More Than Crackers and Juice

Disclaimer: This article I wrote for my parish, I am indebted to the many godly, astute and wise clergy whosearticles, sermons, talks I have heard over many years have taught me so much. Some of the content below is not all original to me, (I wish it was), but I hope this article is an encouragement to you. - Joshua

~

It is not often that I have the opportunity to visit other Anglican churches (probably due to the fact that I don’t take enough leave), but a few years ago I attended a traditional Holy Communion Service in a parish outwith[1] the Armidale diocese.

It was a beautiful cold winter’s morning in a high-altitude location at the Anglican parish where I was visiting one weekend five years ago. The service was a Holy Communion service and the Rector preached the gospel and faithfully expounded God’s Word. We praised God in song and prayed using our wonderful Anglican liturgy to guide us. Then it was time for Holy Communion, and the mood changed.

The minister then proceeded to administer the Lord’s Supper and everything he said I agreed with, in fact everything he said we would all agree with and give a hearty “Amen”. Yet it was obvious that his heart was not in it. To be fair, he could have been having an off morning…it happens to all of us, even us Anglican clergy…but he did not seem off when he was preaching. It was as if he was administering the Lord’s Supper because he had to. It was as if the main event (the preaching of God’s Word) had already taken place, so now we are left with the stuff we have to either apologise for or perhaps tolerate. Recollecting this service just now reminds me of a talk that Bishop Julian Dobbs (Bishop of the Diocese of the Living Word) said in sermon I had the privilege of hearing:

“Taking the Lord’s Supper seriously is something that deep down most of do not do. We are more interested in the sermon that we are in the sacrament. We feel the sermon is more important, we expect more from it, we concentrate on it more intensely and we reflect more on it when the service is completed”.

Both compels me to ask these four questions:

1.    Why is the sacrament of Holy Communion dumbed down?

2.    Why does it appear to be of minor importance?

3.     Why does it appear to be something that some Anglican clergy do in a way where they seem to be apologetic, reluctant, or perhaps awkward?

4.    Why is there Anglican reluctance to share in the Lord’s Supper more than once a month? After all, I have never ever heard a follower of the Lord say these words to me:

“Taking the Lord’s Supper weekly has been detrimental in my walk with the Lord!”

Perhaps the answer is perhaps due to the possibility that many Anglicans have been influenced (more than they realise) by an over-reaction to the theological errors surrounding the sacrament, concluding that it is safer and wiser to not place too much significance on it.

One of the big issues for the reformers was the Roman Catholic doctrine known as transubstantiation [2]. According to this doctrine, although the bread and the wine remain bread and wine, an imperceptible change has occurred to the bread and wine, it has now become the body and blood of Christ. Anglican theologian Gerald Bray writes:

“If a priest really does have the power to turn bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood, then it is understandable that the consecrated elements should be set aside, either for emergencies or for use when a priest is not present. This ‘sacrament’ would then be an appropriate object of veneration, if not actual worship, since it would be the real body and blood of Christ himself”.

Bray continues…

“But once the doctrine of transubstantiation was abandoned, these rituals ceased to have any meaning and were dropped by protestant churches.”

I believe the reformers were absolutely correct in doing so, but what has arisen is the position known as the memorialist position which states that the Lord’s Supper is a mere memorial of what the Lord Jesus did for us. No more and no less. 

So at Holy Communion, the Lord Jesus is remembered but he is not present.

 I remember discussing this position with fellow clergy a few years ago at conference and I made the jive that “this position not only denies the real presence of Christ but seems to at least suggest at best the real absence of Christ”.

You may or may not have heard of the story where a visiting priest visited a church which had a communion table with a stained-glass window above it depicting the scene from the Gospels where the women visited the empty tomb. The words of the angel to the women, “He is not here!” were inscribed underneath the window. So, ironically, whenever you looked at the communion table, you could see the words “He is not here!” I wonder how many people (Anglican clergy included) feel this way about the Lord’s Supper? The Lord Jesus is remembered, but he is not present.

Joking aside, at one level this is true. Christ is not physically present at the Lord’s Supper, as we say in our creeds, “He ascended into heaven”. In writing about the sacrament, the Apostle Paul says in his first letter to the Corinthians:

“For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (1 Cor 11:26),

“Until he comes”; thus the meal looks forward to the Lord’s bodily return and therefore reminds us of his bodily absence in the interim.

