This is not the book review of the Teigen book. Call it a pre-review.
Various ignorant pastors and leaders in the LCMS, WELS, and ELS argued that the elements of Holy Communion were not the Body and Blood of Christ until they were received by the individual. Those people are called Receptionists, because they believe in the efficacy of the hands (or mouth). Scholars are divided about which is more efficacious.
The only possible Biblical position emphasizes the efficacy of the Word. Therefore, the Words of Institution accomplish what the Word of God promises. The Scriptures and the Book of Concord agree. Here is a key verse, adroitly mangled by the NIV, but preserved by the Luther-centric KJV:
KJV 1 Corinthians 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
One verse reveals what consecration means. The consecrated wine is still wine (contrary to Rome) but is also the Blood of Christ (contrary to the Reformed). The bread is still bread (contrary to Rome) but is also the Body of Christ (contrary to the Reformed). The power of the Consecration is the Word of God (not the priest, as Rome claims). Holy Communion is a Memorial Meal, as the Reformed claim, but the Lord's Supper is not limited to that. Holy Communion is symbolic of the Last Supper and the Atonement, but it is also a sacrament: God forgives our sins through this visible Word.
This issue is the tip of the ice berg because the old Synodical Conference was weak on the efficacy of the Word. That is why the same bunch got mixed up and stayed mixed up about justification by faith. That is also why they fell for the Church Growth Movement. No, they did not just fall for it. They institutionalized the doctrine of Fuller Seminary and Willow Creek. Bohlmann, Barry, and McCain fiddled while Missouri burned for the fleshpots of Pasadena and Barrington.
Rejecting the efficacy of the Word is the reason behind the Missouri-WELS-ELS embrace of ELCA. They are united in a common ecumenism, a common rejection of the Means of Grace, a common lust for money and approval.
The conservative Lutherans would have to face the weakness of their doctrinal foundations to address the future.
