Transubstantiaton 2:Baseball & Ontology

Yesterday I laid out my response to criticisms based on the 39 Articles. I think it fair to consider the use of this term in discussing eucharist. We honor the authority of the Reformation Document, but we still ask about truth. Lets think before we reject!

[ALERT: skip this if it is too confusing 
Ontology is not commonly taught in our schools. It is an ancient philosophical concern, asking the question, "What is 'something'?" We still use the terms. We talk about something being "essentially" this or that. The "essence" of something is what we are talking about in ontology. We might use the word 'nature' as in this example: "What is the nature of your concern?" We also use the word substance. In listening to the speeches last night at the convention one recurring theme in the discussion was "is there substance to what s/he is saying?" Substance means, in this sense, is there anything there and what is the 'anything'?  Substance is a medieval word, its etymology dates to the 13th Century. It literally means to stand under (understand), to stand firm, to be under, to present. It is a translation of hypostasis from Greek (which means under + stand) a term used extensively in discussions about Jesus' nature(s).

even more so...
The debate among the disciples of Aristotle and Plato versus the Nominalists comes into play. I cannot go there because it is so complex, but in simplistic terms the question is this. Are there only particular entities which we call by a name or does the name actually refer to an existing universal or abstract object? So when I say "there is a monkey" is "monkey" just a convenient word or does monkey refer to an exisiting nature which supercedes each individual case of "monkey-ness." Aristotle says universals exist, Plato says 'abstract objects' exist. and I do no further!]

Pick back up here:
Here is a simple illustration. Each year 900,000 baseballs are made for Major League Baseball. They are made out of the same material and are supposed to be the same size and weight. In general, one looks and feels like another. A baseball costs $17.00. What is the nature or essence of a baseball? What would you say? It is a sphere made of cowhide, yarn, rubber and glue. However, it also has a purpose and that is also part of its "identity." Its nature, in some sense, is to be an instrument for a game. It is valued for the fun it provides. But, sometimes something happens to that baseball which changes it.

Note well, the change is not physical (although there may be a physical change which accompanies the change). Here is what I mean. If you go to a ball park and one of those balls is hit off a bat into the stands, dozens of people will make every effort to catch the ball. If they do snag it, they hold it in the air as a trophy. It is not just a baseball any more. It has been changed by the process of being used in a Big League game. At my son's high school or little league games, where any number of balls are hit into foul terrritory, the ball is retrieved by whoever is nearby. If it is further away one of the boys is sent out to find it. Once found, the ball is tossed back to the umpire and returns to play. No one gets excited. No one holds it up triumphantly. The ball is a ball is a ball. Nothing special has happened to it by being played with or hit.

What exactly is the difference? Why is a ball from a Major League game changed while the ball from Luke's game is not? What is the essential difference between the two? How has the nature of one ball been differentiated from the nature of the other?

On August 7, 2007 at AT&T Park one of those $17 balls sailed into the stands in right center field in the 5th inning. The ensuing melee was far in excess of anything we typically see. Dozens of people clawed, pushed, and wrestled to grab that small, white ball. One cannot imagine a twenty dollar bill would produce such a reaction and this ball was worth less than that. Or was it? The man who hit the ball, Barry Bonds, had done this 755 times prior to that night. That was the same number of times Hank Aaron had accomplished the feat. It is called a home run and the number of times a person does it in the regular season is recorded. Because Barry was doing it for the 756th time, he was now called the "All Time Home Run Champion." And because that ball was the particular one which he hit, the essence and value of that ball was radically changed. In the seconds between leaving the pitcher's hand, hitting the bat and landing in the ravenous crowd, over the course of some 500 feet that $17 ball so dramatically changed in nature/essence/being/identity that it was now worth $750,000. It increased in value 4,400 times! That sum of money is our church's annual budget. You could buy a really nice house, furnish it, get a couple of cars and comfortably live off the rest for several years in Memphis with that. It is a whole lot of money.

What happened to the ball? To the naked eye it still looks the same. Scientific study would not reveal any difference, besides the smudge off the bat and perhaps some other minor scrapes. But any ball used in a game and hit by a bat would have similar changes to it. If you took the Bonds HR ball and tossed it in a bag with other balls like it you couldn't pick it out. The change we are talking about is not physical, it is, however, a real change.

The substance of the ball has been altered. That ball is desirable in a way that the other 899,999 are not. That ball has undergone transubstantiation. The authenticity issue always comes into play when we value objects. A painting is a painting. The beauty may be similar. But if the painter is van Gogh it is worth more than if it is the handiwork of a skill artist imitating van Gogh. AUTHENTICITY is the key.

Consecrating bread and wine, calling down the Holy Spirit of God so that "they can become for us the Body and Blood of Christ" is a real activity. The change is not physical. But when authentic, the substance is different.

The word transubstantiation is not helpful. The philosophical meanings of words are complex. But the concept is pretty clear. Dropping a bag of unconsecrated hosts or spilling a half gallon of wine makes a mess. Doing the same with the eucharist creates a different sort of problem. It borders on blasphemy. These are sacred, holy and no longer the same after consecration (mystery).

If people can "get over" their "ecclesial team" then they can ponder and consider what I am saying here. Was the ball changed when Bonds hit it? Is the bread and wine changed when we use it at eucharist? I think there is no question the answer to both is yes. Can we explain the change? Not without mental exertion. I do not think this is a slam dunk for my position. I do, however, think it makes plain that there is a possibility that it opens a way to talk about 'reality' and 'symbolism' and the experiences of life. This weekend I will add more to the discussion. Until then I offer a reflection on baseball as a mirror to see the theological issue of eucharist. Jesus and Baseball.....