Does the Evangelical Church have something similar to the Eucharist?
- Status
C
Contarini
Guest
Practically all Christians celebrate “something similar to the Eucharist”–whether they call it the Mass, the Eucharist, the Lord’s Supper, Holy Communion, or all the above. That is to say, they eat something like bread and drink something like wine as an act of anamnesis (remembrance) of Christ’s saving work. The only two significant groups I can think of that don’t practice the Lord’s Supper (and baptism) are the Quakers and the Salvation Army.
There is no one thing called the “Evangelical church.” Evangelicalism is a broad movement. Cat did an excellent job of describing one part–probably the most numerous part–of that movement. Often we refer to the evangelicals she’s talking about as “free church” evangelicals. However, there are also evangelicals within the “mainline” denominations, and there are conservative counterparts to all the mainline denominations (Presbyterians, for instance), many of which would also consider themselves evangelical. (Lutherans are less likely to.) These are often referred to as “confessional” Protestants, meaning that they hold to the traditional beliefs coming out of the Protestant Reformation.
Many evangelicals are somewhere in the middle of all of this–it’s a very vague, hard-to-define movement. For instance, the evangelical college where I teach is affiliated with a small denomination called the “United Brethren in Christ.” (They had a split in the 1880s, and the larger group wound up becoming part of the big mainline denomination called the “United Methodist Church.”) They have a confession of faith which you can read here. Note that as Cat said, they say “ordinances” rather than “sacraments.” When they speak of “the remembrance of the sufferings and death of our Lord Jesus Christ,” they are talking about the Eucharist (or, if you prefer, “something similar to the Eucharist”). However, you don’t have to be a member of this denomination, or even agree with its statement of faith, in order to teach at the college. (That’s good, because otherwise I wouldn’t be able to teach there.) The statement of faith we do have to agree with is that of the National Association of Evangelicals. As you can see, this doesn’t mention the sacraments at all. This is a bit different because it’s not a church’s confession of faith, but simply a statement of the points on which American evangelicals generally agree. Thus, it’s deliberately minimal. I have problems with the things that are left out, but I can subscribe to the things that are actually in the statement (though I do have some questions about the “only infallible” clause, and of course while I believe in the spiritual unity of all believers I don’t really think that’s what the unity of the Church is all about).
I attended a worship service on campus yesterday, to mark the beginning of the school year. The college chaplain (who is not UB–I believe he’s a Baptist) presided. He made some remarks about the meaning of what we were going to do–then the communion servers came forward, and one of them prayed over the bread (the same over the cup), and passed the elements around. The elements used were a kind of hard cracker for the bread, and grape juice (in little plastic cups) for the wine.
I received communion at this service, although from my perspective the way it was celebrated was deficient in very many respects. I take the view that by what the Orthodox call “economia” Christ is still present at such a service, even though it lacks many of the things that Christian tradition holds are required. This left me with a dilemma, though–when I asked where to dispose of the plastic cup, I was told to throw it in the trash can. So I went to the drinking fountain, filled the cup with water and drank it, and repeated the procedure. Then I threw the cup away! Holding Catholic beliefs about Protestant sacraments is very inconvenient. (I drew the line at doing this for everyone else’s cup!)
I should add that there are many evangelical Protestant celebrations of Communion that are much more like the Catholic Eucharist than this one was. However, it was not unique by any means!
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
That gives you a very good perspective on typical American evangelicalism, but sometimes I think you over-generalize. There are evangelicals who are much closer to Catholicism than Baptists are.
First of all, there are evangelicals in the mainline denominations. In fact, in some of them, like the UMC, evangelicals are “threatening” to become dominant. And there are denominations in the “older” traditions that would define themselves as evangelical. In Anglicanism, we have seen the recent formation of a new denomination, the ACNA, which is predominantly evangelical. Methodists were originally at the heart of evangelicalism, and ever since they went “mainline” there have been smaller groups that claim to carry on the original vision (and as I said, evangelicals appear to be “taking back” Methodism today, though that may be premature). Presbyterians have a number of conservative denominations–some would shy away from the “evangelical” label precisely because “evangelicalism” often means the kind of religion you are describing (non-sacramental and non-traditional), but in fact Presbyterians have historically often been the intellectual leaders of American evangelical Protestantism. And there is actually a denomination called the “Evangelical Presbyterian Church!”
