Reclaiming the Supper: A Reappraisal of the Memorialist View
Eating is an important aspect within the life of the Christian Church. In the Book of Acts, it is recorded that Christians devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching, to the fellowship of believers, to prayer, and to the breaking of bread (2:42). Church history also records Christians participating in Agape (love) feasts, which served as communal or fellowship meals that accompanied the partaking of the Lord’s Supper. Even today, churches throughout the world gather around a meal as a means of edification and fellowship within the body.
Despite the centrality of food in the Church’s life, the Lord’s Supper is one meal evangelicals have greatly devalued in recent memory. Its significance is usually not mentioned as an important aspect of spiritual growth. Some argue that this results from a memorialist view of the meal, identified particularly among Baptists. However, the actual problem is how the discussion is framed. Namely, evangelicals fail to give the Supper its due significance, not because they subscribe to a memorialist view, but because they have developed their theology from a negative stance by stating what the Supper is not.
Failure to develop a positive theology has resulted in a lack of clarity that has spawned much criticism and has caused problems to arise in two areas: (a) Opponents of the memorialist view [1] often hold misconceptions of what the view actually affirms; and (b) Proponents of the memorialist view fail to understand what the Lord’s Supper accomplishes in the life of believers, causing this view to lose its substantive meaning. By reexamining these issues, we will clarify these false notions and provide a suitable foundation for the memorial view as a viable teaching on the Lord’s Supper.
Misconceptions of the Memorialist View
Though the frequency varies with which Baptists practice the Lord’s Supper, it is not uncommon to find that many churches practice it as little as quarterly, or even annually. Viewing this as problematic, some Baptists have even forsaken the memorialist view, adopting instead a sacramental position [2] in hopes that it will provide a more robust doctrine of the meal [3].
Advocates of the sacramental view argue that Baptists fail to maintain a steady diet of the Supper because they believe it is merely symbolic and devoid of any substantive meaning, except for what one calls to mind. Accordingly, these advocates argue that the memorialist view is necessarily man-centered, instead of being a gracious Word from God. It becomes more about our capacity to remember and not God’s action for us. However, while the argument carries much weight and, at times, paints broad strokes, it is ultimately incorrect. Rather, Baptists’ lack of regular observance does not result from their memorialist stance on the meal, but is derived from a fear of ritual.
Baptist thought usually proceeds along these lines: The Lord’s Supper is commonly seen as a time of great importance in worship. After an emphasis on confession and sin, the meal is observed with the utmost reverence. Consequently, some worry that this degree of significance could be lost if the Supper were observed more consistently. Eventually, it would become just another mundane ritual that loses its significance because of its regular practice.
Although these intentions are praiseworthy, it is inconsistent when considered against other aspects of worship that are given high prominence. Each week, worship services are filled with other elements that do not decrease in frequency or importance to the church. For example, what if churches were to treat the preaching of Holy Scripture or the singing of hymns with the same frequency of the Lord’s Table? Despite the regular employment of these elements, they have never been viewed as less significant because of their constant use. James Hamilton expresses similar sentiments. He states:
It is not clear to me why churches that seek to model themselves by the pattern of church life and structure seen in the NT would not also partake of the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week. If it is objected that this would diminish its significance, my reply is simply that those who make this argument typically do not claim that weekly observance diminishes the significance of the preaching of the Word, the prayers of God’s people, the singing of Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, and I doubt they would be disappointed to have weekly baptisms! The same practices and attitudes that keep preaching, praying, singing, and baptizing from having their significance diminished could surely be applied to the weekly celebration of the Lord’s Supper [4].
This raises an important question for Christians: What reasons do we have to treat the Lord’s Supper any differently from the other elements of worship listed above? Scripture gives no reason to think otherwise [5].
A New Meal for a New Age
Though misconceived notions taint the Zwinglian/Baptist tradition, an ignorance concerning the meal’s function does far worse damage. Do we know what this meal is and why we participate in it? What purpose does the meal serve in the New Covenant era or in redemptive history? The meal introduces a new eschatological age in redemptive history, and along with this new age, an occasion for believers to participate in it.
First, the Lord’s Supper is the confirmation of the New Covenant and the inauguration of Christ’s eschatological kingdom. After rescuing the nation of Israel from Egypt, Moses established God’s covenant with Israel through the sacrifice of oxen. After pouring half of the oxen’s blood on the altar, he took the other half, threw it on the people, and said, “Behold the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words” (Ex. 24:8). Then Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and the seventy elders went up toward Mt. Sinai, saw Yahweh (Ex. 24:10) and ate and drank in His presence (Ex. 24:11). This was the establishment of God’s covenant with His people at Sinai.
