A couple of years ago popular evangelical preacher Francis Chan made some surprising comments about the role of communion in worship. He said that before the Protestant Reformation, there was complete unity among Christians concerning the literal presence of Christ in the bread and the cup. Furthermore, he argued that it wasn’t until Reformation Protestants begin preaching expositional sermons that we elevated the preached Word over the communion table. He argued the elevating of Scripture was the reason Christendom fractured into the endless denominations we have today. (Historically, he’s wrong. But that’s a different post.)
So, I find it amazing that Catholic theology has crept into evangelical churches. Given the current misconceptions about communion, I thought it right to lay out the differences between the various communion traditions in this article. I hope it’s helpful.
What Do Catholic’s Believe About Communion?
In the Catholic view, the Eucharist is not merely a symbolic representation of Christ’s body and blood, but rather the true presence of Jesus. This teaching is rooted in the Last Supper, when Jesus took bread and wine, blessed it, and said, “This is my body…this is my blood.” The Roman Catholic understanding is that Christ intended these words to be taken literally. By extension, Roman Catholics believe that during the consecration of the elements at Mass, the bread and wine are transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ, in essence but not in form. This transformation is known as transubstantiation.
Because the bread and cup are understood to be the actual body and blood of Christ in essence, the Eucharist holds great significance for Catholics. Communion becomes a visible manifestation of God’s invisible grace. Through the reception of the bread and cup, Catholics receive the very presence of Christ into their own bodies. Participation in the Eucharist nourishes and strengthens the faithful in a real way, bringing them closer to God and deepening their union with Christ. Apart from the Eucharist, the Catholic Church teaches there is no redemption, no grace, and no salvation.
Catholic Communion is a Sacrifice
Though this teaching admittedly developed early in the Roman Catholic Church, it does not have scriptural support. Furthermore, the notion that the Church serves as a dispenser of grace has often been used as a means of control. Medieval history demonstrates many instances when forgiveness of sin was ostensibly sold to support the building projects of Rome (Saint Peter’s Basilica under Pope Leo X, for example.) It was against this very practice that Martin Luther protested, at the beginning of the Protestant Reformation.
Because the Catholic Eucharist was understood to be a real sacrifice every time it was offered, the Eucharist, rather than God’s Word, became the center of Catholic worship. For Catholics, Christ is sacrificed anew in every mass, and his grace is made available to the faithful through the intermediary of the Catholic Church. Francis Chan is right about one thing, the Word is not the center of Roman Catholic worship.
What Do Lutheran’s Believe About Communion?
Martin Luther recognized that much of what Rome believed and practiced concerning communion ran a foul of orthodoxy. He rejected outright the idea that the eucharist was anything akin to a real sacrifice. For one thing, it was bad theology without any basis in the Bible. Secondly, the idea of a priest offering the real body and blood of Christ made the church ripe for abuses. Luther writes “this abuse has brought an endless host of other abuses in its train, so that the faith of this sacrament has become utterly extinct and the holy sacrament has been turned into mere merchandise, a market, and a profit-making business.*1“ In other words, if the Church has the ability to offer Christ’s body and blood, they have the ability to withhold it. The power over the communion table was a real power over not only the common man, but over princes and rulers as well, a power that could too easily be used for political purposes.
Communion is Spiritual Presence
Over time Luther came to reject the literal presence of Christ’ body and blood, known as transubstantiation in favor of a spiritual view. He argued that when Christ said “this is my body,” Christ meant it in a spiritual sense. Luther took this to mean that Christ’s body was spiritually “in, with, and under” the substance of the bread and wine. The Lutheran Confessional Formula of Concord states “We maintain and believe, according to the simple words of the testament of Christ, the true, yet supernatural eating of the body of Christ, as also the drinking of His blood.”† For Luther, when believers partake of the elements, they ingest the Spirit along with the substance of bread and wine. With Luther the the Catholic view of transubstantiation (Change-substance) became Consubstantiation (Con=with substance), the ingesting of Christ’s Spirit.