There are evangelical (in the modern American sense) Lutherans as well, but they are probably the American Protestant tradition most removed from the mainstream of evangelicalism (the term is confusing, becuase Lutherans have traditionally called themselves “evangelicals,” but the word is being used in a rather different sense).
I would say that beliefs about individual salvation and the authority of Scripture are the most basic dividing points between evangelicals and other Protestants. But certainly evangelical belief about salvation leads them to be evangelistic, and this is one of the big points that differentiates them from “mainliners.”
This is the main place where I think you are over-generalizing. There are many people who call themselves “evangelicals” and do speak of sacraments. The reason the NAE statement of faith doesn’t talk about sacraments is probably that this is one of the issues on which evangelicals vary most widely. Of course, this also reflects the evangelical tendency to relegate sacraments to a “nonessential” for purposes of evangelical unity–which I think is one of the biggest problems with evangelicalism.
Again, that’s more of a Baptist characteristic which applies to many, perhaps most, but not all evangelicals.
Thanks for recognizing that! These mainline and/or confessional churches would also speak of sacraments and give some authority to tradition. Indeed, you can find non-infant-baptizing evangelicals who would do these two things to some extent. Some Baptists, like the late Stanley Grenz, used the “ordinance” language but then smuggled some traditional sacramental theology back in!
Again, you need to qualify this as you did the statement about infant baptism.
Edwin
R
rr1213
Guest
Interesting approach with respect to your efforts to ensure that you drank all of the cup. However, would it not have been better to understand this Protestant Eucharist as being solely symbolic or spiritual in nature only (i.e., not involving the Real Presence of Christ due to the lack of valid orders and procedures) and, thus, not requiring your response?
R
rr1213
Guest
Yes, but how many varieties of evangelicals understand the sacraments as a supernatural means by which God imparts grace to His people in a way that results in sanctification? Also, I am not aware of any evangelicals who would consider anything other than Baptism and the Lord’s Supper as possibly being Sacraments. Some might acknowledge the institutions of Confirmation and Marriage, but not as Sacraments.
C
Cat
Guest
Yes, I certainly agree with much of what you say. There are lots of fuzzy areas.
E.g., the Reformed Church in America (RCA) and the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) seem to consider themselves “evangelical,” and pastors like R.C. Sproul fit right in on the platform with men like Packer, Bright (RIP), Graham, etc. (Sproul is much younger!).
The RCA and the CRC practice infant baptism, and they do call baptism and communion “sacraments.”
And frankly, I don’t consider these denoms “evangelical” because of some of the doubtful teachings (roles of women in the church, abortion teaching is rather wimpy, teaching about homosexuality is very wimpy, etc.). As you know, the RCA and CRC have been declining in membership over the last few decades, and I suspect that it’s because of their wimpiness.
You talk of evangelicals within mainline denoms. I’ve heard these groups referred to as “confessing movements.” My parents-in-law attend a United Methodist Church, and they don’t agree with many of the things that the leadership of the denom teaches (e.g., gay marriage is OK, abortion is necessary, etc.) They would align themselves with the small but vocal confessing movement which is seeking to restore the UMC back to the Methodist teachings of the Wesleys.
But just because there is a confessing movement within a denomination does NOT make that denomination evangelical. In fact, I think that many UMC leaders would be horrified if someone applied the label “evangelical” to them! They pride themselves on their open-mindedness, and consider evangelicals as “extremists” or fanatics.
I also think that there are mainline denominations who have decided to align with evangelicals because they truly are concerned about evangelizing the world, and because they want to increase their membership. After all, evangelical methods are good at bringing in the sheaves (and the cash)!
M
Mike2010
Guest
No problem
A
AmateurPianist
Guest
Of course we would have absolutely no reason to believe a Eucharist / communion is invalid because it does not conform to your organization’s conditions.
R
rr1213
Guest
It is understood that you do not accept the truth of the Catholic faith.
C
Contarini
Guest
The Reformed would–at least those who follow Calvin more than Zwingli. I would hope that those Lutherans who identify themselves with evangelicalism in the American sense would as well, but I’ll let them speak for themselves. Many evangelical Anglicans would, and hopefully some evangelicals in Methodism. I’ve even heard of Baptists and Plymouth Brethren and Campbellites who believe this (the PBs and the Campbellites practice weekly communion, and this often fosters a “higher” sacramental theology than the official teachings of those traditions might indicate). But in terms of official teaching, it’s the Reformed and the Methodists, and not all of those. The problem is that evangelicals are hard to characterize in terms of official teaching. You would be surprised how many evangelicals are open to sacramentalism. Certainly the “emerging Church” has some strong leanings in that direction. And I once persuaded a Southern Baptist that baptism conveyed grace (I never did persuade him to accept infant baptism, but that is a much less important point from my perspective).
