“For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry” (1 Sam 15:23)

It bothers me that in most evangelical churches there is a casual attitude towards how we regard the Lord’s Supper.  For example, in many churches, the leaders are allowing parents of very young children to let them take the bread and wine.  This is especially so where the elements are taken around to every person in the building and offered to them; at which time, young children with no discernment are allowed to take the elements; and it is obvious, in observing them (as I have), that they think it is a game.

Another nagging irritation for me is that, in most evangelical churches today, grape juice is substituted for the wine.  The justifications given for this are that grape juice and wine are simply different forms of “the fruit of the vine”; that the use of wine could be a problem to those who suffer from alcoholism; and some congregational members don’t drink alcohol so prefer not to drink it even at the Lord’s Supper.   This troubles me because every account in the NT concerning the Lord’s Supper says or implies that wine is used, the “cup” being one of the four cups of alcoholic wine in the Passover.  What gives anyone the right to change something that Jesus established for perpetual use in the Church?  He mandated wine as the drink in this sacrament, not unfermented grape juice.  But some are even willing to use tea and biscuits or some other common elements instead of bread or wine, particularly on the mission field, because it is supposedly more familiar or more understandable to the culture.

As I considered the way the various denominations believe and practice it, it was an eye-opener for me when I compared them all; I was aware that there are different practices and views but when I saw them all together, I realised how chaotic the situation has become.

A Cacophony of Voices

Just to illustrate how thoroughly confusing the issue is I’ve listed the various views below.

• Catholic Church: The Eucharist (Thanksgiving) is a sacrament and conveys grace to all who receive it worthily.  It makes present Christ’s sacrifice on the cross in an unbloody manner, thus it is known as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.  Through it, forgiveness of sin is obtained.  On consecration, the bread and the wine change completely into the actual body and blood, soul and divinity, of Christ, whilst maintaining the appearance and characteristics of bread and wine.  This change is known as Transubstantiation, and Christ’s presence in the elements is called the Real Presence.
• Eastern Orthodoxy:  also accepts and teaches the doctrines of the Real Presence and the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist.  However, unlike Catholicism it makes no attempt to explain how this occurs, preferring to regard it as a divine mystery.
• Lutheranism:  there is a sacramental union of the bread and the wine with the body and blood of Christ.  In other words, Christ’s body and blood are “in, with, and under” the forms of bread and wine (consubstantiation).  Luther explained his view using the analogy of an iron rod placed in the fire: both are united in the red-hot iron yet both are also distinct. 
• Calvinism (Reformed and Presbyterian):  Christ is not present literally in the sacrament but he is spiritually present.  Those who receive the elements with faith receive the actual body and blood of Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit which works through the sacrament (Receptionism).  That is, whenever the pious see the symbols of bread and wine, they are to “think and feel surely persuaded that the truth of the thing signified is also present….let us feel as much assured that the visible sign is given us in seal of an invisible gift as that his body itself is given us” (Institutes).
• Anglican:  generally and officially believe in the Spiritual Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.  Article 28 denies Transubstantiation but insists “the body of Christ is given, taken and eaten in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner.  And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith”.  But the Anglo-Catholic (High Church) part of the Church has the same belief and practice as the Catholic Church.
• Baptist: derive their view from Zwingli who denied any form of physical or spiritual presence of Christ in the bread and wine.  The Lord’s Supper is rather a remembrance of Christ’s suffering and a reminder of his power to overcome sin and death (Memorialism).
• Methodist: Christ is truly present in the Holy Communion.  He is present through the community gathered in his name, through the Word proclaimed and enacted, and through the elements of bread and wine shared.  The divine presence is a living reality and can be experienced by participants.  Holy Communion is not a remembrance of the Last Supper and the Crucifixion only; it is a re-presentation of Jesus Christ.
• Salvation Army: don’t observe the Eucharist at all.  It “believes that it is possible to live a holy life and receive the grace of God without the use of physical sacraments and that they should not be regarded as an essential part of becoming a Christian”.

Is it possible to add any other view to this doctrine?  Could anything be greater cause for confusion than this?  How can Jesus’ words be torn in so many different directions?  And how can I know which view is the right one? 

Protestantism

Although there had been minimal dissenting voices here and there for the first 1500 years, it wasn’t until the Reformation that the meaning, and therefore the practice, of the Lord’s Supper, was challenged and changed.  Until then, the Church universally taught and believed that the Lord’s Supper/Eucharist/Holy Communion was a sacrifice of Christ and that his true flesh and true blood were taken and ingested by the communicants; the Catholic Church’s mass later restricted the communicants to bread only because, they say, the body and blood of Jesus is contained in both.    