Similarly, Christ established the New Covenant on the eve of His crucifixion. After distributing the cup, He said, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood” (Lk. 22:21). The apostle Paul confirmed Jesus’ statement in 1 Corinthians 11:25. Furthermore, Matthew 26:28 states that the blood of the covenant was poured out for the forgiveness of sins. As Jesus spoke these words, the disciples understood this as the establishment of a covenant parallel to that of Exodus 24. The disciples knew that they were entering into a new age.
Second, with the establishment of the New Covenant also follows our participation in this eschatological kingdom. Jesus told His disciples that He would not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the day when He would drink it with them in His Father’s kingdom (Mt. 26:29). He acknowledges a Day when His children will experience this messianic banquet. Thus, the Lord’s Supper is not a bare memorial, as critics often accuse [6]. In Christ, it is sign of a reality currently present only to those with the eyes of faith, but not yet fully revealed in all its glory—it is an inaugurated eschatology.
However, the question still remains as to what the Lord’s Supper accomplishes for those who partake in the meal. Is there a “real presence” of Christ when partaking the meal? Are Christians caught up by the Spirit into heaven being spiritually present before the throne of Christ?
As we partake in this messianic banquet, we commune with the presence of Christ. This does not mean that when we partake in the Supper that there is a “real presence” of Christ in the meal or that we are transported to a spiritual reality. Rather, it means that Christ is present to us always. As Russell Moore states, “Through the Lord’s Supper then, the church feasts, specifically because we recognize the presence of Christ”[7]. Because Christ is always present by the Spirit, we celebrate that presence when we feast at the Lord’s Table, communing with Christ and one another. “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Cor. 10:17). This is why the Lord’s Supper is known as communion.
By observing this meal, the spoken Word is proclaimed to the entire world. The Apostle Paul teaches that the Lord’s Supper is gospel proclamation (1 Cor. 11:26). “The question then is not whether the Lord’s Supper is a means of grace, but how it functions as a means of grace,” writes Moore [8]. When we feast on this meal, the spoken Word is made manifest through what it proclaims. The Holy Spirit makes this proclamation real as He speaks Christ to us, creating and sustaining faith [9]. Therefore, as we eat the bread and drink from the fruit of the vine in faith, we feast upon the Gospel. We feast upon the flesh and blood of Christ (Jn. 6:52-59). Christ is present to us by the Spirit through faith. This is God’s gracious act to us, this messianic banquet.
Conclusion
The Scriptures clearly teach that fellowship at the Lord’s Table is vital for sanctification. This is why regular observance of the Lord’s Supper is pertinent for Christians. The Supper works by the Spirit to strengthen our faith and to focus our attention on Christ. This is not just a mere memorial or some bare symbol, and Baptists have never understood it to be so. It is a gracious act from God. Through it, we continue to feed upon the Gospel in order to grow through Word and Spirit. “For man does not live by bread alone, but every word that comes from the mouth of God” (Mt. 4:4).
_______________________________________
[1] For purposes of this essay it should be understood that the memorialist view is synonymous with the Baptist/Zwinglian tradition. Therefore, the terms will be used interchangeably.
[2] There are three views within sacramental theology on the Lord’s Supper:
(a) Transubstantiation: This largely Catholic doctrine claims that the bread and wine mysteriously become the actual body and blood of Christ.
(b) Real Presence: Established by Martin Luther (1483-1546), this view claims that Christ is really present in the meal. The substance of the elements is mystically united to the substance of Christ’s body and blood, thus creating a sacramental union. Christ, then, comes down to us in the meal.
(c) Reformed View: While this view closely resembles Luther’s view, it differs primarily in the way in which Christ is given. While the elements of the meal obtain no substantive change, this view states that Christians are brought up by the Spirit into the presence of Christ who is seated at the right hand of God. Thus, the spatial divide between Christ and man is broken by the Spirit and both are united. Christians still truly feed on the body and blood of Christ and are thus in the presence of Christ. John Calvin (1509-1564), the founder of this view, states:
Greatly mistaken are those who conceive no presence of flesh in the Supper unless it lies in the bread. For thus they leave nothing to the secret working of the Spirit, which unites Christ himself to us. To them Christ does not seem present unless he comes down to us. As though, if he should lift us to himself, we should not just as much enjoy his presence! (Institutes on Christian Religion, 4.17.32).
[3] Gregory Thornbury, “The Lord’s Supper and Works of Love,” in The Lord’s Supper: Remembering and Proclaiming Christ Until He Comes. Thomas R. Schreiner & Matthew R. Crawford, eds. (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010), 359.
[4] Jim Hamilton, “The Lord’s Supper in Paul,” The Lord’s Supper: Remembering and Proclaiming Christ Until He Comes. Thomas R. Schreiner & Matthew R. Crawford, eds. (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010), 101.