I’d actually say that Confirmation is the most dubious of the lot
Edwin
C
Cinette
Guest
*I understood that Evangelicals were against abortion!!
Quite frankly I cannot understand how any Christian Church can accept abortion and gay-marriage. This world is…&^%$#@:"&^&!
Cinette
*
Quite frankly I cannot understand how any Christian Church can accept abortion and gay-marriage. This world is…&^%$#@:"&^&!
Cinette
*
C
Contarini
Guest
“Better” from what perspective?
I take John 6 very seriously–more seriously, it seems, than Catholics do. Yes, I believe that there is a "spiritual’ eating and drinking for those who in good faith don’t believe in sacraments or who can’t get to them. But I don’t think we can separate what Jesus said about eating and drinking His Body and Blood from the actual sacramental eating and drinking. Do you?
If we take the sacramental aspect of John 6 seriously, it is surely not “better” to say that most Protestants don’t really eat and drink Jesus’ Body and Blood.
Of course, it may be true. And I know that’s what you meant. I’m just trying to help you see why I am very reluctant to accept this.
The Catholic concern with “validity” is another example of that “legal” approach that I have criticized on another thread. I will just put it this way: wherever Jesus’ saving work is invoked over bread and wine, I will not rule out the possibility that something sacramental is going on. And when such bread and wine (however loosely defined) is received with true faith in Jesus, I will not rule out the possibility that grace is being received.
Whether I ought to participate in such a sacrament is a difficult question. I can totally understand why many (including some of my fellow Anglicans) would say that I shouldn’t. But I find it hard to tell any conmmunity of Christians who gather in Jesus’ name that they are not “valid,” though I have no problem telling them that their way of gathering lacks many attributes that it ought to have.
This is one of the most basic reasons why I’m not Catholic or Orthodox. It’s really the only point on which I differ from those things that the Catholics and Orthodox have in common, and I claim some cover from the Orthodox unwillingness to use “validity” as a category (though of course they would be just as horrified as you are by my willingness to participate in such a Eucharist, if I were a member of their Communion).
Edwin
1
1holycatholic
Guest
Some may say they oppose abortion, but I know of no Protestant group that condemns the evil of oral contraceptives. In their acceptance of oral contraceptives with their abortifacient properties they implicitly accept abortion.*I understood that Evangelicals were against abortion!!
Quite frankly I cannot understand how any Christian Church can accept abortion and gay-marriage. This world is…&^%$#@:"&^&!
Cinette
R
Rocky
Guest
I don’t know if it would have been difficult for you to refrain from partaking in the sacrament because of your employment at the school, but I think you were not concerned about that at all. But there is something else that is different here between Catholic teaching and others. I suppose you could call it “legalistic”, but to receive Communion is also a symbol of the union of belief that those receiving it share. I do not and would not receive communion in another church that is not in communion with the Holy Father for the reason that I do not want to symbolize something that is not true. You are right, Jesus is present wherever two or more are gathered in His name. But as long as we are not united in belief, I think it better and more respectful not to pretend we are.
C
Cinette
Guest
E
Esdra
Guest
Hi
just some days ago I read about that topic.
First of all you have to know that there are two major branches of “Evangelicals”:
Martin Luther formed the Lutheran Church in the 16th century - They believe in the real presence when recieving the communion.
The Angelican Church got very influenced from Luther and therefore the (original) Anglican Church formed under Henry VIII is quite similar to the Lutheran Church.
In the meantime it can be that the Anglican Church has already splitted up and that there are some who don’t teach the Real Presence.
Zwingli and Calvin formed in Switzerland the so called reformed Churches (from where also the Baptists’ descend. Started also in the 16th century (also in the Tyrol btw. - My home country → Hutterites; and in Germany → Mennonites) and then further devolped in the US)
They teach that the Holy Supper is only symbolic.
The Scottish Church (are they Presbyterians? - I don’t know…) is a reformed Church. Same with the evangelical Church in the Netherlands.
Also the Methodist’s, who came into being after the Independance War of the US against, is an Britain, is a reformed Church. Although they don’t really teach Transsubstitution they believe in a kind of real presence, but they there is no real “dogma” about that point.
This is also the reason why the Reformed Church and the Lutheran Church didn’t come together when they had a conference in the 16th century in Germany.
