It was a truly strange experience for me to preach on John chapter 6 on the second Sunday of August and NOT celebrate Holy Communion, as the text is most appropriate for the topic, and is in fact one of the classical texts on the subject of he Eucharist. That the lectionary readings for the entire month of August should have all the Gospel readings from John 6 is a most providential chance to talk of the Eucharist, if only there was a celebration of Holy Communion! I, as a commissioned minister of the United Methodist Church
I am to show that it is the duty of every Christian to receive the Lord’s Supper as often as he can. … First, that if we consider the Lord’s Supper as a command of Christ, no man can have any pretense to Christian piety, who does not receive it (not once a month but) as often as he can. Secondly, that if we consider the institution of it, as a mercy to ourselves, no man who does not receive it as often as he can has any pretense to Christian prudence. Thirdly, that none of the objections usually made, can be any excuse for that man who does not, at every opportunity, obey this command and accept this mercy. (From John Wesley’s The Duty of Constant Communion.)
Congregations of The United Methodist Church are encouraged to move toward a richer sacramental life, including weekly celebration of the Lord’s Supper at the services on the Lord’s Day, as advocated by the general orders of Sunday worship in The United Methodist Hymnal and The United Methodist Book of Worship. (From This Holy Mystery: A United Methodist Understanding of Holy Communion, Nashville TN, Copyright © 2003, 2004, p. 19.)
And yet, despite my best efforts, most people I have talk to do not want the constant celebration of Holy Communion, and they give many reasons as to why such is undesirable. Firstly, they tell me that we can remember Christ without having to have Holy Communion all the time. Secondly, they have also told me that Holy Communion is not really necessary for salvation, implying that my desiring it to be so is “legalistic”. And then, as if as a trump card, they remind me that the constant celebration of Holy Communion is a Roman Catholic practice, something that no self-respecting Protestant should imitate.
Yet I still believe that the Sacrament of Holy Communion should be celebrated and received more often than is now being practiced because as Christians (and especially, as Protestants), we are supposed to remember Christ every moment of our lives, and the means whereby Christ commanded his disciples to remember him was by taking and eating the bread that is his body, and drinking from the cup of the New Testament which is his blood; and Christ's own words tell us that unless we eat his flesh and drink his blood, we have no eternal life, i.e., salvation: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me".
Several Modern “Protestant” Objections
John Wesley in his sermon The Duty of Constant Communion dealt with several objections against the constant (and not just frequent, according to Wesley!) celebration and reception of Holy Communion. I foolishly thought that these were still the objections made today, until I heard first-hand why many do not desire a more frequent celebration of the Eucharist. To be sure, many still give the “traditional” objections, and these are the easiest to convince. Yet those who are most adamantly opposed to the constant celebration of the Eucharist gave (to me) unheard of objections that have (at that time) stumped me. These are some (not all) of the modern objections:
We can remember Christ without having to have Holy Communion all the time.
I was told, quite pointedly, that the main thing about the Lord’s Supper was “doing this in remembrance” of Jesus Christ’s passion, death, and resurrection, yet Holy Communion is not the only way to remember these things. He said that one can remember Christ by prayer and meditation, so it is not really necessary to have actual bread and wine as long as one had a mental image of Christ. Singing hymns and Praise-&-Worship songs can suffice. The actual use of bread and wine is, so to speak, “optional” and not really necessary.
Holy Communion is not really necessary for salvation.
I get this one most of the time. I was told most insistently that was important was having “a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior”, and that not having a more frequent communion will not affect that relationship. What matters, she told me, was that one believes in Christ and trusts in him, not doing “rituals” and stuff like that. She then proceeded to say that—
—The constant celebration of Holy Communion is a Roman Catholic practice.—thus implying that I was being legalistic. This stems from the common “Protestant” belief that Roman Catholics base salvation on rituals and whatnot, while “Protestants” base salvation on having a relationship with God. She also seemed to imply that I was beginning to become “idolatrous” by worshiping the consecrated bread and wine.
The result, then, of my telling them that we, as Christians, should practice constant communion was met with the dismissal as either being to literal minded (as opposed to being “spiritual”) or becoming on a human act for salvation. And so it is claimed that because “we Protestants” have a closer, better relationship with God, firstly, that we can remember Christ without having to have Holy Communion all the time, and secondly, Holy Communion is not really necessary for salvation, and lastly, the constant celebration of Holy Communion is a Roman Catholic practice. Let the Papists have their regular Sunday masses: they do not have the assurance of salvation “we Protestants” have because of our close walk with Jesus Christ, especially after we “accepted Jesus Christ into our hearts as our ‘personal’ Lord and Savior”.
