Protestants' Understanding of Sacraments

[pablope]

Well, my sympathies. And it is natural to long for a certainty. Your solution is to trust a an institution, Church, which you believe to have the gift of infallibility.

Well, the same question can be asked of you…why are you Lutheran? Obviously, you trust somebody…but why do you trust being in a Lutheran denomination.

I gather you are critizing the CC for claiming infallibity in its teachings. How about the teachings of your Lutheran denom…do you trust them to be free of error? Why? How do you know which is in error and which is not? How can you tell?

I, as an outsider, wonder, how much for example in the Catholic development of doctrin is God-inspired, and how much human.

 

[Attejohannes]

I truncated your post for length but your painfully obvious condescension throughout is unprovoked and unwelcome.

Rest assured that I have heard such arguments before, and know that I nonetheless remain unswayed from my belief and conclusions.

If you pay attention, you’ll note that all my posts in this thread have been merely seeking to understand the various positions taken in different corners of the Christian world and never did I assert the wrongness of any one position, nor did I belittle the beliefs of any who posted here. In fact in the final statement of my last post I asserted that I believed as I do because after having examined all the evidence, I believe I must. As Luther himself declared, “mein Gewissen in den Worten Gottes gefangen ist, ich kann und will nichts widerrufen, weil es gefährlich und unmöglich ist, etwas gegen das Gewissen zu tun. Gott helfe mir. Amen.”

Nevertheless I also conceded that if another’s conscience obligated them to another conclusion, I could not fault them, even as I might disagree entirely. So you see my own sentiments were not too far removed from what you concluded yourself regarding “honest errors.”

I shall afford you a charity, and assume that your behavior results from your speaking English as a second language, and that all that has occurred is an unfortunate mutual misunderstanding of intents.

While your declarations on Lutheran theology are most welcome and interesting to compare to those expressed by other Lutheran posters, your persuasive efforts are inconsistent with my stated purpose in beginning this thread as stated in post #1. There are plenty of threads of these forums in which users attempt futilely to “convince” others of their theological error, and it was my expressed desire not to see this become one more. If it was not your intent to take an argumentative approach in your recent posts, then please note that your intent is easily misread given your choices of words.

My apologies, if I have offended. That has certainly not been my intention. I fail to see (but that may be because of my deficient command of English) where I was condescending. Maybe (but correct me if I am wrong), when I invoked the exhortation of St. Paul to leave the judgement of the outsiders to God. As an outsider I meant people of different Churches and Denominations. So, from the point of you I am an outsider and vice versa. No condescending intention. While explaining the Lutheran view and further the differences and the doctrinal background of them compared to catholizism, I did not try to persuade you embrace them. Just to see the internal logic of the Lutheran argumentation, as I think I understand the internal logic of the Catholic side. When I said that we have to live in this uncertainty, I just meant that the views are difficult to reconcile, and the truth we will see in the World to Come.

And since you are quite comfortable in your Faith, which, believe me I respect, and ask these questions you raised out of pure interest of the protestant viewpoints. Well now you have heard a few.

 

[nicolakirwan]

But we know that He commanded the celebration of this Holy Meal until He returns, and that this eating and drinking conveys His presence. I have no problems in accepting the Lutheran view of Christ being really present in bread and wine, and for me the comparison of this to the incarnation is helpful. Just as Jesus simultaneously is both perfect God and perfect Man without His humane form changing, the consecrated bread and wine stay bread and wine but simultaneously are Christ. But I think the main thing here is to obey the command of Christ and spend less time on pondering what we cannot know.

You obviously have your traditional Catholic opinion, and I see no problem in it and I don not even try to persuade you to change it, just consider also how the others try to understand what really cannot be understood. I have explained the Lutheran standpoint, as much as I understand it, but I am ready to admit that Luther, Pope, Calvin, Fathers, you and I are equally ignorant about the nature of the Mystery we actually meet in the Eucharist.