Because Calvin (or was it Zwingli - don’t know anymore…) didn’t want to accept the real presence.
Hope that helps.
In Christ,
Esdra
C
Contarini
Guest
I could have simply not attended the worship service without repercussions (maybe if people noticed I wasn’t there, it would have helped strengthen some people’s suspicions that I’m among the less pious and orthodox faculty members!). Since communion was passed around in the pews, it would have been hard for anyone not sitting near me to tell if I was receiving or not. If people had noticed my not receiving, I don’t know if it would have made them curious–it might have led to a rumor that I had actually become Catholic, and *that *would possibly have had repercussions. (There has been no test case here yet, and we did have an Eastern Orthodox art professor briefly–he left for reasons that I’ve been assured had nothing to do with his affiliation. But I’d be under a lot more scrutiny as a Bible and Religion professor!)
No, I wouldn’t call that part “legalistic” at all. I’m using the term “legalistic” in a fairly narrow way, and not as a smear word for “overly strict.” The Orthodox are on some points stricter than Catholics, and sometimes the anti-ecumenical Orthodox say things like “Rome’s juridical view of the Church leads them to acknowledge grace outside the Church”!
Right. The question is: how much agreement is “unity in belief”?
One of the few points on which I’m still a Protestant (arguably women’s ordination is another one, since a commitment to “priesthood of all believers” has something to do with my stance there) is my fairly minimal understanding of what “unity in belief” is required to share the Eucharist.
On the other hand, this is something (like women’s ordination) that I’d be willing to give up as part of belonging to a Church that really could claim unity and authority. But since Anglicans are divided among ourselves on nearly everything that divides us from other Christians (in other words, we are all over the spectrum), I have never been willing to refuse communion with non-Anglican Protestants. That cuts us off from the only Christians who are actually willing to commune with us, and makes us an island to ourselves. So as long as I’m an Anglican, I’ll intercommune with any Trinitarian Christians who will intercommune with me.
That doesn’t mean that I share the common Anglican resentment of the Catholic and Orthodox “closed communion policies.” I understand and respect the reasons for those policies. It’s just that our position is different, and I don’t think we’re in any position to “get on a high horse” with regard to non-episcopal Protestants.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
The distinctive features of Anglicanism (chiefly the Prayer Book) were formed not under Henry but under Edward and Elizabeth. And in fact the Anglicanism that was formed at this time was more Reformed than Lutheran. (Henry’s Anglicanism wasn’t Lutheran either.) By the turn of the seventeenth century Anglicans were often claiming to be in between the Lutherans and the Reformed. By the end of the seventeenth-century the more High-Church Anglicans had distanced themselves from Protestantism as a whole. But if you look at the 39 Articles and the Elizabethan version of the BCP, Anglicanism appears to be a moderate version of the Reformed tradition.
Baptists in English-speaking countries are not the same as Anabaptists (in German people have long used the term “Taufer” to mean “Anabaptists,” so it’s confusing), and derive primarily from English Puritanism–the radically Reformed wing of English Protestantism.
No, that is not true of the Reformed as a whole. Calvin himself did not teach this–he believed that the heavenly Body and Blood of Christ are truly received in the Eucharist by believers, but he didn’t think that they are locally present in the bread and wine.
Yes.
Methodists are basically the same as the Reformed in their sacramental theology. The Wesleys were very close to Calvin, but perhaps a bit more Catholic–or at least less anti-Catholic and thus more willing to use the language of Eucharistic sacrifice. But just as with the Reformed, the Methodist tradition has historically contained a lot of Zwinglians who see the sacraments as purely symbolic.
Zwingli. Bucer tried to bring the two sides together, and Calvin basically followed Bucer in terms of sacramental theology. Bucer signed an agreement with the Lutherans in 1536, and Calvin seems to have supported it, although he worried that Bucer gave too much ground to the Lutherans. Later Lutherans went after Bucer and Calvin and their followers, believing them to be deceitful in their claim to believe in the Real Presence (one confessional Lutheran pastor in Germany said to me, “Bucer hat gelogen”). Calvin signed an agreement with Bullinger, Zwingli’s successor (who nonetheless had a somewhat more moderate position than Zwingli). And thus the “Reformed” tradition was born, in contrast to the Lutherans. . . .
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
There is no large Protestant denomination that takes this stand. However, some very conservative evangelicals not only oppose oral contraceptives, but any contraception at all–including NFP!
- Status