It is also true that there is a memorial aspect to the Lord’s Supper. The symbolic routine of repeatedly sharing bread and wine made significant by Jesus’ words witnesses to the two most far-reaching events in world history, one of those is an historical event - the Lord Jesus’ sin bearing, atoning sacrifce at Calvary, which (as the old hymn says, “that opened the life-gate that all may go in.” [3]

Thus when we come to the Lord’s table we are to remember, we should actively remember! We should intentionally call Christ to mind, joyfully contemplating him, praising him, and thanking him.

However, that being said, the Reformers saw that Lord’s Supper is not just about drinking juice, eating crackers and thinking about Jesus (the memorialist position) because there is something going on spiritually -

God is acting while we are at the Lord’s Table.

In other words, it is more than a mere memorial. In the sacrament, God the Holy Spirit renews our gratitude for grace, renews our confidence in forgiveness by grace, renews our hope for glory, and renews our strength for service. Christ is alive and with us now in resurrection power by the Holy Spirit, and through God the Holy Spirit, Christ ministers to us each time the supper is celebrated. We should think of the bread and wine as coming to us by the hand of Christ himself and his guarantee to us in love, he will nourish us spiritually forever.

There is also a serious aspect to the Lord’s Supper. Take this Apostolic warning to the church at Corinth from the Apostle Paul:

“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.” (1 Corinthians 11:27-32)

What does it mean to “discern the body” and what does it mean to come forward in an “unworthy manner”?

•    Some say that the “body” in view here is Lord’s body spiritually present in the Lord’s Supper itself.

•    Others, given the context of chapter 11 in which Paul is castigating the Corinthian church for selfishness and disregard for one another, argue that the “body” is the Church.

At the very least I think all orthodox interpreters would agree that to come forward for Communion with a heart defiant and unrepentant toward God and/or harbouring malice, ill will, resentment, unforgiveness toward other people is to come forward in an “unworthy manner.”

We can also see from this warning that (as our prayer book says), “the danger is great” is we come to the Lord’s supper in an worthy manner. When the Christian at Corinth came to the table in an unworthy manner, some of them became sick and some received an early mark to paradise. Did you notice vv.29-30?

29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died

These are not words to forget in a hurry.

We take our lives in our hands when we come to the Lord’s Supper. That is why we examine our hearts, why repent of our wickedness, why we don’t participate in this sacrament if we are not repentant and if we have not come before the Lord to turn our lives from sin towards Christ.

Thus, my conclusion is that if the Lord’s supper is bare memorial, why the warnings?

If Christ is not present in the sacrament, what is the point of the Lord’s Supper? What is its purpose? It has no power and no efficacy as there are many ways to remember the Lord Jesus.

As the Rev’d Michael Bird (who is the academic dean and lecturer of theology at Ridley College) states

If there is no communication of Christ in and through the bread and wine, then this meal is an exercise in futility. [4]

While we must remember, it is much more than remembering. This is the Lord’s Supper; it is a meal with the Lord Jesus. It is not about crackers and juice and think about the Lord Jesus, so much is happening. To quote the Birdman once again…

The presence of Christ is not mediated through the church’s mutation of the elements into Christ’s body and blood (i.e., transubstantiation or consubstantiation). The presence of Christ is not restricted to the believer’s faith, reducing the bread and wine to a memorial. It is the Holy Spirit who draws Christ downward and the believer upward to meet Christ in the gospel meal. [5]

So much more than crackers and juice!

References

[1] ‘Outwith’ - preposition SCOTTISH ENGLISH - outside, beyond

[2] The belief that the priest presiding over the Eucharist (via their ordination to the priesthood) has the authority and power not only to consecrate (set apart) the bread and the wine for the Eucharist, but also has the power to change the bread and wine literally into the body and blood of Jesus.

[3] It also looks to the future - the Lord’s s return to reign and the final judgement, and the redeeming of creation, where there will be no need for sacraments.

[4] Rev Michael F Bird, cited from What Happens in the Lord ’s Supper and Why it’s a Big Deal read here

[5] Again Bird, puts it very well when he says:

“If we can all agree that that the Lord’s Supper is a gospel meal, then it makes perfect sense that, irrespective of how we understand presence, we will eat and drink together precisely to remember and experience afresh the Lord of the gospel. The Eucharist is for all a thanksgiving to the Father, a remembrance of Christ, an invocation of the Spirit, a communion of the faithful in the body and blood of Christ, and the meal of the kingdom.Ultimately it is beyond our understanding as to how we meet Jesus in bread and wine through the Spirit. We would do well to…insist that the operation of the Spirit in the Eucharist is something we would “rather experience than understand.”