But we have been commanded to celebrate it.

May I ask why does this bother you so much? Does it not suffice that we are commanded to celebate Eucharist until the second coming. If we take our medicines, we do not need to know and even less to understand what are the pharmacological principles that are in the prescription, in order to get cured.

Well I for one have not found Attejohannes’ comments to be condescending at all. Perhaps it’s easy to think that someone who disagrees with us is looking down on us?

Regardless of my own submission to Catholic teaching, I think the reality of our experience is a common one: we perceive and taste what our sense and brain can only translate as bread and wine–hence the teaching that Christ comes under the “accidents” of bread and wine. Believing that He is truly present and reverencing Him as present is as much as the human mind can do in such a situation. The additional steps the Catholic Church has taken to define exactly what is happening is what it is, I suppose, but one’s intellectual knowledge about what’s “under the hood” isn’t what makes the car start.

 

[SteveVH]

Does it not suffice that we are commanded to celebate Eucharist until the second coming. If we take our medicines, we do not need to know and even less to understand what are the pharmacological principles that are in the prescription, in order to get cured.

But would you agree that, while the power of the sacrament is always present, one’s interior disposition determines the spiritual effect it has on one’s soul? For this reason, if one approaches the Eucharist without the proper understanding of what they are receiving, they aren’t going to “get cured”. Of course, I understand that we are speaking of a mystery beyond our grasp, but to just celebrate the Eucharist because we were commanded to, without any further consideration, seems a little lacking. I will apologize in advance if I have misunderstood your post.

 

[Attejohannes]

But would you agree that, while the power of the sacrament is always present, one’s interior disposition determines the spiritual effect it has on one’s soul? For this reason, if one approaches the Eucharist without the proper understanding of what they are receiving, they aren’t going to “get cured”. Of course, I understand that we are speaking of a mystery beyond our grasp, but to just celebrate the Eucharist because we were commanded to, without any further consideration, seems a little lacking. I will apologize in advance if I have misunderstood your post.

Thanks for commenting. I agree totally with you that the internal disposition of the person determines the spiritual effect. St. Paul exhorts us to examine ourselves before approaching this meal and warns that the one who takes part in this this Communion without making a difference with the Eucharist and the common supper (which in those days apparently followed the celebration), eats and drinks his damnation. This the Corinthians understood. I doubt that they had a very defined theory or docrinal stand on what actually happened, when they consectrated the bread and wine and separated them from the other food that was going to be consumed later.

What I think is important, is to understand that in the Eucharist we are going to meet and receive Christ Himself, in a very concrete way. It is really beyond our grasp to understand, how this happens. Likewise, we cannot understand, how the small amount of baptismal water has the power to change a person from an enemy of God to His child, and we are not asked to theoretize on that, just to remember that baptism is not an ritual washing, but something immensely important. I think that this is the same with Communion.

 

[Reuben_J]

Thanks for commenting. I agree totally with you that the internal disposition of the person determines the spiritual effect. St. Paul exhorts us to examine ourselves before approaching this meal and warns that the one who takes part in this this Communion without making a difference with the Eucharist and the common supper (which in those days apparently followed the celebration), eats and drinks his damnation. This the Corinthians understood. I doubt that they had a very defined theory or docrinal stand on what actually happened, when they consectrated the bread and wine and separated them from the other food that was going to be consumed later.

What I think is important, is to understand that in the Eucharist we are going to meet and receive Christ Himself, in a very concrete way. It is really beyond our grasp to understand, how this happens. Likewise, we cannot understand, how the small amount of baptismal water has the power to change a person from an enemy of God to His child, and we are not asked to theoretize on that, just to remember that baptism is not an ritual washing, but something immensely important. I think that this is the same with Communion.

If the Corinthians were celebrating the Eucharist, yes, I think they knew what they were celebrating and the bread and the wine became body and blood of the Lord. It was during the consecration. If before that they were merely bread and wine, they were not after the consecration. So something must happen at that moment. They also could allude to word of the Lord himself in Jn 6:5 “for my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink”.