[5] Because Free Will Baptists participate in the washing of the saint’s feet, the frequency by which this ordinance is observed must be reconsidered as well, since the Lord’s Supper is accompanied by the washing of the saint’s feet. While the Lord’s Supper illustrates justification, the washing of the saint’s feet illustrates sanctification, the Incarnation (Phil. 2:5-12), and provides a full revelation of the gospel account for New Covenant Christians. For further discussion on this issue, see J. Matthew Pinson, The Washing of the Saints Feet (Nashville: Randall House Publications, 2006).
[6] Ulrich Zwingli’s (1434-1531) view concerning the spiritual significance of feeding on the body and blood of Christ is often overlooked by many of his opponents. Zwingli, father of the memorialist view, described the body and blood of Christ as a spiritual feeding:
So then, when you come to the Lord’s Supper to feed spiritually upon Christ, and when you thank the Lord for his great favour, for the redemption whereby you are delivered from despair, and for the pledge whereby you are assured of eternal salvation, when you join with your brethren in partaking of the bread and wine which are the tolkens of the body of Christ, then in the true sense of the word you eat him sacramentally. You do inwardly that which you represent outwardly, your soul being strengthened by the faith which you attest in the tokens.
Ulrich Zwingli, An Exposition of the Faith, in Zwingli and Bullinger, LCC 24, G. W. Bromiley, ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1953), 259; See also G. W. Bromiley, ed., “Introduction,” in Zwingli and Bullinger, LCC 24 (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1953), 183; and Bruce Ware, “The Meaning of the Lord’s supper in the Theology of Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531),” in The Lord’s Supper: Remembering and Proclaiming Christ Until He Comes, Thomas R. Schreiner & Matthew R. Crawford, eds., (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010), 240-243.
[7] Russell Moore, “Christ Presence as Memorial,” in Four Views on the Lord’s Supper. Ed. John H. Armstrong (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 39.
[8] Moore, 36.
[9] The role of the Spirit in Gospel proclamation must not be diminished when discussing the Lord’s Supper. John 16 demonstrates the relationship between the Son and the Spirit. The purpose of Jesus’ crucifixion prepared the way for the comforting of the Spirit. The Spirit empowers God’s people to extend His kingdom and provides assurance by dwelling within them, serving as a guarantee to God’s promise. However, the Spirit’s work is to glorify Christ. In John 16:14-15, Jesus says, “He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declares it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.” Christ’s work prepared the way for the Spirit while the Spirit proclaims the Word of Christ. These roles are most clearly demonstrated at the Lord’s Table. The Spirit reveals Christ’s redemptive work to those partaking in His meal while Christ’s work makes way for the sanctifying grace of the Spirit.
February 27, 2012
While the author opposes the *memorialist view* to sacramentalism, it seems to me that he argues for the sacramental principle that “the sacrament effects that which it signifies.”
Perhaps the issue is not really that of a memorialist vs. a sacramentalist view of the Lord’s Supper, both of which can claim biblical support depending on one’s interpretation of the texts; but on “how” Christ is transformationally present in the Eucharistic Celebration.
I had no problem with communing as a Catholic for 25 years after 6 years of communing as a Lutheran since neither consubstantion nor transubstantiation expressed my Eucharistic experience. For me receiving communion in both Churches felt like being hugged by God. In fact it is the primary reason why I am still “religious” AND “spiritual”, attending a local Episcopalian Church as “an active non-member” instead of becoming “spiritual, not religious” like so many of my deeply committed unchurched Christian friends.
Many cradle Christians fail to realize that there is an intuitive faith that precedes a formal theological faith. In fact, an excessively rationalistic or legalistic theological/spiritual formation can corrupt an intuitive trust in God’s loving mercy leading to either despair or self-righteousness depending on whether one consciously experiences the disordered desires of one’s own dark side or projects it onto others.
It does not take too deep a reflection on the NT Scriptures to discern that, although Jesus was gentle in his demand for a life style change in sinners, his displeasure with the judgmental Pharisees was usually more harshly expressed and while the disciples/Apostles and followers of Jesus through their teaching in the early church lacked orthodox Trinitarian and Christological beliefs, it was the demons who consistently recognized Jesus as the Son of God. Obviously, although faith must seek understanding to become spiritually mature, having correct theology is not the defining measure of a sincere faith committment.
Abandonment of one’s disordered self-love and its hatred for the otherness of others out of a passionate desire to imitate and please our Divine Lover is a far more reliable sign of a true believer.
Most of my friends who have left the institutional church have done so for three reasons as a reaction to these common practices in the ecclesiastical sub-culture that evoke sins against charity:
1. Dogmatic absolutism
2. Self-righteous judgmentalism
3. Sectarian triumphalism
St. Paul tells us that we have been given a ministry of reconciliation, not a ministry of condemnation. Unfortunately, ministries of condemnation are much more pleasing to the human ego than ministries of condemnation.