Variations of the above objections show a common theme: the disavowal of “works” as contributory to salvation. And since Holy Communion is seen as a human good work, to insist upon it would be tantamount to legalism and going back to the errors of the Roman Catholic system of “works-salvation”. And so, they told me, that Holy Communion is basically “optional” for “blood-washed” Protestants, and to insist that “saved-by-faith-and-not-by-works” Christians should celebrate and receive the Eucharist at least once a week as very un-Protestant and very Roman Catholic.
“Do This In Remembrance of Me”: Relating With Christ
However, even though these well-meaning Protestants have claimed, firstly, that we can remember Christ without having to have Holy Communion all the time, and secondly, Holy Communion is not really necessary for salvation, and lastly, the constant celebration of Holy Communion is a Roman Catholic practice, it is my belief that the Sacrament of Holy Communion should be celebrated and received more often than is now being practiced (that is, once a month) because as our Christian, Protestant duty, we are supposed to remember Christ every moment of our lives, and the means whereby Christ commanded his disciples to remember him was by taking and eating the bread that is his body, and drinking from the cup of the New Testament which is his blood. And the original Protestant founders—Martin Luther and John Calvin, among others—supported the idea of a weekly celebration of the Eucahrist.
Again, all the early Protestant Reformers recommend the weekly celebration of Holy Communion:
a) Martin Luther (Lutheran) says, “In conclusion, since we have now the true understanding and doctrine of the Sacrament [of Holy Communion], there is indeed need of some admonition and exhortation, that men may not let so great a treasure which is daily administered and distributed among Christians pass by unheeded, that is, that those who would be Christians make ready to receive this venerable Sacrament often. … it must be known that such people as deprive themselves of, and withdraw from, the Sacrament so long a time are not to be considered Christians. For Christ has not instituted it to be treated as a show, but has commanded His Christians to eat and drink it, and thereby remember Him,” (The Large Catechism, 39 & 42).
b) John Calvin (Presbyterian) says, “That such was the practice of the Apostolic Church
Notice that both of the “fathers” of Protestantism—Luther and Calvin—believe in a more frequent celebration of Holy Communion, at least once a week, with the Lutheran ideal as every day! It is not a Roman Catholic affectation to have a weekly Eucharistic service, it is appropriately and clearly Protestant!
Another example that shows that as Methodist Christians (and I am addressing my fellow United Methodists here), we are supposed to remember Christ every moment of our lives, and the means whereby Christ commanded his disciples to remember him was by taking and eating the bread that is his body, and drinking from the cup of the New Testament which is his blood, is from John Wesley himself, Anglican priest and Methodist:
c) John Wesley (Anglican/Methodist) says, “…it is the duty of every Christian to receive the Lord’s Supper as often as he can. … if we consider the Lord’s Supper as a command of Christ, no man can have any pretense to Christian piety, who does not receive it (not once a month but) as often as he can,” (The Duty of Constant Communion, 2.21., 1787) “I also advise the Elders to administer the supper of the Lord on every Lord’s day [i.e., EVERY SUNDAY],” (John Wesley, “Letter to Dr. Coke, Mr. Asbury and our Brethren in North America”, Bristol, September 10, 1784, 4.).
John Wesley wrote a sermon actually telling people that it is the duty of Christians to celebrate and receive the Eucharist “not once a month but as often as one can”. Then he co-wrote a book with his brother Charles explaining why Christians ought to have a constant (not just frequent, John Wesley is at pains to tell us) reception of Holy Communion.
The criticism then, that a “personal relationship with Christ is more important than celebrating the Lord’s Supper” misses the point: CELEBRATING AND RECEIVING THE EUCHARIST IS A PART OF HAVING A RELATIONSHIP WITH CHRIST! Our Lord Jesus Christ himself tells his disciples how to remember him, to eat bread as his body and drink from the cup as his blood. What kind of a relationship does one have with Christ when he ignores Christ’s own command on how to remember him, and invent their own way to relate with Christ? What kind of a relationship is that? Remember that Christ said immediately after the Last Supper, “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” What kind of loving relationship does one have with Christ when one does not want to remember Christ as he commanded his disciples?
