Catholicism.
Kreeft is a Catholic convert from Protestantism. This history gives him the background to deal fairly with the religious positions in their own terms. I didn't get the sense that Kreeft loaded the dice for any position. The book studiously does not reach any conclusions and no position gets to score a knock-down blow. In some ways, I found Tolkien to be the weakest character, playing an almost stereotypical role in insisting that all ecumenical problems dissolve into the answer that the other two should become Catholics.
The dialogue sparkles with Kreeftian insights at times. Here is an example:
“GRAHAM: So if His presence doesn't depend on our faith, why don't you give the Sacrament to unbelievers? If it's as objective as medicine, why not give it to the patient when he is comatose? LEWIS: Because it's a gift, and a gift must be freely and consciously received as well as freely and consciously given.”
And:
“But materialism doesn't mean the affirmation of matter; it means the denial of spirit.”
There are some good insights on the respective emphasis on the Bible and the Sacraments:
“But when we read the Bible, the material element is minimal. We could just remember and think of a verse, and it would give us the same grace as when we physically read the black ink on the white paper. But just remembering or thinking of the Sacrament or remembering Christ and His death on the Cross is not the same as receiving the Sacrament physically. The grace works on us physically.”
And:
“Bible is only symbols of Christ, not Christ. The Eucharist is Christ, the very substance of Christ.”
It is often the case in discussions of the Christian religion that Evangelicals will stake out the position that they just read the Bible without interpretation:
“LEWIS: No, my main argument is that your interpretation is not the one the whole mass of Christians made for 1500 years. GRAHAM: In other words, it's not the way your church and its tradition interprets it. LEWIS: It's not the way anyone interpreted it until the Reformation.”
All in all, this was an interesting book. The discussion represents the kind of event that you would have loved to have been a fly on the wall to observe.