The three leading Reformers (Calvin, Luther and Zwingli) each had different ideas about the Eucharist; they each claimed authority for their views from scripture and condemned the others for their “wrong” views.  And the dispute between Luther and Zwingli was so heated that Luther hurled anathemas at Zwingli – a typical response from Luther, sadly.  The result is the confusion of voices listed above.  And their legacy to their churches today is division and confusion. 

One would think that the Reformers would have got it right – after all, they exposed the errors of the Catholic Church and ushered in the Reformation.  But they’ve left us with a dilemma because we each follow the teaching of the founder of our denomination; and if each of the Reformers claims to have derived their teaching from the Bible, what does this say about sola scriptura?

What Does the Bible Say?

The passages in scripture which describe this sacrament, record Jesus as saying “this is my body….this is my blood” (Matt 26:26-28; Mk 14:23-24) and “This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you” (Lk 22:20; 1 Cor 11:24-25). 

John (6:30-69) doesn’t deal with the institution of the Lord’s Supper but he does record Jesus’ preaching of the gospel, in effect, saying that he is the living bread which comes down from heaven and that all who would have eternal life must believe in him.  The bread that he gives us to eat, he told the Jews, is his flesh, and the drink he gives is his blood (Jn 6:55).  The astonished Jews ask “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” (Jn 6:52).  At this point Jesus could have cleared the matter up for them and for all future readers of this passage simply by saying “The bread symbolises my body and the drink symbolises my blood”.  But he didn’t.  He reiterated and strengthened what he said by replying “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.  Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.  For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.  He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him” (Jn 6:53-56). 

So until the Reformation the early Christians universally interpreted this as meaning that the bread really does become the actual flesh of Jesus and the wine his actual blood; that these words give no indication that they’re meant to be taken as symbols.  In fact, when Jesus said to the Jews that his flesh is true food and his blood is true drink, “Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?…..From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him” (Jn 6:60, 66); however, Protestants, I dare say, regard it as being symbolic.

But why would these disciples have walked away and followed him no more if they knew he was speaking symbolically?  Why would Jesus let them walk away when he could have cleared the confusion up there and then?  And, if eating his flesh and drinking his blood is a matter of eternal life or death, why are there so many different interpretations of his words?  

In his instructions to the church at Corinth, and thus to all churches for all time, Paul wrote: “For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves….So then, my brothers and sisters, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. If you are hungry, eat at home, so that when you come together, it will not be for your condemnation” (1 Cor 11:29, 34). 

The problem resolved

The best explanation for this dilemma is the Calvinist one (as quoted above) which takes into account all aspects of the bible verses and simply defines it as: “Christ is not present literally in the sacrament but he is spiritually present.  Those who receive the elements with faith receive the actual body and blood of Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit which works through the sacrament.  That is, whenever the pious see the symbols of bread and wine, they are to ‘think and feel surely persuaded that the truth of the thing signified is also present….let us feel as much assured that the visible sign is given us in seal of an invisible gift as that his body itself is given us’”.

Disobedience in the churches

Would that pastors refuse to distribute anything but bread and alcoholic wine in the Lord’s Supper; would that they refuse to allow parents to give their children the bread and wine to play with as it is distributed to the congregation.  In typical hypocritical evangelical fashion, the Presbyterian Church I attended for too long only has the Lord’s Supper once a year in order, presumably, to protect the sanctity of the sacrament by reducing the risk of it being taken by unworthy participants; and yet the children are allowed to take it and play with it.  How is this protecting its sanctity?  How is allowing undiscerning children who think it is a game to partake of the sacrament ensuring that they examine themselves before partaking (11:28); or protecting the children or the foolish parents who allow and even encourage them:  “For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body”? 

And let’s not forget that the leaders of the church who refuse to ensure that the parents withhold the bread and the wine from their children are also responsible for what happens during the worship service.  It’s not acceptable that when I asked my pastor about this he evaded responsibility by saying the children of church members are covenant children and therefore allowed to partake of the sacrament at any age; and that it’s up to the parents to teach their own children.  This is just a weak evasion of his responsibility and a shameful cop-out.

Every principle of instruction given to us in scripture concerning the elements of the Lord’s Supper is trashed in most of our modern evangelical churches, as its leaders decide to adjust and “improve” or be lenient and accommodating on the commandments which Jesus gave for a remembrance by the Church for all time.  Of all Christians, evangelicals trumpet their “bible alone” views the loudest, and yet they feel free to change it when it doesn’t suit them.

Scripture references taken from the Authorised King James Version of the Bible.