John Calvin’s View
John Calvin, on the other hand attempted to chart a middle path between the Roman Catholic view of “real presence” and Luther’s view of real spiritual presence. He agreed that communion was an outward sign of the Gospel. But he disagreed that communion was primarily a memorial of what Christ had done (a view will discuss in a moment.) Calvin claimed that souls are spiritually fed by the bread and wine. In a similar way to how souls are infused with real grace in Catholic communion, Calvin argued that souls receive real spiritual nourishment via the bread and wine.
Secondly, he argued that Christ is somewhat more present with his people, or at least present in a different way, during communion, than he is at other times. He wrote, “We must establish such a presence of Christ in the Supper as may neither fasten him to the element of bread [Catholic], nor enclose him in bread, nor circumscribe him in any way [Lutheran].” This, “both, and, neither,” is how Calvin understood Christ to be present in the act of communion.
Oddly, Calvin’s view never caught on with the group we now call Calvinists. Shortly after his lifetime his followers adopted the perspective of Huldrych Zwingli, which we discussed next..
Majority Protestant View
The view that was eventually adopted by, and still held by Baptists and the Reformed traditions, was developed by Swiss theologian Huldrych Zwingli about the same time as Martin Luther. Zwingli argued that since Christ is seated at the right hand of God, his body can’t possibly be present in the bread on earth during communion. Second, he argued that the Catholic understanding of the word “sacrament” was just plain wrong. Rather than a vehicle for God’s grace, Zwingli countered that communion is not actually a holy thing, but the symbol of a holy thing. To support this idea, Zwingli argued that a better rendering of Matthew 26 is not “this is my body,” but “this symbolizes my body.” In this light, Zwingli understood communion to be a powerful symbol of a spiritual reality.
In the seventeenth century English Baptists adopted Zwingli’s symbolic view and added another idea. English pastor John Smyth taught that the taking of the elements is also a symbol of unity among the brothers and sisters in the local church. This communal aspect became a key Baptist distinctive. Smyth, wrote in his catechism, “The Lord’s Supper is the external sign of the communion of Christ and of the faithful among themselves by faith and love.” With the Baptists, communion took on a horizontal as well as vertical dimension.
English Baptists were so concerned that communion would become the focus of worship, like in the Catholic Church, that they changed their communion schedule to avoid any appearance of Catholicity. Baptist theologian Gregg Allison writes “Although originally observing the Lord’s supper weekly, Baptists soon switched to monthly administration out of concern that frequent celebrations would result in a sacramental ritualism similar to that of the Catholic Mass, and for fear that frequent observation of the Lord’s Supper would detract from the central element of preaching the Word of God.” Whether early Baptists were right or wrong to take communion less often is beside the point. Protestants have historically agreed on the centrality of scripture in Christian worship, even over communion.
Conclusion
Is Francis Chan and the Roman Catholic Church correct that communion is the center of worship? No. In the New Testament we recognize that Christian worship centers around God’s Word, not the act of communion, important though it is. It is through his Word that he reveals himself. And it is through his Word that we come to know Him. Christian worship centers on the proclamation of God’s Word.
In the Baptist tradition, communion is primarily understood as a symbolic act of remembrance rather than a sacrament that imparts real grace. Baptists believe that during the Last Supper, Jesus instituted the practice of communion as a way for his followers to remember and proclaim his sacrificial death on the cross. This view is the true meaning of Jesus’ words “Do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19). For Baptists, the bread and cup used in communion symbolize the body and blood of Christ, as well as the unity of the Church.
While communion should hold a significant place in worship, Christian worship centers around God’s Word alone. By focusing on the proclamation and teaching of Scripture, believers are able to deepen their understanding of God and His will. Let’ us never forget that in the midst of our worship practice, it is the Word of God that takes center stage.