Thus, many self-proclaimed “Protestants” are actually guilty of the thing they accuse Roman Catholics of doing: they have invented a man-made ritual whereby they can approach God even as they ignore the God-ordained means whereby Christians are to approach God. It is plain hypocrisy for these “protestants” to point fingers at the Papists and yet are just as guilty of using a man-made ritual in place of a God-ordained means of relating to God. Indeed, what is the difference between the repetitious praying of the Rosary and the repetitious singing of P&W songs?
Saved By Grace Through Faith
Of course, these well-meaning “Protestants” would fall back on the well-worn verse, “Saved by grace, through faith, and not by works” and say that to believe in the necessity of constantly receiving Holy Communion is “works-salvationism”, like the Roman Catholics do. The problem with this is that to eat bread and drink wine in remembrance of Christ is NOT in itself a “good work” wherein we earn (note this word) salvation by participating in the act, but a means of receiving (note the difference in meaning with “earning”) God’s saving grace. We do not earn God’s saving grace in Holy Communion at all (for we are most unworthy), yet by Christ’s own promise we do receive grace in the Sacrament.
The most important reason why the Sacrament of Holy Communion should be celebrated and received more often than is now being practiced is because Christ's own words tell us that unless we eat his flesh and drink his blood, we have no eternal life, i.e., salvation:
Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me.
This (John 6:53—57) is the lectionary reading of August 19, 2012, and is one of the important texts relating to Holy Communion.
The so-called “Protestants” will respond that these words were spoken by Christ long before the Last Supper when the Lord’s Supper was instituted and ordained, and are thus unrelated to Holy Communion. Is that so? Christ spoke about his eventual death, resurrection and second coming long before the events described: were those words, were his predictions unrelated to the events he predicted?
Note that the entire discourse on the “Bread of Life” John 6 was preceded by the feeding of the five thousand, when “the Passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh” (John 6:4). So when Christ made his discourse at that synagogue in Capernaum Capernaum Capernaum
Another thing that shows that Christ's own words tell us that unless we eat his flesh and drink his blood, we have no eternal life, i.e., salvation: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. … Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me" is the apostle Paul’s own words in 1 Corinthians 10:16—17:
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
Later on, S. Paul would talk about the believers being he body of Christ in chapters 12 and 14. The point is, we do become members of Christ’s body by partaking of the bread which Christ calls his body. When we eat the bread that is the Body of Christ, we become part of the Body of Christ. This is not works salvation at all: we do not earn the right to become a part of Christ’s body by receiving the bread and wine, but we do receive the grace that enables us to become a part of the body of Christ when we “eat his flesh and drink his blood”.
The well-intentioned “Protestants” will then say, “Are you telling us then that receiving Holy Communion is necessary for one to be saved?” Well, it is just as necessary as what is vulgarly known as the “Sinners’ Prayer” where one accepts Jesus Christ into one’s heart as “personal” Lord and Savior. The shocked and outraged reactions would be, “So unless you partake of the Eucharist, you cannot be saved? Is that it?” In the same way as unless one accepts Jesus Christ as a “personal” Lord and Savior, one cannot be finally saved. Is it so impossible that receiving the Eucharist is God’s way whereby one can accept and receive Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior? Especially since the “Sinner’s Prayer” is essentially a modified form of the “Prayer of Humble Access,” a prayer said during Holy Communion?
So what happens if someone does not regularly receive Holy Communion?
Now as without bread and wine, or something answerable to them, the strongest bodies soon decay; so without the virtue of the body and blood of Christ, the holiest souls must soon perish. And as bread and wine keep up our natural life, so doth our Lord Jesus, by a continual supply of strength and grace, represented by bread and wine, sustain that spiritual life which he hath procured us by his cross. (John Wesley, “The Christian Sacrament and Sacrifice,” Hymns On the Lord’s Supper, Section III.3.)
Do not think I am setting up baptism and belief and the Holy Communion as things that will do instead of your own attempts to copy Christ. Your natural life is derived from your parents; that does not mean it will stay there if you do nothing about it. You can lose it by neglect, or you can drive it away by committing suicide. You have to feed it and look after it: but always remember you are not making it, you are only keeping up a life you got from someone else. In the same way a Christian can lose the Christ-life which has been put into him, and he has to make efforts to keep it. But even the best Christian that ever lived is not acting on his own steam—he is only nourishing or protecting a life he could never have acquired by his own efforts. And that has practical consequences. (C. S. Lewis, “The Practical Conclusion,” Mere Christianity.)