While it may be sufficient in knowing that we receive Christ in the Eucharist, a more detailed knowledge on what happening and what we are receiving will certainly bring us into a more appropriate dispositions in our worship and belief. Catholics have confident in believing this because we believe in the apostolic succession and the priests who are thus ordained through this succession truly are able to effect the consecration as understood in the words of Jesus himself. I probably when Catholicism courageously declared transubstantiation it is with the knowledge of her belief.

 

[SteveVH]

Thanks for commenting. I agree totally with you that the internal disposition of the person determines the spiritual effect. St. Paul exhorts us to examine ourselves before approaching this meal and warns that the one who takes part in this this Communion without making a difference with the Eucharist and the common supper (which in those days apparently followed the celebration), eats and drinks his damnation. This the Corinthians understood. I doubt that they had a very defined theory or docrinal stand on what actually happened, when they consectrated the bread and wine and separated them from the other food that was going to be consumed later.

What I think is important, is to understand that in the Eucharist we are going to meet and receive Christ Himself, in a very concrete way. It is really beyond our grasp to understand, how this happens. Likewise, we cannot understand, how the small amount of baptismal water has the power to change a person from an enemy of God to His child, and we are not asked to theoretize on that, just to remember that baptism is not an ritual washing, but something immensely important. I think that this is the same with Communion.

Okay, we’re on the same page. It reminds of the Bread of Life discourse. After the crowd left Jesus he turned and asked “Will you also leave”. The Apostles didn’t say “No Lord, we understand completley what you said about eating your body and drinking your blood”.
Instead they said “To whom shall we go? You have the words of everlasting life”. They didn’t get it, but they believed Jesus because of who he is.

 

[nicolakirwan]

Okay, we’re on the same page. It reminds of the Bread of Life discourse. After the crowd left Jesus he turned and asked “Will you also leave”. The Apostles didn’t say “No Lord, we understand completley what you said about eating your body and drinking your blood”.
Instead they said “To whom shall we go? You have the words of everlasting life”. They didn’t get it, but they believed Jesus because of who he is.

:clapping: Yes, so many in the Gospels could not explain much at all about Jesus, but those with faith believed what He said and obeyed Him.

 

[steido01]

Question: What do Lutherans do with remaining elements after communion? Are they stored in a tabernacle? Or does the consecration and sacramental union only exist in the context of the communion liturgy?

Copying and pasting from previous posts of mine:

1. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11100519&postcount=140

Lutherans typically do not reserve the Sacrament (some -perhaps many- do).

Lutherans who do not practice reservation of the Sacrament do not refrain from doing so because of any particular doctrine against it, but because they take very seriously Christ’s command to “Take, eat. Take, drink.” Christ doesn’t say anything about “Take, eat some now, and save some for later,” so in typical Lutheran fashion, they don’t put a comma where they understand God to have put a period. Instead, they simply avoid having any leftover altogether. Churches I’ve worshiped at have a simple practice - the elders count how many members are present so no more bread or wine than necessary is consecrated.

If a member is in the hospital or otherwise unable to make it to Divine Service, the pastor typically visits and consecrates the elements on-site, both so as not to subject His Body and Blood to being rather unceremoniously carted around all day as they visit shut-ins (and potentially spilled or dropped! ), and so that the consecration takes place in the presence of the communicant. This is thought to be more in line with Christ’s command, not to mention more pastoral (who doesn’t like a one-on-one visit from their pastor? ).

In short, the traditional Lutheran practice of not reserving the Sacrament is done totally out of reverence for His Body and Blood… If I ever met a person who did not hold such reverence for the Eucharist, yet claimed to be Lutheran, we would have words.

