Jumpstarter 2 of 10

Direct Answer Dean’s emphasis suggests we should avoid claiming a “science” of what happens in communion, yet still treat it as a meaningful spiritual participation—not a mere empty symbol—because Scripture and the early church assumed “something happening” even if we cannot define it precisely.

Support from Transcript:

• Dean lays out the views: Catholic “transubstantiation” (it “really not bread at all anymore”), Luther’s “consubstantiation” (Christ “there with it physically”), and Zwingli’s view of “a spiritual way” with “no physical presence.”
• He asks directly: “Does that mean if it’s just a symbol, does it really matter what happens?”—pushing students beyond casual symbolism.
• Dean warns that modern believers “make so light” of communion (and baptism) that we do it “out of obedience” but “lost the fact of the mystery of what we’re actually doing.”
• He says he is “very glad” we don’t get dragged into strict systems like Marburg, yet also says, “The early church… certainly thought there was something happening.”
• He mentions Pilgrim Marpeck as someone who “would have had a more appreciative of something deep happening in that.”