Scripture names the Holy Spirit as Comforter and Advocate, the One who will lead us into all Truth. Scripture also names an Accuser. It does not take a genius to realize whose purposes our ego-pleasing “ministries of condemnation” really serve.
February 29, 2012
Carol,
I appreciate your response to my article. Your comment covers a large scope of issues, so I will respond to the points that I think are most pertinent to my discussion about the Lord’s Table.
First, let me make it clear that I do advocate the memorialist view and not what has been traditionally known as sacramental theology. My purpose in this article was to clarify some misunderstandings for both advocates and opponents of the memorialist view. However, I think the term “memorial” does not necessarily do justice to the Zwinglian/Baptist tradition and can even be misleading. As I argue in my article, I do think the Lord’s Supper is a “means of grace,” and not just a bare symbol. Rather, the issue is how the meal is a “means of grace,” which you clearly acknowledge in your comment as well.
What I have tried to do in my article is to evaluate what the meal accomplishes for the believer, and how it conveys Christ’s presence to us. As I have already mentioned, the Lord’s Supper recognizes a reality that is now at hand, namely, that Christ is present to us now and always. The Lord’s Supper brings this to the forefront. This does not mean that the elements are somehow substantively changed in essence (as in the Roman Catholic view), or that the elements somehow become united to the “real presence” of Christ, thus bringing us Christ Himself. Furthermore, we are not caught up in the heavens and thus “spiritually present” (or “really present”, as it were) before the throne of Christ by the Holy Spirit.
Rather, the grace comes through what the Lord’s Supper proclaims: that is, that Christ’s kingdom is inaugurated and that He by the Spirit dwells in the midst of His people who are the Church and His temple. Hence, we commune with the Lord now and always. This is the sign that is signified to the believer. While this reality is always present with the Church, it becomes most vivid and clear in the meal, and is how the Spirit uses the Supper to provide assurance and strengthen our faith. The Supper does not somehow bring us to Christ, as if he where not already present, but instead acknowledges a reality that is currently taking place. It is in this sense that I think the Lord’s Supper is a “means of grace.”
I do not think that my views stated here somehow go beyond what so-called “memorialist” would themselves teach. Unfortunately, many memorialists have only defined their view of what the Supper “is not,” in opposition to the sacramental views, as opposed to also stating what “it is.”
Again, thanks for your readership and feedback. Your comments were thought provoking.
Jeremy Craft
February 29, 2012
It sounds to me as though you would appreciate Mother Teresa’s reflection on the Eucharist:
When you look at the crucifix, you understand how much Jesus loved you then. When you look at the Sacred Host, you understand how much Jesus loves you now.
–Mother Teresa of Calcutta
You are certainly correct to emphasize the sanctifying Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The Western Church’s emphasis of justification over sanctification has contributed to a scandalous breach between orthodoxy and orthopraxis. One of the frequent criticisms of those seen as “religious, not spiritual” by the “spiritual, not religious” is “hypocrisy.” I has little affect to point out that none of us lives up to his/her own ideals; so I think it is actually the self-righteous judgmentalism rather than human imperfection that constitutes “hypocrisy” in the eyes of the unchurched. Nothing disabuses us of our own worthiness as much as being present to the Divine Presence and that is why I believe Presence is intrinsic to all “means of grace”, whether they are Word or Sacrament.
The sanctifying Presence of the Holy Spirit in the Eucharist is virtually ignored in the Western Church. Perhaps that is another affect of the Western emphasis on “justification” over “sanctification.”
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05502a.htm
Epiklesis
Epiklesis (Latin invocatio) is the name of a prayer that occurs in all Eastern liturgies (and originally in Western liturgies also) after the words of Institution, in which the celebrant prays that God may send down His Holy Spirit to change this bread and wine into the Body and Blood of His Son. This form has given rise to one of the chief controversies between the Eastern and Western Churches, inasmuch as all Eastern schismatics now believe that the Epiklesis, and not the words of Institution, is the essential form (or at least the essential complement) of the sacrament. (See website for rest of article)
When the following poem is centered, it forms the shape of a chalice:
poems by kraal
miracle wine
we believe that the candle flames
of our spiritual awareness are
feeding upon the chaff of our
personas and growing into
bonfires illuminating
our vision, even
as our
psyches
burn
away
and are
transformed
into the consciousness of god.
behold the wine of resurrection!
BTW, since the Orthodox Churches of the East remain in communion with each other, while the Western Church has experienced many schisms since the Great Schism in 1054, I believe that it is Rome, not the Eastern Churches that is the schismatic Church, which does not mean that I deny that God is still present in Catholic and Protestant Churches–only that some of the richness and depth of Revelation has been lost and needs to be recovered.