At churches where I’ve worshiped, any remaining Blood in the chalice is either consumed by the pastor or properly disposed, and anything remaining of His Body is either stored separately from the unconsecrated hosts or properly disposed. I know when my father’s congregation (he’s an LCMS pastor) was building a new church a few years ago, members made a particular point to add a piscina, which had been lacking from the original church (a terrible oversight of that hideous 1980’s bunker-church construction! ).

I typically steer clear of Wikis, but this actually explains Lutheran thought fairly well (be sure to read the footnotes, as well): lutheranwiki.org/How_Long_are_Christ%E2%80%99s_Body_and_Blood_Present_in_the_Consecrated_Bread_and_the_Wine_of_Communion%3F

1. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11102198&postcount=144

On proper disposal of the elements:
This is typically done via the traditional usage of a piscina and sacrarium. From The Altar Guild Manual: Lutheran Service Book Edition (wording unchanged, emphasis mine):
If any of the Lord’s body and blood remains, they can be disposed of in a number of ways. The best way is to consume the remaining elements, since the Lord said, “Take and eat … Take and drink,” and did not provide for anything that was left over. There is historic precedent for reserving the remaining elements against the next communion. The hosts can be stored in a pyx or ciborium (apart from unconsecrated hosts), the blood of the Lord in a suitable cruet or flagon (apart from unconsecrated wine). What remains in the chalice, however, should either be consumed or poured into the piscine or onto the ground, since there may be crumbs or other foreign matter in it. The reserved elements may then be kept in the sacristy or placed on the altar or credence and covered with a white veil. It is un-Lutheran and irreverent to place unused elements in the trash or to pour the remainder of what is in the chalice or flagon into the common drain.

And from the “Theology and Practice of the Lord’s Supper,” as prepared by the LCMS Commission on Theology and Church Relations:
B.2.c. Post Communion Reverence
The consecrated elements which remain after all have communed should be treated with reverence. This reverence has been expressed by Lutherans in various ways. Some have followed the ancient practice of burning the bread and pouring the wine upon the earth. Others have established a basin and drain-piscina-specifically for disposal for the wine. The elders or altar guild may also return the consecrated bread and wine to specific containers [a pyx or ciborium, separate from unconsecrated elements] for future sacramental use, or the elders and pastor can consume the remaining elements. All of these practices should be understood properly.

Happy to answer any further questions - and I’ll try to do so in a manner becoming of Lutherans…

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Copying and pasting from previous posts of mine:

1. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11100519&postcount=140
2. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11102198&postcount=144

Happy to answer any further questions - and I’ll try to do so in a manner becoming of Lutherans…

Thanks, Don, for resurrecting this thread by PatriciusRex. Hopefully more information concerning the understanding of the sacraments by all Christians will be shared; I have learned much.

It is interesting that in my childhood parish [LCMS] and the two ELCA parishes I have been members of, that the Sacrament is reserved in an ambry near the altar. When needed at Mass, the pastor goes to the ambry, genuflects and takes the ciborium to the altar in order to accommodate more communicants. I have seen pastors consecrate more hosts when running out during distribution but this is rare.

 

[JonNC]

Thanks, Don, for resurrecting this thread by PatriciusRex. Hopefully more information concerning the understanding of the sacraments by all Christians will be shared; I have learned much.

It is interesting that in my childhood parish [LCMS] and the two ELCA parishes I have been members of, that the Sacrament is reserved in an ambry near the altar. When needed at Mass, the pastor goes to the ambry, genuflects and takes the ciborium to the altar in order to accommodate more communicants. I have seen pastors consecrate more hosts when running out during distribution but this is rare.

I have seen the latter, and would like to see more of the former.

Jon

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I have seen the latter, and would like to see more of the former.

Jon

Move to metro New York region

Not entirely sure why but it seems metropolitan parishes are the most ‘catholic’ among Lutherans.

