Bryce Crawford Considers Transubstantiation with Orthodox Priest

Within the Christian podcast world, Bryce Crawford is a major name. Out of a Waffle House conversion, he has become a Christian Joe Rogan, amassing over 700K subscribers for his long-form interview content and street evangelism. Theologically, he leans more in the megachurch and Hillsong adjacent sects of Protestant Evangelicalism, but from his recent interview with Coptic Orthodox priest Lazarus Yassa, he has been questioning the substance of the Eucharist. Fr. Lazarus is the priest of Christ The Good Shepherd Coptic Orthodox Church in Long Beach, CA, where he grew a homeless outreach ministry into a church.

Now, others like Protestia have cited this interview as Crawford swimming in the Tiber, which is to suggest that he could be heading to Roman Catholicism. Another criticism suggested that Crawford was flirting with adding works to salvation, which also included a defense of the memorial view of the Eucharist.

The overall interview is good content, and perhaps presents the steel man position of Coptic Orthodoxy from a compassionate and articulate priest, yet ultimately points to a much deeper craving within Crawford that can be easily overlooked amidst the complex theological issues of which are significant debates within Christianity.

The Real Presence

Twenty minutes in, Crawford confesses that he has been wrestling with the Eucharist, beginning with his upbringing being the Memorial view, which is that the elements are merely symbolic.

I don’t think it’s just a symbol, and I think if you read the scriptures and you experience communion, it’s not just a symbol. I think because I had that initial mentality being taught that growing up, it was hard for me when I started actually partaking in communion as believer. It was just, oh, this is something I do. This is a symbol. And I had to repent because I was like, man, I don’t think it’s just a symbol anymore. And I feel like I’ve been unknowingly sinning against God.

Crawford demonstrates introspection towards his prior irreverence towards the sacrament, which would be consistent with either camp in this debate. Yet he goes further to believing that the Memorial view of the Eucharist is itself “unknowingly sinning against God” to the extent that he claims to have repented.

The Coptic view of the Sacrament is similar to that of Transubstantiation, though they might largely reject the label in favor of Real Presence. When the Coptics say that the Eucharist is “essential for salvation,” it is not so much as a works in the earthly sense, but a belief that eating the bread is the heals from corruption of the fall and even is the means by which God raises the dead on the Last Day, citing John 6:58. Lazarus Yassa gives a thorough presentation of the view while avoiding the Aristotelian trappings of Transubstantiation. It should be noted that a major difference between the Eastern and Western approaches to theology is the belief in the West that the Church can enumerate the “how” whereas the East leaves certain subjects as mysteries with unknowable answers. This is evident throughout the interview.

Crawford proceeds to state that he has not been fully convinced of Transubstantiation, but very much believes there to be a real presence, describing an emotional experience he had while observing communion. This is where Crawford describes his repentance of doing communion wrong, which came from his pastor friend’s institution of the Eucharist in a Protestant setting that was influenced by Catholicism. Crawford was repentant because he felt he was doing it wrong. He also has questions as to how often to conduct communion.

There is much to be said about how Evangelicalism waters down communion. From plastic, pre-packaged elements to the modern worship style which inserts modern music, light shows, and sermons designed to entertain rather than convict. Little is said in this conversation to how the modernity of the evangelical church inhibits the proper reverence for the sacraments, which in-turn drives Christians towards more historically rooted traditions. However, it must be asked whether that plays a factor in Crawford’s thinking.

Left undiscussed are the other views on communion, mainly the Reformed perspective of a Real Spiritual Presence. This view rejects the notion that the elements become the physical body and blood of Christ (ceasing to be bread or wine) in which one eats and digests (and later excretes) the body of Christ, while retaining the real spiritual nourishment of the sacrament that is lost in the Memorial view. The feeding on the body and blood of Christ is not corporal or carnal in nature, but spiritual in nature. The Reformed view does not require the nature of the elements to change, but instead adds grace to the nature of the elements.

Solo Scriptura

Throughout the conversation, there are specific remarks on the Doctrine of Solo Scriptura brought up by Lazarus. Forty minutes in, Crawford makes a statement against Solo Scriptura:

I grew up learning about Solo Scriptura, but as I’ve gone along, I’m like, ‘Well I don’t want to just know what the Scripture says.’ I want to see what the guys that walked with the guys that walked Jesus. I want to know what they think about this issue. I want to know what they’re thinking. If it comes to baptism, confession, the Eucharist, whatever it may be. These guys probably know something that I don’t.

The precise view that Crawford is rejecting is more aptly called Solo Scriptura, which can be evident in Biblicism, wherein the historical understandings of doctrine are discarded because one man and his Bible knows better. At best, this encourages a strong believer in delving deep into the Scriptures. At worse, it allows for a re-litigation of settled doctrine or the introduction of new heresies. Much of the Protestant retrieval movement is a return to the historic thought of the Reformers which has largely been absent in the Church. Many evangelicals are taught that Protestantism is a rejection of Tradition when the Reformers themselves appealed to Tradition, arguing that Catholics deviated from the tradition with new doctrines.

Unsurprisingly, Lazarus Yassa uses this sentiment makes these arguments in favor of a more “apostolic church.” However, he does somewhat give away the weakness to the claim of which church is “apostolic.” The Catholics claim such primacy as the Seat of Peter being in Rome, that all the other traditions are schismatic from them. For many centuries, if one was not in communion with Rome, they were considered unsaved. The Eastern Orthodox do the same, citing Antioch as the Seat of Peter, though more regionally divided with primacy of the Patriarch of Constantinople. The Coptic or Oriental Orthodox split off in the fifth century as a result of the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) in which they objected to the formulation of the hypostatic union of Christ, emphasizing the “one incarnate nature of the Word.” They, too, claim the apostolic succession despite this early medieval split. The question of which is the “one true Church” is a claim Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox all ascribe to themselves, and while the tension between these camps has considerably mellowed in recent decades, they each would cast the others as schismatics from their apostolic succession to varying degrees.

Analysis

Bryce Crawford seems to be seeking a more historically rooted faith, which is a major sign of his desire for spiritual maturity. His thoughts on the Memorial view of the Eucharist and Solo Scriptura are very much rooted in emotion, not so much Scripture. This is not to invalidate the emotions he feels, but rather that he feels these views are insufficient because of something very real. Crawford is part of a house church rather than a traditional denomination. It is unlikely that he is practicing a more liturgical worship style which might promote greater reverence for the sacraments or pray confessions of sins during the service. Perhaps this informal structure plays a role in his thoughts. Crawford would do well to explore the Reformed view of the Sacrament, which he appeared ignorant of during the interview.

Nevertheless, there is something to be said about the ahistorical practices of evangelicalism driving people towards more traditional sects of Christianity. The irreverence of a worship style designed for mass appeal naturally leads to an irreverent view of the sacraments. Within more charismatic sects, there is more ahistorical practices rooted in emotion rather than theological and intellectual rigor. Protestant churches should conduct themselves as if they were continuing a 2000 year faith tradition, not the latest fads that put butts in seats.

This is primarily what is driving Bryce Crawford and many others to seek more historically rooted Christian sects for answers to their questions.