In Rememberance of Me

 

Of the two sacraments practiced in the Protestant tradition, the one that continues on throughout the believer's life is that of the Eucharist (or the Lord's Supper, Communion). Eucharist simply means thanksgiving from the Greek, which derives from the connection to the Passover meal and the similarity it has with the thanksgiving offering in the Levitical law. It has also been found in early church history in the Didache to be called the Eucharist as well.

Matthew 26:26-28 (NET), While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after giving thanks he broke it, gave it to his disciples, and said, “Take, eat, this is my body.” And after taking the cup and giving thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood, the blood of the covenant, that is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

One of the primary argument surrounding the Lord's Supper as is with baptism is their classification. Some in the Protestant world are uncomfortable with using the language of "sacrament", and rather use the term "ordinances" that the Church is commanded to practice. I am not going to discuss here the additional practices in the Roman Catholic tradition where they have 7 sacraments. The primary distinction between these two terms is the affect of them. An initial note, the word sacrament is derived originally from the Greek word meaning mystery. For those who use the term sacrament, it is common to hear the phrase "means of grace". This is utilized in the Roman, Anglican, Methodist, Orthodox and other traditions. The theology is that through the sacraments, God enables and conveys His grace to the believer through them, be it baptism or the Eucharist. There are obviously disagreements of the specific mechanics of it, or if it's even important to know. For those who utilize the term ordinances, is to say that these are things that we are to do because Christ commanded them and is beneficial to do them because it reminds us of God's work (be it baptism or Eucharist). 

I contend that the term sacrament is the correct one to use for baptism and the Eucharist. I believe that through the Holy Spirit, God enables and conveys His grace to the believer. Initially at baptism, and continually through the Eucharist. John Wesley has a fantastic sermon titled 'Constant Communion' where he develops this idea that the Eucharist is an essential in the regular life of the Christian as a continual remembering and enabling through the grace of God to live a holy life. In this I do believe that Christ is spiritually present as we partake. Now this likely throws up some questions. I believe that the Roman distinction of transubstantiation is a mechanical overstatement in a desire to have philosophical certainty HOW Christ is present in the Eucharist. Rather, I put myself with the rest of the sacramental tradition where while we believe that Christ is present, and enabling the believer, the "mechanics" are as the Eastern Orthodox Church puts it, "is a mystery." 

Because of this I have come to see the importance of regularly taking the Eucharist, even on a weekly basis. If the Lord's Supper is an avenue by which Christ strengthens our walk and transformation to look like Him, than why would we not participate as often as we are able to? In fact, up until some of the radical reformers came onto the scene, the primary element in the Church service was the receiving of the elements. The table was the central place that people came to worship. Yes, to hear the Word, sing and fellowship. But primarily to partake together. It was the high-point of the service, that everything culminated with. What is a more fitting way to finish a service than with a proclamation of the Lord's death! as He commanded.

This practice of regularly meeting is not just found in the tradition of the Church, but also in Church history through the Scriptures. The pattern we see in the Early Church was that their gatherings we focused around yes teaching, but also breaking bread (Acts 20:7). John Wesley comments on this Scripture, “their daily Church communion consisted in these four particulars: Hearing the word; Having all things common; Receiving the Lord’s Supper; Prayer.”

Sadly in many parts of the Church this practice has been relegated to happening less often, and in some cases rarely practiced. Here are several poignant quotes concerning the diminishing place of the Lord's Supper as apart of regular Church practice.  

William Willimon (cited by Scott McKnight) hits the nail on the head:

In my own free church tradition, Zwingli’s practice of quarterly celebrations of Communion have taken hold. That radical reformer from Zurich felt that quarterly celebrations of the Lord’s Supper were sufficient lest the meal become too commonplace, too ritualized. This is an odd point of view. Odd because five hundred years of experience in those churches that adopted the Zwinglian practice shows that churches which commune less frequently value Communion less. Odd because of the biblical and historical testimony of weekly celebrations of the Eucharist. Odd because reformers such as John Calvin and Luther hoped to establish weekly Communion.

Jim Hamilton makes a similar point:

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!

Both of these quotes were sourced by THIS article from HolyJoys.com).

It is at the table where we all come, and partake of the elements. It is at that place that we all are to reflect on the amazing work that Christ has done for us all. It is there that, even with different language and liturgy, or ingredients of the elements we are worshiping with our brothers & sisters across the world and time proclaiming His death until He comes again. It is a moment that is holy. It is a moment that as we eat and drink we physically interact with the words that we speak. I do not believe in transubstantiation (as stated above and per Article 26 of the 39 Articles of Religion). But we are in another way tangibly interacting with our Lord who died and rose again. It is a moment of beauty as we know the Holy Spirit, in us is strengthening and enabling us for His service, and His glory. This holy and beautiful moment should be regarded as more than just an ordinance, as if it were us just reflecting on an important memory, or as if we were participating in mandatory training. Christ instituted it for our benefit. To know that His sacrifice is effectual for the entirety of our lives, not just when we first entered His family.

All of this that I have written and quoted is not to say that the preaching of the Word, or singing songs is nor important, it is! But, there has been as it seems from my perspective a much needed rediscovery of the importance and the power of the Eucharist. It should have predominant importance in Christian worship as participation in it is in it's own way a reciting and declaration of the Gospel message. And I believe that through it, we can encounter Christ to be strengthened and steeled in holiness to image Him in the world around us.