 

[BeProfOSX]

To attempt to answer the OP from an Evangelical perspective:

We generally don’t use the term “sacrament” because it’s a loaded term. When people say “sacrament” it strongly implies a “high church” perspective. We used to say “sacrament,” but starting with Baptists in 19th Century England who were trying to draw a clear distinction between their view and the view of the high church Anglicans of the Oxford Movement, we started using the term “ordinance” instead.

All Evangelical churches that I’m aware of recognize two, and typically only two, ordinances: Baptism and Communion. Both are seen, generally, as being the outward physical sign or remembrance of an already existing or ongoing inward, spiritual change.

Baptism, for the vast majority of Evangelicals, means credo-baptism by immersion only, in water and with the trinitarian formula. There are exceptions to this. Especially amongst Evangelicals who belong to an already existing Protestant tradition, but the every single Evangelical denomination that was established as an Evangelical denomination that I’m aware of is “little b” baptist on this point.

Some denominations, do practice something called a “baby dedication” that looks like a pedobaptism, but isn’t. Both of my kids were dedicated soon after their birth and, in our denomination, this is typically done with oil (believe it or not.) In my church as well, these dedications specifically include vows by both the parents to raise the child as a Christian and the church to support the parents in this endeavor. You heard me right on this: My kids have hundreds of de facto godparents.

Communion is typically open in that anyone who claims to be a believer in Christ may receive the elements, but we typically caution them using the words of Paul that those who partake of the Lord’s Supper unworthily do so to their own destruction (or at least we used to, it’s becoming less common.) The memorialist view is by far the most common, with a few of us Calvinists clinging to some notion of “spiritual presence.” Again, Evangelicals who belong to an already existing Protestant tradition may take different views.

Those are the only two things we consider ordinances in that they are the only two things that were explicitly ordered by Christ and His Apostles in the New Testament. That having been said, we do practice other things that look like ordinances or sacraments, even though we wouldn’t call them that. Specifically: Evangelical churches universally practice some kind of formal, church-recognized Matrimony. Most practice some kind of Ordination. Those of a more Charismatic or Pentecostal bent even practice some kind of the Anointing of the Sick and a few even practice something like Confirmation.

Generally all of those “non-ordinances” look an awful lot like their more high church sacramental cousins, but are more open and easy going. As Evangelical Baptism and Communion are to the Sacraments of Baptism and Holy Eucharist, so is Evangelical Matrimony or Ordination to Holy Matrimony or Holy Orders.

I won’t comment on Matrimony since I think we’re all pretty familiar with how that goes, but I will comment on Ordination and the Anointing of the Sick since I have been present for the former and participated in the latter.

Ordination, in my denomination, is a very specific rite that occurs only once in a Minister’s life. In my church, it is administered by the District Executive (which is what we call our Bishops) and it involves the candidate (who has already jumped through a couple of years worth of hoops over and above their tertiary education) kneeling, making a brief statement of faith, and then having hands laid on him by the District Executive and, usually, any other already ordained men who are present. At that point, his is ordained, may call himself “The Rev. Thus-and-such” and can hold any of the offices in our denomination at the level of a Senior Pastor or above.

Any person, ordained or not, being placed into the position of an Official Worker of the Christian and Missionary Alliance, will be commissioned, as a religious service, by a Senior Pastor or District Executive. This looks very much the same as ordination, but isn’t. The former represents the man making a promise before God and his fellow believers to spend the rest of his life in the ministry while the latter represents the body and the spiritual authorities that this person is going to minister to and for praying for that person so that God may bless them with the spiritual gifts that they will need to accomplish their task.

I experience Anointing of the Sick before I had my back surgery years back. In my church, we had specific, public services for this but in other churches, it’s done on a “on demand” private basis. Regardless the form for us is the same: The sick person is prayed for and anointed by the Elders (plural) of the church. It doesn’t have to be all of them and none of them has to be a Pastor or ordained, but it does have to be more than one of them. The anointing is done with oil that is specifically designated and sanctified for that purpose and, in our case, it usually took the form of the sign of the cross on the forehead, and a drop on the right ear lobe, right thumb, and right big toe (i.e. more or less the same form as the ordination of Aaron in Exodus.) The prayer involves the laying on of hands by the elders, either on the head or on the affected area. In my church the prayers were offered in the hopeful expectation of immediate miraculous healing but always given with the instruction that God also provides for healing through natural, medical means and that we should receive both with equal joy and thankfulness to God and the instruction that all healing, miraculous or otherwise, was nothing more than the “first fruits and promise” of the fullness of healing that will come to all Believers at the Resurrection.

 

[ltwin]

To attempt to answer the OP from an Evangelical perspective:

Nice post. You’ve managed to boil down the complexities and diversity of evangelical belief and practice in a pretty brief explanation.

You’re correct that most evangelicals use the word “ordinance”, but I’d like to point out that in my experience many evangelicals (especially older persons) will use the term “sacrament” exclusively in reference to Holy Communion, i.e. “the sacrament.”

Also, another practice that is not officially considered a sacrament/ordinance but is often treated like one is foot washing. In some churches, this takes place at the same time as Holy Communion.

Baptism, for the vast majority of Evangelicals, means credo-baptism by immersion only, in water and with the trinitarian formula. There are exceptions to this. Especially amongst Evangelicals who belong to an already existing Protestant tradition, but the every single Evangelical denomination that was established as an Evangelical denomination that I’m aware of is “little b” baptist on this point.

I’d agree mostly with this. One exception though. The Church of the Nazarene gives parents the option to either baptize or dedicate infants. If the parents choose infant baptism, its understood that it is more or less symbolic. This option is written into their official Manual, but I’m not sure how popular it is.

Those of a more Charismatic or Pentecostal bent even practice some kind of the Anointing of the Sick and a few even practice something like Confirmation.

At my church and at other Pentecostal churches I’ve observed, there is usually a glass bottle of store bought extra virgin olive oil placed on the platform for easy access. People are free to approach the front of the church during the praise and worship or after the pastor has finished preaching near the end of the service for prayer. Elders gather around them and lay hands on them and the congregation is encouraged to stretch out their hands toward the person. The person is anointed on the forehead while prayer is made and often tiny strips of cloth are anointed as well for the person to carry with them or give away to a loved one who they are praying for.

We also do a form of proxy anointing of the sick where someone (often a relative) “stands in for” the sick person. And some people (like my mother) carry around a small container of anointing oil in their pocketbook in case of an emergency.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Thanks BeProfOSX & Itwin, for the thorough explanations. It appears Baptism and Communion are celebrated with many of the same similarities between most Christians.

Curious, how often, on average, does a congregation celebrate holy Communion among Evangelicals’?

 

[BeProfOSX]

Thanks BeProfOSX & Itwin, for the thorough explanations. It appears Baptism and Communion are celebrated with many of the same similarities between most Christians.

Curious, how often, on average, does a congregation celebrate holy Communion among Evangelicals’?

We do it monthly. That seems to be fairly typical for churches our size (a few hundred members).

Larger churches tend to do it less frequently. Some Mega-churches I know only do it annually.

One interesting exception is the case of Mars Hill Church (pastored by noted Neo-Calvinist Mark Driscoll) and the related Acts 29 Network. They do it weekly, although it is not required or even expected that every member will partake every single week.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

We do it monthly. That seems to be fairly typical for churches our size (a few hundred members).

Larger churches tend to do it less frequently. Some Mega-churches I know only do it annually.

One interesting exception is the case of Mars Hill Church (pastored by noted Neo-Calvinist Mark Driscoll) and the related Acts 29 Network. They do it weekly, although it is not required or even expected that every member will partake every single week.

Very interesting that the larger a congregation the less often Communion is celebrated; can you explain?

Thanks again for the wealth of information.

 

[ltwin]

Curious, how often, on average, does a congregation celebrate holy Communion among Evangelicals’?

That will depend on a lot of factors. For example, the evangelical wing of the Anglican/Episcopal churches will place particular importance on frequent observance for obvious reasons.

But, if you are talking about your generic evangelicals in the non-denominational, Baptist, and Pentecostal churches for example, then it could be anything from frequent (though probably not weekly) to nearly never. It just depends.

In my own church, we’re lucky to have it at least annually, but we used to do it much more often and I wish we’d go back to emphasizing it more. Other churches have it monthly or quarterly. My sister has said that at her church (which is a non-denominational Word of Faith/Pentecostal type church), communion is done almost every Sunday.

I believe that the church growth movements of the last three decades have produced a lot of “seeker-sensitive” church formats that have devalued the regular practice of Holy Communion. So, there has been an uptick in the number of evangelical churches who seem to ignore it, but this has not always been the case.

Now you are starting to see a backlash. For example, Brady Boyd of New Life Church in Colorado Springs (an important evangelical mega-church) recently decided to go to weekly communion. Jonathan Martin, a Church of God (Cleveland, TN) pastor whose representative of one stream of “trendy Pentecostalism” has made the switch too. And the Reformed evangelicals over at the Gospel Coalition have also been talking about the positives of weekly Communion.

 

[BeProfOSX]

Very interesting that the larger a congregation the less often Communion is celebrated; can you explain?

Thanks again for the wealth of information.

Frankly, it’s the logistics of the matter. When I say “mega-church” I’m talking about churches with an average weekly attendance of over 2,000. Serving communion to that many people as part of a regular service, even only monthly, gets out of hand. Even in my church, on communion Sundays we have to rejigger the order of service to clear the time for it.

That may sound odd to you as a Catholic, but the Eucharist is the heart and soul of the Mass. The preaching and singing and all the other stuff is just that… other stuff. Important, to be sure, but secondary. For us, it’s exactly the reverse. The sermon is the main-event and everything else is secondary.

You also have to remember that, by and large, communion in Evangelical churches is served to the congregation in their seats. We don’t line up and come forward. Your churches are designed for that and your people are trained on how to do that efficiently. Our churches are designed for how we do it and it usually works pretty smoothly but it’s slower.

Interestingly enough, large churches that do frequent communion do it by having people line up and come forward. I can honestly say that, at least on this one lone point of the practicalities of serving communion efficiently, the Catholic church has it absolutely nailed and any church would do well to emulate them.

That’s not much to build a ecumenical revival on… but it’s something.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

That will depend on a lot of factors. **For example, the evangelical wing of the Anglican/Episcopal churches will place particular importance on frequent observance for obvious reasons. **
But, if you are talking about your generic evangelicals in the non-denominational, Baptist, and Pentecostal churches for example, then it could be anything from frequent (though probably not weekly) to nearly never. It just depends.

In my own church, we’re lucky to have it at least annually, but we used to do it much more often and I wish we’d go back to emphasizing it more. Other churches have it monthly or quarterly. My sister has said that at her church (which is a non-denominational Word of Faith/Pentecostal type church), communion is done almost every Sunday.

I believe that the church growth movements of the last three decades have produced a lot of “seeker-sensitive” church formats that have devalued the regular practice of Holy Communion. So, there has been an uptick in the number of evangelical churches who seem to ignore it, but this has not always been the case.

Now you are starting to see a backlash. For example, Brady Boyd of New Life Church in Colorado Springs (an important evangelical mega-church) recently decided to go to weekly communion. Jonathan Martin, a Church of God (Cleveland, TN) pastor whose representative of one stream of “trendy Pentecostalism” has made the switch too. And the Reformed evangelicals over at the Gospel Coalition have also been talking about the positives of weekly Communion.

Itwin, pardon my ignorance but what do you mean by the “evangelical wing of the Anglican/ Episcopal churches”?