Symbol or Substance?

The Tolkien character frustrated me quite a bit. I found him quite insufferable!

Somewhat interesting discussion/debate over the differing theologies of the Eucharist...

I highly doubt I will ever feel the need or desire to re-read this one... and I feel like the target audience for this might be quite small... I love theology and I was getting bored at times with this book.

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.