Abstract
This is an intriguing book trying to look at the Eucharist with new eyes. It is clear from the early chapters that the approach is that of practical theology, looking at the practice and the theology arising from it, rather than starting from an abstract position of particular doctrines on the Eucharist. One of the underlying arguments associated with this approach is that the abstract conceptualization of Eucharistic theology has separated itself from the practice of the Eucharist, thus resulting in a special ritual that disconnects with ordinary life. O’Loughlin is clearly trying to undermine that disjunction, not least in the fact that he confesses at the end, that if this does not make the reader reconsider their coffee and cake as connected to the Eucharist, then he would have failed.
The book then proceeds to look at various aspects of the Eucharist and strongly argues a number of points quite well. One of the first points to be tackled is that essentially the Eucharistic prayer is a prayer to the Father and that this is undermined by our Eucharistic practice when we concentrate completely on consecration and have ritualized that aspect in elevations, censing, and the ringing of bells. Holding onto these ceremonies undermines the insights of the liturgical movement and has refocused the Eucharist to Christ rather than to the Father. Thus the development of the notion of consecration, in the first instance, and the consecration achieved by the words of Jesus, in the second instance, has displaced the Father, and the nature of the action as prayer has also been lost, as the essence of the activity becomes the repetition of the words of Jesus, such that the presence of Jesus may occur in the elements. This is a strong argument and makes us think more about what we are doing on Sunday.
The second strong point is in the focus on the activity of eating. The Eucharist in origins seems primarily to be a meal. This is challenged by a wafer and a sip. In what way does our contemporary practice look like any sort of meal? Perhaps this is helped in traditions that still make their own bread. This was common in the seminary I attended and there is something distinct in having baked the bread for the Eucharist earlier in the day and then receiving it back as a fragment at the service. The questions of the nature of the element for the bread are not seen as peripheral but of theological influence and interest. Likewise O’Loughlin continues to develop this in the sharing of a common cup. He notes the countercultural nature of all sipping from one cup and the actual lack of this in much of society. This he links to the radical levelling of people at the service, high and low, rich and poor, male and female, adults and infants, all sipping from the one cup. This is of course undermined by many practices—small individual cups, or withholding the cup from the laity such that only the presider drinks from it. He does however note that sipping from the common cup is virtually universal within Anglicanism.
He wants to analyse the Eucharist in terms of memory, practice, reflection and teaching. He sees each generation as moulding these elements of tradition in a series of displacements. The first is the separation from a real meal. The second is from a prayer to the Father to a consecration of the presence of Christ. The third is a movement from collective activity to a specialist action. The fourth is from a radical incarnationalism to the reintroduction of sacred and profane. This is helpfully and thoughtfully explained and is discussed in a fully ecumenical way showing strengths and weaknesses of a variety of practice.
This is a thought-provoking book, but on one level it leaves me with a nagging feeling. If symbols have poles of meaning, as for example analysed by Victor Turner, then one of these is ideology. O’Loughlin appears to be undercutting much of the ideological discussion of the Eucharist and the long history of the discussion of Eucharistic theology. While these things are touched upon in the book, they are not fully analysed but rather described as an ideological bypath meadow. In one way this is much more radical than those who are against onto-theology. I am not sure that the discussion can be completely shunted into a siding.
My second nagging feeling comes with the meal aspect. While asking us to reconnecting our thinking of cake and coffee with the Eucharist, there is little practical suggestion as to what might be done. There are hints of approval at smaller home-based communion services. The attempt of Cranmer to place the altar central in the chancel and have people come to the table and stand around it is not considered. Nor is the Presbyterian practice of laying a table down the centre of the church around which people sit for the Lord’s Supper considered. Nor various attempts by the Church of England in introducing an agape style Eucharist—i.e. one with a real meal and parts of the service interposing the courses as found in Lent Holy Week and Easter. I give these examples not to suggest they are the solution but rather I think some historical examples could have been explored further.
I’m sure that those who read it will find it a stimulating book; but don’t throw away your sacramental theology yet.