So if these two Protestants, Wesley and Lewis, are to be believed, a Christian who does not partake regularly of the Eucharist is in danger of losing eternal life. In fact, Martin Luther, the first Protestant, said (as mentioned above):
“…those who would be Christians make ready to receive this venerable Sacrament often. … it must be known that such people as deprive themselves of, and withdraw from, the Sacrament so long a time are NOT to be considered Christians. For Christ has not instituted it to be treated as a show, but has commanded His Christians to eat and drink it, and thereby remember Him,” (The Large Catechism, 39 & 42).
These are harsh, yet unfortunately true words, of real, “blood-washed” Protestants. One would be hard-pressed to say that Martin Luther or John Wesley were believers in “works-salvationism”: Luther of sola fide and Wesley of the “heart strangely warmed” after reading Luther. One just cannot accuse either Luther or Wesley of legalism!
"The Practical Conclusion": Why Receiving the Eucharist is Necessary
… this new life is spread not only by purely mental acts like belief, but by bodily acts like baptism and Holy Communion. … There is no good trying to be more spiritual than God. God never meant man to be a purely spiritual creature. That is why He uses material things like bread and wine to put the new life into us. We may think this rather crude and unspiritual. God does not: He invented eating. He likes matter. He invented it. (C. S. Lewis, “The Practical Conclusion,” Mere Christianity.)
Many modern “Protestants” believe that eternal life is only gained by “believing in the only begotten Son”, that is, only by a mental process. They have this aversion to the notion that somehow matter can convey spiritual benefits. This aversion is not new: the Gnostics, of whom the Apostle John wrote against in his first epistle, chapter 4. These 1st century heretics tried “to be more spiritual than God” by asserting that salvation was purely by knowledge (in Greek, “gnosis”, hence their name). They held that the public acts of worship such as Baptism and Holy Communion will not save unless they have “knowledge” of the “internal meaning” of Divine revelation. It was the pernicious heresy of Gnosticism that influenced the original Roman Catholic Church to forbid marriage to their ministers, as their priests should not be “tainted” by the flesh.
Unfortunately, modern Evangelical “Protestantism” has become influenced by Gnosticism in another way. Attempting “to be more spiritual than God” they regard God’s ordained means for a spiritual relationship—of which Holy Communion is one—as decidedly inferior to their “own” more “spiritual” means of reaching God.
So you can see that although it is claimed, firstly, that we can remember Christ without having to have Holy Communion all the time, and secondly, Holy Communion is not really necessary for salvation, and lastly, the constant celebration of Holy Communion is a Roman Catholic practice, the Sacrament of Holy Communion should be celebrated and received more often than is now being practiced for two main reasons.
First, as Christians (and especially, as Protestants), we are supposed to remember Christ every moment of our lives, and the means whereby Christ commanded his disciples to remember him was by taking and eating the bread that is his body, and drinking from the cup of the New Testament which is his blood. And if we love Christ, we should keep his commandments.
First, as Christians (and especially, as Protestants), we are supposed to remember Christ every moment of our lives, and the means whereby Christ commanded his disciples to remember him was by taking and eating the bread that is his body, and drinking from the cup of the New Testament which is his blood. And if we love Christ, we should keep his commandments.
But most importantly, Christ's own words tell us that unless we eat his flesh and drink his blood, we have no eternal life, i.e., salvation: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whosoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me".
Christ would later tell his disciples in John 15:6, "If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned." Therefore, whosoever does not feed on Christ's flesh and drinks his blood abides not in Christ, nor Christ in him, and will be "thrown into the fire, and burned."
This Sunday—the 19th of August, 2012—I preached on John 6:51-58 (as assigned by the Revised Common Lectionary) and I administered for the first time on a third Sunday of the month the Sacrament of Holy Communion. I believe that the text itself calls for a celebration of the Eucharist. John Wesley, the father of Methodism everywhere, saw a monthly celebration of the Eucharist as too infrequent for a Christian’s spiritual health. Martin Luther, the father of Protestants everywhere, held the ideal of daily communion and stated that those who missed Eucharist lost their status as Christians.
It would have been neglectful of me, a United Methodist commissioned minister, if I allowed my flock to lose their eternal life. I might administer the Sacrament in the main church more than once a month; I am already administering the same in the mission church every week.
It is the Protestant thing to do.
It is the Protestant thing to